Mr. President…nice guys finish last

Mitt Romney was the winner in Wednesday night’s debate hosted by Jim Lehrer because apparently Barack Obama left his debating skills back at the White House.  Obama was constantly looking down at the lectern with an expression I could not define, nor is it one I have seen from him in earlier debates.  If he was pre-occupied with his 20^th anniversary, which was Oct. 3^rd, romanticists might forgive him a bit, but hard core political analysts are anything but romantics.



Jim Lehrer, Debate Host

I don’t think it was that because the Commander in Chief can separate himself from his personal life when the big decisions are necessary, as he has shown before.  He was described in the media as “less than engaged” and “lethargic,” at times rambling through issues and facts like he has before.  In one report the President’s performance was described as a “far cry” from when he was on the campaign trail first running for office.  So where was Obama Wednesday?

To begin with, he let Romney come on strong in the very beginning, as he was predicted to do, and take over the debate literally from his first words.  CNN said, “The crucial and tone-setting first 30 minutes of the debate belonged to Romney.”  As an example, the President should have hammered more on Romney’s tax plan that refuses to raise taxes while making deep budget cuts in areas like education, with no specific clue to where revenue will come from.

But here’s what he said on Thursday the day after the debate: "If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth.  So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. That's the math."  Something he did mention a couple of times on Wednesday but not forcefully enough.

And I was astounded that Obama never refuted Romney’s repeated claims that the President would cut $716 billion from Medicare, inferring that it would come out of benefits to retirees.  In fact, Obamacare makes this cut from insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries, and in many cases involves cost-saving measures.  Medicare Advantage recipients will be affected by reductions but that is a private plan, by choice, not through the government.

You can see a complete transcript of the debate here.

Not only did Romney start with the strength of his convictions—although many probably won’t stand a fact-check—he continued showing a confidence that just didn’t seem to be there for the President, except at certain times.  Mostly it was missed opportunities like the $716 billion remark above, but from more recent gaffes by Romney, Obama didn’t challenge the challenger with his comment about the 47% of Americans who thought they were “entitled” to benefits.



Mitt Romney-Pres, Obama

Yet another miss, not bringing up the Romney Bain Capital fiasco when outsourcing jobs was mentioned.  How about just why Romney refuses to release additional taxes from the 2 years already released?  Obama should have been more prepared to show exactly why Romney will have to raise taxes on the middle class when refusing to raise them on the wealthy.  And what about the latter.  Any one of these could have put Romney on the defensive.

At times I thought Romney looked flushed, reminiscent of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 when Nixon looked very tired and sweated profusely,  Romney suffered from neither of these but the redness in his face seem to come and go, coming on while Obama was talking then lessening when he was at the helm.  Barack Obama just seemed detached from his surroundings while Romney was speaking, which could account for his lack of attacks on Romney untruths.

Who gets the Pinocchio award?

In a couple of fact-checks, Seniors will pay less under Obamacare rather than Romney’s claim they will pay more.  Obama’s administration did not create 5 million jobs as he spoke, but rather 4.4 million, but with a net gain of 125,000 jobs during his administration.  Romney said health care costs are going up, which they are, but they are rising under Obamacare at the slowest rate they have in 51 years.  If you are interested, go to FactCheck.orghttp://www.factcheck.org/.

There are two more Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debates still to go, and the whole picture will no doubt change somewhat with each meeting of the candidates.  I did a post recently, “The debates may not make a difference but we’ll watch them anyway,” which addresses whether Presidential Debates have changed the course of the elections over the years.  In most cases, no, but with Romney’s Wednesday strengths, Obama must find himself before Oct. 16.

Missing was to question the candidates what they would do about gun violence and more firearms regulation.  Lehrer was asked by top gun control advocates to do this but not even a mention if it might be coming up in future debates.  And my final thought, Romney did not beat the President in this debate, Obama beat himself.  I am still curious why it happened.  What are your thoughts?

GOP tries to “Swift Boat” Obama…again

They tried it in August when a gang of Republicans, including the Tea Party of course, charged the Obama administration with “leaking details of sensitive  national security operations and of using the mission targeting former al Qaeda leader bin Laden for political gain.”  The Hill also reports that Dem. Senator John Kerry of Mass. said this holds a “striking resemblance” to the “Swift Boat” attacks on him in 2004 orchestrated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT).



John Kerry and swift boat crew

They tried it again on Tuesday, the eve of the first Obama/Romney debate held yesterday.  This time they used the “racism” approach claiming that an address given by the then Sen. Barack Obama in 2007 made comparisons between the aid that Katrina victims received and those received from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorism attacks, implying they were not equal. 

Speaking to a mostly black audience, he said that race relations still had a long way to go in the United States, claiming the divide most severely has an impact on impoverished parts of the country.  The implication here being the squalor in which many blacks lived in the 9^th Ward hard hit by Katrina, which didn’t receive equal attention.

So far it is hard to argue with anything Obama said.  And then it ricocheted around the media with CNN coverage from Lou Dobbs to Paula Zahn.  But four years later CNN Senior Political Analyst and National Journal Editorial Director Ron Brownstein exclaimed it was old news, still in the archives of most news organizations.  Brownstein citied the fact that it was covered by Fox News as well as discussed by conservative Tucker Carlson.  And then dropped.

Must-see video exposing Republican conservatives backing current "Swift Boat" ads:

In Obama’s speech he mentioned the Stafford Act which requires local and state governments to match a certain percentage of federal funds for emergencies.  Obama criticized the feds for not waiving the matching funds in the aftermath of the Katrina catastrophe.  He stated the Stafford Act was waived following 9/11, as well as after Florida’s Hurricane Andrew. 

Obama then commented, "What's happening down in New Orleans? 'Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money?' Makes no sense. Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans, they don't care about as much!"

9th Ward after Katrina

Still can’t find anything to disagree with.  Following Katrina the government did move to expedite assistance spending $19.1 billion in just Louisiana.  The 9^th Ward of New Orleans suffered the most devastation and took the longest to recover.  Katrina hit The Big Easy in August of 2005 and it wasn’t until 2009 that there was some serious rebuilding going on. 

In March, 2012, however, the New York Times reported that "the neighborhood {9^th Ward} has become a dumping ground for many kinds of unwanted things." and "it no longer resembled an urban, or even suburban environment. Where once there stood orderly rows of single-family homes with driveways and front yards, there was jungle."

Not enough?  The 2012 “Swift Boaters” decided to tie the knot by regurgitating the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue, resurrecting Obama’s former association with this Chicago pastor which has long since been debunked and laid to rest by the national media.  In both cases, Katrina and Rev. Wright, it is pathetically obvious that the desperation of the Republican Party to get Mitt Romney elected is at the highest possible level.  Karl Rove to the rescue, only it didn’t work this time.



Yes, it can work

All during this 2007 address, “Obama called for more investment and job training in poor communities and minority-owned businesses. His speech was targeted to his audience and tailored with themes of ‘hope’ and ‘overcoming obstacles’ that are traditionally heard in black churches.”  He finished with, "America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won't forget where we came from. We won't forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago."

Still, no argument.

Boyce Watkins, founder of yourblackworld.com said, "We have to remember that we live in a country that has for 400 years been poisoned by the psychological disease of racism and it doesn't take much to spark that back up."  Ron Brownstein added "this is an intensely racially polarized country," and that race plays a part in both the election and governing.  But it doesn’t have to turn into racism.

The debates may not make a difference but we’ll watch them anyway

BUT FIRST…THERE IS A DRIVE to confront President Obama and Mitt Romney in the Wednesday debate with the question of what they will do about regulating guns following all the recent gun massacres around the country.  In particular, eight of the 12 relatives of those killed by James Holmes in the Aurora, Colo. movie theatre have written to debate moderator Jim Lehrer saying:

“To ignore the problem of gun violence where two of the worst shootings in U.S. history took place - Aurora and Columbine - would not only be noticeable by its absence but would slight the memories of our loved ones killed." 



Obama Romney ready to debate



To coincide with this request and as a forewarning to both candidates, The Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed up by NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino, are running national TV ads featuring Stephen Barton, one of those wounded in Aurora, asking Obama and Romney how they would reduce gun violence.  MAIG uses high profile events—like a recent Super Bowl ad—and now pre-debate interest to get their point across.

Why we must debate gun control:

So in terms of their importance, the debates are going to be very important to gun control advocates if Lehrer addresses the issue.  It is beyond me why he wouldn’t.  There may be certain parameters set by the candidates, and this may be one they don’t want to discuss, but that too would be a travesty considering the gun mayhem that is taking place in America Today.  I will be releasing my monthly shooting report in a few days that will further confirm the problem.



NJ Gov. Chris christie

BUT WAIT…GOP vice presidential contender Paul Ryan says the debate is not really “critical” for Mitt Romney, at the same time praising Obama’s debating skills, attempting to take the heat off his running mate.  But at the same time, New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie has predicted that the debate will literally turn the race around for Romney, apparently not knowing what Paul Ryan knows.  Like all politics, they turn these critical debates into a game.

Donna Brazile, Dem. strategist, comments that most debates since the 1980s haven’t changed the outcome of the elections.  She does cite one instance where it did make a difference in 1960 when Nixon apparently went through a meltdown which changed the direction of that election.  Nixon refused to debate in 1968 or 1972.  She also mentions the Reagan against Carter comment, “There you go again,” leading up to “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Obama Romney put on the gloves

Arch conservative Ann Coulter says that we are going to see an “unfiltered” Mitt Romney, whatever than means.  She adds in support like Christie, that this will make all the difference with Independent voters.  One poll shows it almost even with 47% of Independents for Obama, 45% for Romney.  Halimah Abdullah on CNN feels Obama won’t talk about his record but Mitt Romney will.  GOP pollster Whit Ayres feels it is all about who can fix the economy.

Brazile thinks that whether or not the candidates are good or bad, it can make a difference, but she agrees with Ayres, the conditions in the country right now are on everyone’s mind.  Voters want to hear how Obama and Romney will fix the problem and this could make a difference if the public believes one or the other of the candidates has the right answer.

How I am sure President Obama has the lead in the November election

I am sure of this because two people, one a close relative, the other a close friend, both female, have said they will most likely vote for Obama.  The relative lives in a conservative Midwestern state and attends church regularly.  The friend resides in a far-right conservative Southwestern state and has repeatedly voiced disdain for Barack Obama.  They may not reflect the total pulse of America but they do illustrate how badly the Romney/Ryan ticket is slipping in the polls.

Catholics for Obama - Biden

Well, that’s not all I base my premise on.  A new report conducted September 12-16 was just released by Pew Research that shows the President leads Romney among Catholics by 54% to 39%.  And this is despite the Catholic bishop criticism of Obama.  There are around 78 million Catholics in the U.S. according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) so that breaks down to just over 42 million for Barack Obama, 30.4 million for Romney.

Religion and politics expert John Green thinks this is due to more Hispanic and Black Catholic voters, but also includes gains in white Catholics where Obama is now tied with Romney.  Carrying this further, there are 16.1 million registered black voters and 11 million registered Latino voters.  Catholic voters who numbered 25% of the electorate in the 2008 election have backed the winning candidate in elections dating back to the 1990s.

In April of 2012 the two candidates were tied at 46% overall with non-Hispanic whites 55% for Romney, 38% Obama.  Hispanic Catholics were a solid 70% Obama, 20% Romney.  How Obama gained 8 points in the polls and Romney lost 7 is probably explained in several ways.  First, his selection of Paul Ryan as V.P., another stumble like McCain/Palin in 2008; Ryan determined to dump Medicare; and the fact Romney still has no clear direction on leading the U.S.

Catholics are becoming more diversified and more divisive.  Sister Simone Campbell and other nuns from Iowa led protests in Washington against a “budget that rejects church teachings on solidarity, inequality, choice for the poor and the common good.”  Although the official church doctrine opposes birth control and gay marriage, polls do show than Catholics use birth control in similar rate to non-Catholics and more Catholics favor than oppose gay marriage.

More interesting numbers include the fact that Catholics supported Obama in 2008, George Bush in 2004, and Al Gore in 2000.  Also, Barack Obama beat John McCain by 54% to 45% with Catholics in 2008 but John Kerry lost the Catholic vote in 2004 to GWB, and he was the first Catholic nominee for President since John F. Kennedy.  Go figure.  There has been a steady movement to the right by white Catholics but just the opposite by Hispanics.

And yet another engaging fact.  Both vice presidential nominees are Catholic.  Sitting V.P. Joe Biden is a part of the Vatican II generation.  They believe evangelization and catechism are less important than charity and social activism.  Biden accepts homosexuality and abortion believing it is a natural evolution.  Paul Ryan is firmly against homosexuality and he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest to the female.  That’s heavy for women to overcome.

What we clearly have is a trend leading toward the Democratic ticket.  My relative and friend (I wonder how many readers have experienced this switch), the Catholics, the blacks and Hispanics, plus the female vote seem to all be favoring President Obama and Vice President Biden.  I know it isn’t a cinch yet and the President will make sure he continues on the same strategic path he has been following during the whole campaign.  Looking forward to the Wed. debate. 

Rush Limbaugh lies…but what’s new about that?

Pres. and the blabbermouth

The big fat oaf rants that the American public does not “support gun violence prevention,” as described in a MediaMatters release, saying Rush Limbaugh has quoted from a 1998 statement by then State Sen. Barack Obama.  Obama said “"the vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control," which the conservative blowhard said was incorrect.  In fact a ban on assault weapons and background checks at gun shows is highly favored with the public.

In terms of hard gun control, Pew Research found following the Aurora, Colo. movie massacre that 47% prefer stronger gun control compared to 46% who don’t.  A stark comment in the London Daily Mail which said in response to new stats on gun control following Aurora, it was as if it never happened.  And here lies the tragedy in the U.S. gun problem.  Americans have been so brainwashed by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) they have become just lame on the issue.

More facts from MediaMatters show that 62% of Americans support banning assault weapons, even 49% of Republicans.  86% favor background checks when buying a gun, including at gun shows, and the majority want bans on high capacity magazines.  A majority also wants to limit the number of guns purchased at one time and a requirement to report lost or stolen guns by owners.  Most rational Americans would agree all of these are reasonable…not the NRA.

Typical gun owner inventory

Albert Bender in People’s World is concerned that the U.S. gun culture has been diagnosed as a social disease.  This comes from a group of American doctors who lament over the fact that “Mass murders of citizens by other citizens occur here with a frequency seen in no other nation in the world.”  When you consider the turmoil going on around the globe, this puts the U.S. in the enviable position of loving our guns over the love of human life, a comment I make repeatedly.

The docs cite facts that illustrate what a monopoly we have on gun violence:

• Over 300 million guns in American households-one for each citizen

• The NRA has a powerful lobby that threatens and fills the pockets of Congress to do their bidding

• Racism is still present in this country and along with hate groups headed up by those like the late Arizonan J.T. Ready, operate freely

• Massive inequality and poverty, particularly in communities of color

• 20% of Americans have significant mental problems

• Thanks to former President Ronald Reagan, there has been a severe decline in mental health facilities

• The U.S. has an arms industry supported by the NRA making billions annually “opting for profit over humanity”

The way Limbaugh should be

Media Matters exclaims, based on the above, “a lot of innocent citizens will be shot on a regular basis.”  That’s a pretty conservative statement when you consider there are 31,347 firearm deaths each year which breaks down to 86 per day, according to the CDC.  To point out the severity of this issue, I have started a Monthly Shooting Report based on media announcements, which is very conservative.

Since starting the report in March of this year, and through August, there have been 509 firearms deaths from 1,398 shootings.

So Rush Limbaugh lies, which any sane American already knew, but at the same time he has called attention to what I consider the most serious problem facing the United States today: the proliferation of guns that are being used by citizens to kill each other.  I repeat, gun worshippers do love their guns more than human life.  And for that prominent claim to fame, we have Wayne LaPierre and his henchmen at the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) to thank.

Catching up on gun nonsense and pandemonium

Ted Nugent

Back in April, out-of-date rocker Ted Nugent threatened President Obama and promptly received a visit from the Secret Service.  Nugent is a celebrity—although some question that status—gun nut that reminds me of the lunatic Charlton Heston in his famous tirade waving a musket over his head.  It seems that the NRA is constantly recruiting has-beens that are really not that good anymore at their day job.  Nugent is a NRA board member.



Wacky Wayne LaPierre

Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says that although National Rifle Assn. (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre wants us to believe gun guys make the rules, the Founding Fathers “ratified the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence.”  What wacky Wayne and his lackeys have turned this into is a drive to put guns in the hands of anyone who wants them and allow them to carry their weapons anywhere they want.  This keeps gun nuts like Nugent happy.



James Holmes



Along the lines of unrestricted gun power, there is the fact that the purchase of ammunition online is essentially unregulated.  Firearms cannot be bought online except, of course, in Arizona.  But ammunition can be ordered online and shipped to the buyer’s address.  James Holmes, who killed 12 and injured 58 in the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting, purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition online.  If regulated, this purchase would have certainly alerted police.

Arizona is one of the few states allowing the purchase of guns over the Internet, although they do restrict the sale of tobacco products.  KPHO CBS5 in Phoenix says, “Policy makers in Arizona can now rest easier, knowing that while no one is purchasing tobacco over the internet, every convicted felon and his brother can purchase guns online to kill or maim their local Congressman.”  The latter refers to the severe wounding of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson.

Back in August after the recent rash of gun massacres had died down, A CNN poll was taken finding that 50% of respondents favor no or minimum restrictions on gun ownership compared to 48% for major restrictions.  But 96% favor background checks and 91% support laws that will prevent felons or the mentally ill from buying guns.  That’s a start and if we added closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons we are on the way to gun sanity.

I base my opinion, above, on another CNN report on gun statistics in America:

• 26 -- Percentage of Americans who favor a handgun ban, a record low, according to a 2011 Gallup Poll.

• 47 -- Percentage of Americans who told Gallup in 2011 that they had at least one gun at home.

• 56 -- Number of votes in the Senate that the assault weapons ban received in 1994.

• 40 -- Percentage of guns sold through unlicensed, private sellers.

• 310 million -- Total number of nonmilitary firearms in the United States as of 2009.

• $75 or less -- Retail price of a low-caliber handgun.

• 11,493 -- Homicides by firearm in 2009.

• 150,000 -- Brady Act background checks in 2009 that led to the rejection of a potential gun buyer's application.

CSGV asked National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) General Counsel Larry Keane if he felt that individual Americans had a right to shoot and kill government officials in response to what they personally perceived as ‘”tyranny,” Keane tweeted back at us plaintively, “Just like the Jews in the ghettos of Warsaw? The South Sudanese? Kurds? The American colonists?”  That pretty much says it all for the gun nuts.

Which presidential candidate gets the most secret money?

In the past few years, particularly after the Supreme Court decision to open the door to unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, secret money has poured into presidential and congressional campaigns.  Following that decision in January of 2010, the President remarked that the high court had, "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." 

President Obama

According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama’s large individual contributions are 63.2%, Romney 82.6%.  From Stateofenlightenment.com, Obama’s corporate donations are spread around pretty evenly between law, education, media, government, technology and finance.  But Romney comes in at 80% alone from finance with the remaining 20% spread between law, real estate and technology.  Obama has received no PAC contributions, Romney $901,524.

But the American public is fed up with this mystery cash going into political action committees (PACS) and other organizations that are formed specifically to raise millions of dollars to defeat the opposing candidate and who are also able to protect the identity of their donors.  They just may not take it anymore.  Already protesters have forced 38 corporations to cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), known as a corporate bill mill.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, Congress did not act on a bill to require disclosure of the donors.  In Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion following the ruling, he and seven other Justices in agreeing with Citizens United also upheld disclosure rules and emphasized there should be transparency.  They even envisioned voters getting campaign information from laptops or smart phones.

Kennedy added, “Prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.”  Further, “This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”  Well, it hasn’t happened and isn’t likely to happen as long as the GOP control the House.

Mitt Romney

Undisclosed donor ads were less than 2% in 2006, jumping to 25% in 2008, 40% in 2010.  It is obvious that candidates along with corporations do not want the source of this new found gold mine to be revealed and that, in itself, should tell the public that something very wrong is going on.  Otherwise, why wouldn’t both sides be eager for the American people to know how a political campaign is being run and who is supporting who?

Mark Sherman said in the Huff Post, “More than 8 in 10 Americans in a poll by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center support limits on the amount of money given to groups that are trying to influence U.S. elections.”  He also said, “The ringing endorsement of First Amendment freedoms matched the public's view of the Constitution as an enduring document, even as Americans hold the institutions of government, other than the military, in very low regard.”

In addition, the poll found that Americans want protection for minorities in elections, probably as a result of the voter ID laws passed in many states.  Sherman commented, “The laws mainly have been backed by Republican lawmakers who say they want to combat voter fraud. Democrats, citing academic studies that found there is very little voter fraud…”  In fact the laws appear to be just a hurdle to make it harder for those minorities voting Democrat.

Ah, the games politicians play.  The big question is just how long will John and Jane Q. Public put up with it?  Perhaps that’s a question we can answer in November.