***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***
Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use. |
If you think my post come out of the middle of no where, I’m sorry. I hate the news. I hate the 24-hour news networks. I like the Sunday morning news shows better, because they put the most important things from the week, into one hour. I agree with the following statement:
“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.”
So this is kind of out of the middle of no where, but I have been thinking about Mitt Romney and his drug policy vs. Barak Obama and his policy. That led me to the following ideas. What do you think?
(This is a photoshop, just incase you are stupid).
Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use.
Reasons to agree:
- Obama said, “I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.” People do things for a lot of reasons. To say that he used drugs for one reason, because he was having problems with his racial identity, seems to be playing the melodramatic race card. I’m not saying that it might have been part of the reason that he used drugs, but to fully blame all his drug use with racial identity problems, like he did in his book, seems a little melodramatic.
- Melodrama involves an oversimplified hero. Obama seems to see himself as a hero, in a very simplistic way. He wrote two or three autobiographies about himself, before he was even un unaccomplished senator. Now that he is president, he can write a few autobiogaphies, but he has already written two or three.
- Obama goes on and on about how honest he was about drug use. He even went on and on about how he “wasn’t the first president to use drugs, but the first one to be honest about it”. However, if Obama is so honest about his short comings, why did he keep his smoking habit such a secret. And how can the press go on and on about how honest he is and they are, when they never published, and I mean not a single news outlet, published a photo of him with a smoke?
- When Obama said, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though” (Dreams from My Father) perhaps he thought he would reach those who had used drugs and convence them to go straight. However he will have reached more straight kids and convinced them to use drugs, by making it sound cool, showing that he was able to beat it, and using their street names, as though he is still trying to have “street cred”.What do you think? Was Obama too self centered with his drug use story? Will heavy drug use go up? Perhaps it will go down. Obama can be a good or bad role model to people in a powerful way. Boys without fathers. Obama was able to beat it… or maybe he never got in far enough.
How about this. Obama ties his drug use with his search for his identity. Bush’s mother started the just say no movement. Republicans are about abstinence. Democrats don’t like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said, “I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He’d be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.” So according to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wouldn’t be so “narrow” if he had “dropped acid”. Was Barack Obama trying to tell people he wasn’t “narrow” when he told the world all about his drug use, but he hides, and the media helps him hide his continued cigarette addiction? Did Obama think it was sexy of him to have used drugs in the past, but he is embarrassed of his continued cigarette addiction? If not, why did he tell the world about the former, and no one knows about the latter?
Some of this may be old news, but I hope I am covering new territory.
Perhaps the important question is what party are we? Obviously, we are Bill Gates. We are not the party tries to glorify dropping acid. And it all goes back to these old battles from the 60s, that just won’t go away. Forget Romney’s Mormonism. It had nothing to do with his church… if Mitt Romney had used drugs in his youth, like Glen Beck, no one would have cared about his Mormonism. Perhaps Romney reminded people of things they don’t want to admit were mistakes. Saying you don’t like people like Romney is an important part of convincing yourself that people like him are narrow.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you do gain some great insight from dropping acid. Maybe Obama doesn’t think he is really a cool guy because he used to use drugs. Maybe there is a logical explanation why he was “honest” about using drugs in the past, but doesn’t admit his un-politically fashionable current cigarette use.
Of course the “I used to do drugs” thing glamorizes it, but the “I don’t use drugs, made something out of myself, and became president” thing also de-glamorizes it. But that is not my point. I don’t care about the glamorizing drugs thing. I don’t even care about the hypocrisy of Obama saying how honest he was, when it serves his purposes of appealing to people who love to pat themselves on their back by saying how “nuanced” they are. What I really care about is what the whole thing says about Obama, and about the democratic and republican parties.
How many democrats are democrats, even though they want smaller government, but because they think it is cooler to be in a party that embraces nuance, or to put it another way, they are embarrassed of the goody-goody-religious right image of the republican party.
Everyone I know who grew up republican, and religious, when they started experimenting with drugs or Alcohol, they stopped calling themselves religious, and republican.
When Obama was looking for a political party, was their anyone that he could identify with?
Do we want to be the party of Youth? Do we want to be the cool party? What image do we have? I don’t want the Bill Gates Microsoft image, and I don’t want the Steve Jobs Apple image. What about the Mitt Romney image? I think Mitt Romney would make a hell of a president, and do the right things, and make things run more efficient, but what image would he present for our party? Is Mitt Romney cool?
Mitt Romney’s dad was cool. Mitt Romney’s dad was a man’s man, told it like it was, was entertaining, and fun to listen to.
I think if we are going to win in 2012, we have to win the debate, and show how self serving and shallow the democrats are in their immature attempt to be cool.
That shouldn’t be too hard.
Romney’s Videos |
You may have noticed that Romney took down all HIS videos from Youtube (you can still find videos of him that other people posted, but he no longer has an account, and so his videos went away). So, if you have put his videos on your website, all those links are broken, and all your post will be frustrating to those who go to your websites.
I think this was a very bad decision.
One video that I felt very bad about loosing was the Jan Mickelson interview.
I still have the complete transcript here:
http://myclob.pbworks.com/Jan-Mickelson
Because of comments left on my post, someone showed me where the complete interview is on Google Videos. Thanks. I’m glad you helped me find it. This video has a low google rank, and I couldn’t find it. I think it might help if we all link to it. Also I updated my video page, which has a whole bunch of Romney videos with un-broken links.
http://myclob.pbworks.com/video
Tags: Jan Mickelson, Romney
Michael Steele should stay |
(EDITORS NOTE: I respectfully disagree with this editorial about Michael Steele and his remarks in regards to Mitt Romney. -ANN MARIE CURLING - Founder comMITTed to Romney)
We must not take Michael Steele out of context. That is what killed Mitt Romney. If we want Romney to have a chance in 2012, we have to change the way we debate issues as a party. We can’t turn the word “nuanced” into a bad word, and we must never take people out of context. If we removed Steele for what he said, we would be serving the emotional shouters of the party… we are not the party of emotion… we are not the overly-idealistic, naive, party of people who get riled up by something that someone says out of context. We are the party of ideas. It doesn’t matter what it sounds like Steele said, it only matters what he really said.
Jay Cost thinks that it is tie for Michael Steele to go, over what he said about Romney. Jay Cost is wrong.
Michael Steele was saying what a lot of people believe. We need to win the argument, with reason, not by kicking those people out of power that don’t see things “the true way”. We need Michael Steele out there saying what people believe, and having the conversation. It was fine for Romney to disagree with Steele, but Romney did not “slap” him. Romney disagreed with Steele. You can disagree with someone without “slapping” them. Lets all just calm down, Ace… no one has to walk the plank.
The caller was saying Romney could have won against Obama. Who cares? Maybe Romney would have won, maybe he wouldn’t. Who cares? Michael Steele was pointing out that Romney did not win. I think Michael Steele tried brainstorming some of the reasons Romney did not win. Romney is a shrewd businessman. Business people who do not learn from their mistakes do not have the kind of careers that Romney had. I’m sure Romney sat down and made a list of all the things that he did right, and all the things that did wrong.
“Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted,” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. “Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction.”
Yes democrats could do what John Stewart does every night, and take something that Steele said out of context. But there probably things that Romney said that they could more easily take out of context.
You could take what Steele said out of context, and say that Mormons do not have the right to be republicans. But that is not what he said. Steele said, “It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism.” He never said that he had issues with Mormonism, or that it was right that the base did. He listed it as one of other reasons, and he is right that it was a factor. It doesn’t matter if what Steele said “sounds wrong” because he is right. It was a factor.
Steele didn’t say it was good that the party reject people like Romney, Reagan, and George HW Bush, who were once pro-choice. If Michael Steele would have been smarter, he could have pointed out that Reagan was once pro-choice. But Steele was on the program for an hour or two…
He also could have been more nuanced (a word that Hotair is trying to turn into a bad word… not a good move for the republican party) in his explanation of Mitt Romney’s pro-life position. Romney said he was always pro-life, but believed in the rule of law and promised he would not change the law in Massachusetts. When the democrat called him a liar, and said that he was pro-life, would always be pro-life, Romney had to convince them that he would not change the law. He would not make the laws more pro-life, or pro-choice. Romney kept that promise, but people took what he said out of context. It didn’t matter than any person with 1/2 a brain knew that Romney was always pro-life, that he just promised not to change the laws, all that mattered was they have videos that could have been taken out of context. Well it is the same with Michael Steele. But we have to reform as a party. We can’t keep Steel out of the party leadership because he can be taken out of context, and hope to get Romney into leadership, another person who was totally taken out of context.
PS If Romney is unable to address these issues in the next 3-1/2 years, or with the book he is working on, than nothing that Michael Steele says matters.
Romney’s dad lost his presidency because something that he said was taken out of context. It would be sad of Steele lost his spot, while talking about Romney, because of something Steele said out of context.
Tags: Michael Stele, Mitt Romney
JUAN WILLIAMS: Obama’s Outrageous Sin Against Our Kids |
As I watch Washington politics I am not easily given to rage.
Washington politics is a game and selfishness, out-sized egos and corruption are predictable.
But over the last week I find myself in a fury.
The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship (Romney has said “Some kids, particularly certain minority populations, are falling behind. Horace Mann said that education was the great equalizer. But in too many of our schools today, that is not being achieved. I believe that the failure of education in urban schools is the civil rights issue of our generation.” –Source: 2006 State of the State Address, January 2006). If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America’s black and Hispanic students.
This is critical to our nation’s future in terms of workforce preparation to compete in a global economy but also to fulfill the idea of racial equality by providing a real equal opportunity for all young people who are willing to work hard to succeed.
In a politically calculated dance step the Obama team first indicated that they wanted the Opportunity Scholarship Program to continue for students lucky enough to have won one of the vouchers. The five-year school voucher program is scheduled to expire after the school year ending in June 2010. Secretary Duncan said in early March that it didn’t make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning…those kids need to stay in their school.”
And all along the administration indicated that pending evidence that this voucher program or any other produces better test scores for students they were willing to fight for it. The president has said that when it comes to better schools he is open to supporting “what works for kids.” That looked like a level playing field on which to evaluate the program and even possibly expanding the program.
But last week Secretary Duncan announced that he will not allow any new students to enter the D.C. voucher program. In fact, he had to take back the government’s offer of scholarships to 200 students who had won a lottery to get into the program starting next year. His rationale is that if the program does not win new funding from Congress then those students might have to go back to public school in a year.
He does not want to give the students a chance for a year in a better school? That does not make sense if the students and their families want that life-line of hope. It does not make sense if there is a real chance that the program might win new funding as parents, educators and politicians rally to undo the “bigotry of low expectations” and open doors of opportunity — wherever they exist — for more low-income students.
And now Secretary Duncan has applied a sly, political check-mate for the D.C. voucher plan.
With no living, breathing students profiting from the program to give it a face and stand and defend it the Congress has little political pressure to put new money into the program. The political pressure will be coming exclusively from the teacher’s unions who oppose the vouchers, just as they oppose No Child Left Behind and charter schools and every other effort at reforming public schools that continue to fail the nation’s most vulnerable young people, low income blacks and Hispanics.
The National Education Association and other teachers’ unions have put millions into Democrats’ congressional campaigns because they oppose Republican efforts to challenge unions on their resistance to school reform and specifically their refusal to support ideas such as performance-based pay for teachers who raise students’ test scores.
By going along with Secretary Duncan’s plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage.
This voucher programs is unique in that it takes no money away from the beleaguered District of Columbia Public Schools. Nationwide, the strongest argument from opponents of vouchers is that it drains hard-to-find dollars from public schools that educate the majority of children.
But Congress approved the D.C. plan as an experiment and funded it separately from the D.C. school budget. It is the most generous voucher program in the nation, offering $7,500 per child to help with tuition to a parochial or private school.
With that line of attack off the table, critics of vouchers pointed out that even $7,500 is not enough to pay for the full tuition to private schools where the price of a year’s education can easily go beyond $20,000. But nearly 8,000 students applied for the vouchers. And a quarter of them, 1,714 children, won the lottery and took the money as a ticket out of the D.C. public schools.
The students, almost all of them black and Hispanic, patched together the voucher money with scholarships, other grants and parents willing to make sacrifices to pay their tuition.
What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.
It is really upsetting to see that the Heritage Foundation has discoverd that 38 percent of the members of Congress made the choice to put their children in private schools. Of course, Secretary Duncan has said he decided not to live in Washington, D.C. because he did not want his children to go to public schools there. And President Obama, who has no choice but to live in the White House, does not send his two daughters to D.C. public schools, either. They attend a private school, Sidwell Friends, along with two students who got there because of the voucher program.
This reckless dismantling of the D.C. voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority children.
And its time for all of us to get outraged about this sin against our children.
Tags: Add new tag, JUAN WILLIAMS
“A Timid Advocate of Freedom” |
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.
By Mitt Romney
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas (rta&d).
In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.
Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.
— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
Tags: Mitt Romney, National Review, Obama is wrong
Obama is wrong on Cuba |
Obama is making friends with Cuba, opening it up. He is also making friends with Chavez. Here are some photos of Obama and Chavez, as well as some Romney quotes, and some probems with Cuba.
I would like to here your thoughts on what Obama is doing with Chavez, and Cuba…
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “Through the Internet, TV, Radio Marti and other Miami radio stations that broadcast into Cuba we know that word of news and events here in the U.S. gets back to Cuba. To this daily flow of truth I would like to add my message to your own. America will never back down to the Castro brothers. There will be no accommodation, no appeasement. There will be no end to our insistence that political prisoners are set free, and that Cubans themselves are finally given the privileges that today are enjoyed only by Castro’s cronies, and by foreign tourists.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, 3/9/2007)
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “These are troubling times in Venezuela, as Hugo Chavez continues his methodical assault on democratic institutions and his people’s freedom. I am particularly troubled by the government’s hostility towards a free press and recent actions to take Radio Caracas Television off the air. There should be no doubt that the United States stands with those men and women of good will who step up to secure their God-given liberty – in Venezuela and throughout the Americas. The future of freedom anddemocracy in our Hemisphere also requires the friends of freedom in Latin America to speak clearly and forcefully to defend liberty, democracy and human rights.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Statement On Venezuela’s Independence Day, 7/05/2007)
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “It is time for the United States to adopt a Latin American strategy that will strengthen human rights and freedom, that will advance our own interests, and that will weaken the threat of the Castros and Chavez.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Statement On Venezuela’s Independence Day, 7/05/2007)
Obama is wrong on Cuba
Governor Romney On Senator Obama’s Cuba Succession Policy
Boston, MA - Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on Senator Barack Obama’s Cuba succession policy, outlined today in the Miami Herald:
“Senator Barack Obama continues to demonstrate through his words that he does not have the strength to confront America’s enemies or defend our values. First, Senator Obama said he would make it a priority to meet with Castro in his first year in office. Now, he’s proposing that we begin to lift sanctions against the Castro regime. Unilateral concessions to a dictatorial regime are counterproductive, helping to secure a succession of power and repression instead of a transition to freedom. They will only embolden those who cling to power at the expense of the Cuban people. We must not weaken our policy on Cuba until the Castro regime is dismantled, all political prisoners are freed and Cuba transitions to free and fair elections.”
Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants
- We should try to strengthen human rights in South America.
- We should try to strengthen freedom in South America.
- We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime.
- We should weaken the threat of the Chavez regime.
- We should use foreign aid and investments on those who stand alongside us.
- We should act to inform public opinion in Latin America.
- We should improve our economic ties with Latin America.
- We must rebuild relationships of respect, trust, and friendship with Latin America.
- We must secure our border.
- We must reaffirm our appreciation of legal immigration.
- We must never ignore Latin America.
We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime.
Reasons to agree
- Castro’s political prisoners must be set free.
- Castro should finally give Cubans the privileges that today are enjoyed only by Castro’s cronies, and by foreign tourists.
- Castro is a despots.
- Castro is a tyrants.
- Castro is a frauds.
- Castro has political prisoners. We should not sit down for coffee with dictators when they put their citizens in jail for what they think.
- Castro helped the Soviet Union sneak nuclear weapons into Cuba. JFK had to stand up to Khrushchev in order to get them out.
- Castro was the leader of his country for 49 years. No one should have power that long.
- Cuba only has one party. One party government is bad.
- Governments should not be allowed to control the media. Castro controls the media, including the internet.
- Cubans are rarely permitted to travel abroad. This country is a cage.
- Cubans are never permitted to create political organizations
- At best Castro has maintained Cuba’s pre-1959 level of development, but at an “extraordinary” cost to the overall welfare of Cubans.
- When castro was in school he apparently collaborated in an attempt on a rival’s life: Masferrer. (Thomas, Hugh : Cuba the Pursuit of Freedom p.523-524)
- Castro is a liar. In 1957, Castro signed the Manifesto of the Sierra Maestra in which he agreed to call elections under the Electoral Code of 1943 within the first 18 months of his time in power and to restore all of the provisions of the Constitution of 1940 that had been suspended under Batista. Of course, he did not do this. All dictators promise to limit their power once they no longer need it, but they never do. President Bush has expanded the power of the president, but luckily, because of two term limit, he will never benefit permanently from the expanded power. Also there is the possibility that his political opponents will benefit from this expanded power, which would make him think twice about expanding them too much. I personally think Bush’s expanded powers are warranted. I think that it was stupid that a warrant to wire-tap did not apply to cell phones, but I am glad that they can be checked by the balance of powers. I am glad that we have congress and the courts to challenge him.
- Castro almost destroyed the whole planet. No joke. Millions, or perhaps billions of people almost died. Well maybe it wasn’t all Castro’s fault, but why would somone choose the soviet union over the united states? Anyways Castro chose the Soviet Union, and let them move nuclear weapons onto Cuba, and let them build missile launching sites… So it was the Soviet Union’s fault more than Casto’s, but gosh, it was close… we are talking about Billions of lives, and he rose to power, and helped cause all these problems.. over throwing the government, and holding onto power, and not following the constitution that he said he would, and then helping the soviets point nuclear weapons at America… we were the good guys, how could he have done that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis. Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded. (Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeyevich (1962-10-27). Letter to Castro (PDF). The George Washington University. Retrieved on 2006-05-11)
- It has been claimed by the Carthage Foundation-funded Center for a Free Cuba that an estimated 14,000 Cubans were killed in Cuban military actions abroad. Castro would send people overseas to fight in support of Marxist.
- (Re: “If Canada and Europe can get along with Cuba, why can’t we?). Just because people got along with Hitler, and Mussolini doesn’t make them good people. Sure, some people like Castro, but some people like Mussolini. I’m not saying Castro is Histler, but every generation has idiots that make friends with very bad people. Some actress made friends with Hitler, and Shawn Penn made friends with Chavez.
- Thousands of political opponents to the Castro regime have been killed, primarily during the first decade of his leadership.138139 Some Cubans labeled “counterrevolutionaries”, “fascists”, or “CIA operatives” were also imprisoned in poor conditions without trial.140141 Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs, were labor camps established in 1965 to confine “social deviants” including homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses to work “counter-revolutionary” influences out of certain segments of the population.142 The camps were closed in 1967 in response to international outcries.143 Professor Marifeli Pérez Stable, a Cuban immigrant and former Castro supporter has said that “There were thousands of executions, forty, fifty thousand political prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners, with what we today know about human rights and the international norms governing human rights … it is legitimate to raise questions about possible crimes against humanity in Cuba.”144
- Castro acknowledges that Cuba holds political prisoners, but argues that Cuba is justified because these prisoners are not jailed because of their political beliefs, but have been convicted of “counter-revolutionary” crimes, including bombings. Castro portrays opposition to the Cuban government as illegitimate, and the result of an ongoing conspiracy fostered by Cuban exiles with ties to the United States or the CIA.145
- Until 1992 Castro banned Catholics from membership in the Cuban Communist Party which was the only way to get a job and provide for your family. We cannot allow a world like this where you get jobs based on what you believe politically or religiously.
- Until 1998 Cubans were not allowed to celebrate Christmas. Why do liberals love this guy so much? Liberals are fascist that want to control every aspect of society, just like their hero, Castro.
- Castro promotes a cult of personality.
- A lot of Nazis were smart. Just because Castro is smart doesn’t mean he didn’t almost contribute to millions of American’s deaths by asking the soviet union to conduct a first strike on American cities, if things went bad in the Cuban Missel Crisis. All Castro cares about is power. He would rather have Millions of Americans die, than to have been removed from power. Castro and others say Americans are evil, but our presidents aren’t willing to kill millions of people just to stay in power… they go out of power after 8 years.
- Billboards with his picture are very common in the island.162. Castro was accused by American anarchist Sam Dolgoff of “basking in the adulation and servility of his subordinates” and “creating a regime built around the cult of the personality functions” encouraging “the illusion that only he and his select group of revolutionaries have earned the right to wield unlimited power over the people of Cuba.”163 Castro has also been described as an example of the rise of a distinct “charismatic leader”164common to developing nations, and of encouraging the “personality political regime”. This theory contends that Castro has maintained power largely through highly visible, charismatic leadership and popular appeals to the Cuban people, though the administration is successful only as long as the leader’s charisma lasts. Kind of like Mike Huckabee with all his appeal to the common folks, and hatred of successful people.
- America hasn’t always done well with Cuba, or South America. We have learned from our mistakes. We now want the same things that they want. We want to fight drugs. We want to fight terrorist. We want freedom of speech, we want freedom of press, we want good things on this planet. Just because we were bad in the past doesn’t mean that the solution for these countries that don’t like us, is to repress their people, and take away freedoms.
Reasons to disagree
- If Canada and Europe can get along with Cuba, why can’t we?
- Castro gives longs speeches. He must be smart.
More info:
Obama and Vouchers |
Obama was asked:
Q: Do you send your kids to public school or private school?
Obama said:
“A: My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids. But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to (notice latter why he brings this up). The problem is, is that we don’t have good schools, public schools, for all kids. A US senator can get his kid into a terrific public school (if this is true, why did he send his kids to a private school? He says that it was close, but you would think that if he doesn’t support vouchers, that he only wants us to send out kids to public schools, that he would go to the extra effort). That’s not the question (yes it is. The question you were asked is if you send your kids to public or private schools). The question is whether or not ordinary parents, who can’t work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school, and that’s what I need to fight for and will fight for as president. “2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007.
Obama said he wants to help make it so that “parents, who can’t work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school”, but he doesn’t want them to have the choice he made ol sending them to a private school.
So all the talk about how great our public schools goes out the doors when he makes decisions about his own family.
We aren’t good enough to get vouchers so we can choose were to send out kids… For us, public schools are the best choice, but for him he is going to use a private school.
It goes to show that people are very democratic, when talking about others, but everyone becomes a republican and looks out for their best interest when it comes to their family.
Again Obama made millions of dollars, and always says how the rich need to give more of their share, but he didn’t make any extra donations to uncle Sam himself, so his words are not for him to live by, just others.
But that is the right decision. It shows he loves his kids.
Now he just needs to make the right decision and love our children and give them vouchers so we can make the same decision he made.
Tags: President Barack Obama, Vouchers
The coming battle with Obama in 2012 |
I am glad that former Romney supporters have this site and that we can comment on whatever is currently happening in politics (like the Tea Parties, and even the pirates). I think it is important that we write about whatever interest us, and that we continue to network in preparation for 2012.
However, we do not know if Romney will be running for president in 2012. We do know one person who will be running: Barack Obama.
I agree with Romney when he said; “[Obama] will not always be wrong, and he’s done some things I agree with.” In fact, I am going to be spending the next few years outlining when I agree with Obama (so that we can get those problems fixed) and when I disagree with Obama, so that we can try to win the argument when he is wrong.
In 2008, the democrats had 8 years to prepare all the reasons to disagree with Bush. They had a very ugly and stupid Bush derangement syndrome. We do not want to play into the hands of the media, and become just the angry part. Anger is fine, when we back it up with good reason, logic, and coherent arguments.
In order to prepair for 2012 all of our Romney websites should have all the reasons why Obama is wrong, so that when Palin, Romney, Jindal, or whoever runs for president, we can already have high ranking blog post that outline the bad things Obama is trying to do, and what makes them bad.
We should also do like Romney said, and focus on those areas that we agree with Obama, so that we are not labeled the “just say no party”, so that we can actually get some things done, and so we can stay the party of ideas, principles, reasons, and logic.
We need to get things done when we agree with Obama, so we can fix those problems, put these issues behind us and get back to the debate! 
In order to do this I imported my Romney blog into a “Reason to agree and disagree with Obama” blog, because I don’t think Romney is going to get as much news media as Obama will in the next 4 years. Talking about Romney for the next 4 years will not have as much material as talking about Obama. So let’s not waste our time. Let’s make our arguments. Let’s organize ourselves. Not with anger, but with reason.
So please check out my Obama blog when you get a chance. Here is the address:
ComMITTed to Romney has always been the biggest source of people to my site, and I am very grateful Ann lets me blog here. If I ever think of anything profound on my site, I will cross post it on here also.
2012 can’t get here fast enough.
Click here to see all the times I think Obama is right, and here to see all the post when I think he is wrong. For any of the post, leave a comment, and I’ll add your reasons to the post itself.
Tags: 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Blogs, Mitt Romney
Obama is wrong on the cap and trade auction system. |
Reasons to agree (that Obama is wrong):
1. Romney has said, “…Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations.”
2. Obama needs to understand that its called global warming, but cap and trade only punishes the US, if China and India don’t join. We should not put our businesses on an un-even playing field unless other countries go along.
3. Cap in trade does not work very well in Europe.
4. It would be better to directly invest in clean technology, instead of punishing old technology.
5. We should first do a cost benefit analysis of global warming, before we do anything harsh. Lets say we spend 5 trillion dollars every 10 years fighting global warming, but we only stop the planet from changing 1 100th of a degree. Is that success? What if it was 10 or 100 trillion dollars every 10 years? No one is even asking any of these questions. We are just going down the road blindly. Perhaps more lives could be saved with the trillions of dollars this will cost us, if we invested in other things. Who knows, if rising sea levels are the big problems, with that much money we could pump extra water to death valley, and bring some life to a lifeless area. There is still some aspect of the religious cult to the whole carbon-phobia phenomenon that wants to treat the earth like an environmental sanctuary instead of a garden.
6. Cap and trade would require a lot of regulation, new agencies, tons of overhead.
7. Emission taxes which they argue are a simple and economically efficient means of achieving the same objective. The fact that Obama approves of the cap and trade auction system shows that he is easily caught up in hype (as well as generating hype) and doesn’t look at the facts.
8. Permit prices may be unstable and therefore unpredictable
9. Cap and trade systems tend to pass the quota rent to business
10. Cap and trade systems could become the basis for international trade in the quota rent resulting in very large transfers across frontiers
11. Cap and trade systems are seen to generate more corruption than a tax system
12. The administration and legal costs of cap and trade systems are higher than with a tax
13. A cap and trade system is seen to be impractical at level of individual household emissions
Background: Obama says he wants to “Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.” http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Tags: President Barkack Obama
Obama wants to reward people for breaking the law. |
Reasons to agree:
- Obama said he “will not support any bill that does not provide an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population.”
Steve Harris (VP Global Communications at GM) vs. Romney |
Former Governor Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York times on November 21st (click here).
Romney begins the op-ed with this:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers (read more).
Steve Harris (a VP of Global Communications at GM) responded to Mitt Romney. He said:
I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney’s article advocating bankruptcy for Detroit’s auto industry (this is a vast oversimplification). From his New England home (and I thought anti-new England xenophobia was only alive and well in the republican primaries), Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969, when his father, George W. Romney, left Michigan (how dare he!) to become housing and urban development secretary.
Translation: Only people who decide to live in Michigan until they die can have an opinion about what the United States FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does with tax payers money, when it comes to giving our money to Ford, or GM. Mr. Harris said “I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney’s article…”, and he complained how “George W. Romney, left Michigan to become housing and urban development secretary”. I guess George Romney shouldn’t have “left Michigan” to become housing and urban development secretary… Perhpas George Romney should have moved Washington DC to Michigan? Mr. Harris in unable to admit that George Romney helped turn around things while he was at AMC… he just spat at him for leaving Detroit.
Besides, the argument is stupid. Mr. Harris said;
Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969 (yes, you guys have done a great job since 1969). Nearly every recommendation Mitt Romney makes for United States automakers has already been undertaken by current management in Detroit (and they have done a great job! Just look at their stock! So when Mr. Harris says that “nearly” every recommendation Romney makes… has been taken… this is political speach, that makes an emotional, not a logical argument. Mr. Harris says that they are already “nearly” doing what Romney tells them to. And so in order to argue with him, you have to get into specifics. Most of us are too lazy for specifics, and so we just trust him.) Automakers have been investing in the future on the order of $12 billion a year in research and development — second only to the semiconductor industry.
Mitt Romney did not say, “All you have to do is invest more in R&D”. Mr. Harris did not even read Mitt’s Op-ed. Does Mr. Harris judge progress by how much money is spent? We are doing a great job… look at all this money we are spending! Mr. Harris would do well in government… don’t look at our results, look at how much money we are spending! Besides why not compair how much GM spends on R&D to Toyota?
Then he says:
In addition, General Motors has cut $9 billion in structural costs since 2005 and last year reached a landmark agreement to transfer the delivery of health care to the United Auto Workers union.
Once again, you just have to ask idiots like this: “so, do you think you have followed Mitt Romney’s advice and cut enough money?” Lets do some math. They have cut “$9 billion in structural cost since 2005″. That is 3 billion a year (I hope that is GM and not all 3). Maybe it takes someone who got more than just a degree in communication, like Mr. Harris, to realize that that is not enough money when Ford lost 12.7 billion in 2006.
It may seem like I am jumping around here, but I am reprinting Steve Harris’ op-ed verbatim, and he jumps around making no coherent argument. Mr. Harris goes from saying what a great job they are doing at cutting cost at GM, to making this strange argument:
Finally, it is inappropriate of Mr. Romney to invoke Walter Reuther’s name while advocating using bankruptcy to break union contracts. That reference may be overlooked in Boston but surely not in Detroit.
If you don’t know what Mr. Harris is talking about, this is what Romney wrote:
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
Mr. Harris did not respond to what Reuther said; that “getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.” Mr. Harris did not respond to any of Romney’s arguments. Mr. Harris just said that it was wrong for someone who lived in Boston to have an opinion what the Federal Government did with the tax payer’s money, and that it was somehow wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad. Mr. Harris failed to explain WHY it was wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad, and I can’t figure it out. I read his wikipedia article, and it doesn’t seem like he is someone that is so evil, that we must assume every sentence he ever spoke was inherently wrong, and offensive to the tender sensibilities of people like Mr. Harris.
I did not cut, or leave out any of Mr. Harris’s so called response to Romney. I’m not trying to make him look stupid by leaving out some of his arguments. But it is not just his stupidity that makes me mad. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as the CEO of the 2002 winter Olympics. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney gave millions to the 2002 winter Olympics. Mr. Harris acts like he is angry at former Governor Mitt Romney said about GM. I don’t know how much Mr. Harris makes, but he will make more money if GM gets money from the federal government. Here is an idiot, and an ass, who has a conflict of interest, makes a xenophobic incoherent argument against anyone who doesn’t live in Michigan, and who dares have an opinion about not sending the current luxury private plane-flying executives (like him) federal money.
Mitt Romney didn’t base his insight just on the fact that his dad was a former automobile executive.
Mitt Romney was a business consultant that got paid to tell failing companies what to do, when they were in trouble. Mitt Romney used to get paid to give advice like the advice that he gave our country. Mitt Romney gave us insight for free, that he used to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for.
Here is the rest of Romney’s article:
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Here is another article for those interested. Did anyone watch Who Killed the Electric Car? It was a pretty good movie. It made some mistakes, but points to a larger truth that we all know: America no longer leads in innovation.
Tags: Cars, Chrystler, Ford, GM, Mitt Romney, Steve Harris[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]