Why Romney is Losing This Election

Next week the planet Earth is going to be treated to (or tortured by) the first of three presidential debates between democratic incumbent US president Barack Obama and his republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The primary topic of the debate is going to be the economy, which one might expect Romney, the multimillionaire ex-CEO of Bain Capital, a company that bought companies and then sold them or dismantled them at a profit, might actually have an advantage over the president.  After all, in 3 1/2 years in office, the president has not yet fully restored the prospering economy and budget surpluses that Bill Clinton left to GW Bush in 2001, and which Bush spent eight years utterly destroying.

Additionally, speaking of budget surpluses, consider that during the 200 presidential debates between GW Bush and Al Gore, Bush questioned the veracity of the budget surpluses of the last 4 years of Bill Clinton’s administration by stating that the administration had used  “fuzzy math” to “manufacture those surpluses.  It was a premeditated and preplanned effort with malice aforethought, designed to cast doubt about the surpluses in the minds of voters.  To some extent, causing that doubt was enough to get at least 635 people in Florida to vote for Bush who might otherwise have voted for Al Gore.  Gore won the national popular vote anyway, but still didn’t get to be president.

It’s creative fabricated propaganda.  A false statement is said loud enough and/or often enough, and people begin to believe it, even though there isn’t a shed of evidence to support it.  It’s also the methodology perfected and used extensively by Nazi Germany Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.

While Bush dabbled in it from time to time during the 2000 campaign, his abuse of the truth was nothing compared to the 2012 Ryan/Romney campaign.  Their use of repeated fabrications and lies has risen to a new, extreme and abominable level for a free democracy.  It actually rivals the worst excesses of the the Nazi house of horrors.

There are literally countless examples of these lies that have hit the airwaves.  A more recent one is that Romney ads have falsely condemned president Obama for removing the work requirement from the federal Welfare to Work law.

The truth is that several republican governors have requested flexibility in implementing this law in their states, and the Obama administration responded by issuing waivers to those states so that they could in fact do so, providing that the states increase the number of people moving off welfare into jobs.

Politifact.com gave Romney a “Pants-on-Fire” score regarding that ad.

In addition to the outright fabrications, Romney has also demonstrated a fundamental lack of basic 4th grade scientific knowledge about airplanes and the atmosphere, specially that humans cannot breathe at 40,000 feet because there is not enough oxygen to sustain human life at that altitude.  This was revealed when Romney commented on the unscheduled emergency landing in Denver by a jet carrying his wife, Ann Romney.  The jet was headed to California from Omaha, Nebraska when smoke began to fill the passenger cabin.  Romney stated at a press conference that the windows couldn’t be opened to let fresh oxygen into the cabin because the windows in airline jets don’t open, that he didn’t know why that was, and that it was a real problem.  He added that there was enough oxygen for the pilots to land, though.  See it for yourself:

If Romney doesn’t even know basic science about air pressure, oxygen and our atmosphere, why would anyone believe anything he says about global warming and climate change, or any other technical issue for that matter?

To make matters worse, Romney reinforced his acts for fabrication on the campaign trail when he said two days ago that his ads are “spot on!”

All of this indicates two things:  First, that Romney thinks everyone is stupid and gullible, and ready to believe anything he says just because he says it, and second, that he is a lot more stupid about people and science than anyone knew.

As a result, Romney is losing this election because more and more people are realizing that someone who lies about everything can’t be trusted.  They are also realizing that someone who changes his positions of every issue important to people, depending upon which group of people he just happens to be talking to at the moment, can’t be trusted.

And finally, people are realizing that someone as ignorant as Romney when is comes to why people need spacesuits in space can’t be trusted with a trillion dollars of military might.

In a way, Romney may be causing the average voter to become more internet- and research-oriented.  He certainly has galvanized the fact-checkers into action.  Watching republicans running for office distance themselves from the Ryan-Romney train wreck speaks volumes as well.

And as a side perk….Watching train wrecks can be very entertaining….from a distance, of course.  🙂

A Special Gift to Our Readers

This week, We, the PEOPLE!! is taking a breather in preparation for the impending move back to paradise.  In the meantime, here’s a couple of phrases to think about when thinking of the GOP:

“If Lying Were Lethal, the GOP Would Suffer Sudden Mass Extinction.” *


“GOP:  Full-Frontal Fiscal Fraudulence”  **

which is the GOP’s rule#1 in their political playbook, and ultimately results in the concept of #1 above.  Think about it.

And feel free to turn these into bumper stickers.     🙂


* This is a “We, the PEOPLE” original.

**Heard on the Bill Maher Show on (Friday 10pm on HBO) and just too good not to share.  🙂

Voter ID Laws: The Nano-Good, the REALLY Bad, and HORRIBLY Ugly

“Vote early and vote often.”

Most people have heard this popular slogan which had its origin in the 19th century.  The “vote early” portion encourages people to exercise their right to vote and extolls the benefit of going to the polls before the crowds and the lines form.  The “vote often” portion is supposed to be humorous in the present day…tongue in cheek…or is it?

Certainly, no one wants to see any person vote several times in any election.  It’s contrary to the basic democratic principle of one person, one vote.

Voter fraud can occur during voter registration, voting in person, or in absentee voting.  Voting rules are designed to prevent all of these.  If there is empirical evidence of a voting fraud problem, new federal and state laws might be required to fix that problem.

IF, that is, there actually IS a problem.

The real problem is that no such problem exists, at least as it pertains to voting in person.  In fact, the United States Department of Justice determined that between 2002 and 2007, 300,000,000 votes were cast in elections in the USA.  Federal prosecutors were only about to convict 86 voters out of all of those 300,000,000 votes of casting fraudulent votes, and most of those were by people who did not know they were ineligible to vote.

Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise the poor, the elderly, and particularly minorities, because in the USA the primary form of government-issued photo identification (ID) is a driver’s license, with passports constituting a distant second.  The poor, the elderly and many minority folks may not have a driver’s license because they either don’t now or never did own a car.   Or perhaps they haven’t driven in years and therefore haven’t renewed their driver’s license in years.

For some of the elderly, they may not even be able to renew a old driver’s license, perhaps from a different state from they president reside.  And old documentation such as previous licenses or even birth certificates may have been lost years ago, or perhaps were never even issued.

But none of this matters to the folks pushing these voter ID laws.  They know that the poor, the elderly, and most minorities such as African-Americans and Hispanics tend to vote heavily for democrats.

Thus, it’s really no surprise that since 2002, 9 states with republican governors and legislatures have passed Voter ID laws that require government-issued photo IDs to be presented before someone is allowed to vote.   Additionally, another 14 states require a non-photo ID to be presented before voting.

To date, voter ID laws have been passed and/or implemented in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, New Mexico (later essentially repealed), Washington, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia (which later passed a law providing for the issuance of voter ID cards at no cost to registered voters who do not have a driver’s license or state-issued ID card), Missouri, Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, and even Rhode Island (the only democratic state to do so, but then, Rhode Island isn’t known as ROGUE ISLAND for nothing).

In 2011, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas tightened their laws to require photo ID.   The US Justice Department rejected South Carolina’s law as placing an undue burden disproportionately on minority voters, and rejected

In 2012, the US Department of Justice rejected Texas’ law on the exact same grounds.  Additionally,  a Wisconsin state circuit court blocked the ID requirement provisions of Wisconsin’s Voter ID law, ruling the requirement in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution.  The Republican-led State Department of Justice is appealing the ruling.

Also in 2012, Pennsylvania passed a new voter ID law.

Most of these laws do not address absentee voting, and the reasons are obvious:  Hundreds of thousands of US service men and women are stationed outside of the USA.  They use absentee ballots, and as military troops, they vote heavily republican.  The GOP did not want to impact these voters (and any repeat voters) in any way.

It’s hard to argue that proof of identity isn’t important to establish during voting it.  But it must be done in a manner that is fair and convenient all citizens, including the poor, the elderly, the infirmed and the minorities.  One solution might be to make empirical voter IDs available for that purpose ONLY, make them easy to get with provisions for those who can’t easily get around.

Additionally, is there really any reason to require a voter ID from anyone over the age of 65, for example?  Does anyone really think the social security crowd is running around casting tons of votes in multiple locations every election day?

And finally, instead of issuing voter IDs on the basis of proven identity, why not issue them on the basis of voter competency?  Make voters take an exam, similar to the driver’s license exam.  They would have to pass a test that asks questions like:

“1.  The US government has three branches.  Name two other items with branches.”