The Pondering Gulch: From Hat to Boot

From Hat to Boot

Fearing Something/Feeling Nothing:

As I begin to write here, the first of three presidential debates begins in just a few hours. As the political winds are drifting away from Romney, they are still carrying his deceiving smell. Just hope that Obama doesn’t get caught up and mired in the stench during the debate.

Inside the Republican beltway, even perhaps within the Romney/Ryan campaign, they indeed do feel their grip slipping away. Leaks to media, whether intentional or not is portraying Romney as poised to reverse Obama’s momentum by slinging out memorized ‘zingers.’ Ya know, like Reagan’s folksy mannerism did to Carter during the 1980 presidential run when he first said the, “There ya go again” comment. That four worded phrase worked well for Reagan that he used it numerous times more that resonated so well with Republican politicians that they’ve even incorporated it into their campaign speeches up to the present.

Fair enough, but this time around in grasping for zingers instead of truth and specifics, I predict now that the general public is not going to be sucked into a memorized ‘zinger.’ Of course the ‘zinger’ route will have to wait a few more hours to detail whether they appeal or appall the viewing and listening public audience. To be effective, zingers have to be led into and cannot come from out of the blue to impact. Clever phrases have to be spontaneous, not rehearsed…and yes they’re best effect is flung from a folksy character and that for sure, Romney’s personality does not possess. Even so, with Reagan’s success in the usage of his phrase, he had major help when George Will stole a copy of Carter’s debate material and handed it over to Reagan’s campaign to not only assume what he might say in timing countering zingers, but knew what he was actually going to say. If Obama sticks to facts, the zingers will be ineffective. Mitt will be getting his moment, we’ll soon see.

With the ineptness of Romney/Ryan stump speeches in not sticking to specifics or lack of detail in their ever so bold statements, suggests to me that the public at large won’t be that convincingly amused in changing the direction of the voting momentum even towards the Republicans’ favor, much less for Romney.

Romney’s incessant barrage of flip-flops, even within an hour or two has exasperated Republicans and flabbergasted the rest. Romney’s constant about faces, along with Ryan’s disingenuous input are making the two appear as unauthentic distancing conservatives who are now becoming mitt-mute.

For instance, on 09/19/2012 Romney was making a speech to a group of elderlies at a retirement community and in it, he referred that he took it as a compliment that Obama had called him the ‘grandfather of Obamacare’ due to the fact that Obamacare is based on Romney’s own institution of a healthcare plan for all in the state of Massachusetts. He made sure that his older audience knew that he signed the healthcare bill into law in 2006 when he was governor of the state. Immediately, he leaves the retirees and within an hour begins speaking at Univision’s ‘Meet the Candidate.’ There, in thinking he has a more conservative audience after he insisted that he be allowed to bus in his own audience, commences an about face in bashing Obamacare.

Since the Supreme Court deemed the Affordable Care Act wholly legal, this rather abrupt change of Romney’s adamant statement in repealing the whole of Obamacare from day one if he enters the office of the presidency to keeping main components of the new law, only adds to the chagrin of his conservative base.

Among many Republican complaints, Erick Erickson, a CNN conservative contributor tweeted, “This might just be the moment Romney lost the election.”

In March 2010, when asked on MSNBCs ‘Morning Joe’ whether he believes in universal health coverage, Romney emphasized, “Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way.”

The above statement was actually a bolster to his 2007 statement when he considered emergency room (ER) care socialistic. On the Glenn Beck show he stated, “When they show up at the hospital, they get care. They get free care paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is.”

On ‘Sixty Minutes’ interviewed by Scott Pelley that aired just this past August, Romney totally contradicts himself when he touts the ER as an effective and legitimate care. When asked by Pelley if the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare to the fifty million uninsured, Romney replies, “Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance....If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care.”

More than his contradiction, what I don’t particularly like about Romney’s above statement is the more vivid glimpses he portrays in being so distanced and out of touch with mainstream America. It has to do with his choice of word “apartment.”

For his so-called 47%, he describes them as incapable of home ownership. He could have described the home part as a house in being owned by the heart attack victim, but no it had to be an apartment suggesting non ownership.

Romney, a few days earlier on September 14^th, attacked Obama’s policies with China and accused the communist country of unfair trade while being a currency manipulator. This riled Chinese leaders and on China’s official news agency, Xinhua stated that pushing up the value of the country’s currency would not do anything “to magically turn the poor U.S. economic performance around.” It also pointed out that a share of Romney’s accrued wealth was actually obtained from doing business in China.

These items, along with the 47% speech, the Libyan knee-jerk reaction and immigration turnabout stances are truly frustrating conservatives.

Allergic to the Truth:

The point is that Republicans, who view and analyze polls as much as anyone else, are feeling a slip with the contest drifting away. So much so that they are now questioning the legitimacy of the polls while using Dick Morris, a Republican political consultant as their soundboard in denigrating poll results.

Morris insists the media is covering up huge Romney leads and proclaims Romney is actually ahead in key states due to his claim that undecided voters go against the incumbent. In other words, 100% of the current voters still undecided at this stage will go to Romney in Morris’ diluted thinking. Why there are still voters undecided I have no idea, but Romney is not going to win every one of their votes on a Morris premise.

If that’s not bad enough, Florida Republican Congressman, Allen West didn’t like the way the polls were showing him slightly behind or tied with Democratic challenger, Patrick Murphy. So he decided to hire his own Republican polling firm ran by consultant Gene Ulm. Ulm accommodated West by coming up with a polling result showing West leading Murphy by a 51 to 44 percentage margin. Also, Ulm gave a statewide Florida lead to Romney by a 7 point margin, while all other professional polls show Obama slightly leading Romney. Ulm released no actual internal poll documents; only memos describing them. So, I guess the Republican mentality is if you don’t like the accepted polling results, then why not go ahead and just make-up your own.

In all sincerity, average Republicans ought to be downright ashamed of their party. In speaking of polling voters, this Republican voter purging in GOP controlled states is simply disgusting to the senses, along with attempting to rush it to judgment for this election cycle. Then they hide behind a pretentious excuse that it is to ensure that there is no voter fraud in our elections when they cannot come up with one instance of instigated voter fraud. The minimum costs for these red states in pursuing all this purging nonsense has cost each state a minimum of over $10 million to thrust into law and implement.

In addition to purging possible Democrat voters, these red states have also, in Wisconsin shut down DMV centers, where one registers to vote, in Democrat districts only to reopen them in Republican districts. In Ohio, attempts to do away with early voting (a traditional time that minorities vote) by Republicans were thwarted, so the GOPs new tactic is to limit early voting hours in Democrat leaning counties, while expanding Republican and wealthy leaning counties’ voting hours to week nights and even into weekends. Of course Texas would accept NRA ID cards while refusing state issued college IDs.

As verified by former Florida GOP chair, Jim Greer, the Florida Republican controlled government was having secret meetings in trying to find ways in hampering Democrat votes through purging and setting up police roadblocks one mile from majority minority voting booths. In their so-called noncitizen purge, if someone’s real name was William in a Democrat district, but signed off as Bill on his registration, he was purged from the voter rolls. No inquiries conducted or questions asked.

Now for the crux to all this: While the Republican National Committee (RNC) is obliging voter purges on one end, they hired Strategic Allied Consulting, run by Nathan Sproul who is a longtime GOP consultant, on the other end to register Republican voters in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia. The Romney campaign also hired Sproul’s other company, Lincoln Strategy Group for field consulting in gathering signatures to support the Romney campaign.

Now ya see, Sproul has a shady past. In the 2004 elections he was caught tampering with Democrat voter registration forms and voter fraud across multiple states. Both the RNC and the Romney campaign hired him knowing full well of his past baggage. Sproul is currently under investigation in Florida for voter fraud in twelve counties for the work he was doing for the RNC.

Filled out registration forms turned into election officials by Sproul’s company had a slew of blatant problems from forged signatures, false addresses, wrong social security numbers, registered dead folks and even turned in addresses that were gas stations.

Since Sproul has been caught, both the RNC and Romney campaign have cancelled his services and cut and run distancing themselves from him. The shame of it all here, none of the GOP new voter ID laws cannot and would not have caught this egregious voter fraud, for the new ID laws are only affecting and impacting democrat leaning regions or voters.

Well, I suppose if ya can’t win honestly, then cheat if you must.

Score:

Anyone who watched the debate last night, I think we all agree when it comes to performance, impression, conciseness and delivery…Romney trounced Obama. One was excited, the other looked tired. One was enthused, the other looked like he didn’t want to be there. Obama’s low keyed performance was so contrasting to Romney’s upbeat demeanor that it appeared bizarre and I’m sure creating some anxiety in Obama’s supporters.

I’ve played around with the Rocky Balboa strategy that Obama first takes a pounding, but once the opponent has shot off all his big guns and out of ammo, then in the final rounds (the last two debates) Obama comes roaring back with a surge of strength in who he really is. It is fun to play with, but I don’t think this is the case. When momentum is on your sails’ wind, you don’t change the set-up in midstream; you keep to the wind.

As far as performance and delivery Romney wins soundly. As far as his stellar performance in delivering factual comment, he loses miserably. Romney was all rhetoric with baseless statements. In other words, his grand performance proves that he is a master in delivering lies with literally many tongue swipes.

In virtually every topic discussed, Romney flat out lied. I’ve counted thirty-one with twelve as blatant and the rest as misconstrued or misleading distortions. From his deceiving remarks of “Obamacare is a job killer,” and “twenty million Americans will lose their insurance,” to “you never balance the budget by raising taxes,” Romney misspoke to the American audience. His persistence even carried into the debate in insisting Democrat Senator Ron Wyden coauthored Ryan’s budget bill in attempts to make it appear as bipartisan. Wyden adamantly denies this while even voting against the bill when it reached the senate floor.

I’m going to list five of Romney’s outright lies from the thirty-one counted, but first to be fair, Obama stretched the truth three times and following, I’ll list one.

Obama: [Insurance companies] “are required to provide free preventive care like checkups and mammograms, a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.”

Obama is basing this information on a 2011 Kaiser Foundation survey of employer health plans. In the survey, it was found that 31% of workers with health insurance plans had their plans changed by employers to accommodate preventive services in conforming to the new health reforms. This equates to 173 million Americans under age sixty-five in having private health insurance. According to Census numbers ~54 million folks received expanded preventive coverage. Here’s the but…but it’s not clear if all the employers did change over or how many of the 54 million actually took advantage of the changes. The final result is not out yet, but Obama used the figure anyway.

Romney: Obama’s health care plan “puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea.”

He simply rehashed an old Republican chant that government would be telling your doctor what to do replacing the current Republican favored system where the insurance company tells your doctor what to do or not do.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board that Romney’s referring to is made up of medical experts that will monitor rising medical costs and if it reaches an uncontrolled spiraling limit, if Congress refuses to act, then the experts composed of doctors could intervene and halt the progression of costs as opposed to the rate of inflation.

The board explicitly and I do mean it is explicitly prohibited under the new healthcare law that the board have no power to dictate to patient’s doctors. In addition the board cannot ration healthcare, shift costs to patients, restrict benefits or raise the Medicare eligibility age. Healthcare inflation has been modest as of late (the last three years) and it is highly unlikely that the board would have to intervene for the next decade.

Romney: When Obama said, “The average middleclass family with children would pay about $2,000 more [under Romney’s tax plan]. Now, that’s not my analysis; that’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this.” In response, Romney replied, “Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong.”

Romney has pointed out these studies before, but would never confess which studies they were. We now have a good idea and they are not reliable studies. Three aren’t even economic studies, but come from editorial opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal and further, are not academic in nature and have overlapping authorship. One other is even a piece paid for by ‘Romney for President Inc.’ to come up with a favorable scenario. For the final two, one is an actual study by Harvard economist, Martin Feldstein who even confesses to make Romney’s math work, deductions down to $100,000 income would have to be eliminated. The last one is a study by Princeton University’s economist, Harvey Rosen agreeing that Romney’s plan is plausible, but is picked apart by other leading economists because it is littered with asserted nuances lacking specifics.

In fact, five of these studies or opinions prove that Romney would indeed have to raise taxes on the middleclass under his plan. Romney has no supportive academic study, only a few independent conservative economists’ opinion. Of course if elected Romney is banking on his campaign promise to be all forgotten once he does begin taxing the middleclass to pay for the wealthy tax breaks.

The study Obama is referring to is the ‘Policy Tax Center’ who stands by their data that Romney’s tax plan would cost the country $4.8 trillion over the next ten years.

I’d like to add two sappy conclusions here by FactCheck.org. and CNNs John Berman who outlandishly conclude Obama is wrong here simply because Romney tells us so. These are for the ridiculous and absurd conclusion filings.

FactCheck.org said, “Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true! Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”

Berman stated, “Romney said he would offset that by closing loopholes and reducing reductions. So if you take him at his word, our verdict [on Obama's claim] that Mitt Romney would cut taxes on the wealthy by $5 trillion, the verdict is false.”

Anyone can claim anything, but it surely doesn’t make it so.

Romney: “The president said he’d cut the debt in half. Unfortunately he doubled it.”

Point blank, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the deficit Obama inherited from Bush was $1.4 trillion. The CBO projects the deficit to be $1.1 trillion for fiscal year 2012. Hardly double, when actually under these economic strained times, the deficit is below what he inherited.

Romney: “First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. You put $90 billion into green jobs. And I…look, I’m all in favor of green energy. And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business.”

Well dig me a few fishin’ worms, an awful lot to point out here in this compilation. First off, Romney is no friend to green renewable energies. With candid Romney statements that renewable energy is “pie in the sky,” “unreliable,” “electric cars are fantasy” and that green jobs are “fake” and “illusory;” I don’t think that he quite looks too kindly to anything green.

Romney stating that the DOE has said that tax breaks amount to only $2.8 billion a year was his biggest thieving lie of the night. Oil, gas, coal and the nuclear industries receive well over three-quarters of all energy subsidies allowances amounting to $300 billion per year as reported by the trans-partisan ‘Left-Right Coalition’ composed of leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Concerning the $90 billion Romney keeps referring to is not a tax break or subsidy as he constantly portrays it as. It is the total amount for loan grants to ‘clean energy’ companies, state and local governments and utility companies. It is administered solely by the DOE with tax incentives and subsidy interests. President Obama has no final say in who the DOE granted loans go to, so sorry Romney, Obama did not ensure his cronies got loans.

Amounts have been loaned out systematically where there is still $65 billion left. Lichfield Hills Research gave a clean bill of health on how the DOE was loaning out the money, but with the Republican’s incessant attacks on Solyndra and renewable energies in general, one would think the program is in total chaos.

The loans have been spread out widely and out of the $25 billion loaned out so far, $11 billion went to energy efficiency subsidiaries (including Ryan’s district), $5 billion went to cleaning up old nuclear weapons sites, $4 billion has gone to updating and renovating the electrical grid, another $2 billion went to research and development, while $3 billion went to carbon capture and storage making coal usage cleaner; one item Romney supposedly supports.

Finally, as far as those companies that have gone belly-up after receiving DOE clean energy loans, as of the end of 2011, the number of business failings is a mere 1.4%, and definitely not the over half as portrayed in the Romney fabrication.

Romney: “At the same time, regulation can become excessive; It can become out of date. And what’s happened in — with some of the legislation that’s been passed during the president’s term, you’ve seen regulation become excessive and it’s hurt the — it’s hurt the economy. Let me give you an example. Dodd-Frank was passed and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think have some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they’re effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that’s been given to — to New York banks I’ve ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There’s been 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd-Frank. I would repeal it and replace it.”

First off, Romney’s rant that he will repeal the bill in its entirety; it just ain’t gonna happen. Banks and their CEOs indeed do like most parts of the law and even Republican Representative Scott Garrett has a differing frame of mind than Romney. Garrett, a senior member on the House Financial Services Committee states, “With Dodd-Frank, it’s not going to be repeal.”

In claiming Obama has been excessive in regulation, he has not. In fact under Obama, even in having to deal with the financial crisis, fewer regulations have been enacted under his watch than implemented under Bush. New regulations under Obama have been smarter with assurances there will be transparency for those and the existing ones remaining in place. So you have quality, not quantity.

Romney’s claim that five New York banks are too big to fail is actually extended under thirty-seven financial institutions, not five and under that so-called claim of too big to fail, the banks do not like.

Banks with assets over $50 billion putting them under the too big to fail category had to submit ‘living wills’ to bank regulators under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in precisely mapping out how they would dismantle under receivership of a bankruptcy. In the provisions, it must be ensured that the thirty-seven institutions name-tagged as too big to fail have a money pool to cover costs in the event that any one of them indeed do fail. What this means is that, thanks to Dodd-Frank legislation and the institutions’ required failure fund, there will not be a lasting taxpayer burden on the event of a bankruptcy, for the bankruptcy will be absorbed by the remaining big banks. In the event a bankruptcy could threaten the entire financial system, now the FDIC has full authority to liquidate that financial institution before it infects the whole system.

How Romney perceives this as a “boon” to the big New York banks, only his supposed business mind knows. It actually creates a more leveraged playing field for all the smaller financial actors. The bill keeps the bigger banks more honest in the playing field while avoiding their proneness to take high risks.

Lastly, where Romney gets his kicks in tying in smaller banks with Dodd-Frank literally shows he is not that so a professional businessman and if so, then it is as a shady one. There is no provision, nor connection between community bank failures and Dodd-Frank. Romney really put a dupe on the American public here. With his background, one would think he should know better in attempting to slyly tie small bank failures to Dodd-Frank.

Since enactment of Dodd-Frank, but before fully provisioned, 188 small banks (with assets less than $1 billion) have closed, not 122. But after peaking in 2010 at 136, small bank failures are actually in decline. There were only 86 last year and are down to 42 for the first nine months of this year.

Romney also attempted to hijack the middleclass, as if he is the one fighting for them. But go ahead, forget his past business dealings as a vulture capitalist in shuttering industries, pensions and jobs, investments in sweat shops and storage of his vast wealth in foreign offshore accounts. At least the table view 47% video of him secretly speaking to his rich peers in his own words should at least convince most that his interests lie elsewhere other than the middleclass. His true mandate is that if the wealthy are well taken care of, perhaps a few job crumbs will be created for the middleclass to fight over.

He also tried to hijack the ‘trickle-down effect’ phrase for wealth distribution when he inserted the Republican favorite motto ‘big government’ clicks and spouted, “The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more…if you will, trickle-down government will work.”

The ‘trickle-down effect,’ no matter how hard Romney tries to turn the tables, does not work when he applies it to current government. Our government has actually shrunk in size and is smaller than it’s ever been in fifty years. The federal government employs 600,000 fewer employees today than the average for the past fifty years according to ‘Smart Brief on Business & Politics,’ which includes the military. If every single one of the 600,000 federal employees were fired today, it would only cut the budget deficit by one-third.

Big Bird Homeless:

So, Romney’s magnificent performance in lying as opposed to Obama’s lackluster and refusal to rebuttal will give Romney his bump finally in the polls. He needs it for as of late he has been doing terrible. With this bit of light, I’m sure Republicans are finally going to gloat, but once the very polls they’ve been criticizing begin to lean towards Romney, will they still mistrust them…Naw!

It just strikes me as funny though…that political pundits (and myself included) will reward the winner in the debate to the very one who slung all kinds of lies, misinformation and expect us to swallow it, while the more mannered and mild one who was much more consistent in relaying the truth as the loser.

I figure that within a week or so when we open up the newspapers and actually do see how duped we were by Romney’s performance, his grandeur will begin to fade, once the truth begins to nestle back in.

In my opinion, my little brother David came up with a genius concept for the vice presidential debate, or if not then, save it for the next presidential one. Brother Dave’s idea is when Biden and Ryan commence their debate, right off the bat, Biden state to Ryan:

“Ya know, you and Romney in your stump speeches and on TV have always alluded to the fact you have no time or it is too long to give detail in describing how ya’ll would enact new tax codes, balance the budget or fix Medicare and Social Security. I tell ya what Mr. Ryan, right here and right now I’m going to donate my time to yours so you can finally get the time to actually explain the specifics. The American people want to know what exactly your plan entails. So as of right now the ninety minutes and the floor are yours.” Then Biden just stands back and waits to listen to Ryan’s reply with the rest of us.

There would be none. Ryan would be cold cocked with jaw agape. What could he say? If he doesn’t take blessings from the time advantage allotted by Biden to explain, then he’ll be perceived as secretive and sneaky. But if he does, then the average American would realize he and Romney do intend to take away our programs and dip into our pockets in their support of the rich.

It’s not just Romney’s 47% of the people he doesn’t care about; Ryan too has been caught on video. His claim is the same as Romney’s, just at a different percent.

At ‘The American Spectator’s 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala dinner party, Ryan was caught on tape proclaiming, “Seventy percent of Americans want the American dream. They believe in the American idea. Only 30 percent want the welfare state. Before too long, we could become a society where the net majority of Americans are takers, not makers.”

The just released September jobs report shows for the first time since the Great Recession’s beginning, unemployment dropped below 8% at 7.8%. Romney at every step he could take has been hammering away at the fact that ever since Obama has been in office the unemployment rate has hovered above 8%. I wonder what he will personally say now. I know what the rest of Republicans will say for they’re already screaming “conspiracy.”

Former General Electric CEO, Jack Welch, who is a staunch Republican, in reference to the site of the Obama campaign headquarters tweeted, “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can't debate so change numbers.”

Now in my thinking, I would wonder why a CEO of a large corporation would think the jobs numbers are related to a conspiracy. Has he and other like CEOs been withholding employment to intentionally keep unemployment above 8%? Something he would know right? That could be plausible grounds for a reverse conspiracy to take effect. Anyway, along with Allen West and other GOP politicians they’re out there crying conspiracy.

The thing is staffers at the Labor Department always work under tight scrutiny and the White House of any presidency cannot insert its input or persuasion. Former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was appointed by Bush states emphatically, “These numbers are very trustworthy.” There ya have it, so much or so little for yet another Republican rant on government conspiracy cover-up under this president.

Yes, Romney through his crafty delivery slipped in many a false caveats, while Obama appeared dull. In knocking out reality, Romney is clearly the winner. But individuals viewed the debate differently. Some preferred Obama’s approach, insisting he was the more restrained and dignified one. A couple of examples in how people expressed a differing viewpoint on the debate are as follows:

I am apparently one of few who thought our President handled himself well during the first debate. Obama continues to surprise me by taking the right tact for every situation. I didn't think it was possible - but here he is, drawing out his opposition - with the skill and patience of an old timer. Did he hear what he was listening for? Yes, and his points will corral the rhetoric soon enough.

Normally I could care less about politics, and politicians, but Mr. Obama continues to surprise me in new and slightly amusing ways. I may or may not get up to vote for him because I still think voting the way it is done today is akin to being a ringer in a snake oil show. Yet, Obama gets my vote today, as the better man.

Clinton Ford 10/04/2012

*****

My daughter called me after the debate, to tell me she thought it was clear that Obama was actually answering questions and providing explanations, and Romney was misrepresenting, but with confident gestures and smiles. She said Obama was more toned-down, but more truthful and courteous, which she considered better. So she was distressed that pundits were saying Romney “won”. I pointed out how much of our mainstream media is now owned or controlled by Romney supporters, and that the truth will come out. Then I watched the debate on YouTube (sans commercials and spouting pundits). And I agree. I think Obama did fine.

I am currently about halfway through reading his book “Dreams of My Father”. I am impressed and feel better about him due to what he has written. I recommend it.

Sabira Woolley (10/04/2012)

Actually Romney’s attack on Big Bird has caught fire with the little ones all across America. They don’t like it. My seven-year-old daughter, Paige had to require further explaining that irregardless of Romney, Big Bird is still going to be around, after all he can’t fly away. My nine-year-old daughter, Claire insists that she should be able to vote to be sure Romney doesn’t win. Both girls also noted how Romney kept batting his eyes and tongue smacking his lips. Once I took note, indeed he was. I don’t know, in not being a body gesture and mannerism expert, but maybe that’s what liars do when they’re dishing out all their tainted baloney and expecting you to swallow it. Just figuring that’s all…

PBS, known more by its initials than the ‘Public Broadcasting Service’ name is endowed indirectly with federal dollars by ‘Corporation for Public Broadcasting’ (CPB) that was instituted in 1967. Its conception was to promote education and facts in the arts, sciences, humanities and political results. Ever since its inception under a Democrat president, Republicans have been bashing it in thinking it is too liberal in that it reports hard facts on sensitive political matters and the sciences. Republicans don’t like being revealed and under Reagan, he managed to reduce funding, but not its survival. Now, with a possible Romney presidency, Republicans see a chance under the guise of balancing the budget, of totally killing off PBS.

Sesame Street including Big Bird is only $4 million in CPBs budget. That is less than ~.001% of the federal budget. CPBs total budget is only .012% of the federal budget. It is hardly worth the effort in making Big Bird unemployed. Nonetheless, maybe we can learn from the little ones in what we want protected and how to mobilize around it.

I leave you with a letter from an eight-year-old.