Where Obama Ranks For Jobs With Other Presidents

Bookmark and Share   Our beloved supreme ruler is jumping from swing state to swing state on his America’s Recovering Elect Me Tour beating his chest as he proclaims the private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months. Let’s hear it for the supreme job creator…

Hip, hip, no way!

Huh?

As usual he’s only telling part of the story. He mentions the “jobs created” number but conveniently skips the inconvenient “jobs lost” number. Sure, the private sector created 4.5 million jobs over 30 months (a pathetic monthly average, by the way) but ultimately it lost more than that. Obama has a net loss of jobs of over 300,000 during his presidential term according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, how bad is it?

Unemployment rose in July making it 42 consecutive months over 8%. Also, this recovery, to use the term loosely, has produced the slowest economic growth of any recovery.

“It is the slowest recovery ever,” said Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, who put together a new study. “I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all.”

Seriously?

Yep. And the last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever, too.

It’s that bad?

It’s pimple-butt bad. Obama’s job numbers, as de Rugy points out, are far worse than Kennedy (3.6 million), Ford (2.1 million) and Carter (10.3 million) who, as Presidents, served for similar or shorter terms than our venerable supreme ruler. In fact, he ranks dead last in jobs, the bottom of the barrel, for all presidents since 1945.

Ouch.

There’s more. He says the private sector is doing fine.

Does he? Well, clearly he needs to put the fruit back in the cake.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

In 2012 Barack Obama Is Campaigning Against All He Campaigned On In 2008

  Bookmark and Share  In 2008, Barack Obama dismissed  every question about him by calling them distractions.  Each of his speeches were carefully laced with attempts to claim his opponents were trying to distract voters from the issue of the economy.

No matter what the issue, it was a distraction.  To question his  relationship to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was a distraction.  To question how Senator Obama could have sat in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church for decades and not once hear or denounce the reverend, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Caucasian, race-baiting  hate speech, was a distraction.   Requesting him to produce his birth certificate was a distraction.  Even questioning whether or not Senator Obama, a young man with no executive or private sector experience had any substantial qualifications to be President of the United States were deemed to be a mean spirited, Republican distraction.  In fact in July of 2008, Senator Obama responded to such a questions by stating;

“When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”

This strategy prompted then Senator Obama to include in almost all his speeches, the charge that any question or discussion that did not involve the economy was an example of Republicans trying to avoid the economy as an issue altogether.

For instance, in March of 2008 candidate Obama stated;

“We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we’d see of the politics we’re trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter.”

In April of 2008, it was;

“It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics.”

In May of 2008 he declared;

” Yes, we know what’s coming. … The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along.”

Then of course there was my favorite Obama distraction accusation which came in October of 2008 when the young, energetic man who was filled with so much hope and change stated;

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. … I’m going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy.”

Four years later and the question now is where is all this talk about substance that President Obama promised?

So far President Obama, his surrogates, and his team of political Chicago hitmen have spent most of their time distracting us from the very same issues he claimed to want to discuss in 2008.

While the President goes out on the campaign trail and tries to claim that his endless spending will eventually solve our problems, his strategists are busy trying to insure that the non-issues are being aired on television and radio, and by his surrogates in the Senate and House.  Instead of producing a plan to grow our economy or trying to pass at least one federal budget before his first and probably last term in office is over, the President’s campaign and his supporters have done nothing but dominate the news with false accusations and ludicrous charges against Romney that are designed to specifically distract voters from the issues and the Obama record.

So far the most substantial knocks against Mitt Romney to come out of the Obama campaign have included such charges as his wife never having worked a day in her life, that Romney is a felon, that he hasn’t paid his taxes, and that he was responsible for the death of a woman who had cancer.  And to establish all this, President Obama has officially spent more than any other presidential in history.  And the official campaign which does not really start until both Parties officially nominate their candidate hasn’t even begun yet.

After four years in office President Obama who came to the White House on the promises of “hope” and “change” has delivered on only one of those themes –change.  As for hope, he has cretaed a government run econmy that has turned into despair and although he has delivered on change, it was not the change that many had hoped he intended.

In 2008, then Senator Obama left many voters believing that he would change the partisan atmosphere in Washington, D.C..  They tended to believe him when he promised to unite our nation.   Back then many believed President Obama when he promised to have the most transparent Administration in the nation’s history.  Fast forward four years and here we are a nation that is more polarized than ever before as President Obama tries to exploit the less fortunate in our society with a mean spirited class warfare strategy that suggest to them that the most fortunate in our society are to blame for their lot in life.  Here we are with a President who has declared that Republicans are waging a war on women.  And here we are waiting for that promised transparency in government on things such as the botched Fast & Furious operation that Obama’s Attorney General has been secretive about that he became the first person in his position to be held in contempt of Congress.  Here we are waiting to find out who from the White House has been leaking sensitive national security secrets in order to boost the President’s reelection chances.

The only change the President has delivered exists in the national debt which in the less-than-three-years. President Obama increased by $4.212 trillion–more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.  And that was not a change in the direction we need or can afford.

The presidential candidate that we saw in 2008 is long gone.  He has been taken away from us through a disastrous series of economic policy failures, and a string of constitutionally questionable partisan power grabs.  From appointing dozens of unaccountable czars that were granted extra-constitutional powers without congressional oversight, to hammering together an entirely partisan healthcare bill that puts one third of the American economy under government control, and to the passage of executive orders that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and created unenforceable regulations, this President has taken any of the possibly promising aspects of his 2008 candidacy and threw them out the door.  And so now today, the Barack Obama that stands before us is  not the Barack Obama who asked us for our votes in 2008.

The Barack Obama before us today is a shell of the man he once was.  And whereas President Obama once stood before us and declared his opponents were about to “distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along”, today he is the one responsible for those distractions and for using those same tactics.  Today we have a President who is campaigning on all that he campaigned against four years ago and who is trying to run away from his record.  So I ask you this.  Can we afford to a reelect a President who if given the chance, would have to campaign against all that he says he stands for now, in another four years?

Bookmark and Share

If Harry Reid Is Right And Romney Has Not Paid His Taxes, Where’s The IRS in All of This?

  Bookmark and Share I would like to say that this is the final word on the greatest question and issue facing Americans in this presidential election —– will Mitt Romney release the last 12 years of his tax return records?  But it won’t be.   The issue is one too rich for the class warfare waging left to let go of.  But is it really an issue?

Led by Senate Majority Liar, —- I mean Leader, Harry Reid, the issue of Romney’s tax returns have been pushed to the forefront of the 2012 election, mainly because Harry Reid claims that he knows for a fact that Romney has not paid any taxes.  According to Reid “The word is out.  Romney hasn’t not paid his taxes”.  That word only got out because Reid and other Obama surrogates have put that word out.  Reid says it comes from a very reliable source who told him that Romney has not paid his taxes.

The charge is one which under normal conditions could result in the filing of libel charges but the politically shrewd Reid understood that by making this charge from the floor of the U.S. Senate, he would be immune from prosecution because of a federal law that does not allow one to be sewed in civil court for their statements on the floor of the Senate.  Hence the reason why Harry Reid decided to exploit the august halls of Congress with campaign rhetoric.   Instead of using his time to address the problems facing the nation, he used it to carry out the dirty work of the President’s reelection campaign.

But let us examine the validity of these charges.

Over 80 years ago,  the legendary and notorious mob boss Al Capone saw his long life of corruption and murder come to an end.  But his downfall came to fruition not because our judicial system proved Capone had a hand in murder or corruption.  The end of Capone’s criminal career came about only after the Internal Revenue Service brought Capone to justice in one of most celebrated tax evasion cases in our nation’s history.   According to AccountingWeb,  not long ago, the IRS which  rarely releases documents since tax return information is considered highly confidential and is protected by strict privacy protection laws, released several documents pertaining to the prosecution of Capone under the Freedom of Information Act because of what they described as historical significance and public interest in the Capone case.

Among the documentsmade available were  a 7-page summary  that describes various criminal investigations of Capone during the ’20s and ’30s.  Each of the documents released demonstrate that the IRS was relentless in their pursuit to bring Capone to justice.  In the end, between all the illegal activities conducted by Capone and between the countless people whos death’s he was respionsible for, Capone was found guilty of five counts of tax evasion and failing to file a tax return. Despite everything else Capone did, and the endless array of law enforcement entities that pursued Capone, it took the IRS to convict him of anything.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney.

Does anyone believe that Mitt Romney could have been a Governor and run two campaigns for President without the IRS ever noticing that he has not paid his taxes?

To think the IRS missed that or just decided to let it go is to say the least, absurd.  That is especially the case since one of the main objectives conatined in President Obama’s budget requests for the Internal Revenue Service has been an attempt to reduce the “tax gap,” between what taxpayers owe each year and what they actually pay.  Even the president’s most recent IRS budget request seeks funding increases for enforcement programs and in believing that every dollar spent on collecting revenue reaps twice as much money in return, the Obama administration even proposed to exclude some IRS enforcement spending from the budget caps imposed by 2011’s debt ceiling deal.  From day one, the Obama White House has consistently placed a focus on enforcing prompt payment of tax bills and this year the President has sought  a $402 million increase over the estimated $5.3 billion budget that the enforcement division already has.

So with all this additional spending and manpower devoted to insuring that people pay their taxes, is there any logical reason to believe that Obama’s IRS just let Mitt Romney slide and refused to prosecute him for evading taxes?  Or could it be that Romney avoided the same fate as Al Capone because unlike Capone, Romney has filed his tax returns and paid his taxes?

If Romney hasn’t paid his taxes for the past decade or more and if the IRS has not yet realized that, than we have bigger problems than Romney’s tax bill.  We have an IRS that is wasting more than $5.7 billion dollars this years, and that has wasted tens of billions over the last decade.

So the real question here is if Mitt Romney has not paid his taxes, how come all the billions of dollars spent by the enforcement division of the IRS did not catch it?   I mean it’s not like Obama’s IRS Administration looked the other way because Romney is a pal of the President.  We’re talking about Mitt Romney, a Republican who many have long known to be a potential challenger of President Obama, not an Obama ally like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who failed to pay his own taxes but was rewarded with his cabinet post in charge of the IRS.

The bottom line here is the Romney tax return issue is not an issue.  It is a distraction that the left is tacking on to their class warfare strategy.   If Mitt Romney has been evading taxes, I can’t help but believe that as was the case with Al Capone, someone from the IRS would have picked up on it and Romney would be sitting in prison with the likes of Bernie Madoff, a few former Chicago Governors, or someone who should be sitting in jail, New Jersey’s failed former Governor, Jon Corzine, a man who till this day still can’t figure out where he put $1.6 billion of Goldman Sach’s money.

However; some may still argue that Mitt Romney could put the entire issue to rest if he just followed his father’s example and went public with the tax returns from the past 12 years.  Normally I might agree but so far this election is far from normal.  Mitt Romney has not even been officially nominated for President and the Obama reelection team has already accused Mitt of being a felon, not paying his taxes, and even killing a woman.  What do you think  they will do with a dozen years of Romney’s personal tax returns, no matter what t hey show?

Providing the left with his tax returns would be like providing a gunman with bullets.  In their hands, Mitt Romney’s perfectly legal, personal finances would be used to generate an endless array of distortions that would be turned into distractions from the real issues as they expand their class warfare tactics in attempt to prove that Mitt Romney is a successful and wealthy entrepreneur.  But here’s a newsflash for the left.  We know Romney’s rich!  Now it’s time to deal with the issues and the Obama record that the left is desperately trying to distract us from.

What it really comes down to is that in Romney’s tax returns we will not find the answers to peace in  the Mideast, or the solutions to our skyrocketing unemployment rates.  In Romney’s returns, we will not find the cure for cancer or a way to bring down the crushing national debt that President Obama has nearly tripled.  The reality is that Mitt Romney’s tax returns have nothing to do with the future of our nation and as such they really should not be the only issue we hear our President’s campaign team talking about.  So it’s time for the left to take the advice that can be gleemed by the name of one of their biggest front groups, MoveOn.org, —–  and move on already.Bookmark and Share

Even Liberals Are Getting Disgusted With Obama’s Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  If liberals are anything, they are first and foremost, hypocrites.  Liberalism is nothing more than a hypocrisy based ideology that operates under an atmosphere of double standards and an agenda that turns all issues into wedges that are designed to divide and fuel a “them against us mentality”.   This is why although you will always find the left preaching the need for tolerance, you will rarely find a liberal who is tolerant of a difference of opinion.  Yet today, even portions of the liberal base are finding that President Obama is reaching a level of hypocrisy that is too much for them to live with.

Such is the case with the CREDO organization, a liberal, pro-Obama group that practices their leftwing activism through the collection of signatures on petitions that they create for every issue they wish to reform.

CREDO recently issued a petition drive that calls upon President Obama to take down a radio ad that he has running in coal producing state’s like Ohio.  In the ad, President Obama tries to portray himself as a pro-coal President who has strengthened the American coal industry.  Now most Americans understand that the notion that President Obama has been good for any industry is ludicrous enough but to claim that he and his policies have benefited the coal industry is down right libelous.   Yet this latest radio spot doesn’t just suggest that president Obama is a supporter and fried of coal, it actually attacks Romney for remarks he made about  a Massachusetts  coal plant back in 2003.   At the time, that specific plant in Salem, Massachusetts was the oldest in the state and it failed to comply with state environmental laws. This particular plant was so egregious that according to a report by the Harvard School of Public Health, its lack of compliance with environmental regulations were  responsible for dozens of premature  deaths and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.

In his 2003 remarks, Romney stated;

“I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people….”

In a blatant attempt to intentionally take Romney’s words out of context, the Obama ad implies that Romney was claiming all coal plants “kill people” and deceptively ignored the fact that Romney was referring to that specific plant in Massachusetts which failed to comply with the regulations that would have allowed it to operate in an environmentally sound manner.

But proper context has little to do with liberal logic.

A year ago,  another liberal cesspool called Climate Progress, used the same soundbite that  Obama uses in his ad but they were taking that quote out of context for their own purposes.  Climate Progress tried to use Romney’s words to demonstrate that Romney is a compulsive flip-flopper who has changed his position on the environment.  By taking the Romney quote out of context, Climate Progress tried to convince voters that Romney was once opposed to coal but now that he is running for President, he supports coal.  Move forward a year and now we have Team Obama using the same quote to try and claim that Romney is  supposedly not being as pro-coal as the President  is.

Meanwhile CREDO has now issued a petition calling upon the President to pull the ad, not because it misinterprets Romney’s position, but because as they put it ”

…”An ad suggesting that President Obama is more coal-loving than Romney isn’t just cynical, it’s misleading… Tell the Obama campaign: Drop your cynical pro-coal ad.”

CREDO gets marks for pointing out that the ad is misleading, but only a couple of points because misleading is an understatement.  But they quickly lose those points because like the liberals at Climate Progress, CREDO tries to suggest that Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of coal and that is a lie.

Still, regardless of how inherently disingenuous the left is, even the liberal Obama loving supporters at CREDO are beginning to freak out over just how two-faced the President is.

In their petition, CREDO writes;

“…Right now we need leadership from President Obama to overturn a decision by his campaign to run radio ads in Ohio which promote coal and incredibly actually criticize Mitt Romney for saying (when he was a different person, in 2003) that the pollution from coal plants kills people….”

Note how CREDO carefully tried to avoid laying blame for the ad at the President’s feet.  Rather than accuse the president of being a hypocrite, CREDO carefully phrases their criticism by calling upon the President to overturn the decision by his campaign to run the hypocritical radio ad.   It is an attempt to deny that President Obama is the one in this ad who is making all his outrageously fictitious pro-coal claims.  Instead they try to put the onus on his campaign.  Nonetheless; it is easy to see that even the President’s own supporters are beginning to get uncomfortable by the level of hypocrisy that their messiah is displaying.

Even the left is forced to to question which Barack Obama is running for reelection?  The one who spoke in the pro-coal radio ad offered above, or the one who has promised to bankrupt the coal industry and spent the past four years sapping investment in this industry and  importing coal in to the United States even though it can be found here, right under our feet.  As demonstrated in the video below, the record would seem to indicate that the Obama Administration is anything but a friend to the coal and energy industry.

All of this does prove one thing though.  Liberals, including the President, do have the market on one thing —-  hypocrisy.

Bookmark and Share

Tax-cheat Tim And The Pension Scandal

Bookmark and Share  With the release of damaging internal emails, suddenly there’s a new scandal developing in Washington. At the heart of the matter is the Delphi employee pension plans affected by the General Motors bailout. Delphi is an auto parts manufacturing company.

It’s a breaking scandal and the information is somewhat patchwork at this point but apparently, as part of the GM bailout deal, the government allowed union workers’ pensions to remain whole while it chopped the pensions of non-union workers — some 20,000 non-union Delphi workers had their pensions slashed by almost half.

Further, there are hints that the decision was not only made for political purposes (Democrats doing the bump and grind with unions) but that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by confirmed tax cheat Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind it all.

If true, this presents several problems for the administration. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is the federal agency charged with independent administration of private-sector benefit issues, not the Treasury. According to 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government agency legally empowered to initiate pension termination.

Thus, by federal law it should have been the PBGC that made the pension decisions, not Tax-cheat Tim and the Treasury. The White House and Treasury have consistently denied they were involved claiming it was strictly a PBGC decision. Which bring us to the next obstacle for the administration.

Obama bureaucrats have given sworn testimony before Congress and in federal court claiming the administration had nothing to do with the pension decisions. The recently obtained emails contradict this testimony hinting that Tax-cheat Tim was the driving force and that White House bumblecrats were in the loop. If true, then the Obama administration willfully mislead Congress and the court.

And sacrificed the pensions of 20,000 America citizens to demonstrate their allegiance to unions.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Three Presidential Debates and One Vice Presidential Debate Are Set for 2012

 Bookmark and Share  The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), has today announced the schedule, formats, and locations of the public debates that will pit the presidential and vice presidential candidates against one another in the 2012 election.

According to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, there will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and each will last 90 minutes and begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.   They will be moderated by a single individual and while each debate will not allow opening statements by the candidates, they will feature two-minute closing statements.

The schedule is as follows:

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The first and only Vice Presidential debate which will take place in Danville, Kentucky’s Center University will discuss both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

The second presidential debate will differ from the other two by featuring a town hall format that will have questions on both foreign and domestic policy, asked by undecided voters who are selected by the Gallup Organization.  In this forum, the presidential candidates will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion.

The final presidential debate will be dedicated to foreign policy and it’s format will be identical to that of the first debate.

As for additional details, the CPD has recommended that the candidates be seated at a table with the moderator in each of the debate except for the town hall style forum at Hofstra University.  As for the all important question of who the moderators will be, the CPD states that those individuals “will be selected and announced in August.”

While politics has become more of a forum for soundbites than substance, these debates may provide voters with the opportunity to get at least a better understanding of the candidates that attend them.  While each presidential and vice presidential nominee will undoubtedly respond to questions with well tested phrases or points that are chock filled with well rehearsed statistics and jargon, these debates will most likely be more important for the opinions that voters establish based upon the rare, unscripted moments that these debates often offer.

Who can forget when in 1992, President George H.W. Bush looked at as his wrist watch and left the viewing audience with the impression that he was uninterested in the process.  In a campaign where his Democrat opponent was doing his best to paint Bush as out of touch, Bush’s little look at at his watch seemed to simply confirm the point.

Or how about the 1976 debate gaffe of incumbent President Gerald Ford who during a debate with Jimmy Carter, claimed “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Taken back by the obviously false statement, he moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, incredulously responded , “I’m sorry, what? … Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”  The answer to that question should have been “No, I meant to suggest that the people of Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia may physically endure the heavy hand of Soviet intrusiveness, the Soviets have not won the hearts and minds of those people, freedom loving people who seek to themselves of Soviet interference. However; Ford refused to back down from his original statement, and insisted  that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference.

The results in that election were so close, that many have logically concluded that Ford’s debate gaffe about Soviet domination probably cost him the win.

In 2012, these debates could make or break the election for one candidate or the other, especially since the extreme political polarization that exists in most states will allow a handful of voters in approximately 6 states to probably determine who will win.  That means that the wrong move or the slightest slip of the tongue in these debates could easily change the course of history.

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Speech Before the NAACP ……. Complete Video

 Bookmark and Share While an overwhelming 94% of all African-American voters have supported President Obama, the soon to be Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, stood before the NAACP’s national convention in Texas and stated;

“I believe that if you  understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it  were possible to fully  communicate what I believe is in the real,  enduring best interest of African  American families, you would vote for  me for President.  I want you to know that  if I did not believe that  my policies and my leadership would help families of  color — and  families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of  President Obama, I would not be running for president.”

Such was the case that Mitt Romney made for himself as he walked in to the proverbial Lion’s Den and addressed the nation’s oldest and largest African-American organization and tried to demonstrate that he will be a better President for not just Africfan-Americans, but all Americans.

The speech broke little new ground, and probably did little to change the minds of those in attendance but what it did do was demonstrate that the plight of African-Americans is no different from the plight of other Americans who are suffering from high unemployment and a government that is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in.  But while Romney’s pitch was good, it was anything but well recieved by the obviously and ironically prejudiced, so-called civil rights audience in attendnace.   The less than tepid reception was to be expected given that that the impetus of Romney’s address to the NAACP  was his opposition to President Obama’s policies on everything from trade, the size of government, energy, the economy, education, and the issue that initited the largest round of boos, his opposition to Obamacare.

Still though, Romney set his address up in such a way  that it left African-Americans with some undeniably tough questions to answer to when trying to defend their support for President.

According to Romney;

“If someone had told us in the  1950s or 60s that a black citizen  would serve as the forty-fourth president, we  would have been proud and  many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day,  we might have  assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door  of  opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier  on  the path to equal opportunity would surely have to come  down.

“Of  course, it hasn’t happened  quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old  inequities persist.  In some ways,  the challenges are even more  complicated than before.  And across America — and  even within your  own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way  forward.”

Then Romney opened the door to make a case for why he would be a better President for all Americans , including those of color, than President;

“If equal opportunity in America  were an accomplished fact, then a  chronically bad economy would be equally bad  for everyone.  Instead,  it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.   The unemployment  rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median  family  wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the  overall  unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the  unemployment rate for  African Americans actually went up, from 13.6  percent to 14.4  percent.

“Americans of every background  are asking when this economy will  finally recover – and you, in particular, are  entitled to an answer.”

To additional boos Romney added;

 “If you want a President who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.”


Romney ended his speech to the obviously appreehnsive audience on what was probably the single most conciliatory and positive note possible as closed his remark by notinng;

“You all know something of my  background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor  of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent  Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We  have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure  don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and  earned – and that’s why I’m here today…

“Should I be elected president,  I’ll lead as I did when governor.  I  will look for support wherever there is  good will and shared  conviction.  I will work with you to help our children  attend better  schools and help our economy create good jobs with better  wages.”

Some may argue that Romney’s appearance before the NAACP was a waste of time.  They will argue that the NAACP is hypocritically prejudiced organization that is anti-anything that is not liberal and which harbors within their ranks, pockets of a radical black racists.  Be that true or not, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he does not fear differnces of opinion and that he does not shy away from standing up for his beliefs even among those who may not believe in him.  And whether you agree with Romney or not, there was no denying that much of what he said was true.  President Obama’s policies have not worked for anyone,  most especially African-Americans who under President Obama have been negatively impacted by the deficit based culture of dependnecy and rates of unemployment that are higher for them than they are for anyother group of Americans in the nation.   So the question now becomes, is supporting a a person becuase of their color more important than defeating a person whos policies are hurting people of color?

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: