A few months ago, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, came under heavy criticism for a racially charged newsletters, produced under his name. Paul has denied any wrong doing, claiming that he knew didn’t write the articles and furthermore, didn’t know what was in them.
But people close to Mr. Paul are speaking out, and they are disagreeing with Paul’s recollection.
He was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product … He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
The clear winner on stage last night was Willard Romney. It was obvious that he came to the debate with one goal in mind, and that was to get Newt Gingrich.
Mission Accomplished.
Newt on the other hand, wasn’t Newt. He was either mentally missing in action or wasn’t prepared for the unusual aggression he faced from the Mormon, Mitt Romney. Yes, Gingrich tried his customary one line attacks against the media and his other opponents, but when they fired back, Newt hung his head in defeat. In a race where most polls say could be won by either Newt or Romney, history will call this debate the turning point at which Gingrich, The Historian, lost Florida and ultimately, the nomination… although we all know the GOP elites were never going to nominate Gingrich in the first place.
The post game wrap-up by the talking heads at CNN suggested that Rick Santorum had “a great night.” I’ll call his performance consistent, not great. Santorum has stuck to the same message since the beginning of this process. One thing you cannot accuse him of, is doing a Romney… that is, flip-flopping.
And Ron Paul was, well… Ron Paul. I’m not sure if anyone in the audience understood anything Paul said, but he has some of the most dedicated followers and as far as I can tell and his followers are the only reason Paul is still in the race. That, and the fact that he keeps the crowd entertained.
Yes, onstage Romney won. Offstage however, President Obama won another GOP debate.
You can’t offer witnesses to something if no witnesses exist. Apparently, this little fact slipped Newt Gingrich‘s mind, as he continued telling ABC news that he had witnesses that will dispute his ex’s claim that Newt wanted an “open marriage.”
John King, the CNN host who moderated the last GOP debate and took a direct hit from Newt for asking about the ABC report, stayed on the story. And today, after a week of asking for these witnesses, King seems to take pleasure in announcing that Newt’s witnesses are just figments of his imagination.
In an interview with Univision, President Obama spoke briefly in response to the question of who he would rather go up against in the 2012 general election.
“I don’t really think about that,” Obama said in response to a question about who would be more of a threat in an interview with Univision conducted Wednesday night in Chandler, Ariz., and released Thursday morning. “What I can say is this: That whoever their nominee is, they represent ideas that I think are wrong for America.”
“On a whole range of issues I think that whether it’s Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Santorum or whoever else they might decide to select, they represent a fundamentally different vision of America. And it’s not the bold generous forward looking optimistic America that I think built this country,” he added.
The interview was Obama’s first since delivering his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and comes as the Republican presidential candidates are stepping up their appeals to Hispanic voters ahead of next week’s Florida primary. Speaking to one of the top U.S. Spanish-language news outlets, Obama offered his own appeals, noting his efforts to make immigration laws more favorable to immigrants even without the comprehensive reform he’s repeatedly called for.
When President Obama took to the stage almost a year ago and systematically – and comically – dismantled all hopes Donald Trump had of becoming president, he had just ordered the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden. When he took the podium for the State of the Union address a few days ago, the president had just ordered the rescue of Americans held captive by Somali pirates.
The rescue mission for Poul Thisted and Jessica Buchanan, was successful, and it was carried out by the same SEAL Team 6 forces that got Bin Laden.
The captives, an American aid worker and her Danish colleague, had been held as prisoners since last fall. The New York Times reports that the pirates had recently refused $1.5 million to release their hostages, and that ransom negotiations had “ground to a halt.” After receiving reports last week that the American’s health was “deteriorating rapidly,” President Obama directed his security team to develop an immediate rescue plan. Nine kidnappers were killed in the raid.
Note to terrorists: Be very afraid anytime this president is about to make a big speech.
This is not the first time President Obama had an encounter with Somali pirates. In the beginning of his presidency, Mr. Obama ordered the successful rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips. Three pirates were killed in that rescue.
Is this what Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans mean when they continually accuse this president of appeasement? ‘Cause if this is appeasement, I would hate to see any acts of aggression from this president.
At an event sponsored by Univision, Mitt Romney was put on the spot and had to put a figure on his worth. Mr. Romney, a man who thinks his ticket to the White House in 2012 depends on how many voters he can fool into thinking he is “one of us,” tried to downplay his net worth for the Latino audience.
Jorge Ramos, who interviewed Mr. Romney, pressed him on his wealth and on his taxes, and asked him directly how much money he had.
“Between 150 and 200 some-odd million,” Mr. Romney said, looking a bit uncomfortable and referring Mr. Ramos to the financial disclosure reports that his campaign has filed.
Mr. Ramos noted that Mr. Romney’s father was born in Mexico and asked whether Mr. Romney could claim to be Mexican-American.
“I don’t think people would think I’m being honest if I said I was Mexican-American,” Mr. Romney said, laughing. But he added: “I would appreciate it if you could get that word out.”
Cuba’s ex-president Fidel Castro, made an observation that I think is worth a mention in this post. Castro called the Republican presidential race “the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.” I must say, I agree with that observation.
Castro made his comments in his latest column of “reflections” on a Cuban government website, attacking the Republican candidates two days after their debate in Florida.
“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been,” he wrote, according to The Associated Press.
During the debate, Mitt Romney responded to a question of how he would react to a 3 a.m. announcement of Castro’s death by referencing the Jan. 19 death of Cuban prisoner Wilman Villar.
“We just had, with Wilman Villar, his life was just lost in a hunger strike fighting for democracy,” Romney said.
Castro wrote that Villar was a common criminal and not a political dissident, the AP reported.
Let the games begin. President Obama made a forceful, compelling case for a balance of free market and governmental reforms on a wide range of issues, and defended his record on foreign policy and an improving economy. He called out both parties for inaction, and reminded us that one party’s class warfare is another’s common sense. He also sounded themes that will be part of his reelection campaign, such as tax cuts for businesses and investment in future technologies.
His call for fairness was in all of the previews, and evidently, that’s a dirty word among the Republican leadership. Tax fairness? Socialism. Economic fairness? Socialism. Fair access to social institutions, education, and job training? Socialism.
Ahead of the speech, Mitt Romney said of the economy that, “In a normal recovery under strong leadership, it could now be full of workers.” The problem is that this isn’t a normal recession, it’s a Republican-caused recession. And when the GOP screws the economy, the economy doesn’t walk right for years. Further, research has suggested that the economy would have been worse off under Republican policies and fewer people would have been employed. Electing either Romney or Gingrich would mean more tax cuts for the wealthy, fewer services, no stimulus and worsening infrastructure throughout the country (except for a very high wall on the Mexican border).
So what exactly is the GOP for? The right to make millions and to pay a lower tax rate because you’re not earning wages? Most working and middle class people earn only wages. The right to pay for a better education because you have money? Most working and middle class people can’t pay or don’t want to go into debt to the tune of $200,000 dollars. The right to health care only if you can pay shockingly high premiums, don’t care about preexisting conditions, or don’t take your medicine because the doughnut hole would cost you thousands? Running against the health care reform law might be good politics, but repeal would set us back decades
After months of listening to the radical right bloviate about the threat that gay marriage, financial and health reform, legal and illegal immigrants, and Sharia law presents to our nation, it’s about time that we heard some actual policies that make sense and serve the interests of actual citizens. And that’s exactly what we heard.
At a town hall meeting in Florida today, Rick Santorum sat back and listened as a woman in the audience spewed misleading information about the President.
“I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not,” the woman in the audience began. “He constantly says that our constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases. He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president.”
If Santorum was an ethical politician, he would have followed John McCain’s example in 2008, when McCain corrected a woman in his audience as she was in the midst of making false claims, as well. Since Santorum failed to correct this untruth in regards to the President, we are forced to question his ethical standings as he allowed this accuser to make blatantly ignorant statements.
“Well look, I’m doing my best to get him out of the government right now,” Santorum said. “And you’re right about how he uniformly ignores the constitution. He did this with these appointments over the recess that was not a recess, and if I was in the United States Senate I would be drawing the line.”
When asked by CNN why he chose not to correct the woman, Santorum said it wasn’t his responsibility to do so.
“I don’t feel it’s my obligation every time someone says something I don’t agree with to contradict them, and the President’s a big boy, he can defend himself and his record and I’m going to go out and talk about the issues that the President and I disagree on and try to defeat him because I think that’s the best thing that we can do for the future of our country.”
Amie Parnes writes: “President Obama’s approval ratings may not be great, but Congress’s hover near single digits — so if there’s one slam-dunk opponent for Obama to take on this fall, it’s the 535 men and women who will be sitting in front of him,” said David Meadvin, the president of Inkwell Strategies. Meadvin is a former speechwriter for both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Attorney General Eric Holder.
“As we saw back in 2010 when Obama used his speech to take the Supreme Court to task, Obama has no problem defying tradition or ruffling some feathers,” he added. “He only stands to gain politically by picking a fight with Congress.”
But according to the president, the message will be about returning to our values.
“I’m going to lay out a blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last,” Obama said in a campaign video sent to supporters. “And most importantly, a return to American values – of fairness for all, and responsibility from all.”
Newt Gingrich’s claim that President Obama is the “best food stamp president in America’s history” has been the topic of discussion for the past few weeks. Not just because Gingrich is playing to the racial stereotypes implied by the statement, but also because his claim is simply not true. And it was just a matter of time before it was fact checked.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service tracks month-to-month figures dating back to January 2001. The numbers show that the total of food stamp recipients rose to 14.2 million during President Obama’s administration.
The highest in history so far is President George W. Bush. The number of food stamp recipients grew to nearly 14.7 million while he was in office. But, that’s eight years in office, compared to President Obama who has not finished his first term.
The Ag Department’s information also shows that 444,574 fewer recipients have signed up for food stamps under Obama’s watch, than under Bush.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
