Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomCADem

TomCADem's Journal
TomCADem's Journal
October 10, 2012

Behind Romney's Bid To Kill Big Bird - A Sloppy Wet Kiss To Corporate Media and Right Wing

While much has been made of Romney's promise to kill PBS, little has been said of the reason why Romney decided to target such a relative insignificant part of the federal budget as means to close the $6 trillion hole caused by his proposed tax cuts. The answer is that Romney's move is not budgetary in nature, but yet another attempt to (1) support his corporate backers and (2) limit media perspectives to those dependent on corporate advertising dollars.

1. The fact is that corporate media ownership has grown through the years such that only a few conglomorates own the numerous media outlets:



2. The descrease in a diversity of ownership has lead to a corresponding decrease in diversity of perspectives:



3. Therefore, Republicans have been outspoken in their efforts to kill PBS in order to further slant the media in support of right wing ideals. In addition, perhaps Romney hopes that the corporate media will more favorably cover his campaign in light of gift of the head of Big Bird as a sacrifice on the alter of corporate hegemony:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-debates-begin-republicans-put-npr-pbs-chopping/story?id=12915626

Conservative lawmakers have attempted, for decades, to cut federal funding for public broadcasting, arguing that they have a liberal bias.

One of Newt Gingrich's first acts as speaker of the House in 1995 was to call for the elimination of federal funding for CPB, and for the privatization of public broadcasting. Neither attempt was successful, though it did keep the hot-button issue in the limelight for years.

* * *
In 2005, a House subcommittee voted to drastically cut CPB funding, and eliminate all of it within two years, a move many blamed on Tomlinson himself.

"Republicans have never been fond of public broadcasting. Republicans have always thought that public broadcasting across the board is liberal, is not particularly supportive of Republican and conservative points of view," Sterling said. "Democrats tend not to think that, unless they're from very conservative districts."
October 9, 2012

Romney foreign policy agenda short on specifics

Source: Chicago Sun Times

Mitt Romney delivered another major foreign policy speech on Monday, and he — as did Barack Obama when he was running for president in 2008 — talks as if he thinks world leaders, terrorists and rogue operators will snap to attention and do what the United States wants because there is a new man in the White House.

Romney focused much of his speech on turmoil in the Middle East as he stepped up his criticism of Obama over his handling of upheavals in Syria, Egypt and Libya, where the U.S. ambassador was recently murdered; the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dire threat Iran poses if it builds a nuclear weapon.

In terms of what Romney would actually, specifically do differently from Obama — send weapons to rebel forces in Syria, for example — Romney has yet to spell it out.

* * *
Said former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “In terms of Libya, for instance, I mean, at first he was for the intervention. Now he’s against it. It’s unclear where he is on Syria, for instance, where at one stage I thought I heard him say earlier — not in the speech but earlier — that he would arm the rebels. Now he’s kind of just saying that might help them in some way.

Read more: http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/15643146-452/romney-foreign-policy-agenda-short-on-specifics.html



Once again Romney vaguely promises to be more aggressive and foreign policy. Code for I will attack Iran?
October 9, 2012

Atlantic - "Mitt Romney's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Foreign-Policy Speech"

Romney could just cut to the chase and say that he will do whatever Sheldon Adelson tells him to do. Finally, Romney's words clearly set the stage for the attack on Iran that Adelson/Netenyahu so clearly support.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/mitt-romneys-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-foreign-policy-speech/263369/?google_editors_picks=true

The speech that Mitt Romney gave Monday ought to make every American nervous about what he and his ideological team would do if permitted to direct U.S. foreign policy. What a debacle.

"It is the responsibility of our president to use America's great power to shape history -- not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events," he said, giving voice to the mistaken premise that made Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman allies. Anyone running for president ought to know that the president's actual responsibilities were set forth in the Constitution. That document was written long before America became a hegemon. Its signatories wisely and explicitly rejected the notion that a single man ought to be charged with shaping history. You'd think that the Iraq War would've served as a reminder that hubristic men who think they can shape history almost always fail miserably. But Romney mentioned Iraq only briefly, insisting we should've stayed longer. He doesn't realize or won't admit that occupying foreign countries makes America more rather than less vulnerable to uncontrollable events.

Despite the years of improvised explosive devices and the thousands of dead American troops, Romney insists that "there is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East -- and it is not unique to that region." America's closest ally, Israel, does not itself want to be led by America, nor does any other sovereign country. There are those who want America to lead others in some way or other, but it is as true to observe that there is a longing for America's withdrawal from the region. Neither longing tells us what America's role in the Middle East ought to be.

Romney noted recent events in Libya, and went on to say that the struggle there is the same one we're seeing "in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair." He went on to assert that "we have seen this struggle before" when "in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today's crises from becoming tomorrow's conflicts."

This is hopelessly muddled.
October 9, 2012

Big gaps in Romney plan on pre-existing conditions

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he has a plan to help people with pre-existing medical conditions get health insurance. But there's a huge catch: You basically have to be covered in the first place.

If you had a significant break in health insurance coverage an insurer still could delve into your medical history, looking for anything — from a bad back to high blood pressure — that could foreshadow future claims. They'd be able to turn you down.

That's a contrast to President Barack Obama's health care law, which guarantees that people in poor health can get comprehensive coverage at the same rates everybody else pays, and provides government subsidies to help low- to middle-income households pay premiums.

Starting Jan. 1, 2014, an insurer "may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion," the law says.
Romney mentioned his pre-existing conditions plan during last week's presidential debate. "I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/big-gaps-romney-plan-pre-existing-conditions-070520547--election.html



The corporate media has generally given Romney a free pass on many of his lies during the debate choosing instead to highlight polls that are in his favor or focusing on the optics of the debate. Here is a story that addresses at least on of Romney's lies and hidden caveats.

Notably, Romney's campaign (surprise) is not providing additional detail regarding Romney's plans.
October 8, 2012

Mitt Romney – The Anti-Reagan Republican

Ronald Reagan was a Republican President who forcefully and proudly articulated right wing rhetoric, yet he was actually more moderate in the way he governed. In California, he signed the California Environmental Quality Act into law and campaigned against a referendum in California called Proposition 6 that would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in the state's public schools. In 1986, Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. prior to Jan. 1, 1982. Finally, in 1986, Reagan raised taxes in response to the growing deficit. However, despite these steps, Reagan was a strong advocate of conservatism given his unabashed support for supply side economics.

In sharp contrast, Mitt Romney is a Trojan Horse Republican who tries to look like a moderate and soft peddles his pro-rich conservative ideals to the general electorate. Rather than proudly use right wing rhetoric like Reagan, Romney runs away from his right wing policy proposals. In closed door meetings, Romney tells the truth about his agenda to cut taxes and regulations, but during debates, he tries to argue that he actually supports stronger regulation than President Obama. Unlike Reagan, Romney strongly condemned his fellow Republicans for supporting any type of immigration reform as “amnesty” and supported Arizona’s anti-immigration laws. Yet, his campaign once again equivocates on immigration during the general election. In other words, rather than promote or defend conservative ideals, Romney has had his best success when he avoids using right wing rhetoric.

This equivocation has even lead Republicans to question who is the “true Romney.” No one ever wondered where Reagan stood even though he had demonstrated a willingness to be flexible on conservative policies. Reagan spewed right wing rhetoric, but actually took steps that would have been antithetical to conservatives. Romney is now pushing moderate sounding rhetoric without actually articulating any policies that would be moderate in their application. Thus, Romney is the exact opposite of Reagan in that he quietly raises money from oil companies, the financial industry and right wing billionaires, while trying to assure the general public that he really does not favor the interests of those who are so heavily supporting him.

October 7, 2012

Why Romney's Attack On Dodd-Frank Is BS? Look at his biggest contributors...

In case you needed more information about the fact that Romney is perhaps the biggest pathological liar to ever run for office.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php


Goldman Sachs $891,140

Bank of America $668,139

JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219

Morgan Stanley $649,847

Credit Suisse Group $554,066


http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-28/economy/33443500_1_mitt-romney-securities-and-investment-industry-north-star-opinion-research

TAMPA, Fla. (MarketWatch) — Political donors with Wall Street ties are betting heavily on Mitt Romney, but the candidate’s platform in coming months will be a carefully crafted appeal to a wider audience.
The threat of new government regulations and larger deficits are upping the stakes this election cycle, and, with his more pro-business policies, Romney has captured the lion’s share of contributions made by the securities and investment industry. But to win votes from a wide swath of America, he’ll wrap his support for Wall Street in broader points about growth and reform

“I don’t think it’s a useful message in most corners of the country to talk about what you are doing for Wall Street,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.

Given his history at investment firm Bain Capital, Romney has a Wall Street sheen.
October 6, 2012

Romney Claims of Bipartisanship as Governor Face Challenge

Source: NY Times

As a Republican governor whose legislature was 87 percent Democratic, Mr. Romney said in Wednesday’s debate, “I figured out from Day 1 I had to get along, and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.” The result, he said, was that “we drove our schools to be No. 1 in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.”

But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.

The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact. A wholesale restructuring of state government was dead on arrival in the legislature; an ambitious overhaul of the state university system was stillborn; a consolidation of transportation fiefs never took place.

Mr. Romney lobbied successfully to block changes in the state’s much-admired charter school program, but his own education reforms went mostly unrealized. His promise to lure new business and create jobs in a state that had been staggered by the collapse of the 2000 dot-com boom never quite bore fruit; unemployment dropped less than a percentage point during his four years, but for most of that time, much of the decline was attributed to the fact that any new jobs were being absorbed by a shrinking work force.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html?hp&_r=0



After winning the Republican primaries by attacking Gingrich and Perry from the right, Romney's newly discovered support of bipartisanship comes under scrutiny.
October 4, 2012

* Yawn* - As Predicted Romney Wins On Points, But Will Lose - Let Me Explain

First, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II all "lost" their first debates as a matter of consensus. Did it matter. Nope.

Second, anyone who was expecting Obama to "beat" Romney in this debate, the question is beat what? Romney is a flip flopper who has been unemployed for years. President Obama is the incumbent with the record. Worse, Romney never defends his positions. He just disowns them. In other words, to attack Romney, you have to waste time explaining what his prior position was. Look at tax cuts! Romney does not even own his own tax plan. In other words, Romney's strategy was to simply disown anything that sound negative.

Third, the comments that you see are all stylistic. Romney was the agressor. Of course he is. He is the challenger attacking someone with a record. President Obama was trying to hold on to an eal.

Fourth, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, Romney's problem is trust. While Romney's slipperiness makes him a tough debate opponent (remember Romney moving to the RIGHT of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich on immigration), the bottom line is that this same trait makes people distrust him. While Romney may have "won" on points (as I predicted in a thead that I will link below), the problem is that Romney did so by disowning his own positions on tax cuts no less.

So, at the end of the day, you know what you have with President Obama and where he stands. But with Romney, I think even his supporters are even more confused. Worse, do you "trust" Romney if he "won" by abandoning his positions.

Nonetheless, the media types will hyperventilate, but the debate really does not change squat. Romney will get a deadcat bounce as predicted by Nate Silver, but the debate can't fix Romney's core problem, which is that his underlying message sucks and people don't trust him.

October 3, 2012

Ryan Tells Retired Seniors To Get A Job So They Are "Good Taxpayers" In Response To Question

Ryan was asked by a rally attendee who was no doubt concerned about all those people that Romney referred to who did not pay taxes whether there is "any way possible that this 47 percent can pay a nominal fee or something so that they feel that they have small ownership of the government and maybe they don't take all the handouts?" Well, now we know that the Romney-Ryan plan is to get seniors out of retirement and into the ranks of the employed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57524683/ryan-more-jobs-yield-more-taxpayers/

We have 47 percent of the people in the United States pay no taxes, federal income taxes," the voter told Ryan. "Is there any way possible that this 47 percent can pay a nominal fee or something so that they feel that they have small ownership of the government and maybe they don't take all the handouts?"

Ryan said the answer was more jobs.

"I have an idea: Let's help them get jobs so they can get good paychecks and then they're good taxpayers," Ryan said, ignoring the fact that military members serving in war zones and seniors were among the millions who do not owe federal income taxes.

Profile Information

Member since: Fri May 8, 2009, 12:59 AM
Number of posts: 17,387
Latest Discussions»TomCADem's Journal