Associated Press
Obama campaigning in Virginia
President Obama will be in Virginia today, where polls show him in the lead, but Republicans believe they have a potent message to undermine his support in the commonwealth.
Republicans are launching an aggressive effort to blame President Obama for deep cuts due to hit the Pentagon next year, spotlighting a potentially dangerous issue for the president a day ahead of a two-day campaign swing through military-rich Virginia.
Orchestrated by Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, top Virginia Republicans issued a series of statements Thursday accusing Obama of presiding over "radical" cuts that would harm the state's economy as well as national security. The effort highlighted not only how competitive Virginia is expected to be in this year's presidential race, but also the new hurdles that loom for Obama in a state he won in 2008 with a six-point margin.
At issue are automatic defense cuts that are set to kick in at the end of the year. The problem, however, is that the defense cuts were the GOP's idea.
As part of last year's debt-ceiling deal, policymakers accepted over $1 trillion in cuts that would kick in if the so-called super-committee failed. Dems weren't completely willing to roll over -- they wanted to create an incentive for Republicans to work in good faith, and Republicans agreed: if the committee failed, the GOP would accept defense cuts and Dems would accept non-defense domestic cuts. The committee, of course, flopped, which put us on the clock for the automatic reductions (the "sequester").
Now, however, Republicans are on the attack, condemning Obama in Virginia for these same looming cuts to military spending. They are, however, the GOP's idea. In fact, two Romney surrogates pushed this line yesterday -- Reps. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- despite the fact that they personally voted for the package that would make the automatic cuts.
This is a bit like Romney surrogates defending the candidate on equal pay for women after the surrogates voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Oh wait, that happened, too.
Leave a Comment:
So in theory the powers to be in the republican party are sure that the entire nation suffers from short term memory loss? They better check on whatever device they are using on us 'cause it ain't working.
Yes - they are sure that the entire nation suffers from short term memory loss.
And - unfortunately - for a lot of people this is correct.
But wait! There's more!
Not only do we get short-term memory loss, but for the same low standard we also get a Press that can be counted on to never remind the public.
How can a schizoid society absorb reminding of their own experience of others that was an illusion to begin with? I rarely get any context from pundit or politician, whether I agree with their "side" or not, that would constitute normal historical framing of any subject giving better perspective and understanding.
They're sure that their base doesn't know these details because they only watch Fox News. It's the same mentality that let so many Republican Senators and Congressmen vote against the stimulus bill, then show up for ribbon cuttings to take credit for the projects it funded.
Further proof that my great-grand-uncle Jim McKelvey, who worked for Harry Truman, was right when he said "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." By the way, he said that 55 years ago. These scum have always been scum. Go read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "No Ordinary Time" and see how "patriotic" the "old" Republican Party was - they were just like they are today.
These scum have always depended on "short term memory loss" by the voting public. Their only two good Presidents were accidental: Abraham Lincoln was supposed to just be a "place holder" only he won, and Teddy Roosevelt had been "kicked aside" as Vice President to get rid of him. The party hated both of them.
I was under the impression that, like UFO landing spots, nothing grows where repugs are buried. (well maybe milkweed)
Republicans are like ads on the internet.. Full of @!$%# and as annoying as hell.
Harry Truman famously said, “There’s nothing new but the history you don’t know.” Is Romney trying to trick us or is he simply ignorant about American history? Remember Regan? He lectured us about the benefits of tax cuts, then he doubled the size of the federal government and doubled the deficit. Regan won voters by showing the TV screen his face of righteous indignation at the thought that his plans would harm the needy. Yet as soon as he was elected, he dismantled the safety net. If you know your history, homelessness did not exist in America before Regan. He closed mental hospitals, rehab programs, and housing alternatives, so the disabled ended up on the streets. Continue reading HERE
Harry Truman famously said, "There's nothing new but the history you don't know." Is Romney trying to trick us or is he simply ignorant about American history? Remember Regan? He lectured us about the benefits of tax cuts, then he doubled the size of the federal government and doubled the deficit. Regan won voters by showing the TV screen his face of righteous indignation at the thought that his plans would harm the needy. Yet as soon as he was elected, he dismantled the safety net. If you know your history, homelessness did not exist in America before Regan. He closed mental hospitals, rehab programs, and housing alternatives, so the disabled ended up on the streets. (you can continue reading here )
I’m a 100% with you. What you are saying – and good for you saying it publicly – is so obvious that it ought not to need to be said, but the sad truth of recent American history is that the majority of citizens have repeatedly voted against common sense and their own self-interest. Now that is fit subject for “social psychoanalysis” – how is it that people vote against their own interest?
The Republicans game is to “starve” government if they can’t shut it down, which they can’t really. A good example is funding for the SEC – the regulator of capital markets. After all of the financial scandals of the last few years, the funding for the SEC has been increasingly cut so that it doesn’t have the resources to regulate properly. Same has been done to the IRS.
I think Obama has not been willing to fight hard enough and has consistently lost the PR wars. Unfortunately, he is all we have.
I am sorry for a double comment above. Please delete one them!
No need to apologize - some things are worth saying twice!
Reagan always made me uneasy. "Great Communicator" gave me the creeps.
I am reading "Drift" by Rachel Maddow and now I know why.
What you listed is just the tip of the iceberg!!!
Please note: All of this is merely academic: If Willard M. Romney were running against someone who is not of mixed racial background, the Republican effort to take over Florida's elections and electorate would be third-rate news. If the Democratic incumbent weren't subject to severe bias because of his skin color, Romney would not have the slightest chance of election.
Dedication to PBO, Peace
http://soundcloud.com/justin-nathanielson-brown/pray-for-our-44th-u-s
What could be possibly wrong if a person running for office can not get any donations greater from each person then the person running against them can get for each of its persons?
One candidate might get more over all money then the other candidate because more have donated to him or her but a wealthy group can not be so dominate in money that it over powers the other from being able to spread its counter message to people.
One can buy a predominance of air time the other is very limited to do so.
Sure you can stand on a soap box and politic all you want but not everyone has the time to spend standing around to listen and not everyone even knows you are standing on that soap box.
Sure in some theory giving a corporation or a wealthy group a right to be the same as people and donate as much as it likes to but in practical reality nothing could be farther from the truth.
However equalizing the playing field does at least equal the playing field in telling everyone they can donate just so much as like all those poor people can only donate so much.
In the final end one of those candidates will get more because more donated more of those equal amounts.
Because more believed in the message of the candidate.
Shutting down the other because more wealth made shutting it down more possible removes the equality.
Sure one will in the end get more wealth but wealth by itself did not shut down the other from possibly sending out its message in the first place.
This post is inaccurate. Congressman Forbes voted against the Budget Control Act, responsible for sequestration. To read more, visit:
http://forbes.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=254787