President Obama DNC2012: More war and defense spending, or invest in America again?

“In a world of new threats and new challenges, you can choose leadership that has been tested and proven.  Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq.  We did.  I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.  We have.  We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over.  A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.

“[...] So now we face a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.

“After all, you don’t call Russia our number one enemy – and not al Qaeda – unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War time warp. You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally. My opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq, and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan. I have, and I will. And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”

— President Obama, DNC2012

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

Study: tax cuts for the wealthy fails to generate economic growth

Turns out the GOP’s always-popular tax cuts for the wealthy, trickle-down, job creation ruse actually only benefits the wealthy. Who would’ve thought!

Think Progress: A new study… indicates that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners fail to generate economic growth at the same pace as tax cuts aimed at low- and middle-income earners.

[...] the effect of tax cuts for the rich was “insignificant statistically,” as Reuters’ David Cay Johnston reported: “Almost all of the stimulative effect of tax cuts… results from tax cuts for the bottom 90%. A one percent of GDP tax cut for the bottom 90% results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10% is 0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically.”

— New Study Finds High-Income Tax Cuts Don’t Stimulate Economic Growth

And then we have the GOP’s austerity cuts for the rest of us, which would pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (and more wars, more profits). But things aren’t working out the way they planned with the upcoming sequester.

Think ProgressIt’s an article of faith amongst Republicans that government can’t create jobs, and that cutting government spending will lead to job growth. Republicans even pushed the nation to the brink of a debt default in order to secure cuts in federal spending in 2010. [...] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is seemingly having a change of heart. On Thursday he tweeted that the sequester would hurt federal spending in key areas, and thus kill jobs. 

[...] Earlier this week, Cantor was unable to name a single deal Republicans would be willing to make to prevent the slew of cuts — cuts that Cantor himself voted for. Plus, as the Bipartisan Policy Center reports, the House Republican budget that Cantor supported cuts “more than double the amount” of the sequester. This budget would sink domestic spending to its lowest level in 50 years. Meanwhile it prevents cuts to military spending already endorsed by military leaders. 

— Republican Leader Finally Admits That Federal Spending Cuts Kill Jobs

These career politicians don’t care about the national economy, the deficit, or the herds of eaters who roam the countryside (you and me — the working and middle class). They want to get rich by making rich people richer, and they’re able to bamboozle enough “conservative” base voters to get re-elected again and again and again on failed ideologies.

The simple solution is to vote them out in two months. Elect people who want to make the government work for We, The People — not people who want more for the Romneys and the Kochs and the Adelsons and their various, secret, US tax evading offshore bank accounts.

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

 

Did Fox News’ Chris Wallace lie on air or does he not “get” how the Senate works?

TPM reports that Chris Wallace stated on air that President Obama had a 60 vote Senate majority for two years — so if he didn’t get anything done it’s his fault. This is another favorite fictional meme of the GOP:

“For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,” Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.

Sorry. NOPE.

In fact, Democrats had a 60-vote majority for less than 5 months between Sept. 24, 2009 and Feb. 4, 2010. Before and after, Republicans had enough seats to mount filibusters, which they often did.”

— Chris Wallace: Obama Had A Filibuster Proof Senate Majority For 2 Years | TPM LiveWire

Let’s give Pres. Obama a Congress he can work with.

recall-all-republicans-2012: We need more Democrats in the House and Senate!

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

How would Mitt Romney have dealt with Libya had he been president today?

granholmtwr: How would Mitt Romney have dealt with Libya had he been president today? We can’t know that, but [the information above] is what we do know.

kohenari: In a fascinating twist, the Romney camp has switched from attacking President Obama for apologizing and sympathizing with those who attacked American embassies — which was patently untrue — to simply blaming Obama for the attacks themselves and hypothesizing that an Imaginary President Romney would have prevented those attacks:

Romney Adviser: Under President Romney, Libya Attack Never Would Have Happened

A top foreign policy aide to Mitt Romney suggested Thursday that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens would never have happened if Romney were president. There wouldn’t even be anti-American protests in the Middle East if Romney were in charge, the aide said.

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Romney adviser Richard Williamson told the Washington Post. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

He blamed the attack that killed Stevens on Obama’s handling of the region, arguing that the Muslim world would have held the hypothetical Romney administration of 2008-2012 in much greater esteem, which would have prevented violent protests over an anti-Muslim film like the one that led to Stevens’s death.

“In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property,” he said.

If only Romney were president on 9/11 — it never would have happened! George W. Bush had horrible foreign policy advisors who assisted him with getting our country into two wars with no end in sight, for reasons that turned out to be lies. Now Romney is surrounding himself with a majority of those same neocon advisors and, lemme tell you what, things would be so differerent… oh, wait.

In the imagination of Team Romney, if President Obama isn’t apologizing for America then he’s just like Jimmy Carter. The only foundation in reality these two neocon memes have is their desperately coordinated repetition by Romney and the RNC — all for the sake of the rubes. And to deflect attention away from the frightening similarities between the failed Bush Administration and Romney’s vision.


image: thepoliticalfreakshow

You know what’s disgraceful? Mitt Romney.

John Avlon:

“At a moment when sovereign U.S. soil was under attack by Islamist radicals, the Romney campaign tried to tie the president to those extremists attacking us, saying that he had “sympathy” with their cause. And then, in the clear light of morning, Mitt Romney doubled-down on the claim, repeating it — perhaps for fear of appearing weak — and his campaign released talking points to hammer home the point. He picked precisely the wrong time, and over the wrong issue, to go ‘bold.’”

“This is not just politics as usual, but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, ‘This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united.’ Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said ‘I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.’

“[...] The dishonest drumbeat that Obama travels around the world compulsively apologizing for America is a core Romney campaign tactic. This time, he went definitively too far — trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation’s embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11. It was disgraceful.”


souce: stfuhypocrisy


via: isensechange


via: Bob Cesca

Actual Fox “News” headline 09/13/2012

Subliminal messaging for Teabagistan, carefully coordinated with Team Romney.

http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt/2012/09/13/obama-calls-libyan-president-thank-him-after-us-ambassador-murdered

Fox is not news.

Romney’s long-planned, politically-coordinated “outrage” over Libya: the Apology Meme

Kevin Drum: The Romney campaign was so eager to issue its statement of outrage that they initially scheduled it for release at 12:01 am. Why? So that no one could claim they were trying to score political points on 9/11. But eventually their giddiness got the better of them and they let it go late Tuesday night. These guys just don’t know when to quit. I don’t think there’s anything left that they won’t say or do if they think it might give them a 1% pop in the polls. They really don’t respect anything at all anymore. — There’s Nothing Left That the Romney Campaign Respects | Mother Jones

If you’re still not convinced that Romney’s ‘outrage’ over the embassy attacks was a long-planned and coordinated political opportunity — to be revealed when the right situation came along — see the RNC’s Chair’s tweet at 12:01 AM ET on 9/12/2012:

Dave Weigel | Timeline: The Romney Campaign’s Odd Response to the Embassy Protests | Slate - At 12:01 a.m. ET, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tweets:

Screen shot 2012-09-12 at 9.29.46 AM

Notice that the timestamp says “9:01 p.m.” Twitter’s website is cued to Pacific Time. Both the RNC and the Romney campaign were honoring a 9/11 embargo that ended only when 9/12 came to the Eastern time zone.

John CaissidyThink about that for a moment. Sometime on Tuesday evening, presumably, the best minds that Romney has gathered around him, convened by conference call, or offered their thoughts individually, and all of them thought it was a capital idea, solely on the basis of statements from the Embassy in Cairo, to accuse Obama and his Administration of expressing sympathy “with those who waged the attacks.” Not only that, but there’s no suggestion that the following morning—as Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and others were busy paying tribute to Ambassador Stevens—any of these sages thought to call Romney up and persuade him to zip it. Why? Well, it is widely thought that Romney’s political advisers aren’t the brightest bulbs—his entire campaign has been a litany of errors. What has been less remarked upon is the makeup of Romney’s foreign-policy team. For a former businessman who claims to willing to hire the best and smartest regardless of background, it is a remarkably unimpressive and ideologically driven group, consisting largely of washed up neocons and Cold Warriors, many of whom served in the Administration of George W. Bush. — Mitt Romney’s Libya Blunder Reflects Larger Failings : The New Yorker

The Washington PostMinutes after Romney’s news conference [Wednesday, when he doubled-down], inside a small campaign office in a drab Jacksonville strip mall, a door down from the Blazin Reptiles exotic pet shop, Obama addressed the nation surrounded by the grandeur of his office. In the Rose Garden, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at his side and the White House behind him, the president mourned the loss of American lives and vowed that “justice will be done.” [...] About 150 supporters had assembled at Romney’s campaign office here, expecting a small rally. Volunteers sat at phone bank tables, supporters held up campaign signs that read, “Florida Loves Mitt,” and shiny patriotic bunting lined the walls. But aides quickly transformed the room into a setting more suitable for a formal news conference. They removed the signs and erected a blue curtain that covered the patriotic bunting. Four American flags were posted behind the wooden lectern where Romney would speak. Aides escorted supporters outside to wait on the sidewalk, where dozens pressed their faces against the storefront windows to watch the candidate, dressed in a dark suit, crisp white shirt and blue tie, deliver his remarks. “Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals that served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world,” Romney said. “This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It’s disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us.” — Romney repeats sharp criticism of Obama after Benghazi, Cairo attacks

Now we know the story behind those people pressed to the windows outside:

Mitt Romney: Wonderful

“What a tragedy to lose such a wonderful, wonderful ah, wonderful people, that have been so wonderful, and appreciate their service for the country.”Mitt Romney, at a rally in Virginia on Thursday, after continuing to criticize President Obama.

###

image: liberalfirebrand 

Defending Willard Romney: The Cream of the Rightwing Extremist Crop

John Cassidy | The New Yorker: So far, just about the only statements of support Romney has managed to elicit have come from discredited neocons (Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney), paleo-cons (Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton), and nutty-cons (Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint). Meanwhile, John McCain and Condoleezza Rice, arguably the G.O.P.’s two most influential voices on foreign policy, have conspicuously failed to criticize Obama, while paying tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens, the longtime foreign-service officer who was killed.

Kaili Joy Gray | DKos: That giant catastrophe of a statement from Mitt Romney about the attack in Libya? And his follow-up catastrophe of a public statement that just made it worse? Yeah, well, you might think it demonstrated just how not-ready-to-be-president Mitt Romney is, but you’d be wrong. Because the real leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, says so:

Mitt Romney, who is the only guy that looked presidential in all of this, who had the guts to go out and characterize this statement from the embassy accurately.  And the media is now saying that Romney jumped the gun, launched a political attack before the facts of the embassy violence were known, and then issues a vague foreign policy vision.

Sure, Rush. It is interesting to note what Rush was saying about his presidential-looking candidate on Monday, 9/10, though:

…I hate to tell you this. I mentioned this on the air some time ago. Romney, the best thing he can do is remember this election isn’t about him. He may as well be Elmer Fudd as far as we’re concerned. We’re voting against Obama. I don’t care who they put on the ticket, we’re voting against Obama. That has not changed, and there are more people now than in 2010 who are gonna vote against Obama. — Media Running Campaign To Dispirit You | RealClearPolitics

Click to enlarge: note the faces of the press: