Romney walks a fine line-and falls off

I know that Mitt Romney is walking a very thin line during Sandy and the aftermath clean-up, but somehow he still got in wrong Tuesday. So would someone tell me the difference between a political rally in Ohio and a  relief rally in Ohio. I can't find one, and I doubt anyone else can either. And right on the Red Cross webpage, it states that bulk food or clothing isn't wanted and actually in the webpage as some of the items not to send. But there was Romney on the line accepting bulk food. New Jersey Gov. Christie set the correct tone when he said that he didn't give damn about politics right now since he had bigger problems to worry about. Former President Clinton and Vice-President Biden were both on the campaign trail and were at rallies, so Mitt, why can't you just call a rally and rally, tone down your vitriol against Obama and state what you're for. But that's the rub, isn't it. You're for dismantling FEMA and just giving the money to the states. Think that would work real well right now? Mitt, you could have said that there were no rallies during the disaster or held rallies and said the right things. But you couldn't afford to do the former, and I doubt you'd know how to do the latter. So all you did in walking that thin line was to fall off.      

Still want FEMA gone, Mitt?

As the storm continues to pummel the northeast, although people of parties and independents hope for the best, it should be remembered what Mitt Romney said about FEMA last year. During a debate last year, Mitt said that the money should go to the states and let them decide how to spend the money and what to spend it on, and that even better than that would be for the money to go to businesses. So under Mitt's plan, there'd be no FEMA and states would simply fend for themselves. Think the people of Delaware and Rhode Island want to compete with New York and New Jersey for clean-up dollars? Because wouldn't every state be on their own and trying to get companies to help with the clean-up? And wouldn't each state fight for the right to run their state as they want? So some governors could dispense money liberally while others could penny-pinch and lower taxes on businesses? You may want FEMA gone, Mitt, but millions of people will be glad it's there after the storm. And hopefully they'll remember what you said about FEMA when they vote on November 6th.

How much lower can the GOP go?

Every day, after everything I hear from the GOP, I expect that they can't go any lower. But every day, they seem to find a new low. I thought that yesterday, when Romney Co-Chairperson John Sununu, Jr. said that Gen. Colin Powell was only backing and voting for Obama because they were both black to be the low point for the GOP. And yes, that was an incredibly low point. For Sununu not only said that Powell was voting for Obama because of race, he was proud that the general had used race as the reason for his vote. So with one swing he said the Obama had no reason for people to vote for him except for race, called Powell a racist who only cares about race, but gives his backing for white racists to vote for Romney. After all, if it's okay for blacks to vote for Obama just because he's black, then it must be okay for whites to vote for Romney because he's white, right? Thought that was as low as the GOP could ever go? Think again. And Romney didn't need a spokesperson for this one.
Speaking in Ohio, Romney stated that Jeep was planning to move all their productions from Ohio to China. This can't be true, can it? No, absolutely it's not! But a right-wing blogger read that Jeep was looking into building Jeeps for China in China and wrote that Jeep was stopping production in North America. A Romney staffer read it (I take it Mitt didn't read it himself) and added it to a speech. And so Romney out and out lied about Ohioans losing jobs to China. Jeep later sent out press release explaining their stance, but think the people at that rally will hear about that or Romney will make a correction?
Every day, I hear something from the GOP in their statements to the American people which is racist, a distortion, or an out-and-out lie and I hope that's as low as this group of GOP people can go. But every day, they find a new way to go even lower. Just how low can the GOP go?    

Romney/Ryan decide to take the air out of ball, so to speak

Today the Romney/Ryan campaign let reporters know that there would be no more interviews until after the election. And Paul Ryan bowed out of a town hall conference call tonight in which questions would be screened beforehand. So, has the campaign really taken the air out of the ball, started running out the clock, take a knee (Use any sports analogy you like) with 12 days to go to the election? They won't talk about Mourdock and the rape comment? They won't talk about the court case against Mitt Romney and Bain? They'll just go from campaign stop to campaign stop giving their speeches and not answering questions? Fine. But if anything happens in the world that might show a problem for America or even when the job numbers for October next Friday comes out, don't go out and try to talk to reporters. If you won't answer their questions when they want to talk to you, don't talk to them when you want to say something. Say something on Wednesday, the 7th of November. Or better yet, give a concession speech on the night of the 6th. If you can't stand the heat of the reporters question now, you have no right to sit in the White House later.  

Correction to the Romney ad

Unlike the GOP, when I make a mistake, I'll be glad to correct it. So the Romney ad that said the Romney was backing Mourdock came out on Monday, the day before the Indiana Senatorial debate, and not Wednesday, the day after, as I thought and wrote about earlier. But the ad hasn't been taken off the air, and Romney hasn't taken back his endorsement. As a matter of fact, he said nothing about Mourdock's comment on rape and abortion, but instead, had a spokesperson say that Romney didn't agree with Mourdock's views. Yeah, that's quite a backbone you have there, Mitt.

Romney splits the difference and takes both sides-again!

Tuesday night in an Indiana Senator debate, GOP candidate Richard Mourdock stated that the only exemption that he would accept for an abortion was the life of the mother. So this would mean that rape or incest would not be an acceptable reason for an abortion any time after conception. This was quickly countered by Mitt Romney, who said that Mr. Mourdock's view wasn't his view and wasn't a plan for his his administration. But then the very next day, Wednesday, ads went up in Indiana with Romney saying that Richard Mourdock needed to be elected, and giving him Romney's full support. Now, I can think of dozens of policies that Romney has changed on, most in the last four weeks. But I can't think of any candidate that in one day he or she has tried to placate both sides of an issue. I find this to be completely unacceptable and it gives me another reason to not vote for Romney. But this also begs the question that I wanted Romney to answer on TV: What part of the 2012 GOP platform if you were President would you veto, if any. I believe that although Romney may not agree with all the far right ideas of the GOP now, it would show that he doesn't have strong enough beliefs to go against the GOP in any way. And that is completely unacceptable to me.  

Romney's mis-statements made Obama the winner

While the president missed several opportunities to point out several errors the Governor Romney made, mistakes that could have sealed the deal for President Obama, the third presidential debate was still won by President Obama.
Within the first half hour, it became obvious that when it got down to the gist of the actions, Romney has either been lying to the GOP base and is in lock-step with the president in most foreign policies or he lied Tuesday night about his stance on Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and even Iran. So I'm sure there will be a lot of spin today and probably for the next few days by the GOP as they try to get Romney back to his old position of no timeline in Afghanistan, a no-fly zone in Syria, and allowing Israel to attack Iran in an attempt to truly cripple their nuclear military capabilities. But if that's because Romney really doesn't care much about foreign policies, which is a definite possibility since he's basically a business man, that's very scary due to the advisers he has working for him. And this is one of two very easy opportunities that President Obama missed.
The first was when Romney talked about the Obama Middle East tour, one that Romney is calling "The Apology Tour." Imagine if the president had told the truth and said, "Governor Romney, during the Bush years, it was thought by many in the Arab world and some here at home that the U.S. was at war with Islam, and I wanted to assure them and all the American people that wasn't the policy of the government. But Governor Romney, with 17 of your 24 advisers being part of the Bush Administration, how would you assure them, and why should we think your policies would be different from the former president's policies?" It would have been a devastating blow.
The other point was a very simple point that Romney made that Obama may not have had a chance to question, but Romney did say that a 5% cut in all domestic spending was his way of balancing the budget. But later Romney said that education and Research and Development (R&D) needed to be strengthened. So does education and R&D need more money or not?
But even with these missed opportunities, Romney seemed unsure about where he stood on many areas, or at least there wasn't any difference between his position and Obama's. He lied about his position on the auto-bailout, which the president pointed out. And because Romney never seemed comfortable, or really didn't want to talk about foreign policies, it gave President Obama a fairly easy win.