Bullwinkle III

I am talking about today - and comparing it with 4 years ago. How can you determine if we're better off if you don't look back? We were losing jobs at a ridiculous rate. That has stopped. This is progress. I have said before that the economy is weak - did you hear otherwise? That's no secret. But if you compare then and now, we're better off. And who guaranteed you anything? I'm sure Obama said that the economy would be much better than it is, but I KNOW he didn't give you any guarantees. One reason it isn't is because of the obstructionism. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. He proposed his Jobs Bill one year ago and it's STILL sitting in the House. Meanwhile the House wasted its time voting on Obamney Care over 30 times instead of getting on with business. And of course there are results just 24hrs after the convention. That's when people respond to what they've seen & heard. Didn't you read the article I gave you? Too depressed to do so? In a way, I don't blame you. It has been a tight race but throughout Obama has always held a slight lead. That hasn't faltered and it it continues, I'm sure you will be experiencing a terrific hangover Nov. 7th. So will I - but for a different reason.

I can tell you of my conversation with a German factory worker when I spent some time over there years back. He told me that the employees and company management have a connection to each other that goes beyond the paycheck. He said that when the company had to lay people off, they (management) still gave them a wage and paid for their retraining into a new position with the firm. It may have required relocation to another city as a worst case scenario, but the company always looked out for the employee and his welfare. A social bond was established in addition to the economic one. A far cry from what we see in the US.

Well, here are some real numbers. The nation was losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office, we are now gaining jobs each month, not losing them. While we are obviously not there yet, I'd rather be gaining jobs than losing them. The latest Gallup poll now shows that Obama did get a bump and is now over 50% approval for the first time since killing OBL. Check it out! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/gallup-convention-bump-obama_n_1865156.html In further news, Romney and his Superpacs are pulling their advertising out of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The plan to "carpet bomb" the other swing states for the next two months. So I guess we can count on those three states staying blue.

I can tell you this: If the jobs report said that we gained 5 million jobs last month, Romney would still spin his way into saying it was an awful thing. So it really doesn't matter what it says. Similar to the way matrix & co. are spinning everything that came out of the DNC as being awful. "Fallen Angels" - that derisive comment doesn't even deserve a reply. Like Eleven said, it's just looking for something to complain about. At least he talked about the troops - something that Romney forgot! oops! My take on the convention: Greatest speeches: Clinton, Michelle, Grandholm, Kerry, & Joe Biden. Obama could have hit it out of the part and received a big bump in the polls if he had delivered on the level of the above speakers. Unfortunately his speech was good, but not great. Too much "We're looking forward, not backward", and not enough detail as to how he plans to get there. He needed to talk about his Jobs Bill, which is STILL sitting in the House. He needed to talk about obstructionism - with concrete examples of how Republicans voted against legislation they themselves were in favor of in the past, just to stop Obama. He needed to talk about his proposals to improve the infrastructure of this nation and how the government can supply the jobs needed ala the New Deal. In fact he needed a New Deal-like proposal to put forth. Also furthering the discussion of how it took FDR many years to recover the economy, and continue on the points Clinton made regarding his task in doing so. These things would have given him a BIG bump in the polls, because he was set up perfectly with the speakers on Tues. & Wed. nights. I am still sure that he will win in November anyway, but this would have made it easier. Now he'll just have to convince the public in the debates - which he will.

Why? Does it remind you of a movie by the same name?

You hit it on the head. Exactly right. If any of you would like a video diagram of the Republican plan of obstruction, watch this: !

58 Dems does not equal 60 Dems. Since when does 58=60? Can you count that high yourself if you get the two numbers confused? Actually they called in Steve Schmidt personally to run the campaign. He initially wasn't interested. Plus he wasn't responsible for vetting Palin, but I give the guy full props for putting up with her ignorance and her ego. In fact on TV, he's the only conservative I can stomach. In fact, I ended up actually liking the guy. I quoted a Republican because I know you think nothing of a liberal's point of view. So here is another statement on Bill's speech by a Republican: Alex Castellanos: "Tonight when everybody leaves, lock the door. You don't have to come back tomorrow. This convention is done. This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama." Let me guess - you don't like him either, eh?

Just because he voted with the Dems some of the time does not make him a Dem. Nelson did the same but in reality he is a DINO. Lieberman classified himself as an independent. Your position fails, but I have to admire your tenacity. It's a great way to win arguments - make up your own facts! Man up - when you're wrong, you're wrong. And it's OK to admit it to a moose. (Oh, and yes I do know how to count to 60, I learned it while obtaining my third collegiate degree)

I'm pretty much done with you too. But I must point out that if you think Lieberman (the guy who campaigned for McCain) would support a Dem agenda, you're smoking some great stuff. Fact is, you're wrong. The Dems NEVER had 60. Vote for whomever you like but it won't make a difference since NY is a very deep blue. I don't know...it worked well for FDR. Hillary 2016!!! Steve Schmidt: "I wish to God we Republicans had someone like Bill Clinton, but we don't."

You obviously need an education. Here, I'll even do the work for you. Check it out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html I'll accept your apology when you're ready.

Just back from vacation - perusing the posts and found this one from Taro. Got to respond since he went to this much cut & paste trouble. Republican failures? Are you having a hard time finding them? LOL! Here's a hint: Look between the years 2001 and 2008. You'll have enough to fill a book. Meanwhile the lies Romney keeps telling doesn't end. He recently said he wasn't interested in fact checking. Your information about congress is dead wrong. The last time the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was 1979. Fact check it - which you obviously didn't do the first time. He has no legal requirement to file any tax returns. However in the one he supplied, the paperwork on his Swiss bank account was missing. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason to not provide them. Why could he provide 23 years worth of returns in applying for the VP position with McCain, but only 1 partial one for POTUS? I personally suspect he participated in the IRS Amnesty program of 2009 for the wealthy holding illegal overseas accounts. His excuse that it would give the Dems ammunition is weak. His Bain experience is suspect. He claims that he left Bain in 1999, but data shows that he was still making decisions for that company into 2002. Try to find a president that has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 8%. If you can find one, it is rare. I'm explaining the depth of the economic disaster we faced in 2008. We have had economic recessions in the past, but none as severe as this one PLUS having two wars to contend with, which were funded on credit by W - an American first. FDR made progress with his New Deal program but it was WWII that pulled the entire world out of the economic doldrums. Obama does not have such a boon available to him, so his task is just as tough if not tougher. You can't use statistics that begin in 1/09. That's like blaming a fireman for the damage the fire is doing as he's getting out of the truck. Even Romney said that to be fair, the statistics should begin one year into the presidency. Remember that his Affordable Care Act had to be constructed under Republican opposition, so a lot of compromises needed to be made. No, it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now. The $700 B does not reduce coverage. That money is taken from the insurance companies and hospitals. Romney is doing the same thing, but he's using his $700 B to cover the tax cuts to the wealthy. This is the guy you want to support??? GM is doing better than ever. Chrysler is hiring new workers in Ohio. How do you figure that success is going to lead to bankruptcy? Romney wanted them to go bankrupt and file chapter 11. The problem with that is the American auto industry's name will be tarnished world wide having had to go into bankruptcy. Covered that above. Your facts are wrong. What I said is absolutely true. "Shovel-ready jobs"? What? The President's Jobs Bill is still sitting in the House, waiting for a vote. Meanhile the House has voted over 30 times to reject Obamney Care. What more evidence of obstructionism do you need? We are drilling for more oil now than ever. Is this the "oil boom" you're referring to? Just the facts. No one thinks compounding the debt is the answer to anything. Obama started in a hole. You sometimes have to dig deeper before you can get out. The next four years will not be like the last four. Look at Clinton. His first four years did not help the economy. But in his last four he pulled us into the black.

Of course he knew what he was getting when he signed on to run for POTUS. But what he didn't count on was Republican obstructionism at every turn. He was under the naive impression that the Republicans would put the country's interests ahead of their own. He was in for a rude awakening into how modern day politics are played in Washington. With a record number of filibusters and an order to stop his legislation at all costs, it was remarkable that he accomplished anything at all. He managed to get us out of Iraq, double college Pell grants, expanded and fully funded the VA, ended copay for disabled vets, enabled Medicare to negotiate for lowest drug prices, saved the auto industry, and saw US oil production reach an 8 year high. Pretty good, considering the opposition he faced. Now people are upset because we're not back in the Clinton years again. Well, it took 8 years to drive this country's economy into the ditch. I think it will take at least that long (longer if the Repubs continue to obstruct) to get it out. I say he's earned another term.

Mainstream Media, when it comes to the coverage of Republicans, provides no loop to loop airing of their failures with the exception of Akin - who was too off-the-wall to ignore. So far Mitt Romney has refused to show tax returns, will not answer questions about Bain, and has destroyed records of his governorship along with his Olympics records. He's gotten away with it all. That's because the media refuses to hound him excessively like they do Obama. The Mainstream Media touted the birther madness - until the President of the United States - had to show his birth certificate. And to this day, they continue to perpetuate this falsehood for the Republican Party by televising fools like Donald Trump. They even change the voting rules in key states to skew the election and still the media pays no mind. Right now they are repeating the Republican narrative that no president can be elected with the unemployment rate as it is. It's working so well, some so-called Liberals are repeating it. So here's the truth. No president, other than FDR, inherited a world wide crisis and a collapsed economy. On top of that, unlike FDR, Obama had to contend with two wars. Therefore, it is totally unfair to compare the Obama record to any president but Roosevelt's. And FDR was bailed out by WW II. Despite all that, he has still created more jobs than Dubya and private business has recorded 27 straight months of growth, and he has in place a medical plan that was very successful in Massachusetts. Plus he saved the auto industry, plus he even got OBL. But if you notice, the media narrative never holds the Republicans responsible. The Republicans were perfectly willing to crash the economy over the debt ceiling, yet it was Obama's fault for the drop in credit rating. Their refusal to pass any of the Obama legislation for jobs, of course, is also Obama's fault. They have been blatant traitors to this country, but it is Obama that is UN-American - a Muslim - a Socialist, etc. Time for this to stop and for Americans to wake up and take notice. Let's hope they do it before 11/6.

I find it laughable that the anti-science Republicans decide to ignore meteorology and schedule their convention in Florida during hurricane season! There is poetic justice there.

Uhh...Buffalo is in that red part, right? Let's hope so...with this map, hockey will be the national pastime!

Kennedy would not be too centrist because compared to Obama, he's far left. My biggest beef with Obama is that he has been too moderate. Hillary would have done better.

I think they've given the Old Guard (Roy, Vanek, Hecht, Pomminstein, Connolly) as much leeway as possible. Nothing came of it. So now they're in the process of slowly blowing it up. One-by-one, the old timers list is leaving the organization. So I think they get the message. It must be obvious - even to Regier - that he held on to guys (like Connolly) too long, and that has been a pattern. Hopefully they've learned from their mistakes and I am hopeful that the new guys will provide the solution we've all been seeking. I know everyone wants to win now, but it will take time to bring Grigs and Girgs onboard, along with Armia and their host of defensive talent. When these guys begin to roll, we'll surely be a Cup contender every year. Meanwhile I am particularly looking forward to next year's draft, where a lot of talent will be available. I hope we pick up some more draft picks!

Thanks for making public what LGR4GM and I already know about Freeman (I'm sure there are others).

Don't be a hypocrite if you don't want to be called on it. Well, I have spent some time living around this country. Philadelphia, Salt Lake City - for a short time, El Paso in the army. And being in the army was indeed a revelation - witnessing the cross section of the average American kid. I was indeed amazed. In our unit of 100 men, only two of us were college grads. In fact I was asked to write a letter by a kid from Minnesota, asking for an early out because he didn't know how to write a letter! So I don't believe I have any illusions that the people of this country are like me. Although I do find what I discovered to be alarming. This election is going just as I expected it would (except for the Akin fiasco). I will repeat my prediction: the polls will be close until the debates in October. Then you will see a separation and an Obama win. P.S. I'll still take you out for that beer on Nov. 7th.

I go with what WJAG said above. Like I've said many times before, in a normal election, with this economy, Obama is a sure loser against any competent opponent. But this is not a normal election. Having eliminated the only true nominee whom I believe could have defeated Obama (Jon Huntsman), they were left with a group of flawed candidates. And they selected one of the most flawed - a spoiled rich kid who cannot relate to the average American. He's awkward on the campaign trail and it shows. He says the wrong things (The trees are the right height in this state.) and makes unfunny jokes. In short, he tries too hard. In addition Romney is too secretive. He erased the computers of his records as governor before he left office. He won't discuss his role in Bain Capital which he still ran despite telling the SEC that he didn't after 1999. He won't release any tax returns (the one he released isn't complete). The tax situation begs the legitimate question of "What is he hiding?" He also has an air of entitlement. e.g. He will talk to reporters as long as they don't ask him questions on certain subjects. And his flip-flops are legendary. Do I even need to recite them? To top it off, he picks Ryan, which brings Medicare to the forefront of discussion instead of the economy. Now, with this Akin incident, he has a VP who is wedded to this guy who learned science by listening to Pat Robertson. Both Romney and Ryan are trying as hard as they can to distance themselves from the extreme planks that have been established in their party, but both have already been recorded on tape as being in favor of those extreme right ideas. Romney will outspend Obama in advertising. But the Obama camp operated on the theory that if they could define Romney in the summer, they would be able to withstand the ad barrage in the fall because people's minds will be already made up. We will see if this strategy works. So despite the poor economic numbers, which would normally spell doom for the incumbent, these other factors will be telling. That's why Obama is going to win.

+1 on all of that! Maybe when you start doing this, others will too. Your derisive, acerbic comments are neither civil or respectful. "nonsense" and "how do you expect to be taken seriously" are prime examples. Taken seriously by YOU? Therefore a statement is worthy of consideration as long as it has your approval? Get off your sanctimonious high horse and stop pontificating to everyone. Your "thoughts" here are not even near valedictorian level, and in fact are often below most of the discourse. So stop thinking that you're smarter than everyone, more knowledgeable than everyone, and more privileged. I can assure you that you are none of these. Always wishing to give people the benefit of the doubt, if indeed you don't think this of yourself, then your communication skills suck because that is how you come off time and time again. Waldo - on Nov. 7th I'd like to buy you a beer - so you can cry in it. Obama is going to win this election...sorry 'bout that.

What don't you understand here? I think everyone agrees that all eligible voters should vote and no one wants voter fraud anywhere at anytime. As you can see, I question the sudden appearance of concern for this subject ONLY in swing states and in a manner that makes it harder for everyone to legitimately vote. If the Republicans were so concerned with this issue in a state that has no substantial record of fraud, why don't they institute it in every state in which they have power? Why do they choose to restrict voting hours? Why don't they phase in this photo ID law gradually so that everyone can do it in their own time and make it official in 2014? Answer those questions. And since you like emoticons, here's mine: :doh: I agree with you. A photo ID would be ideal, but I say accept anything, especially if we're dealing with the elderly (> 70). You do know why this is happening. Voter suppression - as I and others have discussed these past few days.

I'm using Pa. as an example because Turzai's outburst spoke the truth and betrayed the real reason they're pushing voter ID at this time. Of course objectively, voter ID is a fine idea. IF everyone that wants to vote can obtain said ID easily - and that is where the problem lies for this election. But you can't ignore the timing. It's very telling as to what the true reasons are for this sudden explosion of voter concern. Why now? Why < 80 days before the election? If you look at Ohio, why after expanding voting hours and days in the past are the Republicans suddenly restricting them? It certainly isn't with the idea of having more people vote. And why only swing states if voter integrity is the core issue? You see, Republicans can't answer those questions without revealing the truth behind this movement.

I'd be happy to answer that. These IDs are not delivered at your doorstep. I just listened to the mayor of Philadelphia. He said that you have to go to a PennDOT location with proof of residence and birth certificate. You then have to fill out several forms upon which the ID will be mailed to you. Now consider the old and/or poor. Some have no transportation. Many others won't bother jumping through these hoops to do what they've always done just by showing up at the polls. Would you? And you're not old or infirm. In addition these PennDOT sites are not open on weekends. Now that being what it is, you have to ask yourself "Why now, less than 3 months before the election?" Why not in 2010? 2008? Or why not implement this is 2014 to give people the opportunity to get used to the new system? I can even understand this urgency in a place like Minnesota, given the close election between Franken and Coleman. But elections in Pa. have never been disputed. And with no evidence of voter fraud, you have to ask yourself, "What's the real reason?" I think you're detecting the vacancy behind the smile.

If there is no significant record of voter fraud in Pa., then why would you even think that that was his reason for this ID law? How or why would that even be considered? There is no record of fraud that caused any election in Pa. to go one way or the other. So that consideration is thrown out. What's left? Disenfranchisement...under the guise of having a fair election, of course. And his statement betrayed that reason by its very wording. Again I repeat: "Voter ID, which is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. DONE!" The voter ID law "...is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." How much clearer to do you want him to say it? By making the acquisition of such ID difficult for the older seniors and the poor, he will be in effect, disenfranchising them. This will suppress the Democratic vote in the major cities, where most of them live. Similar shenanigans are going on in Ohio, where they have restricted voting days. In 2008 they had expanded the voting days and times one can vote. But they didn't like the results, so they restricted them - unfairly, as I pointed out in an earlier post - but that has been corrected. Now every voting district has restricted voting days and hours. Ditto in Florida. I believe Turzai's comments simply cement what everyone suspected. They want to defeat Obama in the worst possible way and are pulling out all stops to do it. If they were truly interested in insuring a clean vote, they would be pushing this legislation in Texas, Mississippi, Kansas, Idaho, etc. But no, it's only in the swing states that such manipulation is occurring. The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965 by a huge bipartisan majority, sought to expand opportunity to vote so as to involve as many Americans as possible in the process of democracy. It was renewed in 2006, but I strongly doubt it would be renewed today. By restricting days and times and by insisting on not just ID, but photo ID, the Republicans are attempting to control the results of this election. This isn't simply a political opinion. It's blatantly obvious fact. You make a very good point. I still think some of us will vote for Obama and others will vote for Romney regardless of what is said here.