Romney’s New TV Ad Tries to Etch-a-Sketch Him to Pro-Choice, but It’s Not True
More lies and “Etch-a-Sketches” from Willard, as he continues to say anything, however false, to try and get elected.
Video: NBC29 Story on Trashed VA Voter Registration Forms in Harrisonburg
I’m not sure what to make of this story, which I first saw on NLS this morning, and which has now been picked up by NBC29. As they ask in their story:
Is it a case of election fraud, voter suppression, or something far less sinister? That’s what Rockingham County investigators are trying to find out, after someone trashed a folder of voter registration forms.
Got me, but meanwhile the story has gone viral, now #2 at Reddit. Fascinating.
P.S. Ryan Nobles tweets: “No arrest expected today in the Harrisonburg Voter Reg disposal controversy. Sheriff tells @NBC29KenSlack they’re still investigating.” Also, NLS notes that the sheriff, Bryan F. Hutcheson, is a Republican…
P.P.S. Check out photos of the George Allen fundraiser for Sheriff Hutcheson. I’ve got more photos in the comments section of this diary.
UPDATE 7:03 pm: According to NLS: “Sources close to the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office are telling me that Strategic Allied Consulting is involved in this. This is the same group that was in the national news two weeks ago for their “registration” drive in Florida that had forms with made up voters.” Uh oh.
Calculating Responsibility for the National Debt
( – promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)
(Note: This is a cross-post by me from BlueNC.com)
So much has been said about the national debt in recent years, especially during the current presidential campaign. With persistent misrepresentation, the Romney campaign likes to assign responsibility for the debt to the Obama administration. And most of the broadcast media-the single-most failed institution in America along with its greedy and reckless financial system-says little to clarify matters, help citizens sort out the facts, and hold the Romney campaign to account.
If responsibility is to be assigned for the national debt, there is a dishonest method and an honest method of doing so. This is the message from Barry Ritholtz writing for Economonitor–an economics project of Nouriel Roubini, one of the few economists along with Ritholtz to predict the sub-prime mortgage and derivative investment crises. Ritholtz published in 2009-10 Bailout Nation, which won the First Amendment Award for Outstanding Journalism, and he authors the highly acclaimed Big Picture-a leading financial weblog.
As Ritholtz points out, the dishonest method of calculating presidential responsibility for the national debt involves mistaking a president’s calendar years in office, which run from late January of the first year to early January of the four-year term, for the federal government’s fiscal years, which run annually from October 1 to September 30. The only honest way to calculate each president’s contribution to the national debt is by examining the budgets he (or hopefully someday she) presents to Congress, which may change a budget but which rarely appropriates more than a president requests.
For example, although George W. Bush was first sworn into office on January 20, 2001, the budget for most of the rest of that year was Bill Clinton’s, passed by the prior Congress. Similarly, although Barack Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, the budget for most of that year was George W. Bush’s. Thus, Bush II’s first budget did not go into effect until October 1, 2001; and Obama’s first budget did not go into effect until October 1, 2009.
As Ritholtz points out further, when the data are examined in terms of the fiscal years and actual budgets of presidents, the factual results of calculating and differentiating Bush II’s and Obama’s contributions to the national debt are the following:
• 10/1/2001-the deficit at the start of Bush’s first budget was $5.8 trillion.
• 9/30/2009-the deficit at the end of Bush’s last budget was $11.9 trillion.
• Bush’s contribution to the national debt was $6.1 trillion.
• 10/1/2009-the deficit at the start of Obama’s first budget was $11.9 trillion.
• 9/30/2011-the deficit at the end of Obama’s subsequent budget was $14.8 trillion.
• Obama’s contribution to the national debt as of 9/30/2011 was $2.9 trillion.
• As percentages of the $14.8 trillion debt on September 30, 2011, Bush II’s budgets constituted 41.2% whereas Obama constituted 19.6%.
Granted, President Bush inherited the dot.com mess and the conditions for a small recession that began a month after he took office. But he also inherited a surplus, which his policies deliberately sought to undo. In sharp contrast, Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. By every measure, his policies brought our country out of a deep recession, created over five million jobs, passed healthcare and financial reform, advanced the rights of women, ended one war, and is extricating the U.S. from another. Pretty darn good in the face of complete opposition from the GOP, whose leader in the Senate (Mitch McConnell) set as his party’s primary goal not to grow jobs or the economy but instead to make Obama “a one-term president.”
As for the problem of indebtedness, Mitt Romney’s many years of practice at Bain Capital indebting companies, often to the point of bankruptcy, do not inspire confidence. Neither his nor Obama’s nor anyone else’s policies will solve the problem any time soon. But for sure, the solution will necessitate a balanced approach of cutting federal spending and raising taxes on those who have benefitted most from the excessive and reckless financialization of our economy.
Video: President Obama Correctly Points Out Economy is Coming Back
Also see Housing starts surge in positive sign for economy and Unemployment, underemployment lowest since Gallup began tracking. Given all the good signs in the economy, I agree 100% that Obama should make strong case that economy is recovering. As should the rest of us. We’ll let Republicans keep bad mouthing it, since they’re so good at that.
ENOUGH!!
The stone-walling by the all-Republican Loudoun County board of supervisors simply must stop. In a one-party government, the need for full disclosure and transparency could not be more acute.
Several of us who feel that way have taken action.
It is called the Real Advocate Political Action Committee.
Your participation is welcomed there.
Video: New Douglass Ad Hits Hurt on Uranium Mining
To help keep this ad on the air, click here. Thanks.
Obama Campaign Statement: “Women Are on to Mitt Romney”
STATEMENT: Women Are on to Mitt Romney
Chicago, IL—Obama for America spokeswoman Lis Smith released the following statement in response to Mitt Romney’s new ad, “Sarah”:
“Women are on to Mitt Romney. That’s why he’s trying so hard to spin away the truth about his extreme positions, like during last night’s debate when he dishonestly claimed that he doesn’t ‘believe employers should tell someone whether they could contraceptive care or not.’ These are the facts: he’d put women’s health care decisions in the hands of their employers, has said he’d be ‘delighted’ to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade‘one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,’ while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can’t trust him to stand up for them.”
ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE BLUNT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANY EMPLOYER TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE – PUTTING AT RISK THE NEARLY 79 MILLION WOMEN WHO RELY ON THEIR EMPLOYER FOR HEALTH CARE
Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit–So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.” “And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover any medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit–so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack. The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed) was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin–51 to 48–with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]
· Romney: “Of Course I Support The Blunt Amendment.” CARR: “Listen I got to ask you here about – there’s a – the a, Washington Post has a got a blog out here saying that Jim Heath, a reporter for a TV station in Ohio, just tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable. What happened here?” ROMNEY: “I didn’t understand his question – of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception, so I was simply – I misunderstood the question, and of course I support the Blunt amendment. … Of course, Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support and of course I support that amendment. I clearly want to have religious exemption from Obamacare.” [Howie Carr Radio, 2/29/12]
The Blunt And Rubio Amendments Would Allow Insurers And Employers To Deny Coverage For Birth Control Simply On The Grounds That They Find It Morally Objectionable. “Some time around the end of February, the Senate will vote on the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which would allow insurers and employers to deny coverage for birth control or any other medical services simply on the grounds that they find them morally objectionable.” [Sargent, Washington Post, 2/15/12]
· The Blunt Amendment Would Exempt Employers From Providing Health Benefits That Conflicted With Their “Beliefs Or Moral Convictions.” “The amendment addressing contraception, sponsored by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, would exempt employers from providing health benefits that conflicted with their ‘beliefs or moral convictions.’” [CBS News, 2/15/12]
Nearly 79 Million Women Received Health Care Coverage Through Their Employer. According to the most recent census data, 78.8 million women under the age of 65 received health insurance coverage from their employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011]
ROMNEY BACKED A PROPOSAL TO OUTLAW ALL ABORTIONS
Romney Said He Would Be “Delighted” To Sign A Bill Banning “All Abortions.” QUESTIONER: “Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?” COOPER: “Governor Romney?” ROMNEY: “I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.” COOPER: “The question is: Would you sign that bill?” ROMNEY: “Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.” [CNN Debate, 11/28/07]
· 2012: Romney Said He “Had The Same Positions Today” As “When I Ran For President Last Time, So What You See Is What You Get.” Romney: “In terms of my positions, my conservative positions were seen in my work as governor. I wrote a book that describes my view for the country. I’ve run for president before. Had the same positions today that I had when I was governor, when I wrote the book and when I ran for president last time, so what you see is what you get.” [Tommy Tucker Show, WWL (New Orleans, LA), 3/23/12]
ROMNEY CALLED ROE V. WADE “BAD LAW” AND “ONE OF THE DARKEST MOMENTS IN SUPREME COURT HISTORY”
Romney: “I Support The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade Because It Is Bad Law And Bad Medicine.” Romney wrote an op-ed titled “My Pro-Life Pledge” vowing to be pro-life but noting that he would not sign the Susan B. Anthony ‘s Pledge: “I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine.” [Mitt Romney, National Review Online, 6/18/11]
Romney: Roe V. Wade Decision Was “One Of The Darkest Moments In Supreme Court History” As “More Than A Million Abortions A Year Cannot Be Squared With The Good Heart Of America.” Romney statement: “Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.” [Romney For President, 1/22/12]
ROMNEY WOULD APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE
Romney Said He Would Appoint Supreme Court Justice Who Would “Hopefully Reverse Roe V. Wade.” Romney: “I’m in favor of a pro-life policy. The legislation that relates to abortion which is something that is going to have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the key decisions I’ll take as the president will be number one, stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, re-instituting the Mexico City policy which says our funds can’t be used for abortion around the world and appointing justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade, and return to the states, the authority for making law with regards to abortion.” [WNWO (Toledo, OH), 2/29/12]
Mittworld: Let Me Out of Here #bindersfullofwomen
(Update (hat-tip to Ingrid): It turns out that the #bindersfullofwomen lie was a bigger one than I thought when I wrote this diary. Check out this link).
Snake Oil Mitt had a message for women last night and it was that he thinks we cannot see through his stated plans to take us back more than a half a century. He doesn’t support the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act, but he had #bindersfullofwomen. He wants to take away birth control, but he had #bindersfullofwomen. He has moved the the extreme “right” (really the wrong) on the invasion of women’s private lives, but gives us #bindersfullofwomen as a pander. By supporting efforts to reduce and eliminate contraception and use ineffective abstinence-only approaches to birth control, Snake Oil Mitt will push more teens into pregnancy, but he offers us #bindersfullofwomen. Do you see the dripping snake oil?
I was talking to a woman who is a registered Republican this morning and she was livid at Mitt Romney’s reference to #bindersfullofwomen. If ever there were an empty, insulting and insufferable pander to women, that was it, we agreed. Aside from providing an inadvertent, stunningly insincere moment, Mitt gave the impression he had to have his staff search far and wide. Of course, no such great adventure was necessary for men. And then, as he represented the so-called anecdote, Snake Oil Mitt portrays women as two dimensional.
Talk about not ringing true! Indeed as the Boston Globe showed, Mitt did not have an exemplary hiring record at Bain Capitol or its related groups.
Romney, however, did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions in the private sector. Romney did not have any women partners as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s.The venture capital and private equity fields were male-dominated, to be sure, especially during Romney’s time. Women started to break into the upper echelons of the firm after it started a hedge fund, called Brookside in 1996.
Today, 4 of out of 49 of the firm’s managing directors in the buyout area are women.
There’s more below the fold…
His duplicity on the subject is made worse by the fact that was unapologetic about embracing his Neanderthal Party’s abusive legislation to rein in the private lives and choices of women.
While a candidate’s religion is not a disqualifier from the presidency, it is discomforting that he served as a bishop in one of the most hierarchical churches on earth, whose attitudes and treatment of women wereand are far from exemplary. As such a church leader, Mitt was part of the problem. And his archaic views of women apparently are manifest in the fact that he he will let his out-of-control veep candidate bring forth the most draconian, anti-women, anti-middle-class budget in the history of the US. The “let them eat cake” plutocrat and his sniveling “Kid Serious” plans cuts which would decimate nearly all domestic programs. Mitt is lying each and every time he says otherwise. He supports the Ryan plan and the Ryan plan is a matter of record. Thank God for the Democrats who killed the Ryan budget, or we would be in economic hell right now.
The president was right that women would be especially hurt by the Ryan budget, which Mitt supports. There is no question which candidate supports women as real people, with real issues and real families. And it is not Snake Oil Mitt Romney and his plastered on, unnatural smile. It’s not Snake Oil Mitt with the jerky robotic responses-all showing a discomfort which gives hims lack of candor away. And it is not Snake Oil Mitt with the conscience (or lack thereof) which will lie himself into tomorrow, lying even more than he did in the last debate. More on that in an upcoming diary.
Douglass Needs To Explain
In a previous post, I read with interest comments attributed to Air Force Brigadier General Douglass regarding his “preparing and sending soldiers into harms way” and “how difficult it was to tell those young 18- and 19-year old soldiers to “lock and load,” and “son, get out there on point,” knowing they might not return because they could be harmed.
As a retired combat Marine who served as a company commander in Viet Nam, I relate to those comments and certainly respect anyone who has been in that position of responsibility. Knowing that Douglass (or at least his staff) is a regular contributor to Blue Virginia, I respectfully request that Douglass clarify his comments.
BGen. Douglass’s official Air Force bio, his AIA bio as well as Wikipedia and his campaign bio all fail to mention any combat experience. In fact, the closest to a combat theatre was his 1967 assignment to Mactan Air Force Base in the Philippines as a base procurement officer – a non-combat supply officer assignment. Additionally, Douglass’s personal decorations do not include any Viet Nam individual or service awards.
Douglass’s comments of “lock and load,” and “son, get out there on point” make for good reading but are not normally attributed to Air Force supply officers who have not served in combat billets. Wikipedia lists under the battles/wars section, both the Viet Nam and Gulf wars. Perhaps Douglass could explain his participation in those two wars especially since during the Viet Nam war he was either in the Philippines, in schools or in the continental United States. During the Gulf war he was in Brussels.
His AIA bio states: “While on active duty he was assigned as a contracting officer, an engineering officer, a test and evaluation officer, a program control officer and a research director.” None were combat assignments. BGen. Douglass has had a distinguished career both as an Air Force procurement officer and as a civilian. However, he is not the “warrior” that he would like us to believe. Perhaps Douglass could explain…
Douglass is a much more attractive candidate than Robert Hurt and I certainly am not a member of the “Swift Boat” crowd; however, I am troubled by Douglass’s wrapping himself in the uniform and giving us the impression that he is something that he is not. With his exceptional resume’ and his obvious desire to continue service to Virginia and our country, I sincerely hope that he is successful in November and hope that he will drop this unfortunate need to present himself as the “warrior” that he is not.
RPS Wars: The Empire Nips Back
( – promoted by lowkell)
For much of the past year, critics have been assailing Dominion Power for its “$76 million rip-off”: a bonus the company claimed for meeting Virginia’s renewable energy goals using old dams, trash and wood, much of it out of state. Environmental groups say Dominion should get a bonus only if the company invests in new wind and solar projects in Virginia. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says utilities shouldn’t get bonuses for renewable energy at all.
This month the company finally piped up, appearing to deny all charges. Ratepayers haven’t had to pay anything, said the carefully-worded response to a media inquiry. Base rates are frozen until December 1, 2013, and its compliance with the renewable energy goal will “be only one of a large number of factors that affect the SCC setting our rates going forward.”
Reporters were left scratching their heads. A year ago the State Corporation Commission, which regulates Virginia utilities, determined that the company has “earned” the $76 million bonus by meeting the absurdly lax terms of the state’s renewable energy law. (See SCC case PUE-2011-00027.) So if customers aren’t paying, how is Dominion collecting?
But of course, customers are paying, and you can bet Dominion intends to get every dime. To understand how this can happen, imagine that you hire a contractor for a long-term project. You agree to pay her a set amount every month. Out of your payments, the contractor will take her expenses and profit, and when she meets a particular goal, she can take out a bonus as well. At the end of two years, you will recalculate your monthly payments to ensure the contractor recoups anything still owed to her, as well as to cover what she is entitled to going forward-expenses, profit and bonuses-and the work will continue.
This is roughly how electric rates are determined in Virginia (although utility customers’ payments also depend on how much electricity they use). Regulators set the rates, and Dominion takes its expenses and profit, including any bonus, out of the payments it receives from customers. If there is money left over at the end of the rate period, Dominion has to refund 60 percent of the excess to ratepayers. (Why doesn’t the company have to refund the entire overcharge, you ask? Sorry, that’s a different rip-off, and I can handle only one at a time.)
On the other hand, if the rates don’t bring in enough revenue to cover expenses and profit, they will be reset at a higher level for the next rate period. One way or another, the utility get its money.
So Dominion’s lawyerly response to critics turns out to be both correct, and irrelevant. Utility rates are currently frozen, but that tells us nothing about whether the company is collecting its bonus. And if Dominion does not collect the full $76 million before the end of 2013, it will be one of the “factors that affect the SCC setting our rates going forward.” That is, rates will be set to ensure Dominion collects the full amount.
Sorry, ratepayers. The rip-off continues.
