Mitt Romney for President -- Part Something plus One

This was the only part of the debate that I heard live, driving home from work. I was so beside myself that I was afraid I'd drive off a bridge by accident so I turned off the debate in favor of Social Distortion.

 

Even the ones with only a couple of brain cells will realize that he completely failed to address the equal pay question that he was asked.

And the reason he didn't answer it is because he can't. He can't explicitly say out loud "the government has no business telling companies they have to pay women the same wage that they pay men in the same job." He believes it - we all know he believes it - but even he isn't stupid enough to say it out loud in during a nationally televised debate.

 

It's funny to see the yellow line (women) go up and down when Romney speaks. It started going up when he talked about how he went out and recruited qualified women for his cabinet positions, and levelled off when he started talking about being home to cook dinner for the kids, and then started to plummet when he went to his go-to mantra of how bad things are in the past 4 years.

That whole recruiting qualified women thing would be great if it were true, but it isn't. A nonpartisan group researched and compiled a several "binders" full of women who might be suitable for cabinet positions before they even knew who was going to be governor. They submitted it to him, he certainly didn't seek them out.

His administration had a few women in key positions, but the most important were run by men. And after he left office, the number of women in key positions actually increased.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

Great article.

 

You must not have watched MSNBC's post debate coverage where they went to their group of 8 undecided Ohio voters, 4 men and 4 women. After the debate one white man (voted for Obama in '08) said it confirmed him for Obama, and another white man (voted for Obama in '08) said it confirmed him for Romney. Another white man (voted for Obama in '08) said he was leaning toward Romney and would probably vote for him, and the only black young woman (too young to vote in '08) said she was leaning and would probably vote for Obama, stating that social issues are more important to her. The three old white women in the group all said they liked Romney's track record in MA on the economy and hiring women and so they were leaning towards him. When Chris Matthews asked the women their opinion that Romney didn't actually answer the question and say he supports equal pay for equal work, their responses were essentially, "oh, well I don't like that he didn't answer that and will have to think about that, but I'm still leaning toward him." It just came across like they were oblivious to Romney's avoidance of answering the question. It makes me wonder what ads Romney has running in Ohio.

 

I saw that and was completely mystified by it. Although, if you are still undecided at this point, you are pretty much by definition a moron, so nothing should really surprise me.

 

I wish the small business owners who think that Mitt understands what they deal with would read that.

Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

That is the modus operandi of the leveraged-buyout business, and in an honest free-market economy, there wouldn’t be much scope for it because it creates little of economic value. But we have a rigged system—a regime of crony capitalism—where the tax code heavily favors debt and capital gains, and the central bank purposefully enables rampant speculation by propping up the price of financial assets and battering down the cost of leveraged finance.​

​

 

What is it with Mitt and Vertebrate Class Aves? Yeah.... I didn't like the oil question when Romney dismissed the oil production and it stopped “for a coupla birds.”

This sent my friends abuzz on Facebook. Considering the Migratory Bird Act AND the Endangered Species Act if the birds are endangered, which considering they stopped the production/development of a natural resource, is probably what happened. You can't go in there and steamroll away. You get caught and you are fcuked. I know people who have been prosecuted for knocking down bald eagle nests. And if you are the federal government, you have to comply. You can get sued by any NGO or State DNR or even another part of the Federal govt.

Add in any international act like the (Convention of Migratory Species) can stop the development of an undeveloped area if that resource is important to international , what Romney said was BS. He just doesn't know. Unless he wants to ignore treaties that we have already signed.

Fact checking myself. Greater Prairie Chicken is listed as endangered, while the Lesser Prairie Chicken is listed as candidate for endangered.

 

Color me shocked

Romney’s Proposal to Cap Deductions Would Not Pay for His Tax Cuts

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...deductions-would-not-pay-for-his-tax-cuts/?hp

 

Question for Ismitje related to raza_rebel's post above: Is there any generalized stance or teaching that the Mormon Church takes on the Earth and, by extension, to the environmental movement? Not that Romney's stance on these kinds of issues would necessarily be defined entirely by such teachings, but I'd think they'd inform his general worldview and thus policies in some way.

 

What's even worse for RMoney is that he lied about this. A women's group in MA that was making it known how women weren't represented well in the MA government put together a list of qualified women and it wasn't because RMoney asked them to.

It was presented to the state government to make a point.

 

Worker abuse is still rampant in low skill labor intensive non unionized jobs. People work long physical hours in heat and cold with bosses that rarely grant breaks. These bosses have control over timesheets and will skimp hours. They try anything to get out of paying overtime even when it's earned. They will make people stay late without warning with no regard to private lives, and when there's no work they make you stay at home with no warning. You can have anywhere from 0 hours to 60 hours without warning so workers never know where their next meal comes from. These bosses don't invest in safety training and will provide the bare minimum in safety equipment (sometimes even less than the minimum).

If a worker doesn't like it they can quit and they just find another desperate poverty stricken person to come in. These people are why we still need unions in the US. Most people don't know what it feels to work with your body. It literally takes years off your life.

The contrast with union manual laborers is unbelievable. The union guys have their basic human dignity protected.

 

Do you people read your own press clippings?

 

Whatever gets you through the night.

 

Obama is writing off Florida, NC, VA, and Colorado. Giddy up!

 

Ahhh, today's talking point. Can you show me the news article showing him pulling ads out of those states, removing field organizers and other campaign staff, and cutting rallies in those states?

Gosh darn you're flawed (take that, censoring supermods!)

 

Want to make a pre-election bet... Obama doesn't win any of these states?

 

If Obama loses Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida, I will not post on P&CE for thirty days. If he wins even one state, you don't post on P&CE for thirty days. This is not the first bet I have offered that you have declined, so I won't be surprised when you ignore this one, too.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

Given Obama's lead in Virginia and his +.7% deficit in Colorado before PPP and YouGov polls are added in...we'll miss you.

 

Rasmussen who leans right only has Obama by 4 on 10/11 in Florida. Almost within the margin of error.
Rasmussen also only has Obama down by 3 pts. in North Carolina on 10/9, well within the margin of error.

We're talking about right leaning Rasmussen here.. And these polls were taken before Biden's effect on the Democratic base could be measured.

In fact the only polls I can find post Biden debate in those 3 states are a We Ask America poll in Colorado on 10/15 that has Romney up by 1 pt. Then a Public Policy Poll in Florida that has Romney up by 1 on 10/14. And also a Public Policy poll that has Romney up by 2 in NC on 10/14.

Basically all three states lean slightly Romney but still very much within the margin of error. I think the President would like to see what effect his latest debate had on the polls before he writes any of those states off.

If 1, 2, 3 point margins suddenly mean writing states off, then Romney should consider writing Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin off too.

 

The President needs to hit harder here. The President is vulnerable on the charge that he doesn't have a plan for the next 4 years, because ... he doesn't. Not really. But Romney's plan is even worse, in that Romney is committed to something (tax cuts) that CAN NOT work. The math never works under any reasonable assumptions.

And the Pres needs to beat the Governor over the head with that, again and again and again. It's a deficit-ballooning, W style fail.

 

I disagree. I think both of them have pretty detailed plans for the next four years but neither is willing to divulge because their plans involve doing things that the public doesn't want to hear. So what we are left with, in my view anyway, is do we trust Obama to change course and do what is necessary to get the economy running or do we trust Romney to come in with new ideas?

 

Well, you could be right about that.

 

If by change the course you mean getting the Congress to somehow lift their blockade and by new ideas you mean doing the same things W did but more aggressively, then we agree.