Mitt Romney bet against America and American ingenuity when he suggested that Detroit and the auto industry should go bankrupt. Today, two years after President Obama believed in the auto industry and did what was necessary to keep the industry alive, General Motors posted their biggest profit in the company’s history of $7.6 billion.
Armed with this information, the DNC produced this video to remind all that if Romney had his way, GM would now be a faint memory.
That is a quote from Bill Maher as he shared some of his feelings about Rick Santorum and the other Republican presidential candidates on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Maher’s comment is based on some of the most extreme and controversial statements on social issues made by Santorum to date.
After reading all of the responses to Roland Martins suspension from CNN I have been compelled to voice my perspective on this matter. I do not know Mr. Martin personally nor am I a member of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) organization. However, I am concerned about the arguments made by those who are opposed to CNN’s decision to suspend Martin. In my opinion, Martin supporters fail to acknowledge that he is responsible for the public scrutiny of his actions that led to his suspension. Moreover, I do not think that CNN was unfair or unreasonable in their decision.
Of the many responses I have read on this matter there are two commonly held views that I am especially concerned with. The first one deals with the argument that the suspension was unfair because CNN has not treated others the same when for similar acts of poor judgment. This argument is plausible however I think it negates the issue at hand. The matter here is not about what others have done but Martin’s personal conduct which reflected not only his views but represented those he is affiliated, in this case CNN.
I understand that employers should act fairly. As such, if CNN has a standard for which they discriminately applied, then Martin should seek legal redress. However, whether CNN has punished others for misconduct is of no consequence in this matter. Martin’s decision to make express his personal views in a public forum subjected not only himself but his employer to unwarranted scrutiny.
I am sure that CNN does not seek to control the private affairs of their employees. However, like any reasonable parent that tells their child to always conduct themselves in ways that will not negatively reflect upon the entire household. This is not an unreasonable request. In fact, it is quite common for employers to place in their employment contracts that repercussions will follow for private acts that are not consistent with the principles of the organization.
For instance, I am an adjunct instructor for a college in Texas and in the faculty handbook we are advised of the fact that
“…the public will judge the profession and the institution by the statements that an adjunct makes both in public and private life, he or she should strive to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others, and to avoid creating the impression that he or she speaks or acts for the System when speaking or acting as a private person.”
As such, given Martin’s affiliation with CNN he knew or should have known that such remarks could not only be misconstrued but subsequently attached to the network simply by association. Moreover, because it is likely that the relationship between CNN and Martin is governed by a contract he, like myself, is probably required to exercise good judgment in his private life.
Therefore, those that argue CNN has a double standard should consider the old adage, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Even if CNN failed to reprimand others for the same offense, it does not make their suspension of Martin unreasonable or unwarranted. Furthermore, as an intellectual and a media professional, Martin should have known jokes made publicly to persons outside of his personal circle are likely to be scrutinized and possibly misinterpreted.
In this case, members of GLAAD asserted their opposition and urged CNN to take disciplinary action. Given the mission of GLAAD it was foreseeable that Martin’s failure to exercise good judgment might affect his standing with the network. Based upon the facts at issue Martin should take full responsibility for his actions.
The next argument involves GLAAD’s characterization of Martin and subsequent influence that led CNN to suspend Martin. GLAAD deemed Martin as anti-gay because of the following tweets he made on February 5, 2012 during the Super Bowl:
In response to the tweets GLAAD encouraged members to express their opposition to Martin’s remarks and inform the public of their mission. GLAAD members and their supporters begin tweeting messages branding Martin as homophobic. In addition, they alleged that Martin’s tweets promoted the use of violence against gays. Then GLAAD issued this statement to Inside TV:
“This isn’t a mistake made on Twitter. It’s part of a pattern of anti-LGBT rhetoric that culminated in two tweets yesterday promoting violence towards gay people. The time has come when CNN and Time Warner have to decide whether they want to continue to use their platforms to elevate those who use such language.”
The actions taken by GLAAD and its members prompted supporters of Martin to lash out against the organization. In defense of Martin sympathizers argued that GLAAD’s was to extreme in demanding CNN to fire him. While they agreed that Martin was irresponsible for his tweets, they disagree that he was advocating violence against gays. Martin advocates argue that he may was merely joking. Moreover, they insist that while his words may have been offensive GLAAD’s was wrong for defaming his character.
Like Martin, GLAAD has a right to say whatever they believe to encourage others to support their cause. GLAAD is an organization that is purposed to fight for equality of its members. In doing so they seek to hold media outlets such as CNN accountable for the images and messages they produce or endorse that are derogatory towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender persons (LGBT). As such, the actions by GLAAD may be extreme to some light of the circumstances but they are consistent with the mission of the organization.
As an interest group GLAAD enjoys the freedom to organize and express their views. America is a pluralist society which supports the theory that all interests are free to compete for the influence of their views to be incorporated in government, media or any other entities that may affect their members. As such, for those that disagree with GLAAD they too were free to organize and represent their position to CNN. Instead Martin supporters waited until after the decision was made to launch their opposition.
The fact that CNN agreed with GLAAD and decided to take corrective action in my opinion was not wrong. As aforementioned, most companies both public and private expect those affiliated or employed to conduct themselves in manners that will not negatively reflect upon the institution. Here, CNN reviewed the situation and determined that the remarks made by Martin were “regrettable and offensive.”
The network deemed his speech to be demeaning and said that they are “inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” Whether Roland Martin is a nice family man is not the issue. When Martin decided to post his comments on twitter he also made a decision to subject himself to public scrutiny, misinterpretation and suspension from work.
As I previously stated, Mr. Martin knew or should have known the possible consequences of his actions. Thus, his decision to tweet is personal views in a public forum in effect said that he was willing to accept the following repercussions. Therefore, to the argument that CNN has a double standard this may be true. However, it does not make Martin any less responsible for the consequences of his poor judgment.
For all you right winged nuts running around the jungles of the south and midwest in camouflage, training to one day invade DC and remove the democratically elected president, take notice: there is a secret army with bigger guns than yours and their only job is waiting for your dumb arrival.
Buzzfeed reports:
The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which includes the classified units that killed Osama Bin Laden, has another secret mission according to a new book by Marc Ambinder and D. B. Grady — protecting the continuity of civilian government in the event of a coup.
“JSOC is also a key part of the classified contingency plans to preserve the U.S. civilian government in the event of a coup from the military or anyone else.”
JSOC, which includes SEAL Team Six, and the Combat Applications Group, known colloquially as Delta Force, as well as other units of greater size and even more secrecy, is “the President’s secret army,” the authors contend.
“When the president travels overseas, a JSOC team usually shadows him. Its members are trained to take charge should the mammoth security structure of the U.S. Secret Service break down.”
The Secret Service did not immediately return a request for comment on the book’s revelations.
A new CBS poll shows:
“President Obama holds a significant lead over each of his potential Republican opponents in the general election, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. That includes Mitt Romney, who was even with Mr. Obama last month.
The new survey shows the president leading Romney by six points, 48 percent to 42 percent, among registered voters. Last month, the two men were tied at 45 percent each.
Mr. Obama’s lead over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who has surged to a lead in national polls, is eight points: 49 percent to 41 percent.”
997 interviews were conducted with registered voters. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones
Republicans must be ecstatic to have this guy represent them in the 2012 Presidential elections. In an interview with The Boston Globe, Mitt Romney actually said this;
“This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis. The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors.”
In that one statement, Mitt Romney accused President Obama of not doing anything to solve the entitlement crisis, then proclaims that Mr. Obama is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits.
Wow. So the president is not doing anything about the entitlement crisis, but he’s the only president to cut Medicare?
Could it be that Mitt Romney — a member of the top richest 1% who only pays around 14% in taxes and already said he’s not concerned about the very poor — has no idea that Medicare benefits is considered an “entitlement program?”
Now Romney has said a lot of dumb things in the past – from his “corporations are people to my friends,” his “I like firing prople,” his “I’ll tell you what, ten-thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?” to Rick Perry at a time when the economy is in a recession, his “I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed” statement to unemployed Americans when he’s worth a quarter of a billion dollars – but this one has to be one of the dumbest thus far.
Lets see what tomorrow brings…
America prides itself in the quality of automobiles it produces and Detroit – known as the motor city – is where that pride originates. But under the strain of the present recession, Detroit and America saw the automobile industry crumble, laying off thousands of people to stay in business and creating inferior products in the process.
The choice was simple – let Detroit go bankrupt, thus eliminating millions of jobs throughout the industry and watching other countries continue to pass us by in the quality and quantity of cars they produce, which by the way, was what Mitt Romney said should have happened when he wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times; or do whatever was reasonably necessary to save millions of jobs and save the industry, and bringing that pride back to America as first in the world for quality car production.
President Obama chose the second option and Detroit, the auto industry and America are seeing the rewards of his action. America once again produces the best automobiles in the world.
Everyone shares in this pride, except Republicans… and Mitt Romney. Today, Romney wrote another piece, reiterating his feeling that Detroit should have went bankrupt.
My view at the time — and I set it out plainly in an op-ed in the New York Times — was that “the American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing.” Instead of a bailout, I favored “managed bankruptcy” as the way forward.
Managed bankruptcy may sound like a death knell. But in fact, it is a way for a troubled company to restructure itself rapidly, entering and leaving the courtroom sometimes in weeks or months instead of years, and then returning to profitable operation.
In the case of Chrysler and GM, that was precisely what the companies needed.
If you listen to Mitt Romney today, you will think that President Obama is breaking all kinds of laws with his Health Care Reform law, also referred to as ObamaCare. Romney would like you to believe that President Obama health care law is so wrong, so intrusive, that saving America depends on the immediate repeal of ObamaCare.
But what did Romney think of ObamaCare just as recently as two years ago?
Buzzfeed dug up this interview.
Smith: Earlier today, President Obama remarked to NBC on the degree of similarity between his health-care reform policies and those that you passed in Massachusetts under your term as governor. How is the health-care reform legislation signed by Obama last week significantly different from the policies that you passed in Massachusetts?
Romney: Well, there are similarities. And some of the best features of his health-care plan are like ours — such as, we do not allow insurance companies to drop people who develop illnesses, our insurance is entirely portable, virtually all of our citizens are insured and there is an individual responsibility for getting insurance.
The big differences are that he raised taxes; we did not. He cut Medicare; we did not. He put in place price controls; we did not. And his is a federal program — a one-size-fits-all solution — and in our view — in my view, the best approach is a state-by-state creation of programs designed to fit the needs of citizens of each state.
Ann Coulter is one of the so-called influential elites in todays Republican party. And this just shows how far this once respected party has gone off the edge.
In lastweek’s CPAC gathering, Coulter addressed the crowed to discuss important issues concerning the American people and how to get things back on track. This apparently, was the best solution to the issues she came up with.
If you listen carefully, you can hear it gathering momentum, foam, vitriol, recrimination and self-serving hypocrisy. It’s the conservative wave roaring towards the beach, cresting and ready to crash. The 2012 election will be the beginning of the end for the far-right conservatives and, like the liberals who didn’t see their wave tumble in 1984, will likely lead to an even uglier aftermath. Republicans are angry now: Imagine what will happen if they lose another presidential election this year (and they will), especially if they’re able to hold on to the House and take back the Senate. So close, yet so far.
The conservative Republican era that began in 1980 and tilted the country to the right had a good run if you supported the cause, but it was never able to achieve its stated goals of severely scaling back government, ending the New Deal and Great Society programs, overturning Roe v. Wade, and ending the progressive tax structure (though they’ve come pretty close with this one). They built up the military and got a Democratic president to end welfare, passed a too-expensive Medicare prescription plan and raised taxes enough to begin to pay off the deficit, though that cost George H. W. Bush his reelection.
The era lasted because Ronald Reagan and both Bushes were able to tame the party’s conflicting passions. Reagan galvanized the economic old guard GOP while paying lip service to the religious conservatives led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Reagan was never a religious person but he talked the talk well enough to keep the support of Christian conservatives, and really, where else were they going to go? That he was able to raise taxes, reform Social Security and work with liberal Democrats speaks to his political skills. The Bushes had a mixed record with the party’s disparate groups. George H.W. inherited Reagan’s mantle, but he was considered suspect on abortion. W. was more conservative, but still did not fight all that hard for the religious agenda.
Of course, the damage that all three presidents did with their hostility to government, marginalization of gays and women, and their Supreme Court choices will endure for many years.
The more recent history of the movement shows most conclusively that it is indeed on its wheezing last breath. The public still sees the Republican Party as the architect of the economic disaster of 2008, and as the economy improves President Obama will get the lion’s share of the rewards. More people support marriage equality than oppose it and the recent flap over contraception shows that the GOP is out of touch with the way most Americans, especially women, view both the birth control and religious issues.
That brings us to why this is the beginning of the end.
The far right wing of the Republican Party is driving the party’s agenda and there’s not one candidate who’s shown they can corral the competing factions. Conservative reaction to Mitt Romney ranges from suspect to hostile and none of the other candidates can claim the right’s support. Yet. That might change as Rick Santorum showed in winning three non-binding primaries last week.
If anything, the nomination battle has proven that the movement has splintered along economic, social and religious lines. Many of the proposals we’ve heard are meant to appeal to the far fringe Tea Party wing of the party (Ron Paul) or to the religious conservatives (Santorum and Gingrich). Romney’s attempts to appeal to the center while throwing the right some scraps on abortion and taxes have so far fallen short of gaining wide acceptance.
None of the candidates would take the deal that offered $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases. Some in the party still question President Obama’s citizenship and religion, and the candidates accuse him of the most outlandish things: anti-religion, creating a communist state, forsaking Israel, and wanting Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
It’s an extreme agenda to say the least, and it will lead to the GOP’s crash. History shows that when you lose the middle of your constituency, you lose your mandate to govern. The Republican Party is on that path.
My sense is that this will all be exposed during the general election campaign and, combined with an improving economy, will result in Obama’s reelection. The 2010 Congressional elections resulted in redistricting that solidified the Republican’s majorities in the House, though Tea Party seats are certainly up for grabs in many districts, and the Democrats have to defend too many Senate seats to count on continued control of that chamber. Conservatives will still hold sway on many issues, but the wave is over. The United States won’t become more liberal, but it will become less conservative and less extreme. Most Republicans probably don’t see this trend coming, and it’s already too late to stop it.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest
Mitt Romney‘s statement at CPAC that he is “severely conservative” is causing some other conservative leaders to scratch their heads. Richard A. Viguerie, the Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, had this to say after hearing Romney’s proclamation.
“In my 50 years in conservative politics at the national level, I have never heard anyone other than Governor Romney describe himself as ‘severely’ conservative.
“Romney has shown, once again, that he can mouth the words conservatives use, but he has no gut-level emotional connection with the conservative movement and its ideas and policies.
“To paraphrase a story about Mark Twain, one day his wife decided to repeat some of his more colorful four-letter words to embarrass him into cleaning up his language. After absorbing the barrage, the author thought for a moment and said, ‘Honey, you’ve got the words right, but you just don’t have the tune.’
“After 50 years in the conservative movement, I can say with some authority: Mitt, you may have the words of conservatism right, but you just don’t have the tune.”
“I wasn’t quite sure what the word ‘severely’ meant,” Sarah Palin told CNN, and Rush Limbaugh found it odd that Romney felt the need to express just how conservative he was. “I have never heard anybody say, ‘I’m severely conservative,” Limbaugh said, “no, I’ve never heard anybody SAY it.”
I don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh on anything, but on this issue I see his point. If you have to go this far and use these type of words to describe your ideology, then something’s really wrong. Like the old saying goes, “action speaks louder than words.” So because of Mitt’s lack of Conservative actions as governor of Massachusetts, he’s now trying to fool some by using his words.
Sad part is, Conservatives are so easily fooled.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times writes:
WATCHING the Republican Party struggling to agree on a presidential candidate, one wonders whether the G.O.P. shouldn’t just sit this election out — just give 2012 a pass.
You know how in Scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you’ve got only vowels that spell nothing? What do you do? You go back to the pile. You throw your letters back and hope to pick up better ones to work with. That’s what Republican primary voters seem to be doing. They just keep going back to the pile but still coming up with only vowels that spell nothing.
There’s a reason for that: Their pile is out of date. The party has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.
Great analogy. Republican presidential candidates for 2012 amounts to… nothing!
