Why have government at all, Mr. Akin?

Once again, Todd Akin, vying to be a Senator from Missouri, has stated his complete disgust for government. Speaking on his vote on the Fair Pay Act, which he against, he said that it wasn't that he was voting against women, but that he thought government had no place telling a business what it should pay a person. And yes, he is against any minimum wage, saying that government has no right to set pay or prices. So, what are you running for a seat in government for if you believe government has no place in a person's life? You believe that social security, medicare, and medicaid is illegal, so you don't believe in a safety net for the elderly. You think that government has no right to tell a businesses how it should be run. So you don't believe in civil rights. You believe that education aid, grants, and loans are, in your own words, "Like third stage cancer." So you don't believe that the poor should be given a hand up to help them get ahead. So what do you think government is good for? Oh, that's right, in your eyes, government is there to ensure women have no say in their health care, overriding her wants and the doctor's advice. Well, at least you believe government is good for at least one thing. And that's one more thing than you're good at, Mr. Akin.    

Romney is a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan, I guess.

While on the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney showed his true side, both of them. In a one-on-one interview for a national audience, when asked to show an example of his compassion and empathy for everyday people, Mitt used as an example the Universal Health Care Law he signed as governor of Massachusetts. Then, less than an hour later, he spoke at a GOP Romney/Ryan rally and said that the thing that best showed President Obama's love of government over personal initiative is: The Universal Health Care Law signed by the president. Which, of course, was based on Romney's own health care bill. Now, while some are finding this an incredibly fast case of flip-flopping, I happen to think that actually, he is just a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan. You know the song: Love the one you're with. In other words, Mitt thinks that it's okay to say whatever you think the person in front of you wants to hear. To a group that wants to hear the most conservative, anti-Obama ideas available, that's what Mitt will give them. To a group that believes in moderation and doesn't believe in right-wing dogma, Mitt will give them that.
Yes, the song said that if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with. And in Mitt's case, it's if I can't be with someone who agrees with what I believe, I'll believe in what the people I'm with believe in. Unfortunately, Mitt, that's also being called being spineless. Ask any woman. Oh, that's right, the GOP doesn't believe that women should have certain rights, like equal pay. I guess you really are a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan.          

Ann tries to humanize Mitt-- and fails

Ann Romney went on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to humanize Mitt. At least I guess that's why she went on the show, as any spouse going on an entertainment show would do. But if that was her goal, she failed miserably. When asked if she considers Mitt frugal or cheap, she replied, "Cheap." When asked to give an example, she said that when Mitt leaves the house, he'll turn off the hot water heater to save money. And occasionally, he'll forget to turn it back on when they get back home. And she's learned that cold showers really aren't that bad. WHAT??????? Now, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was talking about when they go on vacation. But, is it really a good thing that the man who the GOP wants to be the next president is considered cheap and not frugal by his own wife? And do we really want our president to be the type of man who can't remember what he turned off when he goes on vacation? If this was an attempt to make Mitt seem more human, it failed miserably.    

Want to check your facts, Pres. Ahmadinejad?

I'm one of those people that loves to check facts, so when the Iranian president said that Iran has been around for 10,000 years, I just wondered if this was true. And so I checked a 1900 world map, and sure enough, he was right: There was no Israel. But there was also no Iran, Iraq, or Palestine. Actually, the map I saw had no Afghanistan or Libya, either. It seems that these counties, and their boundaries, were made after WWI or even later. But don't worry about being a liar when you're in this country. We have a party in this country that refuses to tell the truth and wants to get rid of all those who disagree with them. They may not be comfortable with you, but you do seem to have a lot in common. They don't want to check their facts, either, but are you sure you don't want to?    

Kansas proves time travel-no DeLorean needed

Who needs a DeLorean when you can go back in time like a Kansas town just did. Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City, has just approved a law which allows citizens to carry a gun in plain sight. That's right, no more 1880s Dodge City is needed to use as a symbol of a town that has people walking around with guns on their hips. Now, the state of Kansas can use the 2012 city of Overland Park as that symbol. Want to guess what party controls Overland Park? Well, let's just say that while the the national GOP party may want to take the country back to the 1950s, they have nothing to tell Overland Park about time travel. That city wants to go back 130 years, and was just able to it, no special car needed. By the way, Alice, I'd stay in the Emerald City for a while. There's no telling what year it would be if  you came back to Kansas, now.    

Romney ad-libs and tells his true thoughts again

Mitt Romney spoke today about mis-steps he thinks President Obama has made in foreign policy and allowed America, in his mind, to look weak. And the four items he used were the killing of the Ambassador in Libya, the civil unrest in Syria, the election of a pro right-wing Muslim president in Egypt, and the Iranian nuclear reactors. Now I can debate any of these items and what we should or shouldn't do, but why is an election on this list, Mitt? Do you really believe that a nation electing a leader is something we should or even could step in the middle of an election and influence who is elected? So you want to go back to when America put despots in power in countries, or do you want to stop millions who disagree with your views and stop them form voting? Oh wait. I guess if it's good enough for GOP legislatures to do here in America, disenfranchising millions of people in an attempt to get the vote they want , then it must be okay for the rest of the world. Maybe you didn't ad-lib after all, but you definitely spoke your true thoughts.

GOP senators give vets the boot

GOP senators took another turn against those that helped defend it this week. As someone who while spending 20 years in the military saw my educational benefits cut in half, lose part of my housing benefit, and after retiring, watch as VA medical facilities get hard to use due to war injuries and fewer doctors, I thought I had seen Congress turn their back on vets quite a lot. But this week, GOP senators hit a new low in filibustering a bill that would allot money to help returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan find jobs. But in their effort to ensure that President Obama would have no victory in trying to lower the unemployment rate, 4 GOP senators said no to this bill. So while 58 senators voted yes, the GOP filibustered the bill, killing any chance to help vets find jobs. So what what made the 4 senators different from the other 38 who voted no? Easy, for 4 GOP senators helped write the bill, and then turned around a voted against it. It takes a blank mind and a black heart for any senator to do that to any bill, but it takes a different kind of evil to give hope to those that served this country and then turn their backs on them in such a crass political way. Soldiers are use to wearing boots, but these 4 GOP senators just showed their disdain for those that serve this country, giving vets the boot.        

Surprised by Romney video? Well, I'm not

The Romney video has been out for at least a month, but it was just last week that the speech could be validated. And all of the mainstream media is basically on the attack, going at Romney with at least fervor, if not glee. And while I'm glad that the media is going after someone, but I think their target is wrong. Yes, Romney said it, but look at the group he was speaking to for what I think should be the target of the attack.
Romney was speaking at a $50,000 a plate dinner. Do you think that any in that room, no matter how many or few, think they aren't paying their fair share in taxes? Few, if any. How many commute to work through public transportation? About the same, probably. How many have their kids in a public school? Maybe a couple more. How many are in an HMO and don't have a primary personal doctor? They are almost all rich enough not to have to pool their money for their health care, but some may through businesses they own be in one. How many people there believes and are sure that the president isn't a Muslim ? Not 1/3 of the people there, according to GOP polls. How many are sure the president was born in America? Around 40%, again according to polls. How many believe that abortion is something that government has the right to stop, no matter the reason for the pregnancy or the health of the mother? According to polls, again, over half, and maybe 75%.
So, who was Romney speaking to in that video? He was talking to that 15-20% of Americans that used to be the right-wing fringe of the GOP but now is the mainstream thought of the GOP. Think they care about people who need help to survive, or even those that make it payday to payday? No, and they don't care for  that 47% of Americans talked about, either. Yes, it horrible that Romney feels this way, but it's worse that mainstream GOP doesn't care about almost half of Americans anymore.        

Romney gets specific-specifically wrong

Mitt Romney today got specific today, and told what he'd cut. He stated that a 5% cut on all domestic non-security spending ( Do you know what that means? I think I do, but maybe I'm wrong). And he said that  non-essential items would be eliminated ( What that means no one knows for sure. What's essential to me is different than what's essential to you, and vise versa.), and that subsidies would be cut from items like PBS and Amtrak. Think PBS isn't important to hundreds of millions of parents in the morning? How many generations of children have learned things from shows like Sesame Street? This I saw just after I watched the recent of Masterpiece Mystery. How many millions of adults watch shows like that? And to millions in the northeast, how important is Amtrak in their daily commute? And think people in other parts of the country wouldn't love to be able to quickly travel between cities?
Well, Mitt, you got specific, or at least for you, got specific. And you just showed millions of Americans specifically why they shouldn't vote for you. And I'm sure that you just showed why people shouldn't vote for the GOP at all. After all, aren't you the moderate GOP candidate? Doesn't this mean that the far right wants to cut even more? I hope every Democrat runs an ad with your words of what you'd cut to let people know just what you and the rest of the GOP would do. And I hope, Mitt, that you'll get even more specific.      

Are you sure about American strength, Mr. Ryan?

Since Paul Ryan was the one who I saw bring this up, I'll use his name, although I have no doubt Mitt Romney feels the same way. Rep. Ryan said that when the American president is weak, we are attacked, but when the president is strong, no one attacks us. So, according to this theory, when the U.S. barracks in Beirut were attacked in 1983, this meant that Reagan was weak. And, of course, since we were attacked in 2001, this means that President George W. Bush was weak. No, Mr Ryan, again you don't know what you are talking about. Terrorists don't care who's in the White House. They hate all Americans, and what political party the resident of the White House has nothing to do with an attack. Now, many members of the Tea Party will probably agree with you, and that just shows that they don't care about the truth, either.    

Romney doesn't have a bad week, he shows his ignorance

While some political pundits said that Mitt Romney has had a bad week, and while that may be true, the fact is that what really happened is that American voters this week found out more about Mitt Romney and how he thinks. With two quick statements, one on foreign affairs and the other on average American households, people have found out exactly how ignorant he is, while people around the world found out what a Romney administration would look like to them. And this caused Mitt Romney to have a bad week.
When most politicians have a bad day or a bad week, it is because they say something that either they don't mean, or say it in a way politically incorrect. But Mitt said exactly what he wanted, meant what he said, and said it several times. And in both cases this week, Mitt Romney got his facts wrong, which shows something different about Romney completely. In the second case, he stated that the middle-class in America make between $200,000 and $250,000 a year. But facts simply prove this not to be true. Data shows that a household making $200,000 would be in the top 4%, while the average American income is between $45,000 and $55,000 a year, depending on whether health care benefits are included. So why would Romney use such a number if it was so blatantly wrong? Well, two reasons spring to mind. First that's exactly what he believes, but also, this explains why the GOP is adamantly against a tax hike on those making more than $250,000. If you believe that this is true, then that tax hike that President Obama is proposing is a tax against the middle-class. It doesn't matter if the number is right or not, since they believe it to be true, it gives the GOP a justification for their beliefs.
Now while that doesn't matter to the rest of the world, Romney's thoughts on foreign matters certainly do, which made Romney's other lie even worse. While Romney gave a briefing condemning the Egyptian Embassy's statement that he said apologized for the small riot and attack on the embassy. But the statement never apologized for the attack, and the statement went out almost 6 hours before the riot and attack. When these facts were brought up to Romney, he simply said that the facts didn't matter, and reiterated his statement. This shows both a complete lack of regard for the truth and a lack of understanding how the world works. Think terrorists didn't notice that facts don't matter to Romney, much less foreign governments? Think that matters to Romney? These weren't just mistakes for Mitt, but a lack of understanding of basic facts, and a complete lack of caring for the facts. And that shows Mitt's ignorance, not a case of foot-in-mouth disease that causes a politician a bad week.    

Politics over diplomacy for Romney

While the Libyan ambassador's death was a very sad statement on the state of United States/Arab cooperation, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Mitt Romney took the low road and may have made it worse. It was an anti-Muslim movie that inflamed passion which led to the death of the ambassador and two other, and Secretary of State properly asked why someone in a city which the U.S. helped insure wasn't annihilated in a country which the U.S. helped free from a despot would take action against our ambassador. And President Obama said that while we as a country must reject anything that denigrates any religion, there is no justification for the killings, and he will take action to find the killers. But while the administration's reactions were even-tempered and pragmatic, Mitt Romney took the occasion the attack the President. He stated that these uprisings against Americans was the fault of President Obama, and that the president was appeasing the Arabs and he would never apologize for American values.
It was bad enough that you attacked the president, Mr. Romney. But are you now saying that denigrating Islam is an American value? Do you really believe this? If so, not only are you not qualified to be president, you aren't qualified for any office in this country. And if you don't believe it, you decided that politics trumps diplomacy, and for that, you shouldn't be elected president. Either way, this shows how contemptible you are, and those that agree with you, too.     

I'll blame Fox News for this one

I have to thank Rachel Maddow for this information, but I have my own reason why this information is true. A group taking a poll of probable GOP voters this November in Ohio and North Carolina have asked many questions to get a feel of the party, and one of the questions asked was: Who is responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden,  President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Now, as she stated, I'm not sure why this would be a question, but there it was. And in both states, approximately one-third of the people said the president, just under one-fifth said it was Mitt Romney, and over one-half said they weren't sure. Now, one of the reasons Rachel gave for these percentages were that there must have been a lot of people who were  kidding with the pollster. Or, the only thing else she could co,e up with is that two-thirds of the probable GOP voters don't know the facts. But I think that they do know the facts, but that Fox News has told them so many times not to believe mainstream news that they now know the facts, but simply disregard  them. Fox News has repeatedly said that the Obama administration is completely inept and lies about everything, including where the president was born. So believing that Fox News is giving them the unvarnished truth, to them it becomes so obvious that the administration is either lying about who killed bin Laden, or he isn't really dead. Now, if this supposition is true, then not only does this explain the poll data, but it also explains everything else that the far right believes that really isn't true. Yes, I'll blame Fox News for the poll data, and a whole lot more.    

Mitt Romney and Meet the Press

Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press, and once again gave vague non-answers to specific questions. But one of the questions that he gave a vague answer to actually told people quite a lot. After saying he would ensure that rich people's taxes wouldn't go down as loopholes in the tax code would be closed, he was asked which loopholes he would close, and couldn't answer the question. When asked, he said that closing the loopholes would ensure that the tax cuts would be revenue neutral. If we are running a deficit and we get no new revenue, how would he reduce the deficit? Well, he did say that no cuts in defense spending would occur under his administration, so this mean all the cuts would have to come from domestic spending. He was asked what would be cut, and wouldn't answer. When asked  if the budget would balance in his first term, he said that the domestic cuts would be too draconian to be done in one term, and that it would balance in his second term, taking 8 to 10 years to balance the budget. Now not to quibble too much, but is a president's second term 4 to 6 years? Does it balance in the second term or not? And if it's too draconian for one term, than what cuts are they that can be made incrementally that wouldn't hurt people in 8 to 10 years but would in four? And there were other answers that I'd like to debate, such as which monetary policy is now hurting the European economy, but the question that wasn't asked is the one I'd like answered. He was asked if he would work with Democrats if elected, and he said that he would, citing his time as governor as his history of working with the other side. But if Mitt is elected, he won't have a House controlled by Democrats, and he may not have a Senate that is controlled by Democrats. So, he'll have at least one part of the legislature controlled by the GOP, maybe both parts. So my question would be, if a GOP controlled legislature sent you a bill that reflected part the GOP party plank that you disagree with, would you veto it? Now, he may say he wouldn't answer a hypothetical, but the American people deserve to know if you, Mitt, would be would just rubber stamp anything that came out of a GOP-controlled legislature or not. This is one answer that you can't be vague with, Mitt, and you need to answer it, and answer it truthfully. You may not want to, but the American people shouldn't vote for you if you refuse to answer the question. Those on the right may not vote for you in you say you'd veto, and those on the left won't vote for you if you wouldn't veto. But the answer will matter to those in the middle, the undecided voters, which is why you won't answer it if you are ever asked. That's something you have a history of too, Mitt.      

More on the conventions

I haven't spoke much about the speeches, for 1 simple reason: If you like the GOP, you're going to like their speeches, and if you like the Democrats, you're going to like their speeches. So except for distortion and error of facts, I haven't said much about the speeches. But there were 2 speeches that should be, and one that will be, remembered. I believe that every state legislator, every officeholder and every  person who works for them, no matter which party they belong to, should watch the speech by Rep. John Lewis. In fact, everyone who didn't see it should look it up and watch it. In it, he properly equated the current crop of voting laws with the Jim Crow laws of the 50s and 60s in the south. And he reminded people that it took the action of many, including some who died standing up for those rights, to ensure that everyone had the right to vote and could vote. And that if these new laws are upheld as legal and enacted, those who died would have died in vain. Then there was Gabby Gifford reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I've watched it on tape several times, and I have no problem saying I've cried every time I've watching her. And what did the GOP counter these moving moments with? Yeah, the on speech that won't be forgotten: Clint and the empty chair. That's right, one convention touched people's hearts, and the other just left most people scratching their head.          

Convention vs. Convention

Now that both conventions are over with, the campaigns for President will start in earnest. But before we look forward to what will be the most expensive campaign in history, it's important to look back at the conventions and compare how they were run.
For 3 days in Tampa, the GOP had a convention that looked like it was planned by throwing a dart at a board, if it was planned at all. The first night had speeches that at best could be called disjointed. There was no flow from one to the other. And the keynote speech should not have been the final speech of the night. It was a stark and dark contrast to Ann Romney's speech. The second night was highlighted by Rep. Paul Ryan's speech that if the lies and distortions were taken out of it would have been less than 10 minutes long, maybe less than 5. Then the 3rd night is and will be remembered as the night of Clint Eastwood and the empty chair. The start of the most important hour of the entire convention, and GOP planners (If there were any) allowed an 82 year old actor go on stage and ad-lib a conversation with the chair. After that came Romney. Remember what he said? Don't worry, very few people, if any, do.
Now compare this to the Democrats and Charlotte. All three nights, the speeches all seemed to lead from one to another, all great and all leading to the night's best speech, the final speech of the evening. And each night, the nightly highlighted speech seemed to get better. From and outstanding speech from Michelle Obama, to an even better speech form Bill Clinton, and then finally to Barack Obama's speech, who even the GOP's Steve Schmidt admitted was a truly outstanding speech. Every night the speeches went relatively smoothly, and every night the speeches went from great to truly outstanding.
But even those differences weren't enough for the GOP, I guess. While both groups tweeted during the other's speeches, there was a vast difference in what they tweeted. While Democrats tweeted about whether the facts were right in the GOP speeches, the GOP would send tweets that were crass and vulgar. As examples, when the President talked about increasing all forms of energy, including oil, the GE chairman tweeted that wind and solar power added up to bad math. Think the company, who by the way paid no federal income tax last year, has more than a small stake in the future energy reserves of the country? Yes, that's crass, but for truly vulgar, there's Ann Coulter tweeting that Bill Clinton was impregnating Sandra Fluke, who spoke earlier in the night.
So one convention, the one in Tampa, was a mishmash of ideas, stopping and starting. That convention looked back. And those there took potshots at the other convention, sending out crass and vulgar tweets. Then there was the convention in Charlotte, which was one of the best run conventions in years, one that looked forward, not back, and questioned the other's facts, not their morals or their place of birth. So which group would you have running the country?          

The Democrats' big night

Thursday night for the Democrats culminated in President Obama's speech, and I'm sure he disappointed no one who was hoping he'd give a great speech. And I would think that if a person was on the fence and not sure who to vote for, the President set up the choices in stark contrast to each other. While some (almost every GOP politician) will complain that there wasn't specifics in the speech, it did outline President Obama's thoughts on an agenda for a second administration. And when you're the incumbent, details of where you want to go in the future is easier to see than a challenger, who has to explain their plans for the future. And in one of the best parts of the speech, he showed exactly the flaw in the GOP's future budget plans--No matter what the situation, the GOP says a tax cut is needed (Take 2 tax cuts and call me in the morning was a great line). And the President saying that it is our future, that we're fighting for change for us, making voting this November a point of personal pride for people, was truly brilliant. In almost every way, it was a sensational ending to a great convention.      

Wednesday night for Democrats

For most of the night, the Democrats' second night couldn't really match the excitement and energy of the first night. But that may have had more with the first night and the and the nearly perfect-pitched speeches. So even though there were very good speeches and some very salient points brought up during the speeches, early Wednesday night didn't have quite the impact of Tuesday night. But if there's a get-em-standing-in-the-aisle-yelling-and-screaming-in-joy showstopper in politics, it's still Bill Clinton, and he reminded us that he still has it. I don't know why the GOP decided that they wanted to, for lack of another term, Poke-the-Bubba, but it may have been the worst political move they could have made. President Clinton gave the Democrats a clinic in how to attack the GOP. Line-by-line, step-by-step, he didn't poke holes in GOP talking points against President Obama, he showed exactly where the holes are and how big they are. And he did it in a way that could be understood by everyday people. But now that President Clinton has shown how to go after the GOP, it's up to President Obama tonight to keep driving the points home and showing the gulf between the Democratic Party and the GOP.        

Democrats' First Night

Was there anything surprising Tuesday night in Charlotte? Well, except that the energy level was higher in the arena there than it was in Tampa, not much really surprised me. I thought that it was the GOP that would have very high energy levels, but it was obvious in even snippets that the energy level was higher last night. It may have, probably does have, something to do with the fact that the GOP's energy basically comes from the fact that they hate the president, not for their overwhelming love of Romney. But I was quite surprised with the first lady, Michelle Obama. Not that her speech was so good, but after watching her 2008 speech, just how much she has grown into the job of first lady, and how comfortable she is with giving speeches now. And no, I wasn't surprised that the Democrats actually know how to run a convention. The speeches seemed to run effortlessly form one to another, with the last speech being the highlight. And I was glad to hear that Michael Steele, former GOP chairman, said that there were no lies, although it was just the first night. Well, while there were questions on certain numbers, but nothing was an out-and-out lie. And that's a lot more than can be said about any GOP night.    

Beware what you say, Ann Romney & Eric Cantor

With the long Labor Day weekend, I hadn't heard of an interview that Ann Romney gave Friday until today. And I read Eric Cantor's salute to Labor Day late last night. Now, where I have thought of Ann as a courageous woman who fought MS and raised a large family, I hoped she wasn't one of the far right people that would denigrate the president. But that interview seemed to show her as another mouthpiece for the anti-Obama right. When speaking of women voting GOP, she said that women were looking  to Mitt and the GOP because they were looking for a grownup to get the country out of its problems. So Ann, the president is a child, and his administration are children? I that really what you meant? I thought you were above this, but it looks like I was wrong. But Eric, from you I expect stupidity and lies, but this Labor Day, you went much farther than I ever thought you'd go. You said that on Labor Day, we salute and celebrate entrepreneurial  people who build their own businesses. No, you irredeemable liar , we salute those that built the bridges, the roads, the buildings: you know, the one's that are actually called laborers. The holiday is called Labor Day, not Fat Cat Day. But seeing your party's platform, I think you'd like every day to be Fat Cat or Big Business Day.

So these are the details?

Well, according to Reince Priebus, GOP national Chairperson, Mitt Romney does have details, and he gave the top details in the Romney plan today to MSNBC. A 20% personal tax cut, a 30% cut in corporate taxes, gutting the EPA so that business plants can save on costs, and for more drilling for oil. Now according to my calculations, this means 75% of the plan helps businesses maximize profits. And with all the tax cuts, how could we balance the budget? Is that a detail you missed, or do you think that lowering tax rates will increase money into the treasury? Either way, these "so-called" details aren't really details at all, but more general ideas.  

9/2's Meet the Press

I enjoy watching Meet the Press, but this week's show was just outstanding, with the 5 person panel of Newt, Carly Fiorina, historian Doris Kearnes Goodwin, reporter Thomas Friedman, and reporter Tom Brokaw going back and forth. And go back and forth they certainly did. If anyone missed it, I won't try to go back and give a badly recalled version of what happened, but everyone should see it. But my rejoinder to Carly Fiorina, a CEO and big GOP backer, is that while you are right about women's issues not being just abortion, but the GOP stance on abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the union busting tactics state GOP governors and legislatures are using and voting laws enacted that make it harder for some Americans to vote. Add these to other things that the GOP is doing, and it is obvious that what the GOP is really trying to do is disenfranchise anyone who disagrees with their ideas. And Newt, very few people actually think that a late term abortion is a good thing, and some people do think that any abortion is bad. And I am one of them, by the way. But your way, and the GOP way, would stop all women and couples from a choice. And that really is the plank of the Democrats, to allow people to be free to make choices that they feel right with. You do believe that America is the land of free, don't you Newt? Then why are you and the entire GOP trying to take choices away from people? That's question that wasn't asked on Meet The Press, but I wish it would have been, because that's an answer I'd love to hear.

What party is speaking where?

So, let me get this straight, and yes, if this is true, and I think it is, Ripley's Believe It Or Not book should open up a new category. In this most fractured time, the GOP convention went to arena was built by labor union and 65% money was from taxpayers, and who are they against? Yes, unions and the government. And now the Democrats are going  to North Carolina for their convention. North Carolina? The most anti-union state in the country, and where is the President speaking? Bank of America, and who is the Democrats complaining about? Yes, big banks, and big business not paying their fair share. Does any of this make ant sense to you? Not to me either. Yes, it should be in the Believe It or Not book.