He must not read the daily newspapers

Out of touch, head buried in the sand, clueless, living under a rock, etc.  There is just no words that can adequately describe Mit Romney.  The big white elephant is in the room  where he stands but Mit only sees the Koch Brothers and other high dollar donors.

The Forty-seven percent is right there in front of him but candidate Romney is clearly looking at something else.  Looking over and around a good part of his constituency.  The big part of the forty-seven percenters live in the south and southeast.  A major part of the folks who would normally support Romney.  Yes, registered Republicans!  But no, Mit pokes them in the eye.  Calling them freeloaders, moochers, and tax dodgers.  So, now you know how Mitten feels about you and me.  Those of us who have paid into Social Security and are old enough to receive benefit from our savings.  Plus paying taxes on SSI.  Not to mention paying local, sales, and state taxes.  Including tolls on roads and bridges.  Plus all the federal taxes we pay on gasoline and other utilities.  All of which support the infrastructure of the “go it alone” ontrepaneurs.  Yes, the same ontrepaneurs who Mit Romney said could build a business in the middle of the desert without the benefit of roads and utilities.  Oh really?

Mit needs to turn on the lights in the room and see who really supports him.  It’s the working poor.  The elderly, the retired, the disabled and families of current military servicemembers.  Most of whom live in the southeast.  Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and a couple of other “Red” states.  All of which Mit has flushed down the toilet with his recent “forty-seven percent” statement at a high roller fund raiser.  Yes, this man is not fit to be president.  He only represents the “one-percent” of the very wealthy.  Not us, for sure!

He's just not like us. Look at his hair.

I often wonder about Mit Romney and how he views the world around him. Obviously his perspective is far removed from mine. Me, being from a blue collar family. He, having grown up in privilege and comfort having no worries or needless wants. And that, I don’t understand. Then on the other hand, I ponder about poor kids growing up in the ghetto of large urban areas. Having so little they have to resort to criminal acts to obtain what they want. Sometimes just food and clothes. Nothing else. Risking their own freedoms for somebody else’s money and life. Still I don’t understand how they resort to such behavior. Why can’t they do better? Likewise, I’m sure Mit Romney looks at we middle classers and has no clue why we think and act the way we do. Why must we depend on the federal and state government for some social services, education, and health care. Why can’t we do this on our own, he might conjecture. “It would be so simple.” None the less, for a person wanting to be president of the United States, you would think he might take the time to learn and understand the middle class. Like mingling with the street level people. He could read some books. Read the newspaper. Talk to anyone on Main street. Maybe visit a grocery store and buy a carton of eggs or a gallon of milk. Just to find out what it’s like to be middle class. Possibly learn how much food and clothe cost on a limited budget. And then follow someone to the bank as he or she cashes a paycheck. And then watch how the average person budget his or her money to make ends meet. It really wouldn’t take much to discover how to live a middle class life. Just shadow someone and find out. Then maybe he might glean a different perspective. But, since he has not done that, I feel he is not fit to be President. He doesn’t know me and tens of millions like me. People living from day to day on limited resources. How could he make decisions and make good legislation based only on his limited exposure. Thus, he is mostly clueless and unaware of the greater American population and it’s needs and hardships. To me, privilege is a negative not an asset. It’s just another fault to disqualify him as possible President.

We need the correct changeWe have to fix congress. We need a do something congress. You can help.

We have to fix congress. We need a do something congress. You can help. First of all it is a foregone conclusion Obama will win. Therefore, congress has to change. We have to vote out all incumbents. Most of all vote out all TEA partiers and dead wood. We need a congress that can work with President Obama. Obama does not need a victory. America needs a victory. America needs jobs, good health, and a first class education system. All else is secondary. Most of all we need to get rid of John Boehner. He is the constipation blocking good legislation. And flipping congress is the laxative solution to our blockage. Vote out the old and in with the new. If possible, vote more women and minorities in to the House of Representatives. Please help. Vote!

Duck tape over the mouth might be a good remedy.

Do you recall the Larry Linville character, Major Frank Burns on the enormously popular CBS TV program M*A*S*H? Major Burns was the rich boy narcissistic and inept Doctor who was Major Margaaret ‘Hot lips’ Houluhan so-called secret lover. He was easily flustered and embarrassed by the relentless high school pranks perpetrated by Captains ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce and B J Honeycutt.

Never the less, Maj. Burns was often rumored around camp of his compromising romances, prattling excuses, and frat boy exaggerations. Most of which involved the supervising Army nurse, Hot Lips Houluhan. Major Burns was Often blustering and threatening revenge against the two Hi-Jinksters, Captains Pierce and Honeycutt. Most often with junior high rhetoric and nursery school besmirchment. “So there! Nannie nannie nannie.”

But anyway, the Larry Linville/Major Burns character is an exact profile of Mit Romney. Self-serving, arrogant, and easily tripped up by details. Knowing the facts is not his strong suit. Blustering and making it up on the fly is more Mit’s style. Only to later recant almost everything he bloviated earlier.

In the scheme of things, candidate Mit is just a Sitcom character. A “fall guy.” The unsuspecting patsy. A guy missing the other two Stooges. So far it’s been a pretty good laugh.

Will he never learn? Shooting from the hip?

Just when we were getting use to at least one gaff a day from the Romney political bluster machine, comes a canister of Right wing reactionism. Exploding like teargas in the room. Hard to ignore. Hard to explain away. And, we scratch our heads wondering why it was said.

Just read today’s USA Today Romney’s response to President Obama’s comments about the Killing of an America Ambassador in Lycia. Not only was Romney’s response Board Certified stupid, was ill-advised by his own party. Thus validating Romney as a class A-1 Fathead reactionary buffoon. “Shooting before aiming,” as President Obama characterized Romney’s misstatement. Not to mention, totally politically incorrect. Read on…

Attacks shift campaign focus to foreign policy By Richard Wolf and Jackie Kucinich, USA TODAY A presidential campaign that has been all about the economy shifted suddenly to foreign policy Wednesday following the murderous attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya, giving President Obama an advantage over a challenger who has yet to start receiving national security briefings. By criticizing Obama's response to the killings and a violent protest in Egypt, Republican challenger Mitt Romney opened himself up to warnings from officials in both parties that politics should "end at the water's edge," in the words of former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. While Obama was condemning the attacks, vowing justice against the perpetrators and consoling the victims' families and State Department colleagues, Romney doubled down on a statement he initially released Tuesday night accusing the administration of sympathizing with the attackers. His accusations were aimed at a statement issued from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday, in the midst of the protest there, which sought to soothe anger among Muslims at a video blaspheming the prophet Mohammed. The statement condemned rhetoric that "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values," Romney said Wednesday during a news conference in Florida. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, said the foreign policy contrast is "probably a fair debate to have in this upcoming election. But now, he said, is a time to focus on "the fact that we lost a United States ambassador. Said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass.: "This is one of those moments when Americans must unite as Americans. It is exactly the wrong time to throw political punches. After holding its fire for most of the day, the White House later released part of Obama's interview with CBS' 60 Minutes in which he said Romney "didn't have his facts right. Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama said. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that, that it's important for you to make sure that the statements you make are backed up by the facts, and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them. Unless the situation in the Middle East spins out of control, the attack and Obama's denunciation and actions in response could strengthen his hand, experts say, since he has successfully waged war on al-Qaeda throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. You have a Republican challenger who is behind in the polls, who is looking for an opportunity to drive a wedge and to create a sense that Obama is the apologizer he's weak," says Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator and adviser to six secretaries of State from both parties. Unless it is validated day after day after day, it is not going to provide him much leverage and room to make the case. For Obama, the attacks offer an opportunity to show strong leadership…
Read the entire story in today’s USA Today.

"I cannot tell a lie." G. Washington

Question:
If you happen to be Mormon or are familiar with Mormonism, would you please answer a question for us? Does the Book of Mormon allow exceptions for lying when running for political office. We are not sure of what exceptions there are for political prevarications as a Mormon. But if you have reasonable answers, please let us know. We need clarification.

"Get back. Get back where you once belong."

Most of us remember the daily cartoon program, titled “Rocky the Flying Squirrel.” A cartoon series I faithfully watched when a senior in high school. It was Rocky and his sidekick, “Bullwinkle the Moose.” Remember?

None the less, the Rocky Show Occasionally featured two brainy characters called, “Sherman and Mr. Peabody.” One was a loud mouth precocious kid of ten or eleven. And the other a Snoopy looking dog wearing nerd looking black rim glasses and spoke professorially with a high degree of expertise. Never the less, the two scholarly brainiacs would often call upon the “Way Back” machine. A device that wisk the two cartoon academics would climb aboard and traveled backwards into the past. Going sometimes as far back as the “Middle Ages.” Often talking with and interviewing famous ancient characters. Sir Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, etc.

Well, the two are back with their Way Back machine. This time the prattling pair want all of us to go back with them. And back to stay. However, the boy and the dog have different names. One is called Mit Romney and the other is Paul Ryan. Certainly the Way Back duo. However their persona is far worse than the Sherman and Peabody characters. More like an ominous pair. Promising to reverse every benefit and privilege we have ever known as Americans. Wanting us to be cavemen and women. Once again. No more public schools. No more health benefits. No more private property. Just wearing primitive animal skin clothes and clubbing each other with heavy wooden sticks. All the while Mit and Paul would lord it over the highly polluted landscape with commands to build more pipelines and “Drill Baby Drill!”

Is this what we want for America? Do we want to reverse all government benefits and allow the rich to go Scott free with no taxes? Plus return women back to a harsh second class status. Possibly returning them back to a near slave existence? Then possibly shutting down businesses and sending their jobs to low wage Asian countries? Hmm? Is this what we want?

Absolutely NOT. Say NO to Paul and Mit. The way back regressive twins. What would Mr. Peabody say about this reversal of fortune, anyway.

It is not easy as it seems.

Letter to the Editor: Debatable assumption. Linda M. Austin, Stillwater. Roger D. Williams ("Better Figures," Aug. 20) cites the "frightening conclusions" of the president's tax plan revealed in a recent analysis by the accounting firm Ernst & Young. I just want to point out that all studies of this sort involve more than number-crunching; they are based on certain non-numerical assumptions. In this case, Ernst & Young has assumed that owners of large corporations create jobs and that any increase of their tax liabilities will result in declines in U.S. output, employment, capital stock, and investment. This is a debatable assumption generally known as the "trickle-down theory. It's a theory, not an incontrovertible fact, and in using it to generate their figures, Ernst & Young shows that it certainly has "a dog in the fight. To put it as neutrally and simply as possible, no number-crunching exists in a mathematical vacuum; it requires certain theories about the way the economy works. In this case, the connection between tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans and job creation is the theory underlying the numbers, not the fact resulting from the numbers. Many of the wealthiest Americans, like Mitt Romney, have made their money primarily through investments, buyouts, mergers and hedging. These strategies may have involved starting businesses and increasing production, or they may have involved closing businesses and firing people. But they are business practices that have no consistent or verifiable statistical connection to employment or productivity. Letters to the editor are encouraged.