Last Blog

This is probably the most important election of our time - for us and the generations to come. This election should be about our Constitution – civil rights, the welfare of the general population, our standing in world events, the resources we leave the next generations – global warming and much more. No matter what mistakes Obama has made – he is the one with the real experience and knowledge of these issues on a national, not state, basis. The President’s record is out there but the reasons for his failure to keep his promises are not.

The Republican Party since Reagan has torn down the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 that required truth in the news media and although Democrats have been trying to get it back since 2005 they have continually failed. It seems the Republican motto is Party before Country and they’ll say anything to get you to vote for them – if you’re not listening, you don’t hear the lies or changing positions. The main focus of the Republican campaign is and has been to take from the poor and continue giving to the rich; make us a capitalistic country which also goes against our Constitution. 

The President has mainly told the truth but it seems we now honor liars and thieves that preach the gospel and break the commandments. Although we’ve been told about false prophets we do not try to identify them. We want truth in advertising but not in our politics. If you think something is wrong in this country – you are right. I guess we’ll find out on Election Day if the American people are as dumb as the Republicans think. My support is with the man trying to do what FDR and Clinton did to make us a better country; I do not want an administration that will take from the programs needed by the people to support the Wall Street schemers and other thieves – a message that seems to have gone over the heads of many Americans.

This is my last blog.   

Romney and Staples

On October 31, 2012 there was a Boston Globe article that said – In documents obtained from Tom Stemberg’s 1991 divorce case it was found that Stemberg met Romney in 1985, introduced by a partner from another local investment firm, Bessemer Venture Partners. In early 1987 Mitt Romney was walking the aisles of Staples, a little-known retail store his firm had bet $1.5 million on so far, and picking up office supplies; he waited in line at the checkout counter for far too long and he was angry. Bain and Bessemer wanted to be the lead investors. Then came the negotiations and they were brutal. Stemberg and his lawyer were driving a tough bargain, trying to keep “a very large portion” of the company for the founder while Bain and the other investors were “of course thinking we should take a large portion of the company.” The problems continued into late 1987 and Romney was pessimistic about the company’s prospects. Bain’s goal was to make 10 times its money in 5 years in venture deals, he said, or about 58% a year; he felt there was a 25% chance Staples would be successful, 25% that it would be an “OK investment,” another 25% probability it would be a “bad investment but we’d get our money back” and a “25% probability we’d lose money.” Fearing Staples could fail Romney put less Bain money on the line in the third round of fund-raising and helped put a value on the company’s private stock at $2.90 a share (an amount Stemberg’s ex-wife would later argue was too low). Romney remained a skeptic about Staples’ prospects for a long time, according to his testimony, maintaining that many start-ups fail, and reeling off cold statistics that betrayed no illusions about Staples’ chances. “It was very clearly our intent to [reward] Tom handsomely if the company did spectacularly well. On the other hand, we did not want Tom to receive any reward if he were to turn out to be not an effective chief executive officer,” Romney said in his testimony. Stemberg, who is now a professional investor himself at the venture capital firm Highland Capital Partners declined to comment on the testimony from his divorce case but did not dispute that the Staples negotiations were intense. By April 1989 Staples went public at $19 a share and jumped to $22.50 in the first day of trading. The company’s value soared to more than $200 million and Bain ultimately made $13 million on its investment. “We were obviously proved wrong ultimately but the price we thought was high at that stage given the company’s performance’’ Romney said. It was a small sum compared with the massive profits Bain was starting to reap in leveraged buyouts. But it would be one of the few successful start-ups Romney could claim to have worked closely on. Today, Staples is the world’s largest office supply company, with more than 1,870 stores, 88,000 employees, and a market capitalization of $7.8 billion. Bain no longer has a stake in the company but Staples has remained a centerpiece of Romney’s campaign narrative about understanding small business.

What should we take from this? Stemberg made Staples work, not Bain Capital as Romney admits he was wrong about their potential. This coupled with his real performance in Massachusetts and the fact that he doesn’t handle his own money should give Americans a clue that he has more of an understanding of leveraged buyouts than business.   

The Candidates Weathering the Storm

On October 28, 2012 the President cancelled campaign events to monitor hurricane Sandy and met with FEMA; Romney went to Ohio. October 29 Obama signed emergency declarations, spoke with all the Governors, received a full briefing from FEMA, the Department of Energy, Transportation, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. The President told us that local, state and federal governments were working together, listen to officials so we don’t have unnecessary risk to first responders – they have to be in multiple states at the same time; gave a website for assistance, reminded people that because of the damage and winds it’ll take a while for responders to reach them; said in times like this we pull together (people as far away as California headed east to help). A reporter asked – what about the election and Obama said he wasn’t worried about the election right now, it’ll take care of itself – he was worried about families, first responders, the economy and transportation, saving lives, making sure search and rescue is in place, people getting food, water and shelter they need, and that we respond quickly enough to get the economy back on track.

October 30 Republican New Jersey (NJ) Governor Chris Christie on NBC’s Today show said “It’s a major disaster. We have battered, battered NJ shore that I hope to tour a little bit later on today, but I think the losses are going to be almost incalculable.” Christie said “I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the President personally, the President has been outstanding in this and so have the folks of FEMA, Craig Fugate and his folks have been excellent”. Instead of helping the Red Cross, Romney spent $5,000 and turned an Ohio rally (had the stage, big flag, campaign music, supporters and shirts) into a makeshift aid effort with can goods and other supplies for victims of the storm. Romney handed out water and took the time to say – a lot of people will still be looking for goods even though we’ve gathered these things, one of the things I learned in life is you make the difference where you can. Romney ignored questions about FEMA; we were reminded that during a June 13, 2011 CNN debate when talking about FEMA he said “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go further and send it back to the private sector that’s even better.” Now, he believes FEMA has a major role to play in providing hurricane relief (another turnaround). On October 31 we have kids in New York talking to Elmo about the storm – something they probably won’t get to do if Romney is elected. The President visited NJ and he and Christie had nothing but good things to say about one another. Romney in Florida didn’t criticize the President, he said – we can’t go on the road we’re on, we can’t change course in America if we keep attacking each other, we’ve got to come together and get America on track again; while this goes on the automakers protest Romney’s Jeep ads in Ohio that say Chrysler was sold to the Italians who plan on making the cars in China – Biden in Florida said it’s another lie and a cynical thing to do. The sad part is none of Romney’s ill or Obama’s right behaviors makes a difference in the polls.    

Newspaper Endorsements

On October 28, 2012 on This Week with George Stephanopoulos it was brought up that the Des Moines Register, the largest paper in Iowa who hadn’t endorsed a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972 - had endorsed Mitt Romney saying: Barack Obama…with a theme of hope and change…A different reality has marked his presidency. His record on the economy the past 4 years does not suggest that he would lead in the direction the nation must go in the next 4 years.

Contrary to the Des Moines Register the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama saying - "…Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing -- overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed" but the Tribune concluded that he had been "astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on healthcare." I found plenty of articles citing which papers were endorsing Obama as well as those endorsing Romney; some even show which ones changed positions - Democrat to Republican as well as Republican to Democrat. Some newspapers that endorsed candidates in 2008 decided not to pick anyone this year and several that did endorse Romney expressed the hope that, if elected, he would turn out to be the moderate Romney, not the "severe" conservative he presented himself to be in the Republican primaries. As of October 27 Editor & Publisher, considered the longtime bible of the newspaper business, showed there were 112 newspapers for Romney and 84 for President Obama; the list didn't include papers from Sunday when many deliver their endorsements (in 2008 E&P's final tally showed daily newspapers endorsing Obama over Republican John McCain by 296 to 180).

The Los Angeles Times, for what it's worth, endorsed Obama and followed up with an explanation from Editor Nick Goldberg of why the newspaper endorses anyone at all given its mandate to be nonpartisan and unbiased in its news articles. There was a reminder that the paper’s first endorsement, in 1884, was for Republican James G. Blaine. Who you say? Republican incumbent Chester Alan Arthur lost the nomination to Blaine and Democrat Grover Cleveland won the election. In my opinion the Des Moines Register is making the same poor endorsement as it did when it endorsed Nixon who had one of the most corrupt administrations in US history; it is picking Romney’s budget plan that has been debunked by economists and recently by the CEOs of major US companies over the health and welfare of the people. All of this only substantiates my position that the news media can provide bad information, ignite fires and make poor decisions like ordinary people, perhaps it’s because of our poor education system.  

Romney Working with State Legislature

On the October 28, 2012 This Week with George Stephanopoulos show, Newt Gingrich said – Barack Obama would love to have the worked with the legislature as well as Romney did – he worked with an 85% Democratic legislature.

Romney’s term as Governor began January 2003. Per Wikipedia Romney attempted to persuade the legislature to relax state rules to allow outsourcing state services to private contractors and it was rebuffed; he vetoed a funding bill for payment of attorneys representing the poor declaring that it was more important for the state to balance its books than to pay attorneys and the attorneys should provide the services pro bono - MA's court-appointed attorneys were being paid some of the lowest hourly rates in the nation and the cuts provoked outraged attorneys to strike and the plan to remake the court system was unsuccessful. Romney’s approval rating began to drop in April 2004 and a March 2005 poll found that only 32% felt he should be re-elected if he ran for a second term (69% Republicans, 31% Independents and 12% Democrats). In July 2006 Romney offered the assistance of the state police force to municipalities dealing with increased crime rates; his offers were rejected; officials from the Boston Police unions said "if state aid hadn't been cut in recent years, then the city's police force might be staffed adequately to handle the crime surge." With the 2006 budget all 250 line-item vetoes were overturned and for the entire year all of Romney's vetoes of legislative bills were overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature. Even though the state had collected a record-breaking amount of tax revenue in fiscal year 2006, $450 million from the rainy day fund was needed to cover the increased spending for fiscal year 2007. Romney vetoed the transfer of funds; it was overturned by the legislature. In November 2006, Romney used his emergency budget-revision authority to cut the $450 million from the budget saying "One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced. The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending…" Later, Romney restored some of the money. Romney issued 844 vetoes as governor and a large share were overturned by one or the other of the state houses. Late in Romney's term, his vetoes began to also annoy Republicans in the legislature and he lost support among them too. 

This does NOT sound like someone who crossed the bipartisan aisle to work with the legislature. 

Romney's Massachusetts Job Record

On the October 28, 2012 This Week with George Stephanopoulos show, Newt Gingrich said – Barack Obama would trade the job creation of Romney as Governor in a heartbeat….you look at Romney’s record and it makes Obama’s record look pretty thin.    

Per Wikipedia when Romney took office in 2003 the nation as a whole was still suffering the effects of a recession. Massachusetts (MA) was losing manufacturing jobs and with an economy heavily dependent on the technology sector it had been badly shaken by the dot-com bubble collapse. When the national economy eventually began to improve, the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment; growth rose at a rate of 1.5% compared to the national average of 5.3%. Over the course of Romney’s term MA was 47th of the 50 states in new job creation (supports Obama’s October 27 comment). However, the annual rate of job growth was improving by his last year in office, moving MA up to 28^th place. The improved growth was in part because of the statewide health care reforms that were signed into law in April 2006 – it created a 7.6% increase in job growth in healthcare and social assistance positions. Romney also personally intervened to help attract to the state, or maintain within the state, large employers, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Procter & Gamble’s Gillette. Some business leaders said Romney’s policies that increased fees and corporate tax revenue drove up business costs and weakened job growth (an argument Romney uses today).  

On average unemployment rates were slightly worse in the rest of the nation than in MA. Unemployment in MA rose during Romney’s first year from a rate of 5.6% in January 2003 to a peak of 6.0% in mid 2003. It then steadily declined over the remainder of his term, ending at 4.6% in January 2007 for a net improvement in unemployment of 1.0%. However, much of the improvement reflected was in the loss of working-age adults from the labor force, many of them having left MA for other states - MA experienced one of the highest levels of net out-migration of any state during Romney's term. This exiting of the labor force brought MA from the nation’s 29th in highest unemployment to 18th by the end of Romney’s term. (People dropping out of the working force is an excuse today’s Republicans argue about the national unemployment rate dropping – talking out of both sides of their mouths seems to be a standard practice.)

Let’s see MA’s job growth increased because of health care and Romney argues the opposite today. Unemployment dropped only 1% during Romney’s governorship because of his policies. The unemployment rate in February 2009 was 8.3%, in September 2012 it was 7.8%, only a .5% drop but the unemployment rate stalled because the Republicans in the legislature killed every bill that would have improved the situation. I don’t think Romney’s record was so good. 

Romney's Massachusetts Tax Plan

On October 27, 2012 the President in Nashua, New Hampshire, on the Massachusetts (MA) border, said while Romney promised to fight for jobs and middle-class families when he ran for governor, he ended up…raising fees that hurt the middle class. Obama said - There were literally cradle-to-grave tax hikes and fees, there were higher fees to be a barber, to become a nurse, higher fees for gas, higher fees for blind people who needed to get a certificate (saying) that they were blind; rounding out the list was a fee on funeral homes. Obama who has been accused by members of the birther movement of being born outside the US joked that Romney even ‘‘raised fees to get a birth certificate, which would've been expensive for me.’’ Obama added that during Romney’s time as Governor only 3 states ranked lower in job creation than MA. Romney spokesman Ryan Williams called Obama’s criticism ‘‘laughable coming from a president whose only plan for a second term is to recycle the failed policies of the last 4 years.’’ Williams said Romney cut taxes 19 times as governor and created tens of thousands of new jobs. I’ll address taxes first - you judge whether or not he cut taxes.

Per Wikipedia MA raised $500 million in new revenue during Romney’s first year in office from fees, more than any other state surveyed; he proposed 33 new fees along with increases in 57 existing fees (they did include those cited by Obama); his proposal called for a $50 fee for tuberculosis tests and a $400 fee for those who tested positive (the tuberculosis fees were rejected by the legislature). Opponents said many of the fees posed a hardship on those who could least afford them and critics including some conservatives complained that Romney was using these fees increases as a tax increase in disguise after having promised he would not raise taxes. Romney said that the fees were distinct from taxes because fees were charged for particular services provided whereas taxes were assessed more broadly, without expectation of any specific services (critics noted this explanation applied to only some of the fees). (Does this argument sound familiar - the Republicans used it in trying to fight ObamaCare.) Romney increased the state gasoline fee 2 cents per gallon and generated about $60 million per year in additional revenue (surpluses of $40 million over the cost of the originally intended cleanup of contamination around underground fuel storage tank). The tax burden in MA during Romney's governorship according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation from 2002 to 2006 found the average rate of state and local taxes in MA rose from 9.6% to 10.2% compared to the national rate which rose from 9.5% to 9.7%. Romney did propose a "tax-free shopping day", a property tax relief for seniors, a manufacturing tax credit and working with the legislature, Romney developed the Massachusetts Military Enhanced Relief Individual Tax (MERIT) Plan to provide property tax exemptions for disabled veterans and grant spouses of veterans killed or missing in action since September 11, 2001 full property tax exemptions for 5 years; after 5 years the spouses received an annual $2,500 exemption; it was signed into law on August 14, 2006.  

Romney's Massachusetts Budget

Per Wikipedia having vowed not to raise taxes Romney on announcing his 2004 budget proposal said by reorganizing the state bureaucracy along with reducing waste and fraud he would save $2 billion. Democratic legislators and independent analysts called that estimate vastly overdrawn and the Massachusetts (MA) Taxpayer Foundation, a nonpartisan business-funded organization that monitors state finances, suggested the figure might be closer to $100 million; Romney eventually conceded that the figure could not be reached without new revenue. MA had enacted a tax increase prior to Romney taking office (which he opposed during his campaign) that reduced the deficit, projected to be $3 billion, by $1.3 billion. Romney required state workers to make larger contributions toward health insurance, consolidated agencies of the state executive branch (such as Health & Human Services)–cut workers by 40% (2,000) down to 3,000 workers, raised fees and changed the business tax code to prevent businesses from evading payment of taxes; businesses called the changes tax increases but Romney defended them as the elimination of “loopholes.” Examples of these changes included blocking corporations from transferring intellectual property assets to shell companies in states with lower corporate tax rates, preventing banks and some corporations from avoiding taxes through paper restructurings, eliminating tax breaks for direct mail advertising and taxing sales of software downloaded over the internet (which was untaxed) at the same rate as identical software purchased in stores. The Romney administration sought an exemption to avoid having to comply with a federal law passed in 2004 that mandated that states lower their corporate tax rates. Romney's business tax "loophole closures" brought in $350–375 million per year. Unanticipated federal funds reduced the budget gap further and in combination with funding cuts, fee increases, collection of more business tax revenue, and reliance on funds in the state's ‘rainy day fund’ (known as the Stabilization Fund) Romney and the legislature were able to balance the 2004 budget. Romney declared "We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state's history without raising taxes." Some called the statement dishonest citing the large increases in fees and business tax revenues as well as the increases in fees and taxes levied by local governments in response to Romney's policies. Upon leaving office in January 2007 Romney argued that he had left the state with a large budget surplus, after he cut hundreds of millions of dollars of programs. While campaigning for the presidency Romney said "we didn’t just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it."  However, upon taking office, successor Governor Deval Patrick said there would be a $1 billion deficit for fiscal 2008 if existing service levels were carried over into the next year's budget.  

Romney’s campaign makes the same promises he made to MA and he touts his success as Governor for the reason we should elect him president. Take a good look. He wants to send programs back to the states-as governor he tried to outsource jobs (like at Bain). Taxes went up higher than the national average (the details will follow). He used MA’s rainy day fund (like Social Security and Medicare) and received funds from the federal government to balance his budget.

Business Supports Obama Approach

On October 25, 2012 CEOs from more than 80 major US companies pressed Congress to reduce the federal deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending. They warned that the uncertainty spawned by the deficit is dampening businesses' hiring and investment and stifling the fragile economic recovery. They also seek federal investment in infrastructure and math and science education. The CEOs said no matter which party wins on November 6 tax increases are inevitable. Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, said "There is no possible way; you can do the arithmetic a million different ways. You can't tax your way to fix this problem and you can't cut entitlements enough to fix this problem." Dave Cote, chairman and CEO of Honeywell International Inc., said "What it really comes down to is if we still have the political will to be a great country." The CEOs head a diverse array of corporations, including Microsoft, Boeing, Federal Way-based Weyerhaeuser, Aetna Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Time Warner Cable Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., General Electric Co., Dow Chemical Co., Verizon Communications Inc., Bank of America Corp., AT&T Inc. and Allstate Corp.

On October 26 a poll shows that among voters 18-29 the President is winning 64% to Romney’s 34%. The Commerce Department reported that the economy grew 1.3% in the second quarter of 2012 and 2% in the third quarter and analysts say the risk of another recession is low. Romney called for bold change for the economy but offered no specifics – Vice President Biden said he’s in denial over the improved economy.  

On September 23’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Reince Priebus of the Republican National Committee said “…we have to start having people in office that commit to the promises they make.” George Washington said “Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” It is obvious that young Americans are concerned for their future if Romney is elected – I don’t know why their parents aren’t concerned for them. The companies are saying what President Obama and economic analysts have been saying all along - the Romney/Ryan budget doesn’t work. It’s too bad these CEOs waited so long to support tax increases, infrastructure and education. I’d like to know why this information didn’t spread across the nation as loud as the anti-Obama articles did. 

US Education

George Washington said “To encourage literature and the arts is a duty which every good citizen owes to his country.” I’m going to expand on this as literature and the arts have been cut over and over again by Republicans and Romney’s plan for education goes further than this in taking education from our country.

A Washington Post February 11, 2011 article said Newsweek reported in September "US students who once led the world, currently rank 21st in the world in science and 25th in math". In the latest annual report on American Education by the Brookings Institution, Tom Loveless, a former teacher currently with the Brown Center on Education Policy, said "The US never led the world. It was never number one and has never been close to number one on international math tests or on science tests for that matter. It is more accurate to say that the US has always trailed the world on math tests. There was no sharp decline--in either the short or long run. The US performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been flat to slightly up since the test's inception and it has improved on TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) since 1995." Loveless, a leading expert on PISA and TIMSS is part of the specialists who advise those programs; his report says the first international test comparable to those 2 was the First International Math Study in 1964; it assessed 13-year olds in 12 countries-the US placed #11; other age groups were tested with similar disappointing results. The December PISA and latest TIMSS tests the US did better; scoring in the middle of the pack; an analysis of PISA results by a Stanford University economist showed the US was up 5 points in reading, 13 points in math and 13 points in science. Loveless said - If we maintain that pace we will boost the US gross domestic product by at least $41 trillion in the next 20 years. The Post updated its article on July 2, 2012 and said-In 1965 the International Educational Achievement (IEA) study of mathematical achievement in 12 countries asked students to solve 70 problems; the top scoring country was Israel (a mean score of 36.4 correct items) and US students placed last with a score of 13.8. During the 1981-82 school year the IEA assessed 12^th grade students on 6 topics: number systems, sets and relations, algebra, geometry, elementary functions and calculus, and probability and statistics and the US ranked last among advanced industrial countries. The authors said “at the 12th grade level, the US curriculum is much more like that of early years of secondary school elsewhere while the curriculum of most other countries is more like that of beginning college level.” In 1989 a dozen countries and Canadian provinces participated in a mathematics assessment conducted by the Educational Testing Service and the US ranked last. An international study in the 1990s tested 13-year olds in mathematics in 15 countries; the US placed next to last. The results of science assessments of high school students in 1973 placed the US 14 out of 14; in the mid-1980s the US in biology was 13 out of 13; in chemistry 11 out of 13 and in physics 9 out of 13 countries. In 1991 the US in science was 13 out of 15. US students at no time were #1. In my opinion, if Loveless is correct it would be wise for the US to invest in education as the President has said. 

The Ann Romney Effect

In October Mitt Romney starts telling personal stories to get the American people on his side. On October 10, 2012 Ann Romney is on Good Morning America cooking and sharing an inspirational Equine Therapy story about a 28 year old woman she met when she won the US Championship – Ann gave her the trophy (didn’t help the woman’s achievements). There was no date on the Good Housekeeping (GH) site for their interview with Ann Romney (AR) but the comments started flying on October 29, 2012. In the interview Ann told GH: I’ve been a First Lady of the State. I have seen what happens to people’s lives if they don’t get a proper education. And we know the answers to that. The charter schools have provided the answers. The teachers’ unions are preventing those things from happening, from bringing real change to our educational system. We need to throw out the system. This is a stark contrast from Michelle Obama’s GH comments during her interview - “Reinvest in education here in the United States so that we lay the groundwork to ensure that every child has access to a world-class education from preschool to beyond college.”

GH asked Ann: What are the steps your husband would take to improve the economy? AR: Just his election itself is going to instantly turn up the gas and get people more optimistic, but he has 5 things that are simple for people to understand: One is to get rid of regulation; one is to start using our natural resources; one is to turn to human capital, which is education, and get that working again; and…oh, I’m not sure on the last two! (Ann laughed) GH: Well, 3 is a very good start. A couple of years ago, we created the Green GH Seal as a way of helping consumers figure out what products are truly green versus what are just green washing claims. Are green issues something you think about? AR: Everyone wants clean air and clean water. I mean, of course we all do. And then if you go to a country like China —GH: Where there is no regulation... AR: Where there is no regulation and you see what’s wrong there and how people are dying younger there. And the pollution and the air quality is just abysmal and people are having to live in that. You understand how important it is but you also have to recognize that we have to balance those things.

Republicans early on called the voters stupid and I believe they have a point - on October 20, 2012 Ann Romney called a white 79 year old Pennsylvania woman to wish her a happy birthday and because of this the votes went to Mitt along with other votes from people that thought this was more important than the issues at hand – right off the bat I think of - human and civil rights, foreign policy, the economy, education, and global warming. 

A Dog With A Bone

The President took October 26, 2012 off from the campaign trail and did a number of interviews, including one with MTV and satellite chats with a handful of local reporters from swing states like Colorado’s KUSA 9News' Kyle Clark. In regard to the President describing Romney as a bull shitter in an interview with the Rolling Stone, Obama said - You know, this was a conversation after an interview, a casual conversation with a reporter. The basic point that I've been talking about throughout this campaign, is people know what I mean and they know that I mean what I say and what I care about, who I'm fighting for and you know a major issue in any election is can you count on the person you're putting into the Oval Office fighting for you having a clear set of convictions that they believe in. Clark also asked about the loans to Abound Solar, what some are calling Colorado's Solyndra and a pair of questions on: whether Americans under attack in Libya requested help and were denied. Clark's interview was all over the national news, on the Daily Caller, Real Clear Politics and repeated on Fox News. I don’t call this good reporting as it was not unbiased.

Per Wikipedia Abound Solar started its research in the late 1980s at the Colorado State University, in 1991 they received a patent for their process, by 1998 had developed a pilot process and received support from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the National Science Foundation; by 2004 they received funding from NREL and the Solar America Initiative and in 2006 private funding was provided to commercialize the technology (one investor was Bohemian Companies, based in Fort Collins, and chaired by Pat Stryker, who according to the Center for Responsive Politics, donated $50,000 to President Obama's inaugural fund and $35,800 to his victory fund in 2008). Abound Solar received a $400 million loan from the US government in 2010; the loan had support from several Republicans including Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. On June 28, 2012 Abound Solar announced it suspended operations and would file for bankruptcy protection after burning through $70 million from taxpayers. Company employees have since come forward saying Abound officials knew their solar panels were defective and sold them anyway in order to meet benchmarks, so the company could get the Department of Energy (DoE) loan. One of Abound Solar’s competitors is First Solar, an American owed company that is surviving – the catch, it has some manufacturing overseas. Abound and the DoE blamed the company's failure on competition from China. So Abound got federal money from Bush and had Republican support at the time by received more money in 2010.

Using what was considered to be an off-the-record comment, repeating debate rhetoric, not waiting for all the facts on Benghazi and not comparing unethical behavior of other politicians, in my opinion makes reporters like Clark just as bad as Republicans - they’re like a dog with a bone when they want to discredit someone. 

Benghazi Talk Continues

On October 24, 2012 we heard that just 2 hours after the Benghazi incident an Islamist militant group claimed responsibility; the White House and the State Department were informed via an email but intelligence sources say other conflicting messages may have been sent; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said all the evidence has to be weighed; a Tunisia man was arrested for the attack and a second suspect was killed in Egypt. On Fox News former Bush Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice broke with the majority of her party as she tried to hit the brakes on the right wing’s politicization of the recent attack in Libya. Host Greta Van Susteren asked Rice directly and repeatedly about a set of emails uncovered by Reuters. In what has been dubbed “Benghazi-Gate,” the conservative media has jumped on the emails as definitive proof that the Obama administration has been lying about what it knew and when in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Rice’s response was likely not what Van Susteren expected: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on, on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11? So, there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.

You would have thought Rice’s statement would have slowed down the stubborn foolishness of the incident but on October 27 Republican Senators demanded the White House declassify the Benghazi surveillance video. Instead of dealing with our economic situation or the upcoming hurricane the Republicans keep demanding information that has yet been totally put together. What is done – is done. It’s already been said that there are lessons to learn from this incident so hindsight doesn’t change anything and they need to stop their bullying. On October 30, the morning after hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey ABC asked Chris Christie–what’s your biggest concern right now–he said–it’s hard to tell and went on to say what he did know and they have to assess the damage. Why then doesn’t this logic apply to Benghazi?