Mitt Romney Get’s the Job Done – Delivers Rousing Pragmatic Speech - Makes Strong Case - The Independent Analysis

Mitt Romney, 2012 Presidential Candidate - image muckrack.com

Mitt Romney, now officially the GOP 2012 Presidential Candidate, gave a well-delivered and well-crafted speech last night, closing the Republican Convention in Tampa and officially beginning his path to the Presidency. The full text of his speech is available at the Washington Post. In watching the network news coverage just prior to the final speeches during the 10 pm coverage, one was struck by the insistence that Romney “must humanize” himself and “connect with voters” – he did just that – to the point where Bob Schieffer, of CBS news had to be called several times on air – giving the impression that Romney’s delivery caused that member of the press to become speechless for a moment. Schieffer immediately began to focus on the speech given by actor-director, Clint Eastwood, who, according to the press narrative, was a huge mistake - Schieffer repeatedly said that Eastwood would be the “talk of the morning talk shows (referring, of course, to the network morning talk shows), and that no-one would be talking about Mitt Romney. It was as if, listening to the talking heads of the major networks and, of course, the cable news networks, that the individuals watching the same speakers, listening to the same speeches, would somehow give a whit about their opinion of events. Frankly, it was not without a bit of humor, that the reaction to the end of the Republican Convention was one that left those who have lost the tenants of their craft, grasping at straws.

Perhaps the best coverage of what individuals who are extremely vested in the process, was over at C-Span, after the speeches were delivered and the floor cleared, the network offered three call-in-lines – one for Romney Supports, one for Obama Supporters and one for Democrats. A call that came in from one of President Obama’s supports was extremely pointed, and spoke to the nature of this election and how it will proceed – (Paraphrasing) “Mitt Romney delivered a very good speech, but I’m a Democrat who will still vote for Obama. He did a good job, but Obama needs more time, it took Franklin D. Roosevelt three terms and World War II to right the nation, so it is going to take more than four years for Obama to fix the economy.” The speaker went on to say, of course, without starting another World War. This man’s statement, as well as the overwhelming support for Mitt Romney from the Independents phoning into the network (it goes without saying that the Romney Supporters would be – overjoyed) played out what one understands is happening in the nation – and for this reason, one has to understand, the course of events and Romney’s failure to fall into the orchestra pit (one of the networks talking heads), are why the press who are more than sympathetic to President Obama, are somewhat rattled and willing to and ready to search for anything, no matter how obscure, to negate the facts.

The Democrats will garner the votes of those who will vote for a Democrat, no matter that they have to craft excuses for failure, 41% of those die-hard party faithful voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 – and one can anticipate that they will do so again. The percentage is the approximate number of registered Democrats who would never cross a party line. There are those that will be so driven they will go into nursing homes with Alzheimer units, and insure that an individual who cannot recognize their own family, votes for the Democrat on the ticket. (This was a personal experience of this blogger, as her mother, a Republican leaning independent, was found, unable to hold a pen, but being “helped” to vote for Al Gore in the 2000 election – the excuse by the Democrat operative – well, she may have been a registered Democrat and her vote should count. The final words before this daughter called security.) As a former Democrat, and fierce Independent, who was brought up in a politically mixed family, the single most important charge one has an American citizen is to vote, regardless of one’s choice, one has the responsibility to vote for the individual whom they feel has presented the best case, (or resume) for the job.

That is how an Independent casts their vote – that is the speech that Romney delivered which, had the entire proceeding been shown on the networks, one would be even more inclined, if possible, to cast their vote for Mitt Romney in November.
It is because Independents are unaffiliated and not beholden to any political party, and the fact that the numbers for both political parties are fairly evenly matched in terms of members, it stands to reason, that the Romney speech could have been horrid, and he would still prevail. The reasoning was made clear in Romney’s speech last night – and for the first time, the comparison was made by a candidate between President James Carter and President Barack Obama – both men were not prepared for the task at hand, as they had limited experience in the real world. What was left unsaid, was that both President Carter and President Obama subscribed to a more left of center political ideology than the majority of voters from all political spectrums – and they governed the nation into depression (fiscally and emotionally), by a combination of the lack of experience and their ideology. The fact that neither man intended that the consequences of their actions might cause stagnation, is a given. President Carter and President Obama truly believe that all people should have the same playing field, that Americans can and should be successful – they just, for whatever reason, cannot connect the dots or get the job done. Their failures have nothing to do with racism or party partisanship – it has everything to do with the reality that neither man was suited for the job. They both had successes as well, but their failures far outweighed those successes, and those who were breathing in the 1980’s understood that Ronald Reagan offered them experience – as someone who worked for a living, someone who ran a Governor’s office, and someone who spoke straight to the public. This former Democrat, who feared Regan at the time of the election, voted for the third party candidate in 1980 – in 1984, this Reagan Democrat, cast her vote for President Reagan as an Independent, because he had proven that he could right the ship of the economy, improve the lives of millions of American’s – all of this achieved with a very hostile press and no alternative news sources. There were no cable news networks, there were no radio talk shows, there was no internet – and yet, somehow Ronald Reagan was elected, not once, but twice, in a landslide – despite the narrative up to the end, that Carter was fine, the polls were close and Regan was a clown, lacking experience in foreign policy – all Carter needed was more time.

It didn’t work then, it will not work now.

From a point of view of someone who was never enamored of Governor Mitt Romney, and gave credit where credit was due out of a sense of having to deliver an opinion grounded in reality, over the course of the past three months, and researching Romney, one found that there are reasons why he has been unfairly misjudged – this Massachusetts Independent was unfairly judging Mitt Romney. Over the course of the past few months, it became apparent that Romney was not the stuffed shirt, the selfish “rich guy” who was being portrayed by the media, rather, someone who gave above and beyond in measure of both treasure and most importantly time to help strangers, neighbors in situation after situation, without looking for a photo opp. He did not take a salary as Governor, more women held positions of parity in Massachusetts and it was Romney’s doing. Those individuals came from both political parties, and the narrative of a failed Massachusetts under his leadership is patently false. It is a matter of public record that Romney reformed Massachusetts Schools which had high standards that were immediately thrown out once he was no longer Governor. His focus was on job creation and although he did have the advantage of being a Governor when jobs were plentiful in the rest of the nation, he managed the unthinkable by creating jobs in a state where both Employers and Employees had been leaving in droves. He worked across the aisle and he got the job done. It was not without a bit of criticism from individuals who are diehard Conservatives and those who are diehard Democrats – there will always be that division of party first, country second in that situation. That is what the founding fathers feared most about political parties –it was their druthers that we all be independent voters.

Therefore, what will be most interesting is to see how well the Obama Campaign delivers “we need a second term” because of “name an excuse, but it will likely be “the recession historically takes more time to get out of – just look at FDR!”. Yes, it did take FDR three terms as President and a World War to right the economy – however, it took Ronald Reagan with a different philosophy on management, less than one term to right the economy and build a military that inspired nations to back away from conflicts. It is not that Mitt Romney is Ronald Regan, although after last night’s speech that fallacy that he cannot connect with voters has been proven false, it is that Romney offers a better resume, and he has similar policies to Reagan – policies that are based on math – as Ryan might frame the narrative.
One cannot predict the outcome, as there are so many variances, but that said, this looks a lot like 1980 and the GOP has a Presidential Candidate with a running mate that are more than qualified to accept the task one hand. In watching speakers to the final speeches, what was present was a feeling of optimism, one that has not been present for some time – that optimism that the economy can improve, and that life will be less hard once Romney is President.

RNC Convention – Full Videos: Davis, Martinez, Fortuno, Love, Cruz – The Reality of Conservatism and Diversity and the Racism from the Media and Left

Governor Luis Fortuno, Puerto Rico, speaks at the RNC Convention - image: Politico


One hears a great deal about diversity in the United States, in the workplace, in schools, in government – but most often and especially in the rhetoric of political party speeches as well as a constant drumbeat in traditional media. What one is told is that if a person who is Spanish, (Latino-Hispanic in Government Speak), or African-American, or Asian or a “woman” must be somehow, wrong, if that person subscribes to a politically conservative point of view, or God forbid, is a Republican! The Democrat Party, one must understand, owns the Hispanic, Black and Women’s votes – because that is what the general population is told by the traditional media, by the Democrat Party – if one is found in one of those “categories”, then one must be part of that particular party – or something is drastically wrong with that person.

The RNC Convention in Tampa has been telecast by the major networks, (ABC, NBC, CBS), for one hour each night, full coverage is available on C-Span, and the cable news network’s offer running commentary similar to the major networks, giving their “points of view” or “spin” from the right (FOX) and from the left (CNN and MSNBC) talking over speakers, panning away from speakers, and cutting away from the speakers that, perhaps, just perhaps are the wrong color or ethnic group and should be speaking next week in Charlotte at the DNC Convention rather than in Tampa at the RNC – based on who they are.
What one missed if one were viewing any of the above mentioned with the exception of C-span, are the speakers who, for whatever reasons, are Conservatives. They are the Spanish, the African American’s and the women who stand for their values, and are currently holding an elective office, or are part of a movement, and who gave blazing speeches at the Republican Convention over the past few days. One would not have seen these speeches, as they were cut away, to give viewers, the “treat” of watching Tom Brokaw, and whatever talking head that the major networks could provide, with a panel that apparently was invested in not showing the public these particular voices and faces of conservatism. Below are this bloggers favorites, they are all Americans, and they have the unmitigated gall of being Conservatives and to a man and to a woman, they are accomplished, and they are the embodiment of what this nation is truly about – the ability to personally choose to work and excel and to serve, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, et. al. One has to wonder why these amazing men and women were not shown to the general public who were watching the major networks or even the cable networks – unless of course, it was to use them as examples of what surely must be an “oddity” due to the fact that they are not old white men. If racism is alive and well in these United States, this daughter of the mother country, Espana, only sees this poison coming from Progressives as well as the faces of the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc.) who continue to shun those who hold a different political view. Yes they shun those who, because of race or ethnicity, are only allowed to be in a certain political party. In reality, race, gender or ethnicity, is a source of pride to those who share the same heritage, other than that, however, these labels do not matter simply because we are all citizens of the United States, allowed to take part in guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no matter the circumstances of birth.

Below are video clips from CNN featuring speakers that one might not have seen while watching the networks – in no particular order. It is difficult to choose a favorite speaker, they are all favorites – simply because they have a message of hope and they all have a story to tell, about the opportunities that this great nation offers.

Artur Davis


Texas Senate Candidate Ted Cruz


Governor Susana Martinez


Governor Luis Fortuno


Mayor Mia Love

Ann Romney - Delivers – To Women, To the GOP, to the Nation - Touches the World

Ann Romney during Convention Speech - image KasasCity.com

Ann Romney delivered one of the most energizing and charged political convention speeches in the last four general election conventions – from either major political party. The full transcript of Ann Romney’s speech is available at the Indianapolis Star. What one might have anticipated was a “get to know Mitt” speech, or as pundits suggested, a speech that ”humanized” her husband, the GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney”. (New York Times: “In speech Ann Romney Plays to the Heart) That was, of course, the point made by pundits across the nation – that somehow this woman would be charged to transform the man into someone who is “relatable” in a world that has a focus on the personality rather than the deeds of the individual. However, her speech changed the narrative in ways that were not anticipated, she hit home the fact that women are the backbone, and the force behind the nation – and have the ability to stand up and move mountains: The most compelling line in the speech: “We're too smart to know there aren't easy answers. But we're not dumb enough to accept that there aren't better answers.” Followed a litany of what women go through, regardless of socio-economic background, regardless of party – we do recognize that groceries are more expensive, we do understand that we have the major burden of the home and hearth, if there are children to care for, then the tasks multiple. We work and we worry – we see the passage of time as far too fast, and we are often disheartened and tired lately. She reiterated what we know, and she justified how we feel.

Perhaps that’s because she wrote the speech, spending the hours before the convention, “fiddling with turns of phrase” and reminding reporters that ““You have been covering me long enough and you know I’ve never gone off a written text.” (WSJ “Ann Romney Finalizes Speech Words & Wardrobe) Prior to last night’s convention speech, she spoke on the campaign trail “unscripted”. It is often that a campaign will write a script that a candidate or candidates spouse will deliver verbatim, and to be sure, there had to have been the usual campaign speechwriter that handed Ann Romney a text to deliver, which she changed to make it her own. It is a streak of independence rather than dependence that is what struck a chord. The personal narrative, the call to believe in “Mitt”, was, of course, part of the package, but the fact that Mitt Romney will carry the votes of even those who maligned him most; those who are not comfortable with his religion, or who might even resent the fact that he has “millions of dollar to hire political consultants”. Those are the women who, for what-ever reason, may not like him personally, or even not like his family all that much, but – and here is the but – the man who was not the first choice for those voters who supported other candidates in the primary – has their vote. They are the hard core base that stayed home in 2008, and they are driven by other factors. Ann Romney was not going to touch the base, although the base is broadly defined, Ann Romney was speaking to the rest of the nation, as well as the world, and the reviews are in – she nailed it.

From Germany: “Ann Romney Opens Hearts, From France: “Mitt Romney's wife made the show at the convention of his party. Energetic and emotional, Ann Romney will be a support rider for her husband, despite multiple sclerosis.” From Spain: “Ann Romney: "Mitt will move heaven and earth for this country” The Republican candidate's wife has requested an opportunity for her husband and has defended the role of women in society, and the list goes on, including the skeptical British Press who have noticed she has Welsh Origins (humble-noted). All of the articles are carrying the video of her speech – using translators as necessary.

Ann Romney did more than “humanize Mitt” (a term this blogger finds ridiculous to the extreme but will go along with the program), Ann Romney “humanized” the Republican Party, she also “humanized America” in the worlds eyes. If one is reading the headlines daily from Europe, Asia, South and Central America and so on, one understands we are still not well liked – period. Ann Romney accomplished more than perhaps she intended.

Unrelated to Ann Romney – in a way

It is not without a little pride in the State of Massachusetts, that this resident is feeling at the notion of the opportunity to put forth yet another candidate for the Presidency of these United States. From John Adams, to Calvin Coolidge, to John F. Kennedy, and those in between who are not mentioned or may have been “also rans”, the State from which the “Shot Heard Round the World” emanated, where the first Tea Party was held, and which has produced great thinkers, and politico’s from all facets of the political spectrum – has produced a candidate for the Presidency –with the odds in his favor, given the economy – Perhaps he gets extra points today - he was smart enough to wed Ann Romney.

Racism from the Left - MSNBC's Chris Matthews Parisan Rant on Workfare

A map of schools constructed in the U.S. by the WPA - image gjenvick.com

In a recent episode of MSNBC’s ”Morning Joe” program, Chris Matthews, an MSNBC personality, got into a bit of a dust-up with the RNC Chair, Reince Priebus – about all things, a work requirement for welfare recipients. Matthews called even considering such a requirement “racist”. The text from Real Clear Politics: (link to video) ”Hardball’s Chris Matthews gets into a testy exchange with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus about the GOP’s welfare ad and Mitt Romney’s birther comments. (Morning Joe)

"You can play your games and giggle about it but the fact is your side playing that card. When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you’re playing and everybody knows what game you’re playing. It's a race card and if your name’s Romney yeah you were well born -- you went to prep school, yeah, brag about it," Chris Matthews said on "Morning Joe."

Apparently, Matthews is a quart short on history when it comes to blind partisanship. The concept of a work requirement for those able bodied individuals who required assistance in hard economic times, was the brainchild of one Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Democrat who led the nation for three terms (before suggesting that a term limit of 8 years be imposed on the Executive Branch), and is a darling of most Progressives. FDR implemented the WPA, a work for assistance program during the “Great Depression”. “While FDR believed in the elementary principles of justice and fairness, he also expressed disdain for doling out welfare to otherwise able workers. So, in return for monetary aid, WPA workers built highways, schools, hospitals, airports and playgrounds. They restored theaters--such as the Dock Street Theater in Charleston, S.C.--and built the ski lodge at Oregon's Mt. Hood. The WPA also put actors, writers and other creative arts professionals back to work by sponsoring federally funded plays, art projects, such as murals on public buildings, and literary publications. FDR safeguarded private enterprise from competition with WPA projects by including a provision in the act that placed wage and price controls on federally funded products or services.” (History.com)

Apparently, during an election cycle, it is “convenient” to forget that bit of historical evidence that contradicts racism is at play. Furthermore, it uncovers the racists notion that Matthews holds, suggesting that those who oppose welfare without a work requirement must be referring to African American’s. The fact is that all ethnic groups as well as your “white-Caucasians” are on some sort of government assistance. In fact, half of the nation is currently receiving some sort of benefit. To suggest that when someone refers to welfare that they are being racists is beyond ignorance – it is the partisanship of the “talking head” attempting to distort history, and at the same time, make points for their “team”. In Matthews’s case, it is throwing one of the Democrat Party’s hero’s under the bus, while at the same time, being a racist himself for connecting the dots of welfare equals racism.

One would hazard to guess that if one on government assistance, were anything like those individuals of the 1930’s who were part of the WPA program, they would welcome the opportunity to have a place to go, something to build, and be compensated – by having a job. Apparently, building roads and bridges, or constructing parks and recreations areas, is something that is so beneath the “elite” Matthews, who must also consider, (if one were to reach inane conclusions out of thin air, similar to Mr. Matthews) that all blue-collar workers are beneath him, and should, in all likelihood be supported by the “State”.

It is those Progressives who are so blind to reality, and have a mouthpiece that reaches millions daily, that are extremists, no more or less on the left or the right. Perhaps, in Mr. Matthews case, those proponents of work for welfare, might want to include the position of “talking head” – perhaps offering those an opportunity to sit next to Mr. Matthews and get paid to pontificate - garbage. One wonders how the "prima donna" would react to that suggestion, especially if the individual did not hold a four-year degree (the litmus test of Progressives as to who may or may not be “Middle Class”).

AP – Obama Interview – Blasts Romney - Is Willing to “Compromise” in Second Term – A First – History in Illinois Assembly, U.S. Senate Suggest Not

Then Senator Obama (Illinios General Assembly) from 1997 - image from the Illinois General Assembly with bio here

From the APan interview with President Barack Obama prior to the RNC Convention this week – two paragraphs stand out (read the entire AP article here
First:

The 25-minute interview, conducted in the library of the White House residence, was part of a multi-faceted campaign by Obama's team to snag some of the spotlight during Romney's big week. Obama denied the notion, widely if quietly held in political circles, that the fiercely competitive president is also driven to beat Romney because he does not hold him in high regard.
"I don't really know him well," Obama said. "The big arguments that I have with Gov. Romney have to do with where we take this country forward."

Second:

Obama also offered a glimpse of how he would govern in a second term of divided government, insisting rosily that the forces of the election would help break Washington's stalemate. He said he would be willing to make a range of compromises with Republicans, confident there are some who would rather make deals than remain part of "one of the least productive Congresses in American history."

In the first paragraph noted above, the fact that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are unlikely to know one another personally is a given – based on both mens previous occupations and opportunities available for their paths to cross. Barack Obama went from the halls of academia and Community Organizations to the Illinois State Legislature, and a short stint as an Illinois U.S. Senator, before becoming President. Romney went from Harvard, to business, to the Olympics, to the Massachusetts Governors Office to a run for the Presidency. Their upbringings did, however, bring both men to various parts of the world – The President’s early childhood spent in Indonesia, while as a teenager Romney was in France as a missionary. The experiences, perhaps shaping them somewhat - Indonesia, a third-world country, assuming from the President’s Book “Dreams of My Father”, that life in Indonesia was less than wonderful, while Romney, from article accounts (the few there are), suggest he became, from necessity, frugal while on mission in Europe (which may explain his divesting himself of an inheritance and living in a Boston basement apartment out of choice.) At no time would either have an opportunity to get together for say – a round of golf? Therefore, when one is making assessments about what someone may or may not do – one should have at least something solid to stand on – a record perhaps, rather than conjecture based on association. If that were the case, then one might not be able to take exception when detractors challenge past associations as probable cause for Obama’s present actions.

In the second paragraph noted, the President speaks to compromising with the “Republicans”. However, one has to look hard and long to find where the President has ever compromised his firmly held convictions. In fact, searching the Illinois General Assembly Archives, yield nothing more than partisanship – from the beginning – The archives, located at http://www.ilga.gov/previousga.asp are searchable from sessions beginning in 1971, both the legislature (assembly) and the state senate. As to articles found, one in particular stands out as regard to the Senator from Illinois, a In Congress A Vanishing Center – the date: November 14th, 2004. In this article which describes the defeat of Tom Daschle and his replacement, Harry Reid, there is mention of the Senator from Illinois: “What's more, the Democrats' biggest new star, Barack Obama of Illinois, has unabashedly advocated a left-of-center platform. Obama, who will be the sole African American member of the Senate, electrified the Democratic Convention last summer with his keynote address, and party leaders hope he will become a high-profile critic of conservative excess. With his election all but assured, Obama campaigned for other Democratic candidates, so he arrives in Washington with plenty of chits and a rock-star rep.”. The article paints a picture of a Right and Left view of the nation, without compromise – has anything changed?

Not exactly, or by much, but historically, looking at both individuals, as Governor, Mitt Romney did walk across the aisle (a search of mass.gov reveals 302 instances), and that got him barbs from hard-line Massachusetts Conservatives (yes there is such an animal), but also saw the unemployment rate drop, household income rise, all with a Republican Governor and a Democrat Legislature. It is the individual who knows corporate diplomacy (yes, there is such an animal) that will be able to transition that role to government – as proven by Mitt Romney. Then there is the left of center individual, who is grounded in partisanship that runs so deep, with votes cast along strictly party lines, for decades, that has a lack of diplomatic skills and is patently unable to compromise their “principals” in order to move legislation or the nation forward.

Is either man seeking the office perfect? Hardly, for perfection would be impossible, with few exceptions (See the Delhi Lama, or the Pope for perfection in negotiations between state and religions – they are both, heads of Church and Heads of State) historically. Therefore, as one can anticipate this election will be about division (see the media constant negatives on Romney and Ryan as the polls turn), more than anything else, and the nation has the task of choosing a Leader that will be willing to compromise from the get-go, and one who will, if unwilling to compromise, be able to negotiate with the other side, and bring them around to seeing a point of view. One has to ask themselves, which one of the two would be more probable to meet the criteria of compromise to move this nation forward.

2016 Obama’s America – Stun – Packed Massachusetts Movie Theater Erupts into Applause – Review

Movie Posters with 2016 Obama's America at a Virginia Theater, image dailylife.com

The Documentary, 2016 Obama’s America, by scholar, Dinesh D'Souza, surprised the film industry this weekend, by coming in 8th overall for the weekend, against the blockbusters, films playing in over 3000 theaters, to the current and expanding 1091 theaters showing the documentary. In addition, it easily surpassed the all-time record breaking political films by Michael Moore. (Deadline: Hollywood). The Los Angeles Times on Friday suggested that the film could see 6 million in sales for the weekend(*LA Times) - the weekend total: 9.4 million (*Deadline Hollywood).

My husband and I decided to see the film after reading a review at CBS Local Boston, entitled: “’2016: Obama’s America’ Movie Is Disturbingly Necessary” The review suggests that the author was not inclined to put much stock in the documentary because hard right commentators such as Sean Hannity appeared to promote the film. He changed his stance once he saw the film.

We decided to see the film during a convenient Saturday afternoon showing yesterday, at the Rave Motion Pictures in West Springfield, MA. The thinking was that it was unlikely the film would be crowded, as it was a documentary and the day was pleasant and sunny. At first that appeared to be the case – as we entered the theater there were only 4 to 5 individuals at the showing. Again, Saturday afternoon showings of feature films hardly fill the theaters, let alone a documentary. It was 5 minutes before show time, previews were running and the theater began to fill - with families, single movie goes, old, young, and most importantly, diverse. Needless to say, we were both somewhat surprised.

The Movie itself was an eye-opener, as I personally felt I knew enough background to form an opinion, and had written about a few of the elements contained in the film – I was wrong - D’Souza’s research was impeccable, and the approach of the film was one of a curiosity seeker and not overly partisan, although counting the fact that D’Souza speaks about being a conservative in the film, does not quantify him as a “hard-right partisan” – he negates that by utilizing fact.

As the movie came to an end, the packed theater erupted into applause. That was the most shocking element of the film. A group of 100 (estimating what a full theater might hold), diverse individuals, applauding a documentary, was a first experience. In times past, popular films of fiction might elicit that response, but a documentary? Hardly. This is especially intriguing since this documentary was playing in the heart of Western Massachusetts, the most left of center area of the Bay-State, outside of Cambridge. My husband quipped, “These are voters”. My thoughts on that, if an individual was not intending to vote, and was of an age to vote, this movie is a game-changer.

If one has not seen the film, and wants to experience the theater (rather than wait for the DVD release), locations and ticket times can be found at http://www.fandango.com/2016obamasamerica_157117/movietimes

The movie trailer is below: