Politics Explained: Lack of Women and Diversity in the Cabinet

There has been quite an interesting response to President Obama’s most recent selections for filling top cabinet positions. Women, such as Hilary Clinton have stepped down from their cabinet positions and President Obama has nominated only men to fill the vacated positions. The world of political commentators are perplexed because this is the kind of thing that liberals would expect from a Republican President. In fact, during the Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney got a lot of grief from the liberal media because he admitted of having binders full of potential women to hire. The liberal media used this as a means of saying that he doesn’t really interact with women to the point where he has to have a special file to let him know who is out there.

But now, Obama has not even nominated a single woman to possibly take a place of one of the vacant cabinet positions even though there are qualified women who could have taken the job.

Politics Explained: Obama with his all male cabinet with no female nominees

Obama with his all male cabinet with no female nominees

The defense that the administration and liberal media have taken up is the one that Republicans usually use when accused of discriminating against women. The argument for all male nominations is that, “well, these were just the best people for the job. We don’t look at gender, we look at qualifications.” This logic makes certain women advocacy groups angry at the suggestion that there was not even a single woman as qualified as one of the men he has nominated.

Some of you may be still scratching your head and thinking, “why does it matter? Why is it such a bad thing that there aren’t any women? I mean if all those men really were the right choice, isn’t that better than promoting a less qualified women just for the fact that she’s a woman?”

This is about so much more than making the President look like a chauvinist, as many are now deeming him. You don’t put women in top cabinet positions just because you feel like you have to to be politically correct, but because diversity is extremely important when it comes to making important decisions. You want people from a variety of backgrounds and upbringings when considering policy. That keeps you from overlooking details that may not adversely affect people that look like the decision makers, but may very well hurt those not involved in the decision making process.

The opinions of women especially should be sought after to bring a different and much needed perspective in making such important policy decisions. This is why Mitt Romney had those binders; he knew that he wanted women, not just to look politically correct, but because he knew that including women on important decisions would make for better decisions. So he created a system for keeping track of qualified women so that when he had to bring in new members of the team, he could quickly and efficiently add the proper diversity to his counsels and committees.

So, is it disappointing that the President did not nominate any women? Yes. But not because the cabinet pictures would look better with them, but because decisions would have been better with them, and at such a critical point in American history, good decisions from the executive is what we need more than anything else.

Politics Explained: The Vice Presidential Debate

After a widely proclaimed debate win by Governor Romney last Wednesday, the country now turns to the Vice Presidential candidates to see if Ryan will do to Biden what Romney did to Obama.

Politics Explained: Joe Biden and Paul Ryan go head to head at VP Vice Presidential Debate

The Contenders for VP: Paul Ryan and Joe Biden

In the days leading up to this next debate – as you will notice before every major debate – the parties start praising their opponents. To Democrats this week, Ryan is the brilliant congressional economist who will be able to present a lot of convincing information. To Republicans this week, Biden is the smooth, cool, experienced politician who has been preparing for this moment for a long time. But why do this? Why talk up your opponent? Wouldn’t it be more effective to try and lower his self-esteem (as undignified as that may seem)?

This is because, both sides are trying to lower expectations. By doing so, it won’t be as bad if their guy goes down in flames. What would the conversation in politics this past week have been like if everyone was saying that Romney had no chance and that Obama was going to shine? We would be talking an awful lot about how that didn’t happen and how Obama wasn’t the man we thought he was. Instead, because of this rhetoric that he is out of practice, we just look and say, “well, I guess you’re right.” So each side is going to try and raise expectations of their opponents with the theory that, the more you lift the up, the farther and harder they’ll fall.

Politics Explained: Paul Ryan Political Cartoon

The Democrat view of Paul Ryan

But do you think that anyone actually believes the rhetoric? Of course not. Republicans have been salivating at this opportunity for Ryan to take on Biden since Romney first accidentally introduced Paul Ryan as the “future President of the United States,” at his announcement in Virginia. On the same token, Democrats are just dying to see what Joe “Cool” Biden will be able to do with this young radical from Wisconsin.

So what’s it going to be? How is this debate really going to look?

To start, I first recognize just how difficult it is to predict debate outcomes. A week ago, no one would have expected Romney to come away with the biggest debate win in modern US history. That being said, we can look at the contenders and see what they’re up against.

Let’s start with Paul Ryan: He’s smart – brilliant in fact. He was chosen by Romney not for political purposes, but because he is a man who could be president on day one and really is qualified. He was on the House budget committee and was a main author of the House budget which has come to be labeled by the left as “radical.” He’s been apart of many debates on that very budget, and it will most certainly be apart of the debate on Thursday.

Now Joe Biden: He’s experienced. This man has been in Congress for many years. He’s known for being smooth with his words and quick on his feet – even if that means a gaffe every once in a while. But even think about those gaffes. The man is so likable that he has always bounced back from those awkward moments looking as cool, calm, and collected as ever. He has experience in the Vice Presidency.

No matter what they may be saying this week, Republicans see Biden as a bumbling fool, and Democrats see Ryan as a radical rightest whose heart is three sizes too small.

Politics Explained: Ryan and Biden go head to head at (VP) Vice Presidential Debate

Ryan and Biden: Different messages with different strengths

This won’t be an easy win for anyone. Ryan is going to come strong, with lots of numbers and data. Biden will have already seen those numbers and be prepared with rebuttle. He’s going to use his past presidential debate experience to distract from the evidence presented by Ryan and deflect to the idea that Ryan is heartless. Ryan is going to get ticked off at this. And this is the point that will make and break the debate.

If Ryan can keep his cool and keep the debate focused on substance like Romney did last week, then you will hear MSNBC making more excuses for why Biden didn’t do all that great. But if Biden is successful in pushing Ryan’s buttons and gets him to lose his cool and lash out, then Romney will have some catch up to do in the next debates.

As much as either side would like to believe on the inside, this debate is not going to be as easily won for them as they thought.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Ann Romney Shows It’s OK to be Rich

Politics Explained: Ann Romney, Mrs. America

Mrs. America herself, Ann Romney

Ann Romney has been widely praised for her address at the recent Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. There have been posters, T-Shirts, even purses with her picture and the caption, “Mrs. America.” This hype is produced by Republicans who are excited to vote for her husband and make her the First Lady. However, I’ve been following this election close enough to know exactly what the opposition was thinking. For those liberals who were watching, many probably sat there and thought, “Don’t patronize me and talk like you understand me. How could someone in a fancy silk blouse that is worth a months pay check really care about me?” (people actually were making similar comments about the blouse on youtube).

The thing is, Ann Romney is not a middle class housewife…She’s a filthy rich housewife, and they’re not trying to fool anyone. The Romney’s don’t try to pretend like they are underprivileged. They don’t stretch the truth to make them seem like they’ve gone through more financial struggles than they have, like the opposing candidate has done (read about that here). They are honest with their circumstances past and present.

There has been a lot of encouragement for Romney to be forthright about his wealth. In all reality he has nothing to hide. Though his Father was a wealthy business man and governor, Romney did not get his wealth from his Dad. Instead, he took his inheritance and gave it all to charity. He didn’t need it because he was making it on his own.

But my point here is not to tell you about how the Romney’s know what it’s like to be poor and start their own business in order to possibly make ends meet. My point here is to say that it’s OK to be rich.

Because of Mitt’s financial success, he and his dear wife Ann are in a special position to help lift and inspire others, in this case, the American people and they are living up to that opportunity. There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon that Governor Romney has likely read multiple times. It reads, “And before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good – to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted.” (Jacob 2:18-19). I’m confident Mr. Romney has read that because he and his wife live it.

Politics Explained: Mitt and Ann Romney prove it's OK to be rich

Mitt and Ann as our advocates

Mitt and Ann Romney have dedicated their lives to helping others. Over 16% of his 2011 income was given to charities or other charitable organizations. Mitt and Ann are now advocates for those who wish the same success that they’ve seen in life.

When Ann Romney gets up to that large podium in Tampa, FL and says, “I’ve been around the country and heard your stories and feel your pain,” she is not being condescending, she is being sincere. She and her husband are advocates for all those who are struggling.

But they don’t understand my struggles, you may say. They don’t know what it’s like to be unemployed for 8 months or struggle from pay check to pay check…But let’s think about that. Does it really matter? First off, the Romneys have likely experienced more hardships than you are aware. Secondly, it doesn’t matter that they haven’t personally experienced every trial that every American now faces. Because the Romney’s and I share this belief that there is only One who could ever do that.

The fact of the matter is, the most important fact is that the Romneys care. The most important thing they could do to connect with the middle and lower classes is not to personally walk in their shoes, but to have an open mind and heart when hearing personal stories. I challenge all who read to find evidence pointing to the fact that Romney does not care about the success of all Americans from every walk of life. You just won’t find anything. You may find some fact that has been twisted by the Obama campaign that leads the misinformed to believe that the Romneys are heartless, but deep within that very fact will be the fact that the reason the Romneys have done what they have is because they love American and believe in its future. Mitt Romney’s entire campaign has been about believing in America and getting America back to work again. He has the skills and experiences necessary to get the job done. More importantly, he has the sincere desire to do so.

Politics Explained: Mitt and Ann Romney care about America

Mitt and Ann care about America

So next time you see Mrs. Romney wearing a fancy piece of Jewelry, or hear Gov. Romney refer to just how many cars he owns, don’t think that equates with not caring about the millions of Americans struggling under this economy. Because frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: Negative Ads and Presidential Debates

Politics Explained: Negative Ads and Presidential Debates

The Great Debate

As the presidential builds up to its Autumn climax, we are bombarded with negative political ads as well as accusations being flung back and forth by various cable news organizations. As strange as this may sound, I want to take a moment to recognize the importance of these negative ads in the political process and give you hope for a more productive and constructive debate in the fall.

The purpose of a negative ad, also known as an attack ad, is to discredit your opponent’s ability to fulfill their promises or ability to even effectively function in the office they are running for. An incumbent, meaning the guy who already has the job, tends to use less of these simply because he can use his own successful past in the office to prove that he should be reelected. The challenger however needs to not only prove that not only is he qualified for the job, but that he can do it a lot better than the other guy. In this sense, a series of ads focusing on the incumbents weakness seem to make sense.

In the current presidential race, there is a lot of mud being flung from both sides. Obama’s campaign is noted for criticizing the allegedly incredible amount of attack ads coming from the Romney campaign. The Romney camp’s only real retort is, “hey, we’re not the only ones.”

Something like over 90% of advertising, from both sides, is negative. This frustrates Americans. However, if Romney is going to prove to the American people that it is worth cutting out President Obama after only one term, he’s going to have to have proof. He’s got to convince the American people that they are not better off than they were 4 years ago and they won’t be any better 4 years from now if Obama is re-elected. Obama on the other hand is responding by fighting fire with fire. He constantly attacks Romney’s business record, in a way trying to convince America that, “sure things aren’t great right now, but it could be worse with that guy.” I could write a whole separate article about that very mindset, but I’ll move on.

This myriad of  negative advertising, especially from the Romney side, has left a bad taste in people’s mouths. They’re asking, “Okay, so Obama is bad. But what are you going to do? What can you bring to the table to make this any better?” To those people, I say, hold out a little longer. Your answers will come. By that I mean that the substantive talk about more specific policy will come as we get closer to November. Now as our 44th President loves to say, “let me be clear,” and say that Romney has come out with specific plans. Obama is already criticizing those plans as proof to their existence. You can go to http://www.mittromney.com to read those plans. They exist. But they will become more apparent and the talk of more media organizations in the near future. Why is that?

That is because right now, Mitt Romney is working hard to convince America that this is possible, that it is possible to remove Obama from the White House. Especially after a typically brutal primary campaign and republican infighting, most American’s figured that Obama had it in the bag and that there’s really no hope for change. Americans have felt that if they have to choose between two evils, they would rather choose a known evil. This is why Romney has been working to hard to make a case for not only his election, but Obama’s removal. And with every attack on Obama, there is a rebuttal and an attack in return. It’s a nasty war that is being fought on the TV screens of unsuspecting residents of swing states.

But don’t worry, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. That light is studio lights of red, white, and blue, lighting the stages that will hold the 2012 Presidential Debates. That is where the real progress will be made. As it stands now, we have the candidates and their supporters filling the air waves with accusations and attacks against their opponent. Every time, the accusation is supported by some sort of “fact.” But facts are a fickle thing since any number can be twisted to mean whatever you want. Don’t believe me? When the August jobs report comes out, just watch how the democrats use it as “proof” that Obama is succeeding and the republicans use the same report as undeniable “proof” that Obama has failed. Though slightly informative, this type of debate is extremely ineffective.

Politics Explained: Presidential Debate

Politics Explained: The ever important debate stage

On the debate stage, it becomes much more difficult to throw out some number or “fact” and have it be blindly accepted. Their opponent will be standing just feet away from them with their own “facts” which will also be examined and attacked. In such a manner we get closer to the heart and truth of the issue at hand. Yes it’s messy, yes sometimes it’s uncivilized, but it’s debate. This type of debate, without teleprompters and inspirational music in the background will finally show us what these candidates are made of.

At the debates, Romney will finally come out swinging and make his case for the presidency. He will remind us that it isn’t over ’till it’s over and that he is the man to replace Barack Obama and bring about the change that America needs. Obama is of course going to try and prove him wrong, but the only way he will be able to make a strong enough case is by running on his record. The American people are tired of excuses.

So the next time you hear an angry talk show host, or news anchor, or even candidate slinging mud to the other side, try to recognize its role in the process and remember that the debates aren’t far away.  We look forward to the debates, not because it’s another excuse for the candidates to yell at each other, but so that finally we can hear some actual substance that must be backed up by acceptable facts.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: “You didn’t build that” – Obama

Video

Obama Meme from "You didn't build that" comment

Obama “You Didn’t Build That” Meme

Recognize this picture? Well here’s the story behind the madness. At the beginning of this week, President Barack Obama caused tsunami level waves among conservative crowds for his comments made at a campaign stop in Virginia. At the end of this video, Obama culminates his build up by making the bold claim that, “If you’ve got a small business, you didn’t build that…” I recommend watching the clip before reading on; it’s less than one minute long.

If you are having trouble viewing this video, click here for the original on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

Conservative audiences jumped all over this comment saying things like, “President Obama doesn’t believe in the American dream!”

When I first set out to write this column about Obama’s “You didn’t build that” comment, I was going to try and just give him the benefit of the doubt; I really was. But every time I re-watched the video, I was more and more put off by his comments. However, before I go into that, let’s go over what Obama’s supporters, and those sympathetic are saying.

On the surface, these comments seem pretty normal. Nothing to scandalous about them. In fact, you can see where the president is coming from. To be quite honest with you, when I first saw the clip for myself after reading all of the hype, I thought to myself, “So what? What’s the big deal?” I wanted to join in the exposure of some radical comment but I just didn’t get it. It seemed that all he was saying was, you are where you are because other people have helped you along the way. I mean it makes sense. Even his part about the roads. I mean I guess no one could come to my business if there wasn’t a road leading up to it (but now that I think of it, they seemed to do just fine in the old west, and for all we know, in the future we might not even need roads; I guess only Marty McFly and Doc Brown can answer those questions). Forgive my aside. But anyway, all our dear president was saying was, be a little bit more grateful for your success. When you think about it like that, it doesn’t seem like that radical of a statement.

That’s just the surface though. The more I listen to this (and I’ve rewatched the video multiple times now), the more I realize just what this says about Obama’s thought process and ideology that I don’t agree with. Conservatives are talking all about how Obama doesn’t understand that small business is the lifeblood of the economy. I disagree, I think he does understand that any business is good, but there is something much more fundamental that needs be exposed.

I’m especially disturbed with his statement about being smart or working hard. Obama is in essence saying, if you’re successful, it’s not because you are smarter than the average person or that you worked harder than the average person, it’s because you got lucky. It’s because you were given that success. And I dare say, he means to say that it’s because of the poor who worked on those roads and built your building, that you are rich.

This is another example of class warfare. Obama is trying to convince people that the rich and successful are only that way because they got lucky and their success is a gift. Since it is a gift, according to Obama, they are then greedy and heartless for not wanting to give back to the people that made them that way and pay more in taxes to fund the government.

Politics Explained: George Romney American Dream

George Romney: Fulfilling the American Dream

“But what about those smart kids in the intercity? Even if they work hard and are smart, can you really think that they can be as successful as the kids who went to prestigious public schools? It’s not the kid’s fault that he was born into a poor family.” I sympathize with this sentiment. I think that the way out of poverty is education. Why else do you think Mitt Romney talked so much about education reform in his speech to the NAACP. He realizes that this is an issue and wants to fix it, because it hasn’t been fixed. That being said, I say now back to you, what is the American dream anyway? The American dream is that anyone, from any walk of life, can come to America and make something of themselves. How many stories exist of people fulfilling that dream? Many.

George Romney, Mitt’s father, was so poor in Michigan that at one point he was selling paint out of the back of his car just to make a living. Because of his hard work and intelligence, he worked his way up the corporate ladder, became the president of a major American automobile manufacturer and then became governor of that very state. Was that luck? Was that because he was serendipitously handed opportunity? I don’t think so. I think he worked his tail off out of a love of family and a strong work ethic.

Obama wants us to believe that we are nothing without the government. He wants us to believe that just as God gives us everything so we should give 10%, government gives us everything so the rich should give 30%+. I don’t agree.

Politics Explained: Obama in Rain as campaigner in chief

Campaigner-in-chief speaking in Virginia

This kind of rhetoric is destructive, it’s divisive, and it’s the product of a master campaigner who know just what people want to hear, despite the consequences of such actions. I mean, watch the video again. Do you notice something different about our president. Hear that southern twang in his voice? He was born in Hawaii and went to school on the East Coast and ended up in Chicago. That’s not the South. But here him droppin’ the “g” as he’s speakin’? He knows his crowd (Virginia), and he’s riling them against a made up enemy…the rich.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the clip again, except this one is longer and gives more context. Listen for those things. Hear how he speaks, listen for the words he uses, and I think you’ll tend to agree with my analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q

So, in short: On the surface, this sounds like your run of the mill liberal rhetoric, nothing too radical. But as take the statement in a greater context, you’ll find divisive politics aimed at pitting Americans against each other in a case of class warfare that is destructive to our country. We should be trying to make America a place where all can prosper, and not take from those who were successful just to make people dependent on government welfare. We need a safety net for the poor, not a hammock.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter ( @PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Q&A: Do I have to respect the president?

Barack Obama – 44th President of the United States of America

I recently had a conversation with a good friend about the office of the president. I consider this friend a great patriot and so I was intrigued when he expressed to me how he has completely lost respect for President Obama. “Years ago,” he said, “presidents were respected. They were more noble, they were stately. You may not have liked their policies but you respected them because they honored the office they held. Now we have somehow elected a man who never even finished one term in the senate. I’m not going to respect a man just because he won a popularity contest.”

After expressing his feelings, he asked my opinion about whether we should be obligated to respect the president just because he’s the president. Well here it is:

The thing is, there are two different types of respect that we are talking about here. Respect for the person, and respect for the office. Though they are connected, they should also be considered separately.

First let’s talk about the Office of the President of the United States of America. As an American, I feel it to be my duty to hold that office in the highest regard. No matter who is in the White House, I will always stand when he/she walks in the room and I hope that the band will never stop playing “Hail to the Chief.” No matter who is in office, no matter what the circumstance, if I was directed by the President to serve in the armed forces, I would. Because the Office of the Presidency is more than a person, it’s a symbol of the executive authority set up by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution, and I believe in the Constitution. That is how I respect the Office of the Presidency.

Respecting the person is a whole different story. I just deleted a long paragraph about why I don’t respect President Obama as a person, because though it is relevant to the conversation, I felt it distracted from the main point in my response. It will suffice for me to say, that I, like my friend, have little respect for Barack Obama, the person. I don’t like his policy ideas, I don’t like how he conducts himself, and I don’t like his attitude. To be fair, some of those things are probably compounded. You know, like when someone starts to really get on your nerves and then all of a sudden everything they do seems to be the most annoying thing in the world? Yeah, I’m kind of at that point with the President, but I try to keep myself in check.

But so what now? He’s the president right? Aren’t I obligated as a true patriot to respect him as the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief? I can remember in high school how annoyed I would get when kids, who knew nothing about politics, would constantly bad mouth Bush. I would say to them something like, “Come on guys, he’s still the president and we have to respect that.” Am I now a hypocrite every time I criticize the president? Well, it all depends on how I do it.

The thing is, one of the greatest things about being an American is our right to speak ill of our government leaders. We won’t go to jail for speaking against our government leaders as long as there is no actual threat of personal harm. A few months ago, I was on Twitter and the Official White House twitter account tweeted something about what a great job the President was doing at restoring the economy. I did not entirely agree and so I responded with some pretty sharp words. Think about that for a second. I sent a message to the White House telling them how I disapproved of their work. I dare you to try that with the Kremlin in Russia or the Imperial Palace in China, it just won’t work. I, as a citizen of the United States, have the right to speak my mind even if that means verbally attacking the man who holds the highest office in the land. I have that right, and I’m going to exercise it.

But at what point to we cross the line between disrespecting the person and disrespecting the office. Well, the line is quite blurred (welcome to politics). Some may say, well, you only have the right to speak against his policies, but no personal attacks. In general I agree with this statement. In fact, it’s one that I try to live by. But what about this, what if the president, by his personal actions, not connected with policy decisions, does something himself to disrespect the Office of the Presidency? There have been things which President Obama has done that I feel have been below the conduct required by the Office of the Presidency. It’s at this point where we have to ask ourselves again if it’s okay to attack the president’s personal actions. Because I respect the Office of the Presidency, I feel justified in criticizing anyone who shows that office disrespect, even if it’s the president himself.

Does that mean I should be morally allowed to point out every personal flaw that the president has? No. If I’m going to attack the president’s character, I should have a pretty good reason. Because he holds the office, he is entitled to, at the very least, informed criticism, as opposed to ignorant criticism. So going back to the kids in my high school, they, in general, did not know what was going on in politics. If you asked them, “Well, what has Bush done to disrespect the Office of the Presidency?” they probably wouldn’t be able to give a intelligent response.

I’m not going to lie; I at times have been guilty of unfounded personal attacks against the president. I realize my mistake and I am trying to do better to always respect the Office of the President.

So, in response to my friend who asked the question, “Do I have to respect a junior senator who went on to win a popularity contest to become the president?” I, in short, say, the beauty of this country is that anyone can lift themselves up from any circumstance to be elected president through this grand democracy that we have. So we probably shouldn’t use that as our main reason for not respecting the president. We may not like the guy, but as president he at least deserves personal criticism that is founded on something, and believe me, there’s plenty of that to go around.

EDIT 7/17/2012: Thanks to the comments that have so far been left on this post, I realize that I have left off a major point that must be brought up during any discussion of respect. The thing is, no matter what position or amount of success a person has obtained in life, there is always a certain amount of respect that should be given simply because they are a person. As Americans, we have the right to criticize our leaders, but we must always act in a civil manner. Even if we have legitimate cause to call into question the president’s character, we can and should still be civil. Because, at the end of the day, the president is still a person, and frankly speaking, a child of God. I have made the mistake before of crossing the line into giving unnecessarily harsh criticism and I have been rightly called out on it. Stay above the filth, stay civil, and you’ll find that not only will you be respected more, but your message will reach even more minds and hearts.

If you also have a question, see the Ask Me tab for more details on how to contact me. If you want even more political content, follow me on Twitter @PPLvI. Also, you can click here to LIKE this blog’s Facebook page. There you can expect even more great political content in plain English along with links to current events and political cartoons.

Politics Explained: Romney & Bain Capital

Video

If you haven’t heard, quite recently, the Obama campaign released an attack on Mitt Romney which was then spread throughout the main stream media ( i.e. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.). The implication was that Romney lied about when he left his company Bain Capital. Romney has held to the claim that he left in 1999 to go run the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, but the Obama campaign presented what they saw as evidence to the fact that he was there 3 years longer.

There is a video posted at the very end of this post which is a report from CNN (which normally is seen to have a democrat bias) that debunks those lies which were spread by the Obama campaign. If you already know the back story, go ahead and skip to the end to just watch the video. If you still aren’t sure what this is all about, keep reading.

So what? Why should we care? Well, the Obama camp (“camp” being jargon for campaign) wants to use Romney’s time at Bain Capital to paint the picture of a greedy business man more interested in money in his pocket than creating jobs for American workers. Before I go much further let me explain briefly what exactly goes on at Bain Capital.

Bain Capital is a company that specializes in taking over failing companies and making them profitable. Kind of like flipping a house. You find a house that is run down, you buy it at a low price, you put time, effort, and money into it, then sell it hoping to make a profit. Bain Capital does just that, but instead of flipping houses, they’re flipping businesses.

If you’ve ever watched any of those house flipping reality TV shows, you will know that flipping a house is not always successful. Sometimes it happens that the house simply has far more problems than could be seen on the outside. Other times it happens that those doing the flipping really have no idea what to do and make a series of dumb decisions which leave them with leave them losing money. The Obama camp would like you to believe that Romney is like that bickering couple on TV that decides to knock down a wall that turns out to be a supporting wall, and in doing so, the entire second floor comes crashing down. It’s one thing when that happens to a house, but it’s another when the damage results in hundreds of workers losing jobs.

So back to this allegation about Romney being at Bain longer than he has claimed. If that is true, then the Obama camp will be able to point to Bain Capital failures and blame Romney. They are already trying to portray him as the dumb house flipper who haphazardly knocks down walls, not caring about the consequences. This would simply give more ammunition.

Romney, on the other hand, would like you to look at his record with the point of view that, “You know what? Business ventures aren’t always successful.” It is true that not every single investment made by the Bain Capital, under the direction of Mitt Romney, has turned out to be successful. He claims that it’s not because he was incompetent but that, just like some houses have more problems than can be noticed until you rip up the floor boards, there are unseen factors that have made it impossible to turn a company around to make it profitable. You have to understand, it’s not like Romney took successful businesses and drove them into the ground. These companies were on the verge of destruction and he with the resources of his company would come in and try to save it. It didn’t always work, but most of the time it did.

So that’s the essence of the debate. Obama wants you to believe that Romney is a greedy, heartless, Mr. Moneybags type capitalist, who will run a company into the ground just to make a buck. Romney would like you to believe that in the instances where the companies did fail, it wasn’t due to a lack of trying and in fact he worked until the bitter end to save the companies and the jobs of those employed.

Before I conclude, just one more thing about this Bain Capital business. The debated date of departure from Bain Capital revolves around Mitts decision to leave the company to go run the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City which were on the verge of bankruptsy after a huge scandal. When Mitt went to Salt Lake, he did it, not for profit, but out of a sense of duty. You hear them mention that on this CNN video. Romney was putting behind a very successful part of his carrear so that he could turn the Olympics into a successful even not only for Salt Lake City, but for America and the World. Not only did he go, but he succeeded. This man is a patriot and he’s good at what he does.

Romney with Olympic torch

Now who can think of a more run down corporation than the government of the United States of America. Who better to turn this around then a man who made a career out of taking ineffective businesses and making them profitable. Remember, profitable means more jobs. The more money that comes in, the more jobs that can be created so that even more money can be made.

Obama may attack Romney’s time at Bain Capital and refer to it as Romney’s greatest weakness, but I along with many other Americans see it as one of his greatest assets.

To end, I want to point out that this lie spread by the Obama camp is another effort to try and show the voters that Romney is a shady character that does not want to tell you the whole truth. Unfortunately every example I use to try and prove he is an honest man can be twisted by the other side to show that he is corrupt, so I’ll leave you with this thought. In his recent address to the NAACP, Romney stated, “I believe that if you truly understood who I am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of… American families, you would vote for me for President.” I also believe that to be true.

Now for the video where CNN points out the lies coming from the Obama Campaing.

For even more People v. Ignorance: Politics explained for the average patriot content, follow me on Twitter @PPLvI and click here to like the blog’s facebook page which provides links to even more news as well as political cartoons and politics explained in plain English.