Saturday, October 27, 2012

I Voted Today

When I woke up today I was all excited because I was going to vote, first time I was to vote early.

I took my morning shower and wore my blue t-shirt with Forward on the front and Obama on the back along with Obama-Biden 2012; I embellished the t-shirt with some buttons mocking Romney and Ryan and got on my way to my precinct.

The precinct is in an affluent area. As I drove into the parking lot with my car full of stickers reflecting my political views, I got a mixed reaction from the people walking by. Some, not that many, gave me a thumbs up, others… well, let’s just say that if looks could kill, I would not be writing this right now.

When I got there the line that was already about two blocks long. Flustering as if moths attracted to the light, there were people from both parties representing almost every candidate in the ballot, providing last minute propaganda as to why you should vote for this or that candidate. I find this to be a waste of time, funds and paper, since at this point in the game most people have already made up their minds, but I guess it’s part of the “tradition”, like movies and popcorn.

There were some angry faces in the group. A tall, black haired woman that was obviously Hispanic (not because of her looks, because she was speaking Spanish) looked extremely upset. Apparently someone had mentioned that president Obama was slightly ahead in the polls. She kept saying that we couldn’t afford four more years of the same. I found her comments outrageous, but decided to keep my mouth shut. I was determined not to give them the pleasure of saying we Liberals or Democrats were not civil… I had resolved to behave and I was going to stick to my guns.

There was an elderly couple behind me. The woman was sporting a t-shirt from a local radio station that I know it’s Republican. We began to talk; they told me that she was a Republican and her husband an Independent. 

Anyway, I was committed to be a civil citizen. To behave as they certainly weren’t expecting from a Democrat, from a Liberal. I smiled all the time that I heard them say all the bullshit they kept repeating and that we all have heard so many times.

Then she touched the economy and how “mighty” Romney will “save” our economy. I allowed her to finish praising the Lord of Kolob and after she had finished her well learned rhetoric, I asked her if I could offer my opinion and of course, she said yes. I said, well more than my opinion I want you to answer one question. If Romney is going to cut the tax rate by 20% across the board (she nodded, very happy), if he is going to give tax cuts to corporations (again, a grim on her face and more nodding) and in top of that he is going to triple the budget of our military, which by the way is the largest budget in the world… Can you explain to me how can Romney get us out of debt if all he has offered as a budget plan is giving money away instead of producing any income? How can he say that he will bring down the deficit when he will have to borrow from that “hateful China” in order to triple the military budget? Her reply stunned me. She said, I know it sounds illogical, but Romney can do it. I told her that it was mathematically impossible and she said that it was not impossible with Romney’s mathematics... I laughed and said: sorry, but numbers are numbers and 2 +2 will never equal 7. She persisted, against all logic, that Romney could do it.

She told me that president Obama had 4 years to take us out of the recession and that during the first two years he had a Democratic Congress and had accomplished nothing. Really? I replied. Let me refresh your memory – I said - first of all we never had the majority in Congress – in case you don’t know it takes 60% to pass anything in Congress and we never had those numbers. She agreed, at least that was good. I continued saying that since day one, Republicans in Congress made it very clear and said publicly that their number one objective was to make of President Obama a one-term president. Again she nodded, agreeing with me. Also, the Republicans in Congress obstructed every single effort presented by the president that would have helped the middle-class and the country to prosper and to my surprise, she agreed with me! I mentioned that the country was in shambles when president Obama took office and that every economist was predicting another depression and that he, against all odds, had stopped this from happening. I asked her if she was going to vote any of those Congressmen out and she said no, that they were doing their “job” and that she agreed with them since President Obama was a Communist and he had to be stopped. I looked at her perplexed and told her: A communist? Nothing could be farther from the truth, he is a centered Democrat and those accusations are completely false! So you are going to reward them by keeping them there. You are going to reward their criminal behavior – she wanted to interrupt me but I didn’t allow her. I said, yes, criminal behavior because while they were getting paid to work for America they were golfing and doing nothing. Criminal because they ignored separation of Church and State and, all the bills that they have created in Congress have mainly been related to abortion and women’s issues, not jobs, not the economy not anything that will help the country move forward but you, you are rewarding them and telling them that their dirty tricks and irresponsible behavior is the way to go.

She looked at me and said, I’m sure that if Romney gets elected Democrats will do the same thing. I was fuming but maintained my composure. Let me remind you – I told her – that when Bush was in power the Democrats never used that tactic and I sure hope that if Romney wins, the Democrats in Congress pay back with the same. She got offended, told me that would be an awful thing to do because what mattered most was the country and not the different political ideals. Oh, so when Republicans do this it’s OK, but if Democrats do it then it is awful? Gosh… No wonder the country is the way it is!

The hypocrisy of these people is beyond reasoning. Their logic is inexistent and there is no way to reason with them. It is because of people like them that this country is going down the drain. It is because of people like them that nothing gets done.

Fortunately enough, it was my turn to vote and I walked away from that cancer that was eroding my self-control... one more second and I would have smacked her!

Monday, October 22, 2012

Silencing the Vote

Today I went to renew my driver’s license, which doesn’t expire for a few months but since I moved, I needed it to reflect my current address, I don’t want any problems on November 6.
I tried to get an appointment online, but all the appointments were for days after the election day and since my main concern was to have everything in order to cast my vote, I decided to go in person to the closest DMV.
I drove to the same office where I have renewed my license for years. To my surprise, it was abandoned, gone, closed. Facing that predicament, I checked on my cell for the closest DMV location in my area. Most of the well-known and accessible locations had been closed; precisely the ones located in the most populated and  central areas were no longer in existence. I found one at a mall that was within driving distance and I headed there.
I got in line with my passport and current driving license. When it was my turn I was asked for my birth certificate or passport, good thing I had my passport with me. Then I was asked for my social security card and two bills or mail with my current address and showing my name. I asked the DMV employee if that was something new, the social security card and the two different bills/mail, if everyone had to produce those documents or if I had mentioned that I needed to change my address. Well, it turns out that they are requesting this from everyone, renewals, new licenses, lost licenses, change of address or name, IDs, etc. I had to rush back home to get the social security card and two pieces of mail with my name and current address on it.
I am outraged at this new “law” that conveniently went into effect precisely on an election year. Even to get employment, a passport is good enough to prove your citizenship. After all, it’s a document issued by the government, with your picture, date of birth, signature, etc. Why the social security and two pieces of mail on top of your birth certificate or passport? There can only be one answer: silencing the homeless, the elderly and the poor.
Imagine if you lost your job and your home and you are living in your car (as so many do today), how on earth will you be able to get a driver’s license or ID if you can’t produce two pieces of mail showing your address? The very poor usually don’t have a passport or a credit/debit card, the only thing they have is an ID or driver’s license to show at the voting precinct and cast their vote. Now, thanks to this new “law” most of them will not be able to acquire a license or ID and therefore they will not be able to vote. This is just another way of suppressing the vote of likely democrats, to obstruct the most sacred right of every citizen of this nation.
To those that still have a current ID or Driver’s license but have moved, or your name has changed or are living in your car… Don’t try to renew your license now, wait until after election’s day. If your license is about to expire, ask a friend or family member to allow you to use their address or ask them for a notarized letter stating that you live at their house (this is allowed in lieu of correspondence). Don’t let them get away with this, do whatever you need to do to get that license or ID.
America is on life support and if the Republican’s tactic is successful, we will be witnessing the annihilation of Democracy by the hands of corrupt Republican politicians and we will need to be prepared to attend the funeral of our nation. Don’t allow this to happen… Vote!

Saturday, October 20, 2012


Presidential Debate 
October 16, 2012 
Moderator: Candy Crowley 
Place: Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY 
Format: Town Hall 

Tuesday night was the second presidential debate and I was glad it was a town hall setting; I knew President Obama excels in that environment and I was right. President Obama was outstanding, so much different than during the first debate where most of us felt that his body was there but his mind and spirit where somewhere else and we kept waiting for him to wake up. This time, this time he was excellent and if he disappointed someone it was probably the people at Fox News. 

The debate began with a student, Jeremy Epstein, who asked the following question: “Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?” 

I will not be providing Romney’s full answer to every question because if I do you will need three days to read this article. Instead I will just provide the “key” parts of some answers. Romney's answer to Jeremy's question was “…So what we have to do is two things. We have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college and also make sure that when they get out of college, there's a job. When I was governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree, you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your airlines, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams scholarship, four years tuition free in the college of your choice in Massachusetts; it's a public institution. I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We're also going to have our loan program, so that people are able to afford school. But the key thing is to make sure you can get a job when you get out of school. And what's happened over the last four years has been very, very hard for America's young people. I want you to be able to get a job.

In his plan, A Chance for Every Child, page 31, first paragraph, you’ll find how Romney is planning to help students from low to middle-income families to attend college, or at least it was back in May of this year… before he decided that in order to get the vote of young people he needed to change his tune and be a huge supporter of Pell grants, but that will not be what he will do if he ever gets in the Oval Office. 

This is what he says on the paragraph in question: “Last but not least, families must be supported in their efforts to plan ahead and save for their children’s higher education. A Romney Administration will aim to increase the opportunity to save and invest for higher education, particularly for low- and moderate-income families. With better information and more affordable options, financing higher-education can once again become an attractive opportunity instead of an overwhelming burden.” 

Of course, for a person that believes a middle-income family makes between $200,000 to $250,000 a year, this is a very doable proposition. The problem is, his figures are wrong. Middle-class income is somewhere around $50,000 and his strategy its completely impossible to do for low-income families. Once more, only the wealthy are worthy of higher education. Romney keeps mentioning that his Education plan while he was governor of Massachusetts was a success, but a recently Faculty Research Paper published by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government reveals that the contrary its true. If you wish to read it, click here.  

The next question was directed at President Obama and was asked by Phillip Tricolla: “Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?” 

I must admit that President Obama didn’t answer the question; instead he began to mention all the things he has accomplished or wishes to accomplish regarding energy. But Romney, his answer was terrible, providing the wrong figures and what is worse supports the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the majority of Americans are against. Romney, mocking the president, said if he gets to be president: “We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.” 

Perhaps Mr. Romney hasn’t heard of all the environmental damages this pipeline represents. That dirty tar sands oil is not ours, it belongs to Canada and it will be shipped out of the US as fast as it’s being extracted. This will only benefit Transcanada, not our country and not our environment. But of course, Romney doesn’t care about either; he only serves the big oil moguls and the mighty buck, the rest can go to hell for all he cares.

Romney continued to say, “Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, "Please save my job." The head of the EPA said, "You can't build a coal plant. You'll virtually -- it's virtually impossible given our regulations." When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. That's not the right course for America.” 

President Obama gave us a hint at Mitt Romney's chameleon opinions:  “…And when I hear Governor Romney say he's a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when -- Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, "This plant kills," and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you're a big champion of coal.” As usual, President Obama was telling the truth, if you don't believe me, watch Mitt Romney's video stating it.

Romney accused the president of reducing production of oil in federal land, the President kept persisting that oil production in Federal land has gone up, not down. According to CNN, the President is right and, as usual, Romney is wrong. Click here to read CNN's article. 

Mary Follano directed her question to Romney. She asked him: “You have stated that if you're elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class?” 

Romney replied, and this time I will quote his entire response: “Thank you very much. And let me tell you, you're absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down, I want to simplify the tax code, and I want to get middle- income taxpayers to have lower taxes. And the reason I want middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle-income taxpayers have been buried over the past four years. 

You've seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family, even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums, up $2,500. Food prices up. Utility prices up. The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years. So I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That's part one. Now, how about deductions? 'Cause I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now. The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that'll stay the same. 

Middle-income people are going to get a tax break. And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be say everybody gets -- I'll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier. If you're getting interest from a bank, if you're getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don't have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there'll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because under the last four years, they've been buried. And I want to help people in the middle-class. And I will not under any circumstances, reduce the share that's being paid by the highest income taxpayers. And I will not, under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle-class. The president's spending, the president's borrowing will cost this nation to have to raise taxes on the American people. Not just at the high end. A recent study has shown the people in the middle-class will see $4,000.00 per year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration.” 

Mitt Romney has no idea what it’s considered to be a middle-class income. For a man that has never been “middle-class,” he thinks that $250,000 its what constitutes the annual income of those from the middle-class. He has no idea that middle-class earnings are about $50,000 a year. So when you hear him puffing about our President raising the taxes on the middle-class, bear in mind that he is referring to those making from $200,000 to $250,000. For a man that makes in dividends millions of dollars those that earn a quarter or half of what he makes without moving a finger, it’s the middle-class.  The real middle-class are those that he was despotically referring to as lazy and government leaches that don't want to take responsibility for their lives.  Remember that!
Ironically, Romney believes that the top 5% pays about 60% of their income in taxes and as far as I know, that is not true. The maximum amount for an individual making over $379,150 is 35% and that’s before all the loopholes which the very wealthy are “entitled” to and which allows individuals like Mitt Romney to pay less than 13% in taxes while the rest of us pay an average of 23%.  The same is true for Corporations. 

The Tax Policy Center believes that Romney’s tax plan doesn’t have a leg to stand on and that the math simply is not there. To see the report, click here.

Katherine Fenton asked Romney a great question: "In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

Romney never provided an answer to that question. Must of us just only remember his now famous “binder full of women” because apparently there were no women available in Massachusetts to do the required job, so he had to “go and find them.” While it is true that he had 9 women in his cabinet, the previous governors from Michael Dukakis to Jane Swift, all of them had women in their cabinet, including the present governor Duval Patrick. The honor of having more women in cabinet positions belongs to Paul Celluci, Republican, who governed Massachusetts from 1997 to 2001. However, the question was not about his opinion about hiring women, the question was about equal pay which Romney refused to answer and, during a Presidential Debate where so much is at risk not answering this very important question means that he agrees that women should earn less than their male counterpart. What’s more, when pressed by Crowley, his replied was: “I'm going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.

Is he serious? Women don’t need “support” to be part of the workforce, women have been part of the workforce for over half a century. Women have been getting “good work” for a long time now. What women are not getting is equal pay for that “good work” and that was precisely the question. His stand on this subject reflects how distant Romney is from what women need and how deaf he is to women’s pleas… He ignored it completely and it is obvious that he like things just the way they are. Another thing one must keep in mind is his hiring record while he was running Bain Capital… He hired no women while at Bain  and you can rest assured that he will overturn the Lilly Ledbetter Bill since it allows women to file suit, retroactively, against the companies that pay less to women for equal work. All Romney wants to protect are the interests of Corporate America, not the workers and certainly not the women... after all, unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney only has sons and for him and his religion, women are second-class citizens.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Defacing a Nation

"We have a tidal wave of red ink that is coming in this country that no major civilized country has ever seen before. This is how great empires fall. And this is the tidal wave of debt that is coming in this country and the greatest driver of this red ink, we all know, is this program: Medicare" Paul Ryan at the House Budget Committee Reconciliation Markup, March 15, 2010.

Paul Ryan is calling Obamacare, an insurance program that will be paid by Americans and not the government, an “entitlement."  For Republicans anything that helps the middle class it's an entitlement: Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Medicare, which are all funded by the working class, with the exemption of Unemployment which is funded by the employer.  I have no idea where do they get the idea that these programs are crumbs thrown to the lazy population by the magnanimous government. We worked for them, and so far it has been the piggy bank of the excesses in Washington, that is why these programs are bankrupt.

Paul Ryan said during the VP Debate that his plan will not eliminate Medicare for the poor or for those that would prefer Medicare (as it exist today) over private insurance. I want to ask any of you, why would anyone go through the trouble of finding an insurance offering everything that Medicare offers its recipients - and which many of us wished we all had (public option) - if Medicare will be available? The Path to Prosperity - Ryan's economy budget plan - slashes Medicare and replaces it with a voucher. 

During the debate we could see that he didn't like the word "voucher" and tried to change it to a check in the mail, but that is what it is, a voucher or if you prefer, a coupon. Our seniors will have to decide which insurance premium they can afford, what they need and what are the advantages of one plan over another. At an age when some of them don't even remember or recognize their own family, they will have to make sense of these provisions that not even us, younger and with a clearer mind, can understand at times. Not every senior have children or surviving children, some have no one to help them with the basics but they will be left on their own with a check (that I can guarantee you will not pay for a good insurance policy), with the sharks selling insurance confusing them even more in order to get that magical voucher and their juicy commission. Now, Romney and Ryan are saying they will not hurt seniors and they will not eliminate Medicare.

Many in Washington consider Ryan a numbers guy. If that is true, I must be Einstein! He is proposing to triple the Defense Budget (the largest in the world) and making permanent the Bush Tax cuts to the wealthy, these two items alone increase the debt, it does absolutely nothing to reduce it.

Romney is eager to start a war, I think he believes that this will assure him more than a paragraph in the history books, which is all it matters to him. He has set his eyes on Iran and is dreaming of the day when he too can invent an excuse to invade the country and start his beloved war. That will also add trillions to an already inflated deficit. So far, everything they're proposing does nothing to create jobs or reduce the deficit - actually, it's the opposite.

They also say as of late, that they will reduce the taxes for everyone, which translates into a higher deficit. When asked how would the government, if they get elected, get any income with these tax cuts, they claim that they will accomplish it by "eliminating the loopholes." Which loopholes?  Nobody knows... it's a secret!

I am assuming that whoever is reading this has at least a basic education that included math. The numbers don't add up, plain and simple. As I have mentioned before, the income collected by this country and which makes the economy wheels move is mainly whatever its collected from income tax. If the rich are going to get a "bonus" from the government permanently, if the workforce will get their taxes reduced... where will the money come from? What loopholes are they talking about if Corporations will get a check from the government and not the other way around?

What they are refusing to say is that they will eliminate what they consider "entitlements." Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare will either be eliminated or if lucky, privatized. Drastic reductions will be made to Education, after all none of their kids attend a public school, and Pell Grants will be significantly cut.  It is in their benefit if the working class is not educated, it offers a cheaper labor to those corporations.

Don’t believe for a minute that this pair care at all for you, they don’t. Their loyalty is to themselves, their kind; the wealthy.  All benefits and “entitlements” are for that group, welfare will be replaced with wealthfare.

We, the 47% mentioned in Romney’s speech,  are worthless to them and as Romney said in that infamous videotape: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Those were his words when he thought we, the 47%, were not listening... Those are his true believes and not the robotic Romney he is when we are around.  Wake up, use your brain and vote on November 6, and unless you are wealthy, vote for those who will work for you.  

Vote Obama/Biden for four more years!

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Don't Let Them Destroy Medicare, Vote Them Out!

These are the people who in April of this year voted to replace Medicare with Ryan's voucher plan.  Elections are just around the corner, look for the names of the congressman or woman from your state and kick them out!  

I don't care if they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents, that is why I didn't specify their Party affiliation... But for some strange reason, I think they're all Republicans.  

We must replace each and everyone of them with Progressives, Liberals or  Independents.  We have to help our country move forward and our President by providing him with a Congress that will work with him and not against him.  A Congress that will care for all Americans, regardless of Party instead of the Congress we have now that cares not for the American people or the country but for Corporate America.  We have complained, we have been outraged, well now is our opportunity to do something about it.  These elections are extremely important,  vote and vote for America.  Vote Democratic all the way down the ballot.

Remind your friends and families who voted in favor of private insurance companies and against our seniors, your vote counts... USE IT!

Robert B. Adelholt
Spencer Bachus
Jo Bonner
Mo Brooks
Martha Roby
Mike D. Rogers

Don Young

Rick Crawford
Tim Griffin
Steve Womack

Jeff Flake
Trent Franks
Paul Gosar
Ben Quayle
David Schweikert

Brian P. Bilbray
Mary Bono Mack
Ken Calvert
John Campbell
Jeffrey Denham
David Dreier
Elton Gallegly
Wally Herger
Duncan D. Hunter
Darrell Issa
Jerry Lewis
Kevin McCarthy
Tom McClintock
Howard P. McKeon
Gary G. Miller
Devin Nunes
Dana Rohrabacher
Ed Royce

Mike Coffman
Cory Gardner
Dough Lamborn
Scott Tipton

Sandra Adams
Gus Bilirakis
Vern Buchanan
Ander Crenshaw
Mario Diaz-Balart
Connie Mack
John L. Mica
Jeff Miller
Richard Nugent
Bill Posey
David Rivera
Tom Rooney
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Dennis Ross
Steve Southerland
Cliff Stearns
Daniel Webster
Allen West
C.W. Bill Young

Paul Broun
Phil Gingrey
Tom Graves
Jack Kingston
Tom Price
Austin Scott
Lynn Westmoreland
Rob Woodall

Raul Labrador
Mike Simpson

Judy Biggert
Robert Dold
Randy Hultgren
Timothy V. Johnson
Adam Kinzinger
Donald Manzullo
Peter Roskam
Bobby Schilling
Aaron Schock
John Shimkus
Joe Walsh

Larry Bucshon
Dan Burton
Mike Pence
Todd Rokita
Marlin Stutzman
Todd Young

Steve King
Tom Latham

Tim Huelskamp
Lynn Jenkins
Mike Pompeo
Kevin Yoder

Geoff Davis
Brett Guthrie
Harold Rogers
Edward Whitfield

Rodney Alexander
Charles Boustany Jr.
Bill Cassidy
John Fleming
Jeff Landry
Steve Scalise

Roscoe G. Barlett
Andy Harris

Justin Amash
Dan Benishek
Dave Camp
Bill Huizenga
Thaddeus McCotter
Candice S. Miller
Mike Rogers
Fred Upton
Tim Walberg

Michele Bachmann
Chip Cravaack
John Kline
Erick Paulsen

Gregg Harper
Alan Nunnelee
Steven Palazzo

Todd Akin
Jo Ann Emerson
Sam Graves
Vicky Hartzler
Billy Long
Blaine Luetkemeyer

Jeff Fortenberry
Adrian Smith
Lee Terry

Charles F. Bass
Frank Guinta

Rodney Frelinghuysen
Scott Garrett
Leonard Lance
Frank A. LoBiondo
Jon Runyan
Christopher H. Smith

Steve Pearce

Joe Heck
Dean Heller

Ann Marie Buerkle
Chris Gibson
Mike Grimm
Richard Hanna
Nan Hayworth
Peter T. King
Tom Reed

Howard Coble
Renee Ellmers
Virginia Foxx
Patrick T. McHenry
Sue Myrick

Rick Berg

Steve Austria
Steven J. Chabot
Bob Gibbs
Bill Johnson
Jim Jordan
Steven C. LaTourette
Robert E. Latta
Jim Renacci
Jean Schmidt
Steve Stivers
Pat Tiberi
Michael R. Turner

Tom Cole
James Lankford
Frank D. Lucas
John Sullivan

Greg Walden

Lou Barletta
Charlie Dent
Michael G. Fitzpatrick
Mike Kelly
Tom Marino
Pat Meehan
Tim Murphy
Joe Pitts
Todd R. Platts
Bill Shuster
Glenn Thompson

Jeffrey Duncan
Trey Gowdy
Mick Mulvaney
Tim Scott
Joe Wilson

Kristi Noem

Diane Black
Marsha Blackburn
Scott DesJarlais
John J. Duncan Jr.
Stephen Fincher
Chuck Flesichmann
Phil Roe

Joe L. Barton
Kevin Brady
Michael C. Burgess
Francisco Canseco
John Carter
K. Michael Conaway
John Culberson
Blake Farenthold
Bill Flores
Louie Gohmert
Kay Granger
Ralph M. Hall
Jeb Hersarling
Sam Johnson
Kenny Marchant
Michael McCaul
Randy Neugebauer
Pete Olson
Ted Poe
Pete Sessions
Lamar Smith
William M. Thornberry

Rob Bishop
Jason Chaffetz

Eric Cantor
J. Randy Forbes
Robert W. Goodlatte
Morgan Griffith
Robert Hurt
Scott Rigell
Robert J. Wittman
Frank R. Wolf

Doc Hastings
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Cath McMorris Rodgers

Shelley Moore Capito

Sean Duffy
Tom Petri
Reid Ribble
Paul D. Ryan
F. James Sensenbrenner

Cynthia M. Lummis

Contact your congressmen:

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Cat and Mouse Debate

Last night was the first Presidential Debate. I’ve been anxiously waiting for it, as I was sure that President Obama was going to destroy Romney in a one-to-one debate. However, nothing could be further from the truth; unfortunately, it was the other way around.

Coincidentally, last night was President Obama’s wedding anniversary and actually he opened his statement by mentioning it. Was this the reason why President Obama looked so sad, uninterested and basically distant during the debate? I have no idea but whatever it was I hope it is a temporary thing.
We have all grown accustomed to believe and accept that President Obama is great at delivering speeches, as an orator. Even the Right-Wing acknowledges this, but last night he stuttered quite a lot, he didn’t portray himself as the self-secure, firm and resolute individual we have seen so many times during the last 5 years. Sadly, last night President Obama looked like a cornered mouse and Romney as the hungry cat.
Is David Plouffe advising the President to be humble, meek and to play the “poor me” role? Last night, after the debate, Plouffe was interviewed by MSNBC and he was quite pleased with the outcome. He mentioned that President Obama was great at presenting what needs to be done during the next four years and that is up to a point true. The problem is, President Obama didn’t debunk one single lie presented by Romney – even when we have an arsenal of information on record about what Mitt Romney has stated up to last week. President Obama was unmoved by the lies, didn’t bother to expose Romney and his lies.
Then there was the body language. While Mitt Romney projected a self-secured image of himself (a man that lost so many points in the polls after his fateful 47% video) President Obama looked frail, insecure, humble, weak and uninterested… I was waiting for him to yawn at any time!
There have been so many excuses given to justify President Obama’s performance, one of them is that he hasn’t debated in four years but I differ. President Obama debates (or at least I hope he does) on a daily basis when confronting a Republican Congress that objects to everything he proposes. Last night was no different but the message the President sent the American people was that he was not in it. If he can’t fight his contender with passion and determination, how are we supposed to believe that he will fight for us in Congress?
I’m begging President Obama to change strategy. I suggest that he stops playing the “cool”, “reasonable” or “victim” role and play the role he holds: the Presidential role. At this point when we elections are around the corner is about the time when a candidate has to show the American people and the world that they have blood running through those veins instead of cold water, to show passion and determination, to stand firm and unmask your opponent. In other words, it is the time to grow a spine and a big set of balls!