To read the entire article click on the title or Story Continued. Enjoy as the world turns.
· Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in all Three Debates – If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.
According to the CNN debate clock, President Obama spoke at greater length than Mitt Romney during both debates, as did Vice President Biden during his debate with Paul Ryan. In the first debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney — which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney. In last night’s debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Obama talked for 52 percent of the time when either man had the floor, while Romney talked for 47 percent.
During the vice presidential debate, the gap wasn’t as wide: Biden spoke for 1 minute, 22 seconds more than Ryan. Still, that gave Biden 3 percent more speaking time than Ryan. Story Continued:
Four years after Barack Obama was elected president, this is not exactly a “post-racial” America.
A new study from Washington University in St. Louis finds that under Obama, many black Americans feel less free than whites when it comes to political participation.
From 2005 to 2011, only 45 percent of blacks said they believed the government would allow them to make a public speech, while 67 percent of whites believed they could, the study found.
The study found that while the election of Obama initially boosted feelings of political empowerment among black Americans, those sentiments significantly faded in the years that followed—especially among conservative and religious blacks.
These two groups make up a large segment of the black population, with 56 percent of blacks identifying as “born again,” and 39 percent of blacks as “somewhat conservative,” according to the study.
“First we saw the ’empowerment effect,’ the boost that happens when a member of your group gets elected to an important political position,” says study author James L. Gibson, a professor of government and African-American studies at Washington University. Gibson’s findings are based on national surveys conducted between 2005 and 2011.
In 2009, the year after Obama was elected, 71 percent of blacks reported feeling as free to speak one’s mind as they used to.
“But then perceptions of political freedom deteriorated among conservative and religious blacks,” says Gibson. By 2011, the percentage of blacks who felt as free to speak their mind had dropped to 56 percent, back to pre-Obama levels. (White Americans also reported feeling less free to speak one’s mind under Obama, but the decline was far less than among blacks).
In part, says Gibson, this can be attributed to “ideological polarization.” That split may have begun when Obama dismissed Pennsylvania voters in 2008 who “cling to guns or religion.” But Gibson says many conservative and religions blacks likely believed when Obama was first elected that he would protect their interests as president. “Race produces a level of trust and confidence that one is on your side,” he says. Story Continued:
· MITT’S ‘BINDERS OF WOMEN CALLED ‘SISTER-WIVES’ – Mitt Romney’s remark about “binders full of women” in Tuesday night’s debate is taking on a life of its own today, even being seized upon by anti-Mormon bigots on Twitter who suggest his comment refers to having multiple wives. Story Continued:
· Obama Is Back – He’s back.
Tuesday night our president was articulate and forceful — in sharp contrast to his performance in the first presidential debate. He stated his beliefs. He defended his record. He told America where he wanted to take the nation in his second term.
And he explained where Romney wanted to take us.
Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector; that’s been his philosophy as governor; that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate. You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.
Governor Romney… was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago, and he was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 a year? And he said, yes, I think that’s fair. Not only that, he said, I think that’s what grows the economy. Well, I fundamentally disagree with that.
Obama told voters what Romney’s plan was for women (take away their freedom of choice), and for Hispanics (allow police to stop them and demand proof of citizenship, as in the Arizona law “that’s his [Romney’s] policy, and it’s bad policy.”)
He took responsibility for the security lapse in Libya, but made sure Americans understood the danger in Romney’s shoot-from-the-hip, rush to judgment approach to foreign policy.
And the president explained why the way to create more jobs and to get the economy back on track is to strengthen the middle class, in sharp contrast to Romney’s trickle-down redux.
Romney was as combative as in the first debate, but our newly-invigorated president made Romney’s combativeness look like that of a child in a tantrum rather than a principled adult with facts and detailed proposals to support his position.
Romney was also an automaton — moving robot-like across the stage, repeating the same scripted paragraphs in answers to different questions as if he had been programmed with a limited number of options.
Obama, by contrast, seemed steady and relaxed.
The debate left me relieved — the president’s performance will almost certainly stop Romney’s momentum, and may turn the tide — but also left me perplexed. Where was this Barack Obama in the last presidential debate? Was it the altitude in Denver, a failure of preparation, exhaustion, a temporary emotional glitch?
Mostly, though, I’m glad Barack is back.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. Story Continued:
– There is some concern if there was an actual winner of this debate. Each side is claiming their man won. How is that possible? They all spin. The author of this article is a Democrat and is promoting his agenda. PdC
· Empty Suit – Robert L. Borosage, President, Institute for America’s Future
“Well of course they add up. I was- I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget.” — Mitt Romney.
This was the debate that finally exposed Mitt Romney as an empty suit running a campaign that is disingenuous at its core. The president exposed to millions of Americans just how hollow Romney’s claims are.
On the Budget
Romney wants voters to believe that he can lower tax rates for all, cut taxes on the middle class, raise spending on the military and bring the budget into balance. He can do this by closing unspecified loopholes and cutting unspecified spending — but without damaging anything Americans care about — the mortgage deduction, the child’s tax credit or spending on Pell grants and student loans, education and research and development. Nothing, as the president said, except Planned Parenthood and big bird. As a successful investor, said the president, Romney wouldn’t buy this kind of “sketchy deal.”
Romney’s flim flam was finally exposed. How can he do this? Because he is the master. “Of course” the figures add up. “I was a businessman.” He decides what adds up by assertion, not addition.
Romney claims a five-point plan (a retread, as Mike Konzcal has pointed out, of the same five points peddled by George W. Bush and by Republicans since Reagan) that “gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.” There is no study in the reality-based world — not even the lone study the Romney campaign refers to — that can divine that result from Romney’s plan. How does he get there?
He gets there by assertion; “I know what it takes to create good jobs again.” In the debate, this became his mantra. “I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go.” And again on equal pay: “I know what it takes to make an economy work. And I know what a working economy looks like.”
The Romney campaign is placing ads across the country showing Romney looking into the camera and ticking off how many jobs come from each element of his five-point plan. All of it supported by pure assertion. This takes both savvy and gall. He appears so confident in the knowledge he touts that the press finds it easy to bring the hammer down on a misstated fact, but is hesitant about exposing the big lie.
Obama did a good job in the debate at exposing the sham. Romney doesn’t have a five point plan, he said, he’s got a “one point plan,” which basically is to favor the wealthy.
The Final Exposure
The answers to the last question — the closing arguments — were revealing for both candidates.
Asked what misperception about him he most wanted to correct, Romney exposed his glass jaw, bringing up implicitly his disdainful words about the 47 percent who “don’t take responsibility for their lives,” and consider themselves “victims.” Trust me, he said:
I care about a hundred percent of the American people. I want a hundred percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to — to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I — I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help, with the experience I have, the American people. Story Continued:
· The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to Lie About Climate Change Has Worked – A new study shows that Americans are more skeptical about human-caused climate change than they were ten years ago, despite virtually unanimous scientific consensus on the matter. Jay Michaelson shakes his head.
Upton Sinclair once said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand a thing when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
This is the best way to summarize the mind-bending results of the climate change study the Pew Research Center released on Monday, which found that more than one in two conservative Republicans—and more than a third of moderate Republicans—refuse to believe that the planet is getting warmer.
Let’s get one thing out of the way: It is a measured, observable fact that the Earth’s average temperature has been rising for the last several decades. Indeed, eleven of the twelve hottest years on record occurred between 2001 and 2011. This is not a theory about why this is happening; it is a measurable—and measured—fact that it is happening.
Yet disconcertingly large numbers of people on the right seem unable to accept it: the Pew study found that only 63 percent of moderate Republicans and 49 percent of conservative Republicans believe the climate is changing, while 93 percent of those who identify as liberals (and 90 percent of moderate Democrats) believe it. What is going on?
Another statistic from the Pew poll helps answer that question:
Only 45% of Americans (58% of Democrats, 30% of Republicans) believe that there is scientific consensus that human activities (e.g., burning fossil fuels) are causing the climate to change. This partisan confusion over why the Earth is warming has now led to confusion as to whether it’s happening at all.
So let’s now be clear about a second fact: there is a scientific consensus on this issue. All reputable climatologists agree that human-caused (“anthrogenic”) climate change is real. Our popular confusion is the result not of an honest difference of opinion, but, to quote our Secretary of State, of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
It’s no secret that for nearly as long as scientists have spoken about climate change, energy companies have been funding conservative think tanks—CTTs in Beltway-speak—to create the impression that there is no scientific consensus on the topic. They have blitzed the airwaves and the bookshelves with pseudo-scientific fact-muddling written by non-specialists. For example, according to a 2008 study, of the 141 books denying the seriousness of environmental problems that have been published since 1972, 130 were published by CTTs or written by authors affiliated with them. Story Continued:
– This is a hotly debated issue that is quoted as Science by the liberals that want to have global warming. Yet is you do a statistical analysis with significance the science does not show any significance. Thus the claim of the science is there is not valid. This is an example of populist views being reported at fact without significant science supporting the claim. If you stay it enough then it must be true is the mantra that is used to support the erroneous claim. PdC
· Demographic Dead End? Barack Obama’s Single Nation – President Obama brought up Planned Parenthood three separate times at Tuesday’s town hall debate. It was an appeal aimed directly at a key part of his base: If he is reelected, it will be because of the Single Nation.
Democrats have woken up to the huge political rifts that have emerged over the past 30 years—between married and single people, and people with kids and those who don’t have them. And save African Americans, there may be no constituency more loyal to the president and his party than the growing ranks of childless and single Americans.
In the short term at least, the president and his party are seizing a huge opportunity. Since 1960, the percentage of the population that is over age 15 and unmarried increased by nearly half, 45 percent from 32 percent. Since 1976, the percentage of American women who did not have children by the time they reached their 40s doubled, to nearly 20 percent.
And even as the president has slipped in the polls, the fast-growing Single Nation has stayed behind him. Unmarried women prefer Obama by nearly 20 points (56 to 39 percent), according to Gallup, while those who are married prefer Romney by a similarly large margin.
Unmarried women (along with ethnic minorities, the poor and the workers in the public bureaucracy) are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic party, in a sense replacing the ethnic white working class.
And while single women have long been ignored (or at least not courted directly) by national politicians, Democrats are now taking direct aim—as in the Life of Julia campaign, where every milestone in her life is marked by the government benefit she’d receive under President Obama’s hubby state. Democratic strategists such as Stanley Greenberg also urge targeting singles, particularly “single women,” whom he calls “the largest progressive voting bloc in the country.”
Even among the married, children have become less of a priority. A 2007 Pew Research Center survey found that the number of adults who said that children are very important for a successful marriage had dropped by a third, from 65 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010. Over that same span, financial considerations, and the willingness of a spouse to share chores and even political beliefs all became important to a greater share of adults.
The rise in both childlessness and singlehood parallels developments already evident in other cultures, notably in East Asia and Europe. Many of these countries have experienced declining marriage and birth rates for decades. In Germany and Japan, the demographic results of this—fewer workers to support more retired people—has led to difficult tax hikes to allow the remaining young workers to maintain the funding for a growing number of aging boomers. This is the Europe’s screwed generation: “the victims of expansive welfare states and the massive structural debt charged by their parents.”
In America, by contrast, birth rates rose somewhat over the past two decades. But since the recession, the number of new children has plummeted, and it’s dropped the most precipitously for new mothers. The number of households with children today is 38 million, about the same as a decade ago, even as the total number of households has shot up by nearly 10 million.
There are now more houses with dogs than houses with children. Story Continued:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a new interview that she can’t stand “whining” by women who are unhappy with the work and family choices they’ve made in life and complain that they have no options.
Clinton, in the interview with Marie Claire, was discussing Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning at the State Department who left in 2011. This summer, Slaughter wrote a much-discussed cover story in the Atlantic – “Why Women Still Can’t Have It all” – about leaving her job because of the difficulty of balancing her work at State with the needs of her two teenage boys.
“I can’t stand whining,” Clinton told Marie Claire. “I can’t stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they’re not happy with the choices they’ve made. You live in a time when there are endless choices … Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don’t even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself … Do something!”
Clinton added, “Some women are not comfortable working at the pace and intensity you have to work at in these jobs … Other women don’t break a sweat…They have four or five, six kids. They’re highly organized, they have very supportive networks.”
Slaughter, who is now a professor at Princeton University, is traveling and couldn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clinton wasn’t totally unsympathetic toward issues raised her former employee. “It’s important for our workplaces … to be more flexible and creative in enabling women to continue to do high-stress jobs while caring for not only children, but [also] aging parents,” Clinton said.
In the Marie Claire interview, Clinton also said once again that she has no desire to run for president in 2016. Story Continued:
“THE American people saw their leader tonight—a strong, steady and decisive president,” crowed Jim Messina, the manager of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, after the testy second debate between the candidates on Long Island on October 16th. He was right: Mr Obama had a good night. But the statement was also a tacit admission that at the previous debate, two weeks before, Mr Obama had seemed disengaged and unpersuasive. On that occasion, it was Mitt Romney who was on good form—so good that he erased his long-standing deficit in the polls. And unfortunately for the president, the self-possessed, reasonable and yet forceful version of Mr Romney who had shown up at their first encounter appeared again at their second, blunting the impact of Mr Obama’s resuscitation.
In the week after the first debate, Mr Romney rose from a 3.1 point deficit in the average of national polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, a website, to a 1.5% lead—his first this year. His numbers have since fallen back somewhat—RCP’s average now shows a near tie—and were never quite as strong in polls of swing states. Nonetheless, Mr Romney has transformed the race into a dead heat.
The challenger’s authoritative performance achieved two things in that first debate. First, he energised his supporters, prompting pollsters to bump up their projections of Republican turnout on election day. Second, several polls showed that women, who had previously preferred Mr Obama by large margins, decided that Mr Romney was a more likeable and moderate figure. In one poll, from the Pew Research Centre, he leapt by 18 points among female voters to a tie with the president.
In the second debate, Mr Romney naturally tried to protect these gains and Mr Obama tried to reverse them. The president was combative from the outset, insinuating that Mr Romney paid too little tax, had abetted the outsourcing of American jobs, had deliberately destroyed livelihoods to make a quick buck during his time as a private-equity investor, and had no plans in the White House beyond cosseting the rich at the expense of the middle class—all in response to the first question. Perhaps his best moment came when Mr Romney accused him of playing politics with the deaths of four American diplomats in Libya last month. Summoning a convincing blast of righteous indignation, he declared the charge “offensive”, making Mr Romney look like the opportunist.
But Mr Romney responded to Mr Obama’s assertiveness in kind, with plenty of interruptions, finger-pointing and denunciations of his own. He produced a devastating list of all the promises that the president has made, and failed to keep, about improving the economy. He repeated time and again that 23m Americans were looking for work, that the middle class was being “crushed”, that 47m Americans were on food stamps, and so on. He made a piercing refrain of the phrase, “We don’t have to settle.”
Both men made deliberate appeals to women voters. Mr Romney shied away from the view his running-mate, Paul Ryan, had espoused in the vice-presidential debate the week before, that certain employers should have a say over whether the health insurance they offered their workers covered contraception. He explained that as governor of Massachusetts he had not only hired a woman as his chief-of-staff, but also allowed her to work child-friendly flexible hours.
Mr Obama, too, eagerly pointed out that the first bill he had signed into law was one making it easier for women to sue for wage discrimination. He said Mr Romney’s hostility to Planned Parenthood, which runs a network of women’s clinics, would restrict access to cancer screenings as well as contraception. He also spoke at length of the obstacles faced by women of his mother’s and grandmother’s generation, which he hoped to remove for the sake of his two daughters.
Although several “instant” polls suggested a narrow win for Mr Obama, Mr Romney said nothing that would undo his new-found appeal among moderates. There has been a curious symmetry to the events of the past few weeks, one Republican operative notes. On the one hand, improving economic data have taken some of the sting out of Republicans’ chief criticism of the president. On the other, Mr Romney’s poise in the debates has undermined the Democrats’ main line of attack, that he is too rich and callous to understand ordinary Americans. That leaves the race about where it has been since the spring: extremely close, with perhaps the narrowest of advantages for Mr Obama. Story Continued:
· Secret Service ‘Aware’ of Threats Against Romney – Twitchy reports that “Post-presidential debate, Obama supporters renew vows to murder Mitt Romney.” The threats are numerous–and explicit and graphic. Many call for Romney’s murder or assassination.
The Secret Service confirms it is “aware” of the threats against Romney, a spokesman for the federal agency confirms.
“The Secret Service is aware of this and will conduct appropriate follow up if necessary,” Brian Leary, a spokesman for the United States Secret Service, says in an email. Story Continued:
· Clinton: I Thought Obama ‘Was Going to Cry’ – At a campaign event for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, Bill Clinton said that Mitt Romney’s argument “is true, we’re not fixed”:
“Governor Romney’s argument is, we’re not fixed, so fire him and put me in,” said Clinton. “It is true we’re not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don’t now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it’s not fixed.”
UPDATE: A Romney spokesman comments: “We agree with former President Bill Clinton. The economy has not been fixed under President Barack Obama. Today, more than 23 million Americans are struggling for work, poverty has increased and food stamps are at record levels. Mitt Romney believes we can do better by creating 12 million new jobs with higher take-home pay, cutting spending to put our nation on course for a balanced budget, and actually fixing our economy.” Story Continued and to watch the video:
By: Ann Coulter, 10/17/2012 03:42 PM
The best question at the second presidential debate came from Michael Jones, an African-American who said: “Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic, as I was in 2008. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.”
To which Obama said: “Are you my half-brother?”
Actually, all Obama could say was that he had ended the war in Iraq (while pointlessly escalating the war in Afghanistan) and that Osama bin Laden is dead (and so is our ambassador). Both of which must be a great comfort to Mr. Jones as he tries to pay his bills every month.
Jones was right: Since Obama has been president, everything you own — your home, pension, savings accounts, weekly paychecks — are all worth less.
Meanwhile, everything you need — gas, food, and anything else that requires fuel to be transported to you — costs more.
Obama can’t talk his way out of his record. As Romney said in response to the president’s allegation that he is gung-ho about drilling for oil to lower fuel prices: “But that’s not what you’ve done in the last four years. That’s the problem.”
Obama also suddenly announced: “I’m all for pipelines. I’m all for oil production.” But he vetoed the Keystone pipeline.
He explained that the price of gasoline was $1.80 when he took office because the economy was in the toilet. Apparently, prices have spiked to more than $4 a gallon because all Americans are back at work now and making big bucks!
Obama said the “most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country.”
So now he’s going to create jobs? Because, nearly four years into his presidency, 23 million Americans are out of work and more than half of recent college graduates can’t find a job.
He claimed to believe that we should reward “self-reliance,” “individual initiative” and “risk-takers.” And yet, a few months ago, he ridiculed these self-reliant risk-takers for thinking they were “just so smart,” sneering “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Obama said we have to be “serious about reducing the deficit,” calling it “a moral obligation to the next generation.” But he’s increased the deficit by $5 trillion — more in four years than President Bush did in eight.
He also said he supported cutting corporate taxes. But only in odd-numbered years that don’t start with “2.”
The media will lie and say Obama won the debate — he has stopped the bleeding, he’s drawing huge crowds, the momentum is back! But as Romney said in response to many of Obama’s promises Tuesday night, “I don’t think the American people believe that.”
The trend is set and Obama’s voters are moving away from him in droves. People can see that Obama has to go to college campuses, the David Letterman show and “The Daily Show” to get a friendly audience these days. Even Lindsay Lohan is for Romney. Story Continued:
· Fact Check: Top Ten Worst Lies of the Second Presidential Debate – The Second Presidential Debate featured repeated claims by each candidate that the other was not telling the truth–as well as at least one claim of fact by the moderator that turned out to be false. There were even questionable claims by the audience itself. Here are the top ten worst lies told during the Second Debate:
10. “I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have.” President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact–such as the temporary payroll tax holiday–were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare “penalty,” and his taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” would hit small businesses.
9. “…[H]e was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver….And he said, yes, I think that’s fair.” Obama was referring to Romney’s recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already–a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.
8. “He called the Arizona law a model for the nation.” Obama tried to knock Romney’s immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law–the requirement of instant verification of workers’ legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole–which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants’ documentation–but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.
7. “I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.” For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he was not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer–much longer–than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night’s debate–and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.
6. “They rely on it for mammograms.” Obama attacked Romney’s proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It’s been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it’s just untrue–and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama’s misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women–a cheap shot to which Romney was given no chance to respond.
5. “You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it.” We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it–because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S.–and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.
4. “And the production is up….What you’re saying is just not true.” Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right–exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama’s claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.
3. “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: “Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.”
2. “He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open.” After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama’s retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business–a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”
1. “He did call it an act of terror.” The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley’s intervention in favor of Obama caused the president’s cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong–Obama’s reference to “acts of terror” in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn’t long before she walked back her own comment. Story Continued: