Myth Romney and the Real Truth about Obamacare
This piece was written by Brett Aurich in response to the post, 'Liberals in the Midst.' Brett addresses many of the myths surrounding the Affordable Health Care act, and the referenced statistics are found in the links below. We borrowed the title in part from the excellent article by Ernest Dumas. Myth 1: Obamacare is being partially funded by a $700 billion cut to Medicare. (FALSE)
Reality: Funding for Medicare will actually increase over the next 10 years. However, the rate of increase will drop, partially due to more aggressive prosecution of fraud and a reduction in overpayments to insurance companies.
Myth 2: Obamacare will introduce "death panels" that will severely ration care and will force elderly patients to commit suicide or submit to euthanasia. (FALSE)
Reality: There have been several versions of this claim; the most recent is that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration care and will make end-of-life decisions for patients. In truth, the IPAB is basically powerless. Ironically, death panels existed before health care reform -- they were run by your insurance company. Insurers have regularly denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, canceled policies on sick patients, refused to pay for vital, life-saving operations, and otherwise made financially-based decisions about who would get to live and who would be left to die. According to one congressional report, three insurance companies -- UnitedHealth (UNH), WellPoint (WLP) and Assurant (AIZ) -- saved $300 million by canceling policies on over 20,000 sick people over a five-year period.
Myth 3: Obamacare will force the middle class to pay for health care for poor people and illegal immigrants. (FALSE)
Reality: Many health care reform critics have argued that America already has a universal health care option: emergency rooms. After all, the argument goes, when people without insurance find themselves in desperate need of medical attention, they can always find help in ERs, which are required by law to open their doors to anyone in need of care. Consequently, critics claim, poor people can get health care without passing the charges on to the middle class. But this health care isn't free -- in fact, standard treatment through a primary care physician is far cheaper than crisis care in an ER. Many hospitals aggressively bill emergency patients -- and their insurers -- to recoup the inflated costs of such care. Even so, they come up short. So who covers the shortfalls? Well, a significant source of hospital funding is taxes. For the rest, hospitals make up their ER losses by inflating the prices that insured customers pay -- and according to the Center for American Progress, this amounts to a $1,100 yearly "hidden tax" on health insurance. Put simply, emergency room care is already funded by taxpayers and the insured middle class. Granted, Obamacare will extend Medicaid to lower income families, and will subsidize health insurance for people who make up to 400% of the poverty line. On the other hand, it will also require people who can pay for health insurance do so, and will more aggressively prosecute Medicare fraud. More to the point, it will levy a 0.9% tax on households making more than $200,000 per year, and will increase taxes on medical machinery manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers. Thus in all likelihood, it will actually reduce the burden on middle class families.
Myth 4: Obamacare is a socialist program. (FALSE)
Reality: Socialism is a system under which the government directly runs a nation's industries. Under this standard, New Deal programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority could, arguably, be considered socialist. After all, they represented instances in which the government directly employed people to build and administer power plants and other public works that generated income. Obamacare, on the other hand, will work through private companies. Rather than directly providing health insurance, either through a national program or through some sort of public option, the government will require that people deal with private insurers. Far from competing with private industry, the health care law will likely give it a lot of new customers.
Myth 5: Obamacare will bankrupt small businesses by making them pay for their employees' health insurance. (FALSE)
Reality: The basis of this claim is a requirement that companies with more than 50 "full-time equivalent" employees must offer affordable health insurance to their workers. The insurance in question must not cost more than 9.5% of the employee's annual salary and must pay for at least 60% of covered health care costs. A big part of the disagreement over the impact of this requirement lies in how you define a "small business." According to the government, the cutoff line between a small and a large business is 50 "full-time equivalent" employees. In other words, if a company's weekly work load totals more than 1500 hours -- the equivalent of 50 employees working for 30 hours per week -- then it is, officially, a large business, and is required to provide a competitive health insurance option. As a side note, Obamacare contains a pretty significant tax break for businesses with up to 25 employees that offer health insurance.
FACT: Healthcare reform bill signed into law by President Obama will outlaw denial of insurance coverage to those with preexisting conditions.
In America, people with health problems but no health insurance long have struggled to find and afford coverage. To those with such preexisting conditions, America’s health system has seemed, at the least, capricious: Why has it been so hard to get insurance when you need it most? Insurers have seen this same problem from another viewpoint. Selling coverage to someone with a preexisting condition might be a bit like selling auto insurance to a driver who wants help with an already-dented car. Insurance is meant to protect someone against future events, not pay for things that have already occurred.
NOTE:
Mitt's Plan (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care) - passing the buck to the (broke) states - (that's a plan to fail.)
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible. In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens.
The Worst Part of Obamacare:
A requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a fine. Republicans challenged it as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. The Obama administration argued that it was needed to fix basic flaws in the insurance market and that it was crucial to provisions like the requirement that insurers accept all comers without regard to pre-existing health conditions. (TRUE)
Many people who cannot afford insurance and did not bother to get insurance, may find they qualify for medicaid or state insurance which will mitigate this problem. This may sound bad, but costs the tax payer less than the uninsured ER visits the tax payer pays today. And if they can afford it, why shouldn't they be insured? Instead of a fine, have them automatically enrolled in a low cost no frills default healthcare plan and send them the bill.
Thank God for Obama who followed through on his campaign promise; this is why I changed to Democrat and voted for him last time, because he promised to do something to improve health care, and I will not sit by and have Romney repeal excellent legislation. People first.... we show our love for one another by keeping and growing Obama Care!! It's humane and it's needed.
I am a proud Mormon, but I have to do what is right, let the consequence follow. The right thing is to get more people access to healthcare. Thanks Obama for keeping your campaign promise.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/11/the-5-biggest-obamacare-myths-explored-explained-and-debunked/
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=obama+care&x=28&y=11&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0324/Health-care-reform-bill-101-rules-for-preexisting-conditions
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html
Mormons for Obama: Anita
Anita talks about the importance of helping the less fortunate and making sure all families can make ends meet. If you want to know why so many of us are supporting President Obama, watch this:
Post 97
Rob T. was interviewed about "Mormons for Obama" for this article in the National Post, a Canadian news outlet, but I guess we didn't make the cut! Interesting take on the risk of Romney's Mormonism, even as many interpret the polls as showing that religion doesn't really matter to voters.
2016: Obama's America?
No doubt you've heard about the new anti-Obama infomercial in theaters. A letter to the editor in Ogden's Standard Examiner gushed about the movie, stating the packed house gave it a round of applause at the end.
Given the folks who would pay eight bucks to attend this movie, I don't doubt the reaction. Like the Michael Moore movies on the other side of the political spectrum, only the true believers (in this case those who already hate the President) will go, the producers will make a gruntload of money - and it will have not one iota of an effect on the election. Thankfully.
However, we need to speak up about the real message behind this film, a follow-up to the failed birther movement that attempted to portray Obama as "not really American". Despite the fact that the filmmaker is an immigrant, here's the underlying message of the film: You are only a real American if you grew up in a white, middle-class Republican home with both parents. All others need not apply as Americans, because the un-American influences you will have to endure will make you un-American too. If the Right can make the claim about the President, it applies to all other citizens raised by single mothers, or of mixed race, or who spent part of their childhood living outside the United States, or whose parents expressed non-Republican political views sometime in their lives.
Latter-day Saints ought to know better. Our ancestors suffered persecution for being a "peculiar people" and were accused of treason, so we ought to have empathy with those from more diverse backgrounds.
One thing is cool about this movie, however. It gives us a solid date for checking its predictions. I'm already thinking about the blog post for the first quarter of 2016, in the middle of Obama's second term, where I'll be able to debunk the claims made by this movie. (While I'm at it, I'll point out a few other things, like how Obama didn't take away your guns or turn General Motors into a model of socialism.) Stay tuned.
Given the folks who would pay eight bucks to attend this movie, I don't doubt the reaction. Like the Michael Moore movies on the other side of the political spectrum, only the true believers (in this case those who already hate the President) will go, the producers will make a gruntload of money - and it will have not one iota of an effect on the election. Thankfully.
However, we need to speak up about the real message behind this film, a follow-up to the failed birther movement that attempted to portray Obama as "not really American". Despite the fact that the filmmaker is an immigrant, here's the underlying message of the film: You are only a real American if you grew up in a white, middle-class Republican home with both parents. All others need not apply as Americans, because the un-American influences you will have to endure will make you un-American too. If the Right can make the claim about the President, it applies to all other citizens raised by single mothers, or of mixed race, or who spent part of their childhood living outside the United States, or whose parents expressed non-Republican political views sometime in their lives.
Latter-day Saints ought to know better. Our ancestors suffered persecution for being a "peculiar people" and were accused of treason, so we ought to have empathy with those from more diverse backgrounds.
One thing is cool about this movie, however. It gives us a solid date for checking its predictions. I'm already thinking about the blog post for the first quarter of 2016, in the middle of Obama's second term, where I'll be able to debunk the claims made by this movie. (While I'm at it, I'll point out a few other things, like how Obama didn't take away your guns or turn General Motors into a model of socialism.) Stay tuned.
Republican National Convection, Day 2
[caption id="attachment_1803" align="alignright" width="300"]
Paul Ryan speaks at the RNC; the only thing we liked about him was the tie he was wearing.[/caption]
Post by Joseph M -
Sadly, I must put Condoleezza Rice's excellent speech to the side and take aim at Congressman Paul Ryan's 30-minute roller-coaster ride of soaring platitudes, sharp condemnations, and sad flat metaphors. I like metaphors; I like to use them, read them, and hear them, but Paul Ryan proved to be a very poor man's Neal A. Maxwell when it came to spinning a yarn and using a metaphor. (Seriously, his "ships sailing" line came straight out of a worn-out Barry Manilow song.)
That said, the RNC loved the guy. The cheering and woo-hooing at his speech caused a few light-emitting diodes on my flat-screen TV to blow out. But really, if we Mormons had any question about Ryan, he settled it with his admission that his iPod playlist "starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin." Ever since we attended youth conference in the 1970s, we've all known that AC/DC stands for "Knights in Satan's Service," and that the song, Stairway to Heaven, has backmasking - (For proof, I tried to play it backwards on YouTube, but I couldn't find the reverse button.)
But in short, Paul Ryan's speech was mean-spirited and nasty. I guess this is the standard operating procedure: the VP nominee is supposed to be the bulldog, while the P nominee is the nice one. But Ryan's sarcasm and coloring of Obama's message of hope and change as "fading" and "tired" grated on me and affirmed what I already knew: I will not be voting for Paul Ryan when he runs in 2016. He even took a stab at the youthful electorate who came out en mass to vote for Obama in 2008: “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.” He also stated that "you have not failed, your leaders have failed you." But these lines do not acknowledge the deception that Romney and Ryan have nothing in their bag of Trix to assist young graduates beyond cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing government programs that help the poor.
Ryan went on to state that, "none of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us." In saying this, he denigrated the real experience of people in poverty; he somehow believes that utilizing the safety net leads to a decrease in freedom rather than a decrease in suffering for families and children. Ryan demonstrates this disdain for the poor with his proposed $1.4 trillion cuts in Medicaid. And to clarify, Medicaid is the insurance for children in poverty and adults with disabilities. Thus, Ryan and Romney hope to diminish the already-lacking health care program for people in poverty. Apparently ending Obama's healthcare expansion is not enough for them - he said that Obamacare has "no place in a free country," and I suppose this exposes what Republicans think of our northern neighbors: Canadians, with their socialized medicine, are all lazy slaves under the fetters of a government intrusion in their lives.
So here is my problem with the whole speech: Paul Ryan lies. I am getting tired of this. The stories continue about Obama raiding Medicare; I don't even remember hearing this line of attack before Romney picked Ryan, the real Medicare cutter. But it is a cunning move; if you are weak in an area, then attack your opponent in this same area to cover your own backside. The $716 billion is an actual cut to Medicare recipients under the Ryan plan, but it consists of cuts to medical providers under the Obama plan. So now Paul Ryan presents himself as the defender of Medicare, and he even enlisted his "role model" mother as the Floridian face of his plan to save old people. But in reality, he is devising a plan to usher in a new era for our seniors: Vouchercare.
And I am tired of all the "you did build that." This obfuscates the meaning behind President Obama's original statement, and it pushes American individualism (every man for himself!) to the extremes of ugliness.
The deception doesn't stop there: Ryan used the example of the closure of a GM plant in Wisconsin to illustrate the failure of Obama's policies; he even related how Obama spoke at the plant in 2008 and pledged to work to keep it open. The part that Ryan did not mention: the plant closed in December of 2008, a full month before Obama's term began. How can this anecdotal evidence be interpreted as anything but deception when Obama cannot possibly be held responsible for a plant's closure that happened before he took office?
The following are a few more quotations from the VP nominee that float precariously on top of a half-truth or a full-blown lie:
Read this report from the Washington Post about the falsehoods in Ryan's speech. I need to sleep.
But in closing: Paul Ryan posed this question - "Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?" What Ryan doesn't understand is that we asked for this. America voted for Obama because he promised us Obamacare. Obama did exactly what he said he would do, and his has been a presidency of fulfilled commitments. We don't want Ryan's kind of change, we want the change that Obama promised and has delivered on. Four years later, it may sound trite, tired, or faded to Ryan, but for us, it is still change we can believe in.
[slideshow]
Paul Ryan speaks at the RNC; the only thing we liked about him was the tie he was wearing.[/caption]Post by Joseph M -
Sadly, I must put Condoleezza Rice's excellent speech to the side and take aim at Congressman Paul Ryan's 30-minute roller-coaster ride of soaring platitudes, sharp condemnations, and sad flat metaphors. I like metaphors; I like to use them, read them, and hear them, but Paul Ryan proved to be a very poor man's Neal A. Maxwell when it came to spinning a yarn and using a metaphor. (Seriously, his "ships sailing" line came straight out of a worn-out Barry Manilow song.)
That said, the RNC loved the guy. The cheering and woo-hooing at his speech caused a few light-emitting diodes on my flat-screen TV to blow out. But really, if we Mormons had any question about Ryan, he settled it with his admission that his iPod playlist "starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin." Ever since we attended youth conference in the 1970s, we've all known that AC/DC stands for "Knights in Satan's Service," and that the song, Stairway to Heaven, has backmasking - (For proof, I tried to play it backwards on YouTube, but I couldn't find the reverse button.)
But in short, Paul Ryan's speech was mean-spirited and nasty. I guess this is the standard operating procedure: the VP nominee is supposed to be the bulldog, while the P nominee is the nice one. But Ryan's sarcasm and coloring of Obama's message of hope and change as "fading" and "tired" grated on me and affirmed what I already knew: I will not be voting for Paul Ryan when he runs in 2016. He even took a stab at the youthful electorate who came out en mass to vote for Obama in 2008: “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.” He also stated that "you have not failed, your leaders have failed you." But these lines do not acknowledge the deception that Romney and Ryan have nothing in their bag of Trix to assist young graduates beyond cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing government programs that help the poor.
Ryan went on to state that, "none of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us." In saying this, he denigrated the real experience of people in poverty; he somehow believes that utilizing the safety net leads to a decrease in freedom rather than a decrease in suffering for families and children. Ryan demonstrates this disdain for the poor with his proposed $1.4 trillion cuts in Medicaid. And to clarify, Medicaid is the insurance for children in poverty and adults with disabilities. Thus, Ryan and Romney hope to diminish the already-lacking health care program for people in poverty. Apparently ending Obama's healthcare expansion is not enough for them - he said that Obamacare has "no place in a free country," and I suppose this exposes what Republicans think of our northern neighbors: Canadians, with their socialized medicine, are all lazy slaves under the fetters of a government intrusion in their lives.
So here is my problem with the whole speech: Paul Ryan lies. I am getting tired of this. The stories continue about Obama raiding Medicare; I don't even remember hearing this line of attack before Romney picked Ryan, the real Medicare cutter. But it is a cunning move; if you are weak in an area, then attack your opponent in this same area to cover your own backside. The $716 billion is an actual cut to Medicare recipients under the Ryan plan, but it consists of cuts to medical providers under the Obama plan. So now Paul Ryan presents himself as the defender of Medicare, and he even enlisted his "role model" mother as the Floridian face of his plan to save old people. But in reality, he is devising a plan to usher in a new era for our seniors: Vouchercare.
And I am tired of all the "you did build that." This obfuscates the meaning behind President Obama's original statement, and it pushes American individualism (every man for himself!) to the extremes of ugliness.
The deception doesn't stop there: Ryan used the example of the closure of a GM plant in Wisconsin to illustrate the failure of Obama's policies; he even related how Obama spoke at the plant in 2008 and pledged to work to keep it open. The part that Ryan did not mention: the plant closed in December of 2008, a full month before Obama's term began. How can this anecdotal evidence be interpreted as anything but deception when Obama cannot possibly be held responsible for a plant's closure that happened before he took office?
The following are a few more quotations from the VP nominee that float precariously on top of a half-truth or a full-blown lie:
"(Obama's presidency) began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America." What Ryan fails to acknowledge is his party's and his own obstructionism in getting work done in congress to have prevented this downgrade.
"(His presidency) began with a housing crisis they alone didn’t cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn’t correct." The housing market continues to improve; it is being corrected, and for Ryan to state otherwise is false.
"He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing." This is misleading because Ryan himself opposed Bowles-Simpson’s report.
Read this report from the Washington Post about the falsehoods in Ryan's speech. I need to sleep.
But in closing: Paul Ryan posed this question - "Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?" What Ryan doesn't understand is that we asked for this. America voted for Obama because he promised us Obamacare. Obama did exactly what he said he would do, and his has been a presidency of fulfilled commitments. We don't want Ryan's kind of change, we want the change that Obama promised and has delivered on. Four years later, it may sound trite, tired, or faded to Ryan, but for us, it is still change we can believe in.
[slideshow]
The Mormon Who Was Almost President
When Mitt Romney takes the stage in Tampa this week to accept the nomination of the Republican Party, it will be an historic moment for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Perhaps not as historic in the grand sense as the first Catholic nominee was, or African-American nominee was, or female nominee will be, but anticipated and relished nonetheless.
As a rabid fan of science fiction, comic books, and most everything else in the nerdosphere, one of my favorite tropes or concepts is that of the parallel or alternate universe. This is the idea that somewhere there exists an identical earth except some things are radically different. This was explored in the 1990's tv show Sliders, numerous episodes of Star Trek, the Futurama episode "The Farnsworth Parabox," and countless other tv shows, serials, comic books, etc.
I'd like to explore one such universe today-- the one where in 1976, but for the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin, our first LDS President was actually elected over 35 years ago.
August 28, 2012
Republican National Convection, Day 1
[caption id="attachment_1948" align="alignright" width="371"]
Craig Warga/ NY Daily News[/caption]
So as McKay Coppins pointed out on BuzzFeed, "Within minutes of Mitt Romney officially winning the Republican nomination, the Facebook page for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted a blunt reminder that it is “politically diverse.” And so I will attempt to express that political diversity with my own comments about the first day of the Republican National Convention. See below for the LDS Church's new video.
In case you didn't happen to watch the RNC's first day, (yesterday having been scrapped for fears that Hurricane Isaac would wipe out Tampa Bay like what Vesuvius did for Pompeii,) then you didn't miss nothing but a lot of hot air blowing around. A bunch of people spoke including John Boehner who proved that the swirling special effects behind his head can be more interesting than all his "a guy walked into a bar" jokes that never got to the punchline. And then the pink governors on parade began: the Governors of Ohio, Nevada, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Virginia all got up there as if to remind their constituents, "You voted Republican once, why not again?" Also we heard from Santorum, and he was only interesting because everyone knew he'd say something crazy. They also showcased the engaging Mia Love - (have you heard of her yet?) But then there was turncoat Arthur Davis. He is an anomaly to me. But considering how he flipped from being an Obama supporter to stumping for Romney in just four years, maybe he is the perfect speaker at a convention to nominate the biggest flip-flopper of them all.
Well, if you wanted to hear what Ann Romney had to say, it started like this, "This is gonna be so exciting!" And I wondered... what? the convention? a Romney presidency? or her talk? (She is Mormon, so it was most definitely a talk.) But let me get all my snark out of the way: I couldn't decide if Ann Romney sounded more like Sarah Palin (I LOOOOVE YOU WOMEEN!) or a second counselor in a bygone-era RS Presidency. (Have you noticed that some of the women speakers in General Conference smile all through their talks? Ann Romney sure has.) But her smiling laughter and awkward guffaws aside, I am bothered that she spent so much time talking about the poor and the downtrodden of America, when her husband's plan to help these people is to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and slash taxes for the rich, with some expectation that these wealthy Americans will hopefully create more jobs (or give to more charities) and trickle that wealth on down like rain water through a sewage ditch. (Click here to see my last trickle-down economics metaphor.)
However, Ann Romney appeared to be genuine in her praise for her husband. Of course, she has an incredible amount of love and respect for him. She has seen his hard work and dedication as a leader in church and as governor of Massachusetts. At one point, she said of Romney, "No one will work harder, no one will care more, and no one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live." She also spoke of Mitt's passion for serving, and how he doesn't brag about it: "Mitt doesn't like to talk about how he's helped others, because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point."
Clearly, Ann Romney was on the stage to humanize her husband and to show America the side of him that only she might see. Well, I guess I wasn't expecting her to seem so awkward herself. I guess that both Mitt and Ann are a little on the socially inept end of the spectrum, (hence, their "real marriage"). I will be interested to see how "America" (whoever that is) views her address.
The night closed with Governor Christie, who proved he isn't as likable as he you'd imagine him to be, and who also proved that he was running for the President of New Jersey (or of the USA 2016). But I'm not complaining; his speech spurred the instant-classic moment of the evening: a guy in the convention hall gets projected onto the screen behind Christie while yelling, "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" Wrong convention, wrong candidate. (Watch for him at 17:17.)
And Condoleezza Rice looked so tired. Did somebody force her to be there? By the way, if you check back tomorrow, you may or may not find a review of day 2. We may want to go to bed early, and unlike Condi, nobody is forcing us to show up.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbEbxeQVo?rel=0]
Craig Warga/ NY Daily News[/caption]So as McKay Coppins pointed out on BuzzFeed, "Within minutes of Mitt Romney officially winning the Republican nomination, the Facebook page for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted a blunt reminder that it is “politically diverse.” And so I will attempt to express that political diversity with my own comments about the first day of the Republican National Convention. See below for the LDS Church's new video.
In case you didn't happen to watch the RNC's first day, (yesterday having been scrapped for fears that Hurricane Isaac would wipe out Tampa Bay like what Vesuvius did for Pompeii,) then you didn't miss nothing but a lot of hot air blowing around. A bunch of people spoke including John Boehner who proved that the swirling special effects behind his head can be more interesting than all his "a guy walked into a bar" jokes that never got to the punchline. And then the pink governors on parade began: the Governors of Ohio, Nevada, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Virginia all got up there as if to remind their constituents, "You voted Republican once, why not again?" Also we heard from Santorum, and he was only interesting because everyone knew he'd say something crazy. They also showcased the engaging Mia Love - (have you heard of her yet?) But then there was turncoat Arthur Davis. He is an anomaly to me. But considering how he flipped from being an Obama supporter to stumping for Romney in just four years, maybe he is the perfect speaker at a convention to nominate the biggest flip-flopper of them all.
Well, if you wanted to hear what Ann Romney had to say, it started like this, "This is gonna be so exciting!" And I wondered... what? the convention? a Romney presidency? or her talk? (She is Mormon, so it was most definitely a talk.) But let me get all my snark out of the way: I couldn't decide if Ann Romney sounded more like Sarah Palin (I LOOOOVE YOU WOMEEN!) or a second counselor in a bygone-era RS Presidency. (Have you noticed that some of the women speakers in General Conference smile all through their talks? Ann Romney sure has.) But her smiling laughter and awkward guffaws aside, I am bothered that she spent so much time talking about the poor and the downtrodden of America, when her husband's plan to help these people is to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and slash taxes for the rich, with some expectation that these wealthy Americans will hopefully create more jobs (or give to more charities) and trickle that wealth on down like rain water through a sewage ditch. (Click here to see my last trickle-down economics metaphor.)
However, Ann Romney appeared to be genuine in her praise for her husband. Of course, she has an incredible amount of love and respect for him. She has seen his hard work and dedication as a leader in church and as governor of Massachusetts. At one point, she said of Romney, "No one will work harder, no one will care more, and no one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live." She also spoke of Mitt's passion for serving, and how he doesn't brag about it: "Mitt doesn't like to talk about how he's helped others, because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point."
Clearly, Ann Romney was on the stage to humanize her husband and to show America the side of him that only she might see. Well, I guess I wasn't expecting her to seem so awkward herself. I guess that both Mitt and Ann are a little on the socially inept end of the spectrum, (hence, their "real marriage"). I will be interested to see how "America" (whoever that is) views her address.
The night closed with Governor Christie, who proved he isn't as likable as he you'd imagine him to be, and who also proved that he was running for the President of New Jersey (or of the USA 2016). But I'm not complaining; his speech spurred the instant-classic moment of the evening: a guy in the convention hall gets projected onto the screen behind Christie while yelling, "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" Wrong convention, wrong candidate. (Watch for him at 17:17.)
And Condoleezza Rice looked so tired. Did somebody force her to be there? By the way, if you check back tomorrow, you may or may not find a review of day 2. We may want to go to bed early, and unlike Condi, nobody is forcing us to show up.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbEbxeQVo?rel=0]
Mormons for Obama: Kyle
Kyle shares some of the reasons he's voting for President Obama this November:
It's Time to Get to Work
Post by Rob T -
We're less than 75 days away from the presidential election. Early voting in Iowa starts in just over a month. With the Romney campaign & allies outspending President Obama 2-1 on the air, we must talk to our friends and our neighbors about why we support President Obama and why he's the best choice to lead our country for the next four years. Read Hannah's post on becoming anxiously engaged in the campaign. Join the Facebook group if you can. And enjoy this top 10 on canvassing vs. tracting:
We're less than 75 days away from the presidential election. Early voting in Iowa starts in just over a month. With the Romney campaign & allies outspending President Obama 2-1 on the air, we must talk to our friends and our neighbors about why we support President Obama and why he's the best choice to lead our country for the next four years. Read Hannah's post on becoming anxiously engaged in the campaign. Join the Facebook group if you can. And enjoy this top 10 on canvassing vs. tracting:
Common Ground
Post by Joseph M -We've found new friends! Catholics Democrats are following us on Twitter - and we in turn are following them! Please check out their website here - and notice the bannerhead "Catholics for Obama." Also read this article here that details their efforts.
When you find a new friend it is usually because you both have something in common - and I mean something beyond the Blake Edward's film, Breakfast at Tiffany's, although for some people that's enough to keep a relationship together. I read this week that Mitt Romney has a penchant for Cherry Coke Zero and McDonald's pancakes, and I was floored because those (and brown paper packages) are two of my favorite things as well. So now, beyond our common religious affiliation, Romney and I share Cherry Zero and MacDoughs, and this is no small thing for me... especially because I'm trying to distance myself from Romney as the election draws closer.
But I am moving forward. And to further this effort, I am giving up Cherry Zero until the election (and I hardly eat McDonald's pancakes anyway; you have to be there by 11 am on Saturday before the switch to lunch, and that is way too early.) So instead, I am taking up Obama's favorite drink, which is... oh wait... black forest berry iced tea. That might pose a problem.
Well, no matter - I found 50 Facts You Might Not Know About Obama, and I've already discovered 8 things we have in common:
1) I have read every Harry Potter book also (and then turned around and listened to them all on CD.)
2) I too have eaten dog, snake, and grasshoppers - and found them all to taste like meat.
3) I sometimes try to write with my left hand (when disguising my handwriting for ransom notes.)
4) I also like Casablanca and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (but edited for television only.)
5) I like Scrabble too. (Qat is my favorite word, because I don't like u.)
6) Like Obama, I don't drink coffee and rarely drink alcohol (only in cough syrup and desserts - but mostly it cooks out.)
7) I've read the dedication page for Moby Dick; (it's written for Nathaniel Hawthorne - before Nathaniel unfriended Herman on Facebook for posting too much political stuff.)
8) The Wire.
And I will add one more thing to my list that wasn't included in the article: Me and the President will be voting for the same candidate in November. That is some common ground to start from.