President Barack Obama greets supporters during a campaign rally at the Henry Maier Festival Park in Milwaukee on Saturday, September 22, 2012. Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo
PUEBLO, Colo. - Mitt Romney on Monday led a chorus of Republican criticism of the foreign policy of Barack Obama, accusing the president of minimizing the recent murder of the U.S. ambassador in Libya to have seen "a bump in the road" and not as a link in a chain of events that threaten U.S. interests.
In an interview broadcast on CBS for the weekend, Obama was asked if the recent events in the Middle East did doubt supporting governments that took power after a wave of regime changes known as the Arab Spring .
"I think it's absolutely right to support democracy and universal rights," the president said. "But I was pretty sure and I continue to be confident that there will be bumps in the road."
Romney did not doubt the return to the topic.
"I can not imagine that something like the murder of the ambassador is a bump in the road, when you look at the whole picture, murder, a president of the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt, 20,000 dead in Syria, Iran's close to becoming nuclear power, they are far from bumps in the road, "Romney told ABC.
The press secretary Jay Carney White House called the charges "desperate and offensive", and to be an attempt by the Republican candidate and his allies gain political advantage in the final stages of a close race that seems to lean in favor of President .
On Monday, Obama traveled to the White House to New York, one day before giving his speech to world leaders at the opening of the UN General Assembly.
The give and take in foreign policy occurred when Romney announced that his campaign would force more public events, with the intention of reversing the recent erosion in polls in battleground states.
Although national surveys show a tight race, Obama has gained ground in many recent polls Romney when participants are asked to compare the ability of rivals to fix the economy, by far the issue that has dominated the contest .
The same polls show Obama with a healthy lead against Romney when voters are asked which candidate is better equipped foreign policy, and the president is not shy to show off his decision to order the secret mission where Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan over one year ago.
At the same time, Romney's advisers say that voters are more likely to call into question the Obama management in international politics after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, early September, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador.
Moreover, both presidential candidates on Monday attacked each other in new television ads aimed at working-class voters who could help define the election. The messages emphasized Romney's wealth and job losses to China during the Obama administration.
Romney sent his mate Paul Ryan to launch a bus tour of three crucial days in Ohio, while Obama began airing an ad in that state,
where used Romney's comments about the 47% of voters, according to the former governor of Massachusetts, do not pay taxes and create victims entitled to government assistance.
---
Journalists from The Associated Press Kasie Hunt, David Espo and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/09/24/1307534/obama-lanza-nueva-ofensiva-fiscal.html#storylink=cpy
How Romney Packed The Univision Forum
Tense moments as the campaign demands to bus in supporters and to retape an introduction. “A little bit of disrespect,” complains Univision's Salinas.
Romney at Univision and Facebook's "Meet the Candidates" forum, moderated by Maria Elena Salinas and Jorge Ramos.
Image by Jim Young / Reuters
Posted
MIAMI, Fla. — Mitt Romney's campaign took a hard line with the Spanish-language network Univision, making last-minute demands in the run-up to last week's town hall that helped insure his success in the forum, sources familiar with the broadcast told BuzzFeed.
When the Republican took his place Wednesday night in the first of two back-to-back candidate forums televised on the mega-network, he was greeted by an adoring, raucous crowd that cheered his every word, and booed many of the moderators' questions. The next night, President Obama was treated to stone cold silence from the audience as he was aggressively grilled on his lackluster immigration record.
The contrast was widely noted by observers who watched both forums — and it was glaring enough to evoke some boasting from the Romney campaign in the immediate aftermath.
"These forums are going to be watched by more Hispanics than watched the conventions," said Alberto Martinez, a Florida-based Romney adviser. "I think [Romney] did an amazing job, and I think it was pretty clear there wasn't the same excitement for President Obama."
But the enthusiasm gap may have been an optical illusion formed by a series of last-minute demands by the Romney campaign, according to Maria Elena Salinas, one of the Univision anchors who moderated the forums.
Salinas told BuzzFeed that tickets for each forum were divided between the network, the respective campaigns, and the University of Miami (which hosted the events) — and she said both campaigns initially agreed to keep the audience comprised mostly of students, in keeping with the events' education theme.
But after exhausting the few conservative groups on campus, the Romney camp realized there weren't enough sympathetic students to fill the stands on their night — so they told the network and university that if they weren't given an exemption to the students-only rule, they might have to "reschedule."
The organizers relented. One Democrat with ties to the Obama campaign noted that Rudy Fernandez, the university official charged with coordinating the forums, is a member of Romney's Hispanic steering committee. Fernandez did not respond to BuzzFeed's questions about whether he gave preferential treatment to Romney's campaign.
In any case, Romney's team was allowed to bus in rowdy activists from around southern Florida in order to fill the extra seats at their town hall.
Obama's campaign, meanwhile, stuck to the original parameters and allowed a large chunk of the tickets to be distributed to interested students on campus. The result was a quiet, well-behaved crowd — and a lot of no-shows. Minutes before Obama's forum was to begin, producers began frantically directing university staff and volunteers to sit in the empty seats.
Salinas said both candidates ultimately had partisan crowds at their forums, but that Romney's non-student activists ignored instructions to hold their applause.
"We were a little bit thrown because it was supposed to be a TV show, it wasn't a rally," Salinas said of the outspoken Romney supporters. "It was a little bit of disrespect for us."
That wouldn't be the last demand from the campaign: Romney himself almost pulled the plug on the whole thing minutes before the broadcast, Salinas said.
While introducing Romney at the top of the broadcast, Salinas's co-anchor, Jorge Ramos, noted that the Republican candidate had agreed to give the network 35 minutes, and that Obama had agreed to a full hour the next night. Ramos then invited the audience to welcome Romney to the stage — but the candidate didn't materialize.
"It was a very awkward moment, believe me," Salinas said.
Apparently, Romney took issue with the anchors beginning the broadcast that way, said Salinas, and he refused to go on stage until they re-taped the introduction. (One Republican present at the taping said Romney "threw a tantrum.")
"Our president of news was talking to the Romney campaign and negotiating it," Salinas said. "But at that point, you can't really argue with that. The candidate is there, everyone is in their seats, the show must go on. There's a limit to how much we can object to it."
The compromise reached was that the anchors would note the discrepancy in the candidates' time commitments at the end of the broadcast. But Salinas said, by then, the crowd was cheering so loudly that they drowned out the anchors' words.
The dueling forums served as the centerpiece of a week when both candidates were working hard to appeal to Hispanic voters. In addition to his Univision appearance, Romney sat down for an interview with Telemundo, and held an energetic "Juntos con Romney" rally here, complete with Cuban salsa music, and a cameo by the candidate's Spanish-speaking son, Craig.
The Obama campaign was quick to point out that Romney spent less time on Univision than the president did, pointing to it as a symbol for the Republican's lack of commitment to Latino voters.
"Mitt Romney used the limited time he gave to Univision to evade the tough questions and reiterate positions he's taken that would disproportionately impact Latinos," said Gabriela Domenzain, accusing the Republican of championing middle class tax increases and a hardline immigration policy.
The Romney campaign, meanwhile, dismissed Democrats' crowing as an attempt to divert attention from Obama's rocky performance, during which he admitted to dropping the ball on immigration reform, and said he'd learned in office that "you can't change Washington from the inside."
One Romney aide, who requested anonymity to discuss strategy, said their campaign received no special advantage in the forums. Instead, he said, their superior crowd was proof that their strong Hispanic outreach program in the state is working.
Indeed, presidential campaigns are rarely won by the meek, and the Obama campaign's ability to provide presidential access to favored outlets is one of the cycle's most valuable resources. But the Romney camp fought harder at the critical Hispanic forum, and it appeared to pay off. Since the conventions, local Romney aides have been boasting that their Hispanic-focused ground game in the state is bigger than any Republican presidential campaign in history, with 13 full-time paid staffers and hundreds of volunteers.
What's more, one person familiar with both campaigns' media buys said Romney aired Spanish-language ads in key battleground states throughout the country during the Univision forums, while the Obama campaign remained dark in Spanish markets on those nights.
Romney has more work to do than Obama does in winning over the Latino electorate, with recent polls showing the president leading in that demographic nationally by as many as 50 percentage points. But the gap is much smaller among Florida Hispanics, who include a large, right-leaning Cuban exile minority, and the Romney aide said Obama did nothing to seal the deal in his Univision appearance Thursday.
"This is getting into dangerous territory for Obama, because they don't just have to win Hispanics here, they have to win big," the aide said. "He just keeps giving them reasons to think he is a weak leader."
From Univision's perspective, Salinas said both candidates got a fair hearing in the end. She also sough to quash a bizarre internet rumor that began circulating after the first forum asserting that Romney, whose skin looked unusually tan on camera, used makeup to look "more Latino" for the audience.
"He used the same makeup person I use, and we asked her if he requested darker makeup," Salinas said. "She said, 'No he didn't request anything.' Apparently, he was just a little sunburned."
I thought many months ago that it was at least possible that Mitt Romney would be more cautious about telling falsehoods as the election drew closer. After all, candidates can get away with more in, say, April than in September -- there's far more scrutiny now. Alas, Romney seems unfazed, both by the calendar and by life under a microscope -- he keeps repeating falsehoods without any real concern for consequences. In case there were any doubts about his worst habit, consider the 35th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.
1. At an event in Sarasota yesterday, Romney said, in reference to President Obama's comments about engaged citizens changing politics, "The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again." That's not only a lie; it's also one of the dumbest things Romney has ever said in public. 2. At a Univision town-hall event in Miami, Romney said he opposes an economic model in which we "take from some to give to others." Actually, Romney's preferred budget plan redistributes wealth at a level unseen in modern American history.
3. Romney also said, several times, "[T]his is a campaign about the 100 percent.... My campaign is about the 100 percent of America."
I seem to recall watching a video in which Romney said it's not his "job" to "worry about" 47 percent of the population.
4. At the same event, Romney boasted, "When I was governor of my state, the state of Massachusetts ... we brought unemployment down to 4.7 percent." Well, in reality, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts dropped because so many people dropped out of the state's workforce. The fact of the matter is Massachusetts' job creation record during Romney's term was "one of the worst in the country," ranking 47th out of 50 states.
5. In response to a student's question about federal aid, Romney said, "We're going to continue a Pell Grant program.... So I care. I care about your education and helping people of modest means get a good education and we'll continue a Pell Grant program." That's not what he said during the primaries.
6. On health care, Romney said at the same forum, "The government is going to ultimately have a board that tells you what kind of care you can receive." This is in apparent reference to the Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAB), and what Romney's saying isn't even close to being accurate.
7. In a Fox News interview, Romney said, "I have got great support from seniors, because they are unhappy with the fact that President Obama's Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion."
Sigh. 8. In the same interview, Romney insisted that the Affordable Care Act "tells us what kind of health insurance we have to have."
As Romney surely knows -- his state-based policy works the same way -- the whole point of the Affordable Care Act is to provide consumers with choices of private plans, made available through regulated exchanges. Giving people choices and telling people "what kind of health insurance we have to have" are opposites.
9. Asked about his affiliation with Kris Koback, Romney said this week, "He may well be part of a policy team [but] I have not met with him yet." As his campaign later admitted, this wasn't true. 10. Speaking to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerc this week, Romney said, "The administration promised us that its policies would have brought unemployment down to 5.4% by now."
That never happened. 11. Romney added, "[M]y Plan for a Stronger Middle Class will create 12 million jobs by the end of my first term." Putting aside the pesky detail that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the fact remains that if we do nothing, we're on track to create 12 million new American jobs over the next four years anyway.
12. In the same speech, Romney said, "President Obama has not initiated a single new trade agreement with Latin America. I will."
He's trying to slice the truth in a way that misleads. In reality, Obama finalized three separate trade deals in his first term: Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
13. In reference to China, Romney argued, "President Obama may think that announcing new trade cases less than two months from Election Day will distract from his record, but the American businesses and workers struggling on an uneven playing field know better."
This just isn't true. Obama just didn't bring a new case at the WTO against China "less than two months from Election Day," he's been bringing these cases throughout his term.
14. Romney also said, "Many Hispanics have sacrificed greatly to help build our country and our economy, and to leave for their children a brighter future. Today, those sacrifices are being put at risk by a president who cannot stop spending."
Government spending is down, not up, under President Obama. 15. Romney went on to boast, "I know how to balance budgets. We balanced our budget in my business, at the Olympics, and every year in my state."
He balanced his budget at the Olympics thanks to a taxpayer bailout, and in Massachusetts, Romney left his successor with a deficit.
16. On federal spending, Romney said, "[M]y test is this: is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"
The implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this isn't true -- China only holds about 8% of the nation's debt. 17. Romney added, "The president has put us on the road to Greece." That's painfully untrue. 18. Romney also argued, "No wonder business start-ups are at a 30-year low." This still isn't true.
19. Romney went on to say Obama "plans to raise the federal income tax on small business even more." In reality, Obama has repeatedly cut taxes on small businesses -- by some counts, 18 times -- and if given a second term, his tax plan would have no effect on 97% of small businesses.
20. Referencing the Affordable Care Act, Romney said, "The Chamber of Commerce surveyed 1,300 of its members. It found that three-quarters of them said they are less likely to hire people because of Obamacare."
The "survey" is a joke. The Chamber, a pro-Republican lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is fundamentally dishonest. 21. Romeny added, "Obamacare ... is already depressing job creation." There's literally no evidence to support this, but let's also note that Romney created a nearly identical policy at the state level, and it didn't depress job creation at all. 22. On immigration policy, Romney said, "Despite his party having majorities in both houses of Congress, the president never even offered up a bill." First, the president has endorsed all kinds of immigration bills. Second, having majorities in both chambers doesn't change the fact that Senate Republican filibusters blocked immigration policymaking.
23. In his weekly podcast, Romney said, "President Obama has imposed major new federal regulations at an unprecedented rate." Well, it depends on what Romney means by "unprecedented." He may be surprised to learn that Obama approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Bush did in his first three years. 24. At a campaign event in Painesville, Ohio, Romney suggested it's Obama's fault that the price of "gasoline has doubled."
To call this comically misleading would be an understatement. 25. In the same speech, "I've got a [jobs] plan, all right. Unlike the president, I have a plan." Romney doesn't have to like the American Jobs Act, but he shouldn't get away with brazenly lying about its existence.
26. Romney also argued, "The president believes in having a government put money out into companies. He put $90 billion into solar and wind, and green-energy companies. He's picking winners and losers.... He doesn't understand that the market where free people pursuing dreams and working to take their ideas to the marketplace, that's what makes America go; not a government that tries to pick investments, and guide the market for us."
What an interesting choice of misleading words. Because whether he likes it or not, if Obama "doesn't understand" free people in a free market, then Romney "doesn't understand" this, either. 27. Mitt Romney says "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America." Redistribution has always been a characteristic of America.
28. In an ad unveiled by his campaign this week, Romney argues, "Dear Daughter. Welcome to America. Your share of Obama's debt is over $50,000."
That's only true if you attribute Bush's debts to Obama, which is ridiculous.
Married, divorced women at risk of being disenfranchised on Nov. 6
Women add to the list of voters who are potential casualties of disenfranchisement from restrictive voting laws, as reports show that women have an increasingly difficult path to obtaining proper photo ID.
Discrepancies over a voter's legal name and the name displayed on their photo ID could stand in the way of their ability to cast a ballot in states that have enacted strict photo ID laws. That means if a woman's name or address has changed due to marriage or divorce and her photo ID does not reflect the change, she could be turned away at the polls.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as many as 34% of voting-age women—who have proof of citizenship—do not have documents with their current legal name.
And as MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry points out, in Pennsylvania where a controversial voter ID has returned to a lower court, recently married or divorced women face an uphill battle in order to vote.
*In this example a voter who recently changed her name by reason of marriage presents a valid Pennsylvania driver's license or Pennsylvania ID card accompaniedby a PennDOT update card, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Voter ID law regarding proof of identification.
"You need not one, but two forms of ID if you are a [woman]—there is officially a tax on being a woman in Pennsylvania if you want to vote," Harris-Perry said.
Ari Berman, who has covered voter ID laws extensively for The Nation magazine, added that Pennsylvania voters would also be subject to the individual discretion of workers at over 9,000 different polling places.
"We're talking about, at the very least, a lot of chaos on election day," he said.
"Just another example of how the Republicans are trying to supress [non-white republican males...now it's everyone's] right to vote! Harkening back to the old days!"
This may help. Add your clause and pass it along to your friends.
When in the course of human events it became necessary for our leaders to dissolve the political bonds which connected them to others and assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled them, their respect for the opinions of humanity compelled them to enumerate the causes, and their vision, courage and determination to end tyranny guided them to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the protection of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They established this nation, and the history of this nation is a chronicle of the struggle to provide these rights to all people, here and abroad. Common sense dictates that we do not discard the government and institutions that have advanced that struggle further than any other in the history of humanity. But when rich and powerful forces in society use and abuse the rights and freedoms secured by these institutions to reserve these riches, powers, rights and freedoms for themselves and reduce all other people to poverty and deprivation and subject these people to their tyranny with the consequence of degrading the global habitat, subjecting it to stresses that, unrelieved, will destroy its power to sustain the people, then it is the right and the duty of the people to counter these forces and restore the rights, freedoms and habitat all people need to thrive. Such is the current state of affairs and such is the necessity which compels the people to identify and abolish these abuses. We submit these facts to a candid world.
The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Russia have identified and remedied, with varying degrees of success, the abuses by their rulers designed to enrich themselves and keep their peoples in a state of poverty and tyranny. The current Administration has taken measures and instituted policies that support such remedies without affecting the sacred right of these peoples to choose their own safeguards of their unalienable rights. This is in direct opposition to the policies of the previous Administration which sought to dictate and manage this change in sovereign nations and the critics who represent the forces that benefit from such policies. These events demonstrate the extent these forces endeavor to exercise their control of human events and the measures needed to abolish such control for the benefit of humanity.
The vast majority of scientific research on global climate change leads to the conclusion that our environment is warming at a dangerous rate due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. This change is reliably linked by the same research to human activity involving fossil fuels. This research has predicted that this warming can destroy the planet as a habitat for human life. The forces that benefit from this current state have advanced scientists to challenge the conclusions of this research in order to postpone or forestall the steps necessary to remedy our climate. These scientists risk being discredited by the scientific community due to the preponderance of evidence against their position in this debate. This obstruction of scientific inquiry that sustains these forces threatens all of humanity.
(Note: Everyone is entitled to add to this in order to represent all points of view. Others can take on the financial crisis, the Gulf Oil Spill, Congressional deadlock, Citizens United, state laws targeting collective bargaining rights, voting rights, reproductive rights – any subject you feel affects the 99%. The only requirement is that the statement be factual. Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that the Founding Fathers saw fit to include only truths, not opinions, in their causes; it is up to us to do the same. Good luck!)
During all these incidents the people sought to accommodate the rich and powerful forces in order to preserve themselves and their posterity. Such accommodation only engendered further abuse and attempts to increase their riches and power over the people. We still seek accommodation since the rich and powerful share humanity with us and, therefore, are equally entitled to these rights and freedoms. We will treat them as we treat everyone in the struggle to preserve these rights, freedoms and habitat – condemn them as oppressors, welcome them as partners.
We, therefore, unite to call for justice over tyranny, fairness over greed, and global survival over destruction. Humanity, at this point in history, requires no less.
True. I experienced this when I moved to Florida in May. First they wouldn't take my hospital long form birth certificate - they insisted upon a certified certificate. Ironic that Tea Party folks wouldn't accept the President's certified certificate, but rather wanted to see his hospital long form. Because my married name was different from my birth certificate, I had to produce my marriage license. I don't know about you, but I have no idea where my license is - plus, we had just moved to Florida and we were not unpacked. I had to order the marriage license from Colorado - in the process, I remembered that I had used my previous marriage name on the marriage license. So I also had to order my divorce papers from Illinois. In all, I had to spend about $60 plus travel costs. This is ridiculous and sad that the Republicans feel they can't win an election so they have to suppress the vote to steal it. Good news, though, I did get registered to vote.
Try getting a driver's license in SC. It took me ten years and I drove on a license from another state till I could meet all the requirements for SC, the last of which was asking for my DIVORCE papers. It's a good reason to stay with your birth name if you want to be counted as a citizen of the U.S. without hassle.
I still don't know why there is not more Federal pressure put on these states. It should go to the Supreme Court. At these polling places I hope individuals without the IDs say they are going to vote and see what happens.
Such a shame that all this takes place in this election, just as it did in the last. It should be obvious to our courts, maybe they are part of those who do not believe that we are equal. To those people it is a shame that you feel so inadequate, that you have turn to trying to win an election by taking our voting right away.
Here in Quebec, women are strongly discouraged by the government from changing their names upon getting married. As a Quebec resident, married in Quebec, I would have to spend a small fortune in legal fees to change my name. The advantage being that I don't have this problem. I'm not saying it's the best solution or that it would work anywhere else, just that it's how the govenment of Quebec solved this problem.
Of course Republicans MUST understand that when they disenfranchise, they are also blocking potential Republican voters. Right? Unless of course, they are dense enough to think that ONLY scared wealthy white men are their base.
They may disenfranchise a few Republicans, but the large majority is Democrat. The biggest pool of Republicans they hurt may be in the old who no longer drive, and may not have the money or means to organize proper papers, then a way to get to the license bureau, or the health to stand in line for 4 to 8 hours.
But, they have calculated that the bulk the disenfranchise are Democrats.. Those in the city who depend on mass transit so never got a license are normally poor and minorities. They then put the license bureau out of the city. So these people need to find money to get supporting documents, and find a way other then mass transit to get to a license bureau, they may need to take a day off from work which some can't do without loosing their jobs, others will could but would loose a day of pay.. And if they did not collect all the RIGHT certificates of proof, it may mean more then one day as they need to repeat this cycle a few times.
This women angle is something that is a new twist to me. Again another group who lean Democratic.
Well any Republican trapped in this net, may turn Democrat before they work their way out, so then they become the half of this country that the Republicans can write off.
The Republican Party is an embarrassment to the United States. How can the country that touts itself as the leader of the "free" world to the rest of the world behave this way? I've never seen so much hatred and blatant racism and misogyny in my life. These politicians may just think that they are playing politics, but they are actually showing their lack of character. It's disturbing and disgusting.
While nothing you said in this piece was technically wrong, I didnt find it to be the best use of the facts from the research you were citing. I decided to find out exactly how that 32 million figure was calculated due to (this reddit post). [contains link to research cited and my methodology]
The 32 million figure is all women in the US without the proper proof of citizenship (with current name). While it is the case that those women wont be able to vote in states with voter ID, only a portion of those women actually live in states that have voter ID. A more accurate number would be how many of them lived in voter ID states rather than the whole 32 million.
It also affects women in WY. In order to get a drivers license every four years, we have to provide our birth certificate, marriage license to provide proof of name change and proof of address, etc. It's disgraceful.
Florida has the same women's voter supression laws. I went to get a simple change of address on my driver's license and was shocked to find I now need all of this documentation just to get a change of address AND I already had a FL driver's license. I had just renewed it a year ago. Unbelievable! I was married twice. So I had to submit 5 legal (court) documents just to make myself a valid driver in Florida! I was told by the state employees it was because they were cracking down on illegal immigrants. shm. Needless to say it's taken me some time to obtain all these legal documents during which time I was driving on a invalid driver's license because my address was incorrect. Imagine, how many woman are going to go to the polls this year and find they don't have all the legal documents to prove they are who they are and live where they do. I know many women who are having a hell of a time trying to get the proper court documents just to obtain a valid driver's license here in Florida. Women who have voted for years that will now be turned away at the voting booths. Unbelievable the new lows this Republican party will stoop to! If they can win it fair and square they will cheat. Proving the Republican party is NOT the direction we want to take this country. It is no damn different than a country ruled by dictatorship! They will tell us women we can't vote, women can't use birth control, women are not capable of making their own choices about their healthcare and bodies, of course no abortions, we are not worthy of a decent paycheck, taking away healthcare for seniors and children while they keep hoards of OUR tax payers dollars to themselves and redistribute to their wealthy friends. How is this different than a dictatorship?
Its shameful and a disgrace to the American people that a well honored, long history political party should disenfranchise half the nation, its women and yet bow down and kiss the hand of the big corporations. "Don't close all your doors behind you, coz you may want to come back".
We as women need to stand up to the despotic abuse of authority of those that look to enslave those who would vote against them. Women, seniors, low income individuals, hispanics and blacks are to be enslaved because we are different. Republicans see us as strong, liberated, independent in mind, superior than their own voters. We are Democrats, and we rule, while Republicans drool.....
We need to take a stand and help our Democratic family show up at the polls and vote, as President Obama says
don't boo, vote. vote, vote....
I mean Romney believes that 47% of this country, are moochers, lazy, not responsible, free loaders, and believe we are entitled to have the government take care of us.
They do not know us, nor do they care to. Romney stated today that for those who do not have health coverage, should be taken care of by the emergency rooms, or just die. Decrease the surplus population, the only ones who matter are the Fortune 500 wealthy Americans list. The only way to change what is happening in Washington is to get out and VOTE!!!!! My two cents worth
#1 - Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:45 PM EDT
Rashad FouxVIA FACEBOOK
