Let's play a game, shall we? It's all about finding clues on Mitt Romney's policies. And no, there will be no empty chair involved.
In the latest Rewrite, MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell played the part of people who have asked the Republican candidate about various positions. The Last Word host used their questions word-for-word, and Romney’s responses word-for-word.
Leave a Comment:
I forgot which show I saw it but there was a clip of Barack Obama and John McCain debate where there was the old lady who said that she doesn't trust Barack Obama and John McCain sort of stopped her. My question is, how would Mitt Romney respond if the same woman make the same comment (or question)? Is he going to say, "Yeah, I don't trust him either." JUST CURIOUS.
John McCain stopped that woman in mid-question not because she had begun by saying she didn't "trust" Obama, he stopped her after she went on to say "he's an Arab". Whenever Mitt Romney has been asked the question does he support the "birth-er arguments" questioning Barrack Obama's place of birth, or his religious beliefs for that matter, he has answered "Of course not, I believe he is a Christian as he said he was, and I do not have any doubt that he was born in Hawaii." Just as John McCain answered that woman, Gemelapapa.
8 new post topics in less than 24 hours, and to what do we attribute this shifting avalanche of subjects thrown in as grist for this political mill web site and blog, other than the need to keep distracting from the bad news we received on Friday last week on the state of the ever weaker economy, the unemployment rate remaining above 8%, and the the huge number of 368,000 people dropping out or the Labor force in August to put us at numbers not seen the days of stagflation in the failed President Jimmy Carter's 1970s.
And the events of yesterday which saw on the anniversary of 9/11 Islamic terrorist attack a similar expression of Islamic hatred of the United States and murderous intent with an armed assault on our Libyan consulate, and the killing of four Americans, including our Ambassador. This is directly the result of our weakening our Defense posture in the world under this President, and his reticence to take a leading role in the battle for freedom in this torn and troubled corner of the world, were Islamic terrorism is very much alive and well.
The Democrats and this President's campaign motto of "FORWARD" really looks more and more each day to be "Back To The Future" of the 1970s, when our Embassy staff were held hostage in Iran by Islamic radicals, and our weak economy could not sustain a Defense posture of both military and civilian resources that would dissuade anyone from affronting the United States in that manner. Weakness at home breeds weakness abroad, and that breeds attacks on the interests of the United States and its officials and populace. We learned that in the 1970s, learned it again in the period of the 1990s under Clinton which led to to 9/11 events, and we are about to learn it once again. But it's not to late to reverse that course.
Blaming Clinton 9-11? Oh, I see why...
This story, folks...
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13809524-evidence-piles-up-that-bush-administration-got-many-pre-911-warnings?lite
And in anticipation of charges about NBC's bias, well, here's Grandpa's favorite "objective" source:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/09/12/ac-kth-september-11-warnings.cnn
Clinton was informed of Bin Lauden's venerability and easy targeting for missiles in his Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan on three occasions by the CIA and US military who asked permission to take him out, and each time Clinton refused to give permission. Clinton exacted a peace dividend our of Congress by cutting sharply the Defense budget, and the budget of the CIA and our forward capabilities. His handling of these issues were such that we had to withdraw from the field when the forces of Islamic terrorism were building and strengthening in places like Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia. If you want to discuss not heeding warnings, the #1 man in Al Qaeda issued a video tape just Monday night calling for Islamist jihadists to attack and kill Americans, and especially in Libya, as revenge for the recent drone attack killing of Al Qaeda's #2 leader. Within 24 hours, without any added precautions taken to protect the life of US personnel, including our Ambassador to Libya, and our property, a successful attack was launched using RPGs and Heavy Machine Guns that did just that, Cab Driver. And today, after doing a customary dog and pony show appearance in the Rose Garden at the White House, Barry boy is off on Air Force One to fund raising and campaign events in Las Vegas, even as the crowds gather on the darkened streets in places like Cairo, Kabul, and Benghazi, site of the slaying of our Ambassador and three other Americans. The attacks are not out of the ordinary either. Attacks on US foreign dignitaries took place in June, and earlier this summer against other allied dignitaries in the Middle East. Absolutely no preparation in advance in an area far , far different than where we are protected by a couple of thousand miles of ocean as in 9/11/2001, which was an unthinkable attack that caught everyone unprepared.
Osama Bin Laden's venerability?
That's a good one, Archie...
/Rob Reiner voice off
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/venerable
Almost as good as that "lost colony of Roanoke" nonsense on the other thread... Man, did you take your grandkids to the amusement part and have too many rides on the Ferris Wheel? BTW, I wrote a grad paper on Walter Raleigh one time... I'd share the ending with you, but you'd be a bit traumatized by his fate... Not exactly a sterling example of pragmatic politics...
Well, of course that started off to be vunerability. And Sir Walter' dying of sphyllis did not disuade me from smoking his tobacco in my pipe when I was a smoker.
Judging from that claim Raleigh "died of syphillis," there was something else in that pipe besides tobacco...
Truth be told, were it not for our Country's excessive dependence on oil, we would not be in "those parts of the world." It is very sad when Americans are killed when doing their duty to our great Country. At least Obama has a steady and defensible foreign policy agenda. Mitt will not tell his and the best we know if that he would attack Iran. Just what we need another multi-trillion dollar war. Ron Paul has it right in many ways, we need to get the hell out of where we do not belong.
You might make more sense with your argument if you gave heed to Mitt Romney's call for an energy independence North American alliance that did not shun fossil fuels, especially those of Mexico and Canada, and our own federally controlled lands and offshore waters as the Obama ultimate agenda has set us on a course to be curtailed and supplanted by expensive and inefficient alternative energy sources, Zeus.
And the need to consider the time before Iran obtains further missile capability and nuclear warheads to stop their progress is now, as Israel is telling us, not some time later down the road when we finally give up on the futility of our weak, and limited economic sanctions that the Russians and the Chinese do not recognize, for just two nations willing to thumb their noses at us, and the Israelis. But Obama doesn't have the guts for that. That is clear!
When David Gregory asked Romney which tax loopholes he would close, Romney balked, saying only that wealthy Americans would pay more because of closed loopholes.
This is the follow-up question: "Which loopholes that you currently enjoy would you favor eliminating?
It's time that all income is taxed at the same rate. No more special breaks for capital gains and carried interest, etc. Unearned income should not be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Talk about getting it backwards.
Capital gains from stock sales (which are a measure of expected future profits of corporations besides their tangible and intrinsic assets) and dividends are the taxes placed on top of the 35% of corporate taxes already (the highest rates in the developed and developing world) assesed those corporations, Mike. So someone like Mitt Romney and his wife, who have investments thru their Blind Trusts in corporations, are being taxed presently at a rate of 50% of the return of profits of the entitities they invest inat present. Barrack Obama would like that to increase to 55%, by raising the capital gains and dividends to 20%, from its present 15%. Two words for that, Mike: jobs killer!
You might be right on that, Grandpa. They might have to let go a clerk in Switzerland or Grand Cayman if overseas assets like the Romney's are shrunk a bit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6nYkDJWIPI
Uh oh, there's your CNN again where Romney notes "The Blind Trust is an age-old ruse."
Praise the Lord, and pass the Etch-a-Sketch...
2.5% only of the Rpmney's Blind Trusts in cash equivalents in higher interest earling investments in the Funds in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxumbourg, and some also in a Swiss Bank Account for diversification into solid Swiss Franks. It's something I have also from my investments in common Fidelity Mutual Funds out of Boston, Ma that invest in the same instruments, except I'm no where near flush enough to get access to Swiss Franks from cash held in banks there, so I get mine through The Permananent Mutual Fund of San Antonio, Tx. And they are all taxable investments, fully on the up andup, and reportable. Nice try at juvenile rumor mongering though, Cab Driver.
Laurence O'Donnell is so jealous of Romney's success he can't deal with it. Night after night, he has the condescending snarl of a man who can't compete. Laurence, you are a second rate journalist on a 3 or 4th rated network. It's ok. You will be fine. You won't ever be as successful as Mitt. But ranting and raving about his plan to reduce the deficit should be asked of Obama also. He is the one with current problem and it's not getting better.
O'Donnel isn't a jounalist, he is a former Democrat Party congressional staffer, and he holds his commentator's job at MSNBC, as do all of them, simnple to follow throught with the relentless hit job that this networks editorial policies promote; to support Obama and the Democrat Party, and to savage Romney and the Republican Party, RUserious.