An Open Letter to Mitt Romney From Big Bird

 

Dear Mr. Romney:

I have to say, I am both shocked and disappointed by your desire to cut funding for PBS. You said at the debate that "I love Big Bird." But the sad truth is, you don't love me at all. You don't love any of us...not Bert, Ernie, Oscar, The Count, Grover or Elmo either...and who on Earth doesn't love Elmo? What's wrong with you?!

Can you please explain to me why you think it's more important, for example, to help private plane owners but not PBS? Where are your priorities? You're clearly more concerned with Wall Street than you are Sesame Street. But let me tell you something: investment bankers never taught kids how to read, write, count and to be caring, sensitive, thoughtful people. Did you know that children who watched our program have an average 16% higher GPA in high school than those who didn't? Our show also teaches them from an early age to appreciate and respect art and science.

Well maybe that's it. Maybe it's because you and your party don't appreciate and respect art and science? Maybe it stems from the desire to dismantle the Department of Education, and your statements that we don't need more teachers. Maybe it's because you've never needed outside help in your entire life because you came from a rich, privileged family who gave you everything you could ever possibly want...including the best private education available.

I'm sure you never sat on the floor of a ghetto tenement watching Sesame Street, or any other PBS program, on an old junky television with a hanger clipped to it for reception. For many of our viewers, our show is not just a free babysitter and tutor, but an entry into a world of culture and fantasy that only rich folks like you have at their fingertips every day just by waking up. Is that so hard to understand? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that some folks, and millions of children, simply need a little help in life?

Look, the government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $445 million per year. As far as the $4-trilion U.S. budget goes, that's a pimple on Snuffleupagus's ass (sorry for using a bad word, but I'm very upset with you!).  Is this a road you really wanna go down?

Mr. Romney, unlike most of my other cast mates who are solid Obamacons, I am, or at least until Wednesday night's debate, was an independent. But you've pushed me--and I suspect millions of concerned moms and dads--into Obama's camp. You've lost my vote. I simply cannot fathom supporting someone who doesn't recognize the value in public television and it's tremendous impact on society....both in the near and long term. 

Oh, and one more thing. You should really love us because, with a name like Mitt, you could easily be one of the characters on our show....

Respectfully,

Big Bird

Facts, Polls and Job Stats, Oh My!

First it was the assault on facts. Then came fact-checker-bashing followed by the vast left-wing poll conspiracy. And now the Republican War on Reality has opened another front: the U.S. Labor Department and its monthly employment statistics.

Moments after the September jobs report was released Friday morning, which showed 114,000 jobs created, unemployment dipping below 8% for the first time in almost four years and an increase in average hourly wages, the right-wing fact-attack was in full delusional gear.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, in the same breath that he said he was totally ill-equipped to understand and properly assess the numbers, boldly declared "they just don't make any sense."  

Former GE CEO Jack Welch immediately Tweeted "Unbelievable jobs numbers ...... these Chicago guys will do anything ...... can't debate so change numbers."  

That's right, conservatives, you've deftly cracked the case! That highly partisan Labor Department, together with that crafty President Obama, hatched the following brilliant scheme to get him re-elected: consistently put out really sucky employment numbers for four years, make Obama look totally inept as he relentlessly gets pummeled by the right, only to come in stealth-like a month before the election with a whopping 114,000 jobs created and a breathtaking drop of .03% in the unemployment rate to a near-invisible 7.8%. The ultimate fake out! Pure genius! If these numbers don't spell landslide I don't know what does.

And the Republican presidential candidate himself, Mitt "Chicken Little" Romney, while not stooping to the low of accusing the Labor Department of foul play, couldn't pass up the opportunity to be the nattering nabob of negativity:

"This is not what a real recovery looks like.... If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone." 'And a chicken in every pot! Policies so incredible I'd have to kill ya if I told ya the specifics...'

Romney, the man who'd love to serve up Big Bird at the local Chick-fil-A, and fresh from his Oscar-worthy performance Wednesday night in "The Many Faces of Mitt," is apparently banking on Americans thumbing their collective noses at true, evident economic progress while buying into his "The Sky is Falling" politically-expedient rhetoric. Days from now, when the new polls show his debate bounce was as buoyant as Rush Limbaugh's gut, I'm sure we'll see another round of Etch-a-Sketchin' from the man who Rick Santorum so aptly accused of having no core.

The Professor and the Pugilist

He came prepared to fight. He was smart, aggressive, engaged, charming and funny. He reassuringly spoke of his concern for the poor, the middle class, seniors, affordable healthcare, Social Security, education and teachers. He was substantive, forthcoming and seemed genuinely wanting to be there, demonstrating a clear passion for the job. If you said this was President Obama you'd be wrong. Mitt Romney delivered what pundits Thursday morning are calling the best Republican debate performance since Ronald Reagan in 1980.

The key question is, what the hell happened to Obama? Where was he? Where was his passion, his engagement, his desire to be in that room? The man who showed up instead was aloof, disengaged, ill-prepared (how is that even possible given all the sequestered pre-debate prep?) and passive. He hung his head down more than a guilty 6-year-old who didn't do her chores and hardly made eye contact with Romney. He appeared nervous, fearful and shocked by his opponent's clear domination and control of the narrative.  As MSNBC's Chris Matthews lamented, "He was ignoring the debate rather than fight it."

Romney's Alpha was evident from the get-go. He was energized and understood his mission, which was to paint Obama as a weak, big-government liberal who wants to raise taxes on the middle class as the nation's debt, gas prices and health care costs increase while personal incomes decrease (by $4300, Romney claimed). He succeeded. A CNN poll following the debate showed that 75% saw Romney as the victor.

And why would just 25% say that Obama won? Because Obama was as AWOL from the debate as George W. Bush was during the Vietnam War. There was no mention of Romney's infamous 47% statement. No mention of Romney's comments about sending poor, uninsured people to emergency rooms. No mention of Romney's desire to defund Planned Parenthood and overturn Roe v. Wade. No mention of Romney's statements about not needing more teachers. No mention of Bain and the layoffs of tens of thousands. No mention of Romney's "corporations are people" statement. No mention of Romney's personal taxes and his offshore investments. No mention of his running-mate Paul Ryan's plan to dismantle Medicare and privatize Social Security. 

How on Earth could Romney win on the subject of healthcare when (a) his Romneycare was the model for Obamacare and (b) he and Ryan would end Medicare as we know it, sending old folks into the streets shopping for insurance? Same as Bush and Dick Cheney, the guys who never served in the military, won the "tough guy" contest against decorated war hero John Kerry in 2004. The answer is simple: both Kerry and Obama allowed their opponents to define them without forcefully and effectively countering the rhetoric. 

In the end, Obama's performance was stunning in its ineffectiveness. What should've been a slam-dunk became a wild air ball from half court. Should he lose a month from now, historians will mark his defeat as having been snatched from the jaws of victory in Denver on October 4th.  

The Debate: What Would Ali and Frazier Do?

Tonight's the big showdown. The main event. Obama vs Romney. It's got the excitement and buzz of a heavyweight prize fight. Only in the past week, instead of staring down and psyching out their opponents, as boxers usually do at weigh-ins and press conferences, these two politicians, and their surrogates, have so effusively praised the other guy to the point of it being more over-the-top than a Lady Gaga concert:

"We know Gov. Romney has been practicing for months,” said Obama senior adviser David Axelrod. “I think the invasion of Normandy took less preparation than he's putting into these debates. So, I expect he'll be prepared and ready, and will be strong in these debates."  

"President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history," said Romney's campaign adviser Beth Myers.

Even the candidates themselves got involved in the verbal lovefest:

“No, no. Gov. Romney, he’s good debater. I’m just OK,” said Obama.

"He's great. He's competent.  He's experienced. He's done this. He's fantastic," gushed Ann Romney like a school girl.

But what if prizefighters did lavish the same kind of praise on their opponents before a battle? What would a typical Ali/Frazier press conference have sounded like back in the '70s?

Reporter: Muhammad, in what round do you predict you'll knock out Joe Frazier?

Ali: Knockout?! Are you kidding? Have you seen his left hook?! He'll probably knock me on my ass in Round One!

Smokin' Joe Frazier: Cassius, you are too kind. Your left jab's a killer and your rope-a-dope's gonna wear me out. You'll drop me with a right to the head  before I could say Howard Cosell!

Ali: Seriously, Joe's an incredible fighter. Probably one of the best, if not the best ever.

Frazier: No, it is Ali who truly is "The Greatest!" I'll probably suffer the same fate as Sonny Liston! Ali's gonna win.

Ali: No, Joe's gonna win. He's stronger, more fierce and a true warrior.

And with that they both hugged and wished each other a good fight...

Debate Suggestions for Obama

The first debate is just days away. Democrat and Republican strategists alike have been furiously spinning the other sides' verbal mastery in a highly calculated effort to lower the bar for their guy. President Obama simply needs to maintain the status quo; his comfortable lead in the national polls and in swing states and his overall popularity. Romney needs a game-changer. A "big and bold performance," as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said over the weekend.

To be sure, for Obama and Romney the stakes are extremely high. Obama must convince voters that he's the better of the two candidates to continue driving the economic recovery. Romney must coherently demonstrate that he's the viable alternative, laying out the specifics of his plan to lead America back to prosperity.

Here are some suggestions for the president:      

1. Be a strong, convincing, inspiring leader not a dull, pedantic professor  

2. Keep your answers brief and speak in language that the average voter can understand 

3. Don't get mired in minutiae; resist using too many statistics 

4. Watch the body language. Eye-rolling, head-shaking, sighs, smirks and cackles can kill a campaign 

5. Stay calm, cool and collected. Let Romney be the one who comes off animated, plaintive, erratic, rushed and desperate 

6. Don't be snarky and elitist. That too is Romney's job 

7. Know your facts and convey them forcefully, clearly and concisely 

8. Be sure to make your critical  "Are you better off..." case confidently and convincingly 

9. Smile...a lot. That's one of your greatest assets and why a majority of Americans like you       

10. Stay positive and sound reassuring. Romney's Chicken Little routine will be enough negativity for voters. Remember, Americans by nature are optimistic and do see your economic progress. Reinforce that progress and the better days ahead 

11. Draw as many parallels as you can between ObamaCare and RomneyCare. It will disarm Romney, box him into a corner and strip him of one of his major campaign themes 

12. Medicare, Medicare, Medicare. Play to the Democrats' and your strength on this extremely critical issue for seniors

13. Be careful when discussing social issues such as abortion, contraception and gay marriage. While most Americans (Republicans and independents included) really don't care who does what to their bodies and with whom, it's still a minefield that should be respected  

14. Don't appear defensive, don't raise your voice, and never, ever get angry. Americans don't like or want an angry president.

15. Be presidential. You're the one in the Oval Office. Commander in Chief. Leader of the Free World. You're the one who must be responsible, engaged, disciplined, restrained, sensitive, dignified and diplomatic. Let Romney continue to show irresponsibility, impulsiveness, political opportunism and a lack of empathy. 

Is Mitt Romney a Master Debater?

I'll give him credit: Mitt Romney trounced his opponents in the Republican debates. But did you see that crop of crazies battling for King or Queen of the Parallel Universe? It wasn't too difficult to appear as the most electable candidate when the competition resembled the characters in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  

With a week before the first debate with President Obama, Team Romney has been confidently touting their guy as a verbal warrior, a master debater if you will, who will handily win the three televised contests. But these events will be very different for Romney than his battles with Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Jr. and Tim Pawlenty.

The GOP debates were woefully lacking logic, rational thought and the truth. A freak show filled with guns, God, gays, "999" and make-believe. The amount of lying and deception was unprecedented, but it surely made for excellent theater.

Romney won the nomination by default. That he walked away with the coveted prize says more about his kooky challengers than it does him. Months later, with the election just six weeks away, his overall political currency and cache is almost depleted...an indication of how truly unpopular and unlikable he's been from the start.

Now Romney's about to step into the ring with President Obama, who will be armed to the hilt with policy, facts, figures and reality. He won't be able to kick back and hide behind Bachmann's crazy Jesus talk, Newt's outrageous racist rhetoric, Santorum's homophobia, Cain's fuzzy math or Perry's feeble forgetfulness.  He'll have to finally step out from the shadow of his own empty suit and provide specifics as to who he is, what he stands for, his plan for America and why he deserves to be president.

To be sure, Romney will be forced to explain his dubious past and present, including his tenure at Bain Capital, his term as Massachusetts governor, his taxes, the infamous "47%" debacle, Medicare, Social Security, the magical 12-million jobs he projects to create, his cure for a still ailing economy and how he'll deal with Afghanistan, Iran and the outbreak of Middle-East violence. The sideshow is over.

Mitt vs. Mitt: A Frank Conversation Between Romney and His Alter Ego

My Fellow Americans (and by that of course I mean you 53%’ers who aren’t home sitting on your fat, food-stamp-eatin' asses watching “Jerry Springer”). As you know, I am locked in a tight race with President Obama (Kenyan Tribal Leader in exile). The simple truth is, we both have a very different vision for America (Check this out…he actually cares about poor people!). He wants to “redistribute” wealth, taking more from you hard-working, salt-of-the-Earth Americans while I believe that, because “you built it,” (or “daddy” built it) you should keep it (C’mon, that’s your inheritance, not the government’s!).

The economic recovery is a disaster (well, it’s actually pretty damned good…but I’m not gonna say that publicly!) I will fight for the middle-class (if by middle-class we mean those making around a quarter-mil?). I will protect and preserve Medicare (honestly, I can’t wait to dismantle that sucker!) And I will ensure that every American has a safety net (ok, you 47%’ers, you parasitical military vets and seniors, just because you served your country and paid taxes your whole life doesn’t mean you get a free ride just because you get old and sick. Get out of that wheelchair and get a damned job!). I will ensure that everyone who wants a college education will get it (even if they have to sell some stock to pay for it). And I will cut funding to Planned Parenthood (because as everyone knows, the surefire way to end unwanted and teen pregnancies is to abolish birth control…er…wait…don’t quote me on that one…I’m still trying to work this whole “Personhood” thing out…).

On Foreign Policy, Obama and I also have major differences (that’s because he has great intellectual curiosity and I, well, I like cheese…). Take Iran for example (or is it Iraq…I always get those “Ira” states mixed up. Our new enemy’s the one with the “n,” right?). We’ll use military force if necessary to wipe out their nuclear-weapons facilities (just don’t count on my five strapping sons to fight that war…as they’ll be doing some other, more patriotic stuff like handing out “De-fund Planned Parenthood” flyers). Obama is a weak apologist (that is of course if killing and toppling bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda, Qadaffi and droning the snot out of Pakistani terrorists means “I’m sorry”) who cannot protect America (and I know what being tough is…you think it was easy during the Vietnam War being in Paris so far away from my Trust Fund?).

Now I know my remarks from a recent closed-door fundraiser in Boca have caused a stir (and by “stir” I mean “campaign killer”) Let me be clear: I did not mean that nearly half the country is a bunch of lazy-ass, unemployed, government-raping leeches sucking our budget dry (ok, maybe about 44% of you are). You’re hard-working (yeah, hard at working stealing my 13.9% tax money!), patriotic (oh God…here comes that “I served in the military” crap again…oy!) and needy (“I’m 90 and need my Social Security and Medicare …wah-wah-wah…”) and need a little government assistance now and then (and by “now and then” we mean “all the time”). To you I say, don’t worry, I am not going to cut your benefits (that’s because I’ll have my veep Paul Ryan do it! Mwwuuuhaa ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…!)

So get out there and vote in November (unless of course you’re poor, black and Hispanic and are being disenfranchised by my party’s rapacious quest to enact Draconian voter ID laws that will prevent you from doing so).

I’m Mitt Romney and I endorsed this ad (wait, this isn’t an ad, right….) 

We Are the 47%!

       
                   
                   
                             

In one short, publicly released video clip we now know for certain a couple of previously assumed facts about Mitt Romney: that he has an utter disdain for the nation’s poor, working class and minorities, and that he believes every single one of President Obama’s supporters belongs to a parasitical underclass of voters sponging off the government. You know your campaign's in serious trouble when The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol calls you “arrogant and stupid.”

The man who recently told Meet the Press' David Gregory that every time he speaks 10-million people are watching, spoke before thirty supporters at a closed door $50,000 per person fundraiser earlier this year in Boca Raton, FL and forgot that tens of millions of people are watching.

Here’s an excerpt of what Romney told his rich, white benefactors:

"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 on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I happen to be in that 47% group Romney so effortlessly and summarily demeans and disparages. For the record, I am not dependent or reliant on government assistance. I do not receive unemployment checks, food stamps or Medicaid, nor do I reside in any sort of subsidized housing.  In fact, I not only have a job but own a business which employs forty people, which makes me one of those omnipotent job creators Romney & Co. claims to speak for ad infinitum.

Romney also took a cheap shot at Hispanics:

“My dad, as you probably know, was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico… and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.”

Hear that sound? That’s the blissful sound of Latinos saying “Hasta la vista, baby!” to El Grande Blanco CEO.

Just for an extra laugh, Romney also predicted that the stock markets would rise if he were elected. Sure, we all know how desperately the Dow and NASDAQ need that Romney Bounce, having increased just 107% and 155% respectively since Obama took office.

Realizing his silver foot was firmly back in his mouth yet again, Romney gave a lame press conference 10PM Monday night and, as has become his standard m.o., doubled-down, stood his ground and simply referred to his remarks as “not elegantly stated.” Just exactly how would he have “elegantly stated” that he thinks everyone who voted for Obama is a worthless unemployed piece of government-raping garbage?  

To be sure, Romney’s remarks underscore just how painfully out of touch he is with the average American…and with reality in general. He lives in a parallel universe, where privilege and elitism are just the sort of entitlements he contemptuously accuses the poor, blacks and other minorities of mooching from government.  I guess it’s easy to tell everyone else how to make it on their own when you’re a silver-spooner whose rich, connected daddy paved your road to success.

I have some advice for Romney: before you write off every Obama supporter as a lazy, shiftless leech who sucks America's budget dry...check the statistics on poor, uneducated, unemployed white men and see who they're supporting politically. These are your people, Mitt.

It's the Economy, Not Jobs, Stupid!

Every month politicians and pundits eagerly await the release of the latest government employment report like 'tweens awaiting the latest Bieber album. But is it worth the wait?

The 2012 presidential election is going to be decided on the economy, not unemployment. The reason? Because the unemployment rate, at 8%, means that most Americans are gainfully employed. And we're not going to discuss the  "underemployeds," those folks who look a clearly recovering economy and jobs market in the face and say "I'm outta here." Why anyone would think that now, amidst a healthy economic rebound, is the time to quit looking for work is a mystery.

There's a reason why the latest polls show that Americans (1) believe the country is headed in the right direction; (2) are feeling positive about the economy; and (3) are more confident with President Obama's financial stewardship than Mitt Romney's. It's because the economy, when not judged through the singular and misleading lens of the jobs market, is actually doing pretty well.

Anyone who has investments--in stocks, mutual funds, retirement or college savings account for example--has seen a meteoric 100% rise since Obama took office. For homeowners, there's been a stabilization of the housing market and a steady increase in value. Those looking to buy their first home are treated to low prices, historically low interest rates and plentiful credit. Consumers are more confident than ever, evidenced by strong retail and auto sales and record corporate profits. The hotel industry is booming, manufacturing is expanding and even the music industry is seeing strong sales. Overall GDP growth, at around 3% annually, is a far cry from the 6% contraction four years ago. Ok, let's talk employment finally. There's been 30 consecutive months of private sector growth with over 4.5 million jobs created.    

I know, you're saying "Get to the bad part." To be sure, the economy has a long way to go before we see the glory days again. But there's no escaping the simple truth that Americans are feeling good again about the present and the future.  They view their personal providence through the prism of their wallets. Right now that wallet seems secure and getting fatter. And that's very bad news for Romney. 

Romney Sticks Silver Foot in His Mouth Again

If Mitt Romney loses his bid for president, chalk up Tuesday September 11th as the day, along with the moment he named Rep. Paul Ryan his vice presidential running mate, that it all fell apart.

In the wake of violent protests and terror attacks at U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt where an American Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other diplomats were killed, Romney deemed it politically expedient to criticize President Obama and the administration's "leadership" in protecting American citizens and interests abroad. In a statement issued late Tuesday night Romney said:

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

The "first response" Romney was referring to was an early Tuesday statement issued by the Obama administration in response to the outrage caused by the release of an amateur American film which offensively depicted the Muslim Prophet Muhammad:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

The problem for Romney is that while the administration's statement was issued before it knew about the attacks on the embassies and the deaths, his statement was issued after he knew...making it the most ill-informed, ill-advised, ignorant, reprehensible and irresponsible decision so far in the campaign, and a clear sign of pathetic desperation. It certainly wasn't presidential, and it was a glaring example of how Romney's in over his head, especially when discussing matters of homeland security and foreign policy. He's about as much a statesman as Mike Tyson. I take that back. Tyson's smarter and more eloquent.

But rather than admit that he spoke prematurely, Romney doubled-down on Wednesday, maintaining the appropriateness of his harsh criticisms:

"It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values," Romney said in Florida. "I don't think that we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles. We express immediately when we feel that the president and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America."

Restraint, discipline, sensitivity, integrity, dignity, decency, diplomacy, stability. Those are precisely some of the principles and characteristics Obama rightly exemplified as he gathered the facts in this rapidly developing crisis; traits so utterly foreign to the sabre-rattling, red-meat-rhetoric-tossing Romney.

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here.... Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama said in response to the attacks. "And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that." He added that it was critical "to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts, and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Romney's attack was sharply criticized by prominent Republicans such as Peggy Noonan, Steve Schmidt, John Sununu, Matthew Dowd and Rep. Peter King, and was absent any support by GOP leaders including Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor. You know you're in serious trouble when your only support's coming from Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

It's one thing to fire off the inflammatory rhetoric when it's part of the day-to-day grind of a close election. It's another to shamelessly exploit for political purposes the deaths of Americans who've sacrificed their lives to make the world a better place. As with so many other blunders Romney's made, this latest strategic debacle, perpetrated amid the solemnity of 9/11, underscores a supreme lack of empathy and a mind-boggling inability to read situations.

Romney's actions this week highlight an unprecedented bankruptcy of character. Democrats can criticize Republican presidents and candidates such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and John McCain, but they were largely clear in what they stood for.  The only thing Mitt Romney stands for is getting elected president, a rapacious quest for which he'll do and say anything, no matter how dishonest, destructive and craven.

Romney: Afghanistan is Just a Word

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At eleven years old, it's the longest war in United States history. It's taken the lives of over 2000 American troops. It's cost U.S taxpayers $500 billion. But to Mitt Romney, Afghanistan is astonishingly just a "word."

Speaking with host David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press, Romney, when asked if his omission of the war during his convention speech was a mistake, reiterated that he’d spoken about it the night before the convention to veterans at the American Legion. The Republican presidential nominee laughed and said it’s "interesting that people are curious about mentioning words in a speech as opposed to policy. I've been to Afghanistan and the members of our troops know of my commitment to Afghanistan and to the effort that's going on there. I have some differences on policy with the president. I happen to think those are more important than what word I mention in each speech."

Clearly for Romney, the man who's trying to convince voters he's worthy of being Commander in Chief, the war is an afterthought. It has such little significance to him that he limits discussion of it to an important yet small interest group like veterans rather than make it central to all Americans under the broader context of his foreign policy. Reserving his thoughts on the war exclusively for an American Legion audience is like talking abortion to evangelicals; energy and pollution to environmentalists; immigration to border states. Romney's reduced the war to a mere talking point.

It's unconscionable, and quite frankly unfathomable, that a candidate running for president when his nation's at war would fail to mention that war, and worse, the brave men and women who've sacrificed everything, including their lives, to fight it. Perhaps if one of Romney’s five sons had worn the uniform the war would have greater meaning and urgency to him.

Obama's Speech...Yawn.....

They say that great things come in threes. So after Michelle Obama's eloquent, heartfelt speech and Bill Clinton's blistering, rock-star-like missive, Democrats expected a knockout performance by President Obama Thursday night. But what they got was the same old same old from a man who sure as heck knows how to deliver sweeping oratory, but without the requisite emotion and passion, especially at this critical juncture in the campaign, that makes it truly meaningful. If I were an independent voter watching his speech I'd have headed into the kitchen for a snack a minute into his delivery.

What Democrats saw from Clinton the night before was the kind of speech pundits on both sides of the aisle talk about for years. A brilliant, witty, awe-inspiring impassioned plea replete with vision and promise. Not because he's a better speaker but because he inhales politics, politicians and the process like I inhale air. His heart, not just his mind, is fully in it. Contrary to Obama, whose heart seems to already be on that plane back to Chicago.

Don't worry about Democrats. I suspect Obama's speech was good enough to keep them solidly in the family. But it's not the base, or the "enthusiasm gap," as former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," that the speech was written for. It was supposed to directly and forcefully appeal to Independents, for it's this highly coveted group who Obama should be panicking about, and a group which were likely disappointed with his message. What they didn't get from him was any sort of detailed plan or specifics on job growth and economic recovery that might've given them reason to believe four more years with him at the controls is the answer to America's problems. Instead they got the standard Obama routine, which at this point in the game seems uninspired, stilted and repetitive. At this crucial stage, do we really need to hear the same "Fair shot...fair share...same set of rules" line? Unlike Clinton, who masterfully ad-libbed his way through almost half of his 48-minute speech, Obama just seemed terribly scripted, like he's delivering a well-tuned performance. Unfortunately, now is not the time for the president to appear as if he's merely phoning it in.

Obama needed to hit it out of the park, as Clinton did, and bring home the winning run. Instead, he hit a ground-rule double, leaving the winning run on third. Whether the runner ever makes it to home plate remains to be seen.

The Biggest Difference Between Obama and Clinton

It was the kind of speech that sent Democrats into a giddy orbit of pure, unadulterated love. Their rock star, Bill Clinton, delivered the sort of sincere, rousing, rallying cry they wish Barack Obama could. The social media sites Twitter and Facebook were like a streaming Bubba fan page as the former president stood at the podium with the excitement of The Beatles, the cool of Elvis, the charisma of Sinatra, the passion of Bono and the moves of James Brown. Quite simply, he dazzled.

Clinton said what needed to be said. And he pulled no punches in punching the living daylights out of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, which he accused of bringing the country to the brink of financial ruin and who now wants a to be back in the driver's seat. "We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in," Clinton mocked.

But it wasn't until the end of his speech, as Clinton was met onstage by Obama in a hug that Romney and Paul Ryan wish they were secure enough in their manhood to pull off, that the stark contrast between the two men became painfully clear. Clinton's magic, which is so woefully lacking in Obama, is his rapacious hunger for the spotlight and a genuine love of politics and politicians. Clinton absorbs it all like an addicted sponge, while Obama rejects it all like a saturated sponge. Sure, he's totally in love with himself, but that doesn't matter. Democrats love him even more.  

As the former and current president exited stage right, Clinton slowly sauntered towards backstage, beaming in all his uber-affable narcissistic glory, basking in the afterglow of his Messianic impact, shaking hands and chatting up supporters, Obama was the picture of disconnection, disinterest and disdain for the entire process as he impatiently waited for Bill to end the lovefest. Between his body language and the look on his face, it's as if he was saying, "C'mon Bill. Can we leave.? Enough already. I need to get the hell out of here. Jeez, he's still touching people...eeewwwww. I don't get why he loves this crap so much.  Bill...Bill....let's go! I'll just have to go grab him by the arm and lead him out."

And that's just what Obama did. It was an extremely telling moment. It was clear Clinton hated leaving, and it was equally clear Obama hated staying. It's precisely that obvious contempt for the game, coupled with an inability to truly connect, genuinely connect, with voters--especially white, blue-collar men--that is Obama's Achilles heal. A liability big enough to, as the Republicans wish, send him back to Chicago in January if he doesn't soon find his mojo.  

Republican Governors Messin' with Romney's Gloom and Doom Narrative

It's a comically contradictory message within the Republican Party that is justifiably confusing to independent voters. On the one hand there's the presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan attacking President Obama’s record as they insist Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. On the other, Republican governors across the country including John Kasich (OH), Chris Christie (NJ), Terry Branstad (IA), Rick Scott (FL) and Nikki Haley (SC) are downright giddy as the say the exact opposite, self-servingly touting their home states' economic turnarounds as they seek another term.

The impact is so potentially harmful to the GOP ticket that Team Romney has reportedly asked Kasich, Scott and others to tone down the positive statements. But Republican governors care about one thing: getting re-elected. As such, they’re forced to acknowledge what the Obama administration and Democrats have been saying about the national economy’s progress, even if their blatant self-promotion clashes with Romney’s gloom and doom narrative. So while his mutt may have been thrown onto the car roof, these governors are throwing Mitt under the bus. There can’t be such appreciable progress on the state level if the broader economy isn’t experiencing similar growth as well. And that’s good news for Obama, not their nominee.

At their convention this week, Democrats would be wise to hammer home two main talking points: that Americans are absolutely better off now than they were four years ago, and that the economic bragging by Republican governors across the nation is incontrovertible proof of that.

You're Damn Right We're Better Off...

Are we really having this debate four years after the nation's worst financial crisis in eighty years? After a near-catastrophic meltdown brought on by eight years of Bush Administration-led tax cuts, deregulation and Wall Street recklessness? Talk about the "fiscal cliff"; have we forgotten that America was on the brink of financial ruin in the Fall of 2008?  

During the past several days the ghost of Ronald Reagan has reared its partisan head to incessantly ask, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" It's as if a memo went out Friday morning to every conservative pundit, surrogate and politician requiring them to hammer home this talking point ad nauseam. The answer to the question, of course, is yes. But not surprisingly, Democrats seem to be tripping over their own feet trying to answer without seeming insensitive to or dismissive of the continuing struggles of the poor and middle-class.  

But it's a simple question to answer if, rather than spew partisan rhetoric, one compares the key economic indicators of today vs. before President Obama took office. These include unemployment and job creation, GDP, the credit market, consumer confidence, foreclosures, the stock market, housing, manufacturing, the auto industry and corporate profits, all of which have greatly improved since 2008 and 2009. 

It's critical that Obama and Democrats confidently head into their convention this week in Charlotte prepared to effectively remind voters just how far they've come and that yes, they're much better off than they were. The following message should be incorporated into every single speech: 

If you're poor, you're better off

If you're middle-class, you're better off

If you were unemployed, you're better off

If you have Medicare, you're better off

If you're sick, you're better off

If you were without affordable, accessible heath care, you're better off

If you're a female wage earner, you're better off

If you're a college student, you're better off

If you're gay, you're better off

If you're a homeowner, you're better off

If you're looking to buy a home, you're better off

If you're seeking credit, you're better off

If you're invested in the stock market, you're better off

If you're a corporate CEO, you're better off

If you work on Wall Street, you're better off

If you work in the auto industry, you're better off

If you work in banking, you're better off

If you work in retail, construction or manufacturing, you're better off

If you're a consumer, you're more confident and are better off

If you or your loved one was fighting in Iraq, you're better off

If you or your loved one is fighting in Afghanistan, you're better off

Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi are not better off

But Republicans, who seem to loathe facts and fact checkers, claim that "many people" still don't believe the economy's improved or that it's headed in the right direction. But it really doesn't matter what "many people" think. Many people still believe blacks should be riding in the back of buses, Mexicans should be fenced in their country, Jews should be kept out of their neighborhoods and country clubs, women should be denied contraception and abortions, and that it's wrong for gays to marry. "Many" doesn't make "right." 

Republicans may not hold much regard for facts and the truth, but the truth is, the economy, and Americans as a whole, are far better off than they were four years ago.

Assessing the Republican Convention

Say goodbye to the GOP’s Smoke and Mirrors Show, otherwise known as the Republican National Convention. The well-intended but poorly executed strategy to humanize the automaton-like Mitt Romney and make him appealing to voters was overshadowed by the gargantuan egos of the party's two insatiable, self-aggrandizing rock stars, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, who took to the podium not to share warm and fuzzy Romenydotes or to faithfully lobby for their nominee but to selfishly devour the limelight in setting their own 2016 presidential tables.

As if that wasn't enough to derail Team Romney, there was the sad, geriatric unraveling of "mystery speaker" Clint Eastwood, whose bizarre, rambling conversation with an empty chair symbolizing "Invisible Obama" was a disastrous use of prime time network coverage. He was a mystery speaker alright, because it was an absolute mystery what the heck he was talking about. Enough with the Henry Fonda "On Golden Pond" old codger routine. The only thing missing was the goofy fishing hat. What was he thinking? Was this just a pathetic attempt by an aging Hollywood icon to stay relevant? And did you catch the cutaway of Ann Romney during Eastwood's unscripted, meandering, 3-times-as-long-as-planned meltdown? She looked as though dirty Uncle Harry had exposed himself at the July 4th BBQ. And rightly so: Eastwood seemed crazier than Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine.”  

As for the Invisible Obama symbol, the irony isn't lost on us in the context of Ralph Ellison’s award-winning classic Invisible Man which, as Cliffsnotes.com describes, “tells the story of a young, college-educated black man struggling to survive and succeed in a racially divided society that refuses to see him as a human being.” Which makes Eastwood's reference a horrifically insensitive and inappropriate choice. Whichever unthinking campaign orangutan decided to give this precious airtime to Clint instead of using it to showcase the human qualities Romney’s handlers insist he has, should be fired and forced to watch an endless loop of "Every Which Way But Loose." Funny, isn't this the same Clint Eastwood who Republicans crucified last winter over his Super Bowl ad they accused of being blatantly pro-Obama? What a difference seven months makes, huh?
 
With friend likes Christie, Rubio, Eastwood and the lyin' Paul Ryan, Romney needs no enemies. But in truth, Romney is his own worst enemy. No amount of amped-up "humanizing" from others can make him appear any less stilted and wooden...or any more likable, sincere, accessible and trustworthy. Even when sharing an emotional story of his parents’ marriage and his father’s death his delivery was robotic and unemotional. Come November he's going to have to convince voters all on his own that he's "human" enough for the most important job in the world. 

Paul "Lyin" Ryan and the GOP Smoke and Mirrors Show

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Republican convention was a pathetic showcase of war-mongers, gun-toters, aging-Hollywood-icons-I-used-to-love-but-now-feel-sorry-for and religious fanatics rattling sabres and espousing all sorts of extremist rhetoric to their rapacious, Kool-aid drunken base. To be sure, they're certainly giving voters a clear choice for November.

Now add liars to the cast, as Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running-mate and the GOP's Boy Wonder, took to the stage Wednesday night and shamelessly and smugly lied his way through an awkward, angry speech. The Washington Post reported that out of eleven subjects he discussed just two were truthful, six were false and three were misleading. But remember, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," as Romney pollster Neil Newhouse asserted this week, bringing to mind Tina Fey's brilliant Sarah Palin who opined, “I just hope the lamestream media won't twist my words by repeating them verbatim."

In regurgitating the standard Republican propaganda, Ryan hopped from one disingenuous, deceptive attack on President Obama to the next. The two biggest outright lies: (1) he blamed Obama for a December 2008 GM factory closing in his hometown of Janesville, WI which obviously shut down before he took office; and (2) he absurdly blamed Obama for the failure of the Simpson-Bowles bi-partisan debt-reduction commission when in fact it was Ryan, who as a member of the commission, was the lone Republican "no" vote....essentially killing it.  He failed to mention this little factoid when accusing Obama of "doing nothing" with the Commission's plan.

Ryan was also guilty of perpetuating the "You didn't build it" lie even as he had the hypocritical audacity to say a few minutes later that when businesses fail it's not the fault of the owners but rather the government for not doing enough. That's right, he said the government didn't do enough. Confusing, right?

Ryan championed college students and lamented their financial struggles, yet it is he and his soulless party that seeks to cut most college tuition assistance programs while also raising student loan interest rates.

Ryan implausibly portrayed himself and Romney as the great protectors of Medicare from the Great Raider Obama. This coming from a guy whose position on Medicare is to annihilate it. He also called Obamacare a "government takeover of health insurance" even though it puts 30-million new customers in the hands of private insurance companies. C'mon, what kind of cockamamie Socialism is that!?   

Ryan again beat his small government drum despite that fact that as a Congressman he voted for TARP, the auto bailout, Bush's prescription drug plan and two wars--all unfunded--as he voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthy...all of which added trillions to the national debt.

Ryan accused his opponents of being "silent about their record" yet it's his boss who's running like Usain Bolt away from his taxes, offshore investments, Mormonism, years at Bain Capital and record as Massachusetts governor.

Notwithstanding the above, the Ryan...er...Romney ticket is doomed to fail not because of Ryan's radical positions or pathological aversion to the truth but because the man at the top of the ticket, as his lackluster, uninspiring, 'unhumanizing' "speech Thursday night demonstrated, lacks character, principles and vision, and is still viewed by voters, despite the GOP's Tampa Smoke and Mirrors Show, as unlikable, untrustworthy and incapable.