Historically Speaking - Polling and Outcomes – Nov. 3, 1980 – Carter-Reagan Polls – Too Close to Call! Result – Reagan takes 49 States in Landslide

Screenshot of Google News Archive, Sarasota Herald Tribune, eve of 1980 Election - Polls too Close to Call

With growing skepticism the public is watching polling data that has depicted the 2012 Presidential Race as too close to call for months. The usual post convention bounce that a candidate receives has not materialized (Obama takes slim post-convention lead over Romney: Reuters/Ipsos poll), and there is much talk about the fact that polling is skewed in favor of one party over another by “over-sampling” Democrats by 8 points (Examiner.com).

The economy remains in tatters with unemployment at remaining at 8.1% heading into September, and a net job creation of 96,000 jobs – nationwide(Associated Press via Yahoo News), which begs the questions, why are poll numbers so close? It may be that polls are skewed; it may be that individuals have not made up their minds (5%) or it may be that polling data, even polling data days before an election, pull random samples that, for whatever reason, are not representative of the general population. Of course, there are those reports of harassment of pollsters who show too large a lead over a challenger (See Daily Caller on Gallup Polling).

History, as “they” say, appears to repeat itself. President Obama as been compared to President Jimmy Carter since the first year of his presidency, based on two principles: his inexperience, and his policies. The almost eerie comparison continued during the 2012 Democrat Convention, with the party platform and call for a second term based on “not enough time to right the economy” the same as the 1980 Democrat Convention and appeal to the nation. The kicker: Polling data in 1980, the day before the general election in November, suggested that the race was “too close to call”, by two major pollsters (Harris and Gallup) Sarasota Herald Tribune: “Final Gallup Harris Poll Shows Reagan with Slim Lead Over Carter”. That’s worth repeating, slim lead, the final Gallup 47-44%, or too close to call.

The results: ”Voters Elect Reagan in Landslide Win” It was billed as too close to call….(Mid-Cities Daily News). In fact, Reagan won 49 of 50 states, the exception being the home state of his running mate Walter Mondale. For years, Carter’s approval ratings from Gallup were below 50%. Comparatively, the past three state by state Gallup Approval ratings show President Obama with a dozen states or less with an approval rating just at 50% or more. The latest gives the President 13: WA, CA, MN, IL, NY(55%), MA (54.7%), CT (53.2%), DE, NJ (53.3), MD (54.5%), DC (82.9%!), and RI(57.8%), HI (high 50’s) , VT (55.5). The states not noted have an approval under 51% (between 50.0 to 50.8). Therefore, all states with the exception of DC, and RI are outside the margin of error. If one were to suggest that there was no connection to the approval rating and the polling data on election match-ups – then one would be – delusional.

Therefore, using this particular model, and giving the 50% plus states to the President, the Electoral College vote count becomes: (CNN Interactive Electoral College Map) –gives the President 185 to Romney’s 353 Electoral College votes. Although still early in the contest, and only projections by pundits both professional and non, one can hardly predict an outcome no matter which data one is using. That said, the comparisons are striking, and, as an Historian, it is not without some interest that this race is shaping up as it has – down to the tiny details.

AP Fact Check’s President Obama’s Speech – AP Defends Romney – Gallup Polling – Attempted Bullying by Obama Campaign’s Axelrod for Romney Lead!

The Obama-Biden Campaign Team Wraps Up the DNC Convention - image bayoubuzz.com


The Associated Presshas Fact Checked President Obama’s closing arguments speech for a second term and here is what they found:

President Barack Obama laid claim to a peace dividend that doesn't exist when he told the nation he wants to use money saved by ending wars to build highways, schools and bridges.
The wars were largely financed by borrowing, so there is no ready pile of cash to be diverted to anything else.
The claim was one of several by Obama in his acceptance speech Thursday at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., and by Vice President Joe Biden in earlier remarks that did not match the facts. A look at some of their assertions:

...THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially "pay down our debt," as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the "extra nation-building" he envisions.

...THE FACTS: Some of the proposals the Obama administration has floated in budget negotiations with Congress would ask Medicare beneficiaries to pay more. Among them: revamping co-payments and deductibles in ways that could raise costs for retirees and increasing premiums for certain beneficiaries.

...THE FACTS: Obama has claimed an increase of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 29 months. But this is cherry picking by the president. From the beginning of Obama's term 3 1/2 years ago, manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing jobs have been on a steady decline for nearly two decades.

...THE FACTS: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's proposal is actually aimed at encouraging investment in the U.S., not overseas.

...THE FACTS: Biden wasn't referring to any Medicare plan of Romney or running mate Paul Ryan, but to the consequences of fully repealing Obama's health care law, which is unpopular with seniors even though it has sweetened Medicare in certain ways. A Medicare plan put forward by Ryan in Congress would have no immediate effect because it would apply only to future retirees.

(The Associated Press)

Well, knock me over with a feather!

In another recent development – The Daily Caller is in possession of emails between Gallup Polling employees and David Axelrod, Sr. Campaign Adviser for the Obama Campaign. These emails apparently are an attempt to bully the polling firm into a more modified methodology – especially as Mitt Romney was leading the President at the time – Gallup declined and has been threatened with a DOJ lawsuit. The DC goes on to suggest that other polling firms may have caved into the Obama Campaign’s strong-arm tactics and the result is more favorable polling for the President in other firms analysis. Read the entire story here at http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters.

Making sense of the polling data showing a dead heat for an extended period of time has been a bit mind-boggling considering that Gallup, which is the most conservative polling institute (and by conservative, the meaning is a-political, suggesting careful in their analysis rather than to the right or left), has taken year by year, state by state Presidential approval polls – all of which show the President with approval ratings breaching 50% in only ten to a dozen or so (in the most recent) states. This would suggest that the polling methodology would match a nation that is far from split or evenly divided – See Analysis on electoral college here here at this blog.

To maintain a 39 state disadvantage in approval ratings for a three year period of time does not bode well for an incumbent President, therefore, polling should suggest that the incumbent would have a disadvantage out of the gate, with any challenger. The polling should suggest the same, and likely voters polled on any given day would give the challenger an advantage an advantage in those states. In using data that projects a model that is not in line with the most recent national elections, either in polling and/or predictions of election outcomes by pundits (i.e. using data from 2008 to project 2012, rather than 2010 or present available models to project 2012) is creating the allusion that one candidate has a lead or is even, when the opposite is more probable. The mood of the nation has not improved since the 2010 Congressional drubbing of the Democrats, rather it has declined. To use older models, instead of current models, as was done in 2010, makes for a shocked nation that consumes the national news outlets when the election results are tallied. National or State “mood” at the moment generally trumps candidate versus candidate polling – the best example of which was the 2009 special election for the Massachusetts Senate Seat won by Scott Brown. The Boston Globe ran a poll days before the election showing Brown’s competitor, Democrat Martha Coakley with a 15 point lead – this poll was produced by the University of New Hampshire – In fact, the Globe was so convinced that on the eve of the election a screen shot of the outcome suggested by the Globe showed Coakley with a sweeping win! That was removed once the “news” of the screenshot went viral. The outcome of that election, with the dead voting and the ballots overstuffed was a 5 point lead for Brown. With the current mood of the nation, and the tone of negativity and divisiveness coming from the Obama Campaign, one would suggest an electoral projection that gives the Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney, a solid advantage at the moment. The fact that the AP was compelled to “Fact Check” the President’s campaign speech and honestly report the facts as have been suggested by the Romney Campaign is also telling. Whether the national news organizations will report this particular gem from the AP is another story entirely – and a screen shot appears below to confirm its very existence.

Finally the fact that the race appears close is favoring the challenger rather than the incumbent, call this assertion crazy if one must, but consider that in fundraising appeals from both sides – the race is a tie! This induces the recipients who favor one candidate over another to send more than the usual donation. In the latest FEC filings, the candidate that brought in the most individual donations under $200 from all areas, including urban areas where they have been weak in previous reporting, is Mitt Romney. Therefore, it appears that those pollsters who intended or were coerced (see Daily Caller) into a more favorable poll for the President have unintentionally helped the Romney Campaign – oh the irony.



AP Fact Check Obama Speech 1


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 2


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 3

President Bill Clinton Delivers – The Last of the Great Orators Stands Up - Full Text of Speech - Fact Check Required

One of America's Greatest President's - William Jefferson Clinton - on stage at the 2012 DNC Convention brought down the house - Clinton's history of playing a bit fast and loose with facts, overshadowed by Political Artistry of his Speech- photograph - Telegraph UK

President Bill Clinton gave the keynote speech at last night’s 2012 Democrat Convention, and I was, in a word used by Clinton “a doozy”. The manner in which Clinton can hold the attention of a room and rouse people to their feet is unsurpassed in today’s political arena. In the manner in which Clinton both complements and derides an opponent is an art that has been lost on the political stage – forming an argument and delivering a soaring rhetorical rendition of the same, without screaming once, is why he was and remains one of America’s favorite Presidents. If Clinton were running for a third term, there would be no contest – or Hillary, who is gifted with the same ability to move an audience, one could tell, as President Clinton was speaking, how proud he was of his wife, the Secretary of State. Although one might not agree with Clinton on policy, one has to give the man credit. That said there were a few minor things that President Clinton suggested were fact, that were playing a bit fast and loose with the facts, as he attempted to boost the “record” of President Obama.

In the speech, with full text below, Clinton suggests that there is no compromise with the Republican Party – that it is a lost art – however, the facts are in the Congressional Record, whereby, specifically with budgets and with the Health Care Reform Act, members of the Republican Party, including Paul Ryan (more on that), wanted input time and again, and were turned away – of course, for the first two years of his Presidency, Barack Obama has a full house and full Senate majority – which basically stifled the Republican’s and today, the chief obstructionist as far as getting anything accomplished is the Senator from Utah, one Harry Reid (D). It was in the 11th hour of total control of all three houses of government, that the Health Care Reform Bill, a long and rambling hastily pieced together tome of legislation was handed to the entire Congress and literally pushed through without thought or arguments. Then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in pushing the bill, suggested that it be signed and once singed,we would find out what was in it!”(You Tube)- In 2010 when the disgust of the American people elected a majority to the House of Representatives, it was because the total control of all three branches appeared out of control.

Clinton speaks to the control of health care costs in a system that would give government the same control as it now has over Medicare and Medicaid, with some additions, panels that would determine almost every aspect of health care, including procedures and the necessity of such on an individual basis. It has gutted the medical device manufactures, (those companies that make such items as pacemakers, hips, knees, etc. which affect both the young and the old), it also takes Billion from Medicare in order to meld Medicare with Medicaid, and it will increase the cost of private pay insurance no matter how one slices it. The reason is simple, on the later, insurance costs are based on a what is known as a “risk pool” – when there are too many “risks” in the pool, and profits are low, as a result the risks result in an immediate increase in one’s premium – In Massachusetts for example, where there are only three insurance carriers in the state, the premiums have an annual increase of approximately 10 to 30% - and when one is paying $1000 a month for insurance, that is generally when one drops their coverage which is no longer affordable. Of course, when that occurs one is subject to the fines (which are equal to a low cost insurance policy, this is factored by the state). The individual and families who find themselves unable to pay the price of the monthly premiums, then pay the Department of Revenue – or face garnishment – the rate varies, and remains under $2000 annually. The only way to bring the price of premiums down is to allow more carriers to compete for the businesses, this spreads the “risk” among a greater number of carriers, and the costs come down. That is not included in the health care act. Furthermore, the penalty for non-compliance is much larger – up to $25,000. If one does not have, or is in a state that is limited in carriers, and cannot afford to pay – they will be faced with the IRS and garnishment of wages in the event they cannot “pony “up. This is not a fantasy – the Bill in its entirety is available here: at www.gpo.gov one need only search for key words, Medicare, or panel, or fine.

In order to protect student loans from those pesky private lenders (who offered interest rates as low as 3.25%, the federal government in the same breath, took over the student loan industry. The new interest rates are slightly higher, at 6.8% - there are forgiveness riders invested in this bill, but again the costs of attending a four year college, especially a state college are exorbitant, more individuals are taking advantage of the community colleges, which are fine, however, options and the ability to afford a private 4 year college are now limited to only those who can truly afford the tuition, or face massive student loans.

In speaking about Paul Ryan, one must remember that Ryan and Clinton share concerns on spending – of course in private – see both at a summit, behind the cameras (See You Tube Video here

The fact that there are millions of jobs available, yet empty, as there are not the skills to attain these jobs, belies the fact that there is 8% unemployment nationally, and in some cases and in some states (Massachusetts), certain cities have higher unemployment rates. See map here: data.bls.gov. – the Bureau of Labor Statistics

On Mitt Romney, Clinton has flattered Romney to the point where it was questioned if he could deliver to his party - (See Youtube Video here on You Tube)

Of course, rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, and it is a lost art that so many of the past employed with grace and ability to form an argument and meet in the middle – which is what is sadly lacking – One more fact: Presidnet Obama and his supportive PACS have led the most negative campaign to date, making Romney-Ryan appear passive at times. (New York Times)
The art of compromise, where one needs to have flexibility and the abilities to lose part of an argument graciously in order to win the other part. What we now have, and what President Clinton (of course his main job at the Convention was to beef up the President’s reelection efforts, to the best of his ability), is referring to is a stalemate, which exists not on one side but on both. There is one glaring exception to this rule and that is Senator Scott Brown (R) from Massachustts –one of the most independent of Senators.
Of course, with both conventions the point is to a)introduce all candidates to the nation at large (the President and VP) as well as frame a case for election (or reelection), and in the process to take swipes at the other team – it’s called Politics, and what American saw last night was the Art of Politics. Unfortunately, Will Jefferson Clinton is not running for office. Therefore, the American Public must decide on record, and on who they trust more to right the ship that is the economy. It was not without some humor that Clinton took a line of Ronald Regan’s in his speech, because Reagan’s Trickledown (voodoo) economics, too the malaise that was the blighted economy under Carter, and in two years transformed the nation into a robust economic state. This is the difference between two ideologies, on the one hand, the ideology that believes that through government there is prosperity (a model yet to work) and on the other hand, an ideology that believes in shared obligations by both the state and federal governments as outlined in that pesky document the U.S. Constitution.
The Speech.
The speech in full text appears below courtesy of The Washington Post

Published: September 5
Former President William J. Clinton delivers remarks at the Democratic National Convention on September 5, 2012 (full transcript):
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, we are here to nominate a president...
(APPLAUSE)
... and I’ve got one in mind.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. I want to nominate a man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then, just six weeks before his election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression, a man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter -- no matter how many jobs that he saved or created, there’d still be millions more waiting, worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive.
I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside...
(APPLAUSE)
... but who burns for America on the inside.
(APPLAUSE)
I want -- I want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American dream economy, driven by innovation and creativity, by education and, yes, by cooperation.
And by the way, after last night, I want a man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
You know...
(APPLAUSE)
I -- I...
(APPLAUSE)
I want -- I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. And...
(APPLAUSE)
... I proudly nominate him to be the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.
(APPLAUSE) Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk...
(LAUGHTER)
... all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. This Republican narrative, this alternative universe says that...
(APPLAUSE)
... every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we’re all completely self-made. One of the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself.
(LAUGHTER)
But, as Strauss then admitted, it ain’t so.
(LAUGHTER)
We Democrats, we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it, with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. You see, we believe that “We’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “You’re on your own.”
(APPLAUSE)
So who’s right? Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there’s -- there’s a reason for this. It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. Why? Because poverty, discrimination, and ignorance restrict growth.
(APPLAUSE)
When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people who are affected. It hurts us all.
(APPLAUSE)
We know that investments in education and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase growth. They increase good jobs, and they create new wealth for all the rest of us.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there’s something I’ve noticed lately. You probably have, too. And it’s this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats.
(APPLAUSE)
I -- that -- that would be impossible for me, because President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan in his White House on the first round of welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals.
(APPLAUSE)
I’m actually very grateful to -- if you saw from the film what I do today, I have to be grateful -- and you should be, too -- that President George W. Bush supported PEPFAR. It saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries. And...
(APPLAUSE)
... I have been honored to work with both Presidents Bush on natural disasters in the aftermath of the South Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the horrible earthquake in Haiti. Through my foundation both in America and around the world, I’m working all the time with Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Sometimes I couldn’t tell you for the life who I’m working with because we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities and not fighting all the time.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- so here’s what I want to say to you. And here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good, but what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation.
(APPLAUSE)
What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities. Ask the mayors who are here.
(APPLAUSE)
Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it.
(APPLAUSE)
They didn’t check their brains at the door. They didn’t stop disagreeing. But their purpose was to get something done.
Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day.
(APPLAUSE)
And every one of us -- every one of us and every one of them, we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time, and hopefully we’re right more than twice a day.
(LAUGHTER)
Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness. Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security.
They beat a Republican congressman with almost 100 percent voting record on every conservative score because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a non-starter, and they threw him out.
(LAUGHTER)
One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation.
(APPLAUSE)
Look at his record. Look at his record. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army, and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. And he trusted that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the Recovery Act.
(APPLAUSE)
And Joe Biden -- Joe Biden did a great job with both.
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- now, he -- President Obama -- President Obama appointed several members of his cabinet, even though they supported Hillary in the primary. Heck, he even appointed Hillary.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, wait a minute. I am -- I am very proud of her. I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America.
(APPLAUSE)
I am grateful that they have worked together to make it safer and stronger to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I’m grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed. And the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a -- have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, besides the national security team, I am very grateful to the men and women who’ve served our country in uniform through these perilous times.
(APPLAUSE)
And I am especially grateful to Michelle Obama and to Jill Biden for supporting those military families while their loved ones were overseas...
(APPLAUSE)
... and for supporting our veterans when they came home, when they come home bearing the wounds of war or needing help to find education or jobs or housing. President Obama’s whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, to his judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. We need more of it in Washington, D.C.
(APPLAUSE)
We all know that he also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and new jobs. And that didn’t work out so well.
(LAUGHTER)
But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, two full years before the election, their number-one priority was not to put America back to work. It was to put the president out of work.
(APPLAUSE)
(BOOING)
Well -- wait a minute. Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we’re going to keep President Obama on the job.
(APPLAUSE)
Are you willing to work for it?
(APPLAUSE)
Wait a minute.
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
CLINTON: In Tampa...
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
CLINTON: In Tampa -- in Tampa, did y’all watch their convention? I did.
(LAUGHTER)
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re- election was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy. It went something like this: “We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- but -- but they did it well. They looked good, they sounded good. They convinced me...
(LAUGHTER)
... that they all love their families and their children, and we’re grateful they’ve been born in America, and all -- really, I’m not being -- they did.
(LAUGHTER)
And this is important. They convinced me they were honorable people who believe what they’ve said and they’re going to keep every commitment they’ve made. We’ve just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are.
(APPLAUSE)
Because -- because in order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn’t say very much about the ideas they’ve offered over the last two years. They couldn’t, because they want to go back to the same, old policies that got us in trouble in the first place.
They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more than President Bush did. They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit federal bailouts. They want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested, without saying what they’ll spend it on. And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children. As another president once said, there they go again.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I like...
(APPLAUSE)
I -- I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy. He put a floor under the crash. He began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good, new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for innovators.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? Of course not. But are we better off than we were when he took office?
(APPLAUSE)
Listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody (inaudible)
(APPLAUSE)
Everybody (inaudible) when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in freefall. It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today?
AUDIENCE: Yes!
CLINTON: The answer is yes. Now, look. Here’s the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I’ve been there. A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again, and in a lot of places, housing prices have even began to pick up.
But too many people do not feel it yet. I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early ‘95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn’t feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States. But...
(APPLAUSE)
... the difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.
(APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Now -- but he has -- he has laid the foundations for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. And if you will renew the president’s contract, you will feel it. You will feel it.
(APPLAUSE)
Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, why do I believe it? I’m fixing to tell you why. I believe it because President Obama’s approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America has to take to build a 21st-century version of the American dream, a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community.
So let’s get back to the story. In 2010, as the president’s recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around. The Recovery Act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes -- let me say this again -- cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
And in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president’s job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.
(APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
During this period -- during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.
(APPLAUSE)
And I’ll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved...
(APPLAUSE)
It saved more than a million jobs, and not just at G.M., Chrysler, and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That’s why even the automakers who weren’t part of the deal supported it. They needed to save those parts suppliers, too. Like I said, we’re all in this together.
(APPLAUSE)
So what’s happened? There are now 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured.
(APPLAUSE)
So -- now, we all know that Governor Romney opposed the plan to save G.M. and Chrysler. So here’s another job score. Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country?
(APPLAUSE)
Here -- here’s another job score. Obama: 250,000. Romney: zero.
AUDIENCE: Zero!
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Now, the agreement the administration made with the management, labor, and environmental groups to double car mileage, that was a good deal, too. It will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill. No matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. It will make us more energy independent. It will cut greenhouse gas emission. And according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it will bring us another 500,000 good, new jobs into the American economy.
(APPLAUSE)
The president’s energy strategy, which he calls all-of-the-above, is helping, too. The boom in oil and gas production, combined with greater energy efficiency, has driven oil imports to a near 20-year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. And renewable energy production has doubled.
(APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
Of course, we need a lot more new jobs, but there are already more than 3 million jobs open and unfilled in America, mostly because the people who apply for them don’t yet have the required skills to do them. So even as we get Americans more jobs, we have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are actually going to be created. The old economy is not coming back. We’ve got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
The president and his education secretary have supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for jobs that are actually open in their communities. And even more important, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the dropout rate so much that the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees.
So the president’s student loan reform is more important than ever. Here’s what it does. Here’s what it does. Here’s what it does.
(APPLAUSE)
You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It lowers the cost of federal student loans. And even more important, it gives students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It means no one will ever have to drop out of college again for fear they can’t repay their debt.
(APPLAUSE)
And it means -- it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won’t have to turn those jobs down because they don’t pay enough to repay the debt. Their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. This will change the future for young Americans. (APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I don’t know about you, but all these issues, I know we’re better off because President Obama made the decisions he did.
Now, that brings me to health care.
(APPLAUSE)
And the Republicans call it, derisively, “Obamacare.” They say it’s a government takeover, a disaster, and that if we’ll just elect them, they’ll repeal it. Well, are they right?
AUDIENCE: No!
CLINTON: Let’s take a look at what’s actually happened so far. First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more than $1 billion in refunds from insurance companies because the new law requires 80 percent to 85 percent of your premium to go to your health care, not profits or promotion. And...
(APPLAUSE)
The gains are even greater than that, because a bunch of insurance companies have applied to lower their rates to comply with the requirement.
Second, more than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them.
(APPLAUSE)
Third, millions of seniors are receiving preventive care, all the way from breast cancer screenings to test for heart problems and scores of other things, and younger people are getting them, too.
Fourth, soon the insurance companies -- not the government, the insurance companies -- will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, finally, listen to this. For the last two years, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years, health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years.
(APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
So let me ask you something. Are we better off because President Obama fought for health care reform? You bet we are.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there were two other attacks on the president in Tampa I think deserve an answer. First, both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly “robbing Medicare” of $716 billion. That’s the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it’s not true.
Look, here’s what really happened. You be the judge. Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all, none.
What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that were not making people healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.
(APPLAUSE)
And instead of raiding Medicare, he used the savings to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- you all got to listen carefully to this. This is really important -- and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund so it is solvent until 2024. So...
(APPLAUSE)
So President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare. They strengthened Medicare.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, when Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as, quote, “the biggest, coldest power play,” I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry...
(LAUGHTER)
... because that $716 billion is exactly to the dollar the same amount of Medicare savings that he has in his own budget!
(APPLAUSE)
You got to give one thing: It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- so -- wait a minute.
(APPLAUSE)
Now you’re having a good time, but this is getting serious, and I want you to listen.
(LAUGHTER)
It’s important, because a lot of people believe this stuff. Now, at least on this issue, on this one issue, Governor Romney has been consistent. He...
(LAUGHTER)
He attacked President Obama, too, but he actually wants to repeal those savings and give the money back to the insurance company.
(BOOING)
He wants to go back to the old system, which means we’ll reopen the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we’ll reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight full years.
(BOOING)
So if he’s elected, and if he does what he promised to do, Medicare will now go broke in 2016. Think about that. That means after all we won’t have to wait until their voucher program kicks in, in 2023, to see the end of Medicare as we know it. They’re going to do it to us sooner than we thought.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, folks, this is serious, because it gets worse. And you won’t be laughing when I finish telling you this. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming 10 years. Of course, that’s going to really hurt a lot of poor kids.
But that’s not all. A lot of folks don’t know it, but nearly two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors who are eligible for Medicaid.
(APPLAUSE)
(APPLAUSE)
It’s going to end Medicare as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help people with disabilities, including...
(APPLAUSE)
... a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down’s syndrome or autism or other severe conditions.
And, honestly, just think about it. If that happens, I don’t know what those families are going to do. So I know what I’m going to do: I’m going to do everything I can to see that it doesn’t happen. We can’t let it happen. We can’t.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, wait a minute. Let’s look...
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
CLINTON: Let’s look at the other big charge the Republicans made. It’s a real doozy.
(LAUGHTER)
They actually have charged and run ads saying that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. Wait. You need to know, here’s what happened.
(LAUGHTER)
Nobody ever tells you what really happened. Here’s what happened. When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened, because we all know it’s hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today, so moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment.
Now, did -- did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less.
(APPLAUSE)
So this is personal to me. We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that, in the eight years I was president, we had 100 times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, 100 times as many. It’s a big deal.
(APPLAUSE)
But I am telling you, the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true. But they keep on running ads claiming it.
You want to know why? Their campaign pollster said, “We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Now, finally I can say: That is true.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
I -- I -- I couldn’t have said it better myself.
(LAUGHTER)
And I hope you and every American within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads, and it turns into an ad to re-elect Barack Obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can.
(APPLAUSE)
Now let’s talk about the debt. Today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. People are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them. But it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. We’ve got to deal with this big long-term debt problem or it will deal with us. It’ll gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we’d rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. It -- we’ve got to deal with it.
Now, what has the president done? He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2.5 trillion coming from -- for every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.
Now, I think this plan is way better than Governor Romney’s plan. First, the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers just don’t add up.
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, consider this. What would you do if you had this problem? Somebody says, “Oh, we’ve got a big debt problem. We’ve got to reduce the debt.” So what’s the first thing he says we’re going to do? “Well, to reduce the debt, we’re going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts, heavily weighted to upper-income people. So we’ll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it.”
Now, when you say, “What are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on?” They say, “Oh, we’ll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.” So then you ask, “Well, which loopholes? And how much?” You know what they say? “See me about that after the election.”
(LAUGHTER)
I’m not making it up. That’s their position. “See me about that after the election.”
Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic.
(APPLAUSE)
If -- arithmetic.
(APPLAUSE)
If they stay with this $5 trillion tax cut plan in a debt reduction plan, the arithmetic tells us, no matter what they say, one of three things is about to happen. One, assuming they try to do what they say they’ll do -- get rid of -- cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions -- one, they’ll have to eliminate so many deductions, like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that middle- class families will see their tax bills go up an average of $2,000, while anybody who makes $3 million or more will see their tax bill go down $250,000.
(BOOING) Or, two, they’ll have to cut so much spending that they’ll obliterate the budget for the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel. They’ll cut way back on Pell grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the programs that help to empower middle-class families and help poor kids. Oh, they’ll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research. That’s what they’ll do. They’ll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who’ve been getting it all along.
Or, three, in spite of all the rhetoric, they’ll just do what they’ve been doing for more than 30 years. They’ll go and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they’ll just explode the debt and weaken the economy, and they’ll destroy the federal government’s ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments.
Don’t you ever forget, when you hear them talking about this, that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office...
(APPLAUSE)
... and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic.
(LAUGHTER)
It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four.
(APPLAUSE)
It’s arithmetic. We simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double-down on trickle-down.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, think about this. President Obama...
(APPLAUSE)
President Obama’s plan cuts the debt, honors our values, brightens the future of our children, our families, and our nation. It’s a heck of a lot better. It passes the arithmetic test and, far more important, it passes the values test.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, we’ll be deciding what kind of country we want to live in. If you want a winner-take- all, you’re-on-your-own society, you should support the Republican ticket. But if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility, a we’re-all-in-this-together society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
(APPLAUSE)
If you...
(APPLAUSE)
If you want -- if you want America -- if you want every American to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures...
(APPLAUSE)
... just -- just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority, and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
And if you think -- if you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college, you must vote for Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
If -- if you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty’s declining, where the American dream is really alive and well again, and where the United States maintains its leadership as a force for peace and justice and prosperity in this highly competitive world, you have to vote for Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, I love our country so much. And I know we’re coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we’ve always come back. People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden, false teeth. And so far every single person that’s bet against America has lost money, because we always come back.
(APPLAUSE)
We’ve come through every fire a little stronger and a little better. And we do it because, in the end, we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, the cause of forming a more perfect union.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
God bless you. And God bless America.
(APPLAUSE)

The Washington Post

Michelle Obama – Gorgeous, Love the Dress! – Speech and tone – We were Watching Republicans?!

First Lady Michelle Obama, looking stunning, takes the stage, one can find fault with the policy of the President but his choice of running mate (emphasis on the later word) brilliant- image justjared.com.

Michelle Obama, the nation’s first lady, did the nation proud last night, wearing stunning dress that made heads turn as she gracefully walked to the podium and began her version of “trust my husband”. The full text of the first lady’s speech is available here at the Politico In listening to the words, it was about family, the import of the father, the import of the unit as a whole, the fact that people must work hard to achieve, the fact that parents except the next generation to do better so they sacrifice. Barack and the first date, the fact that her children are the central part, and how much she loves her husband, trust him.

The differences between the two women and the two speeches?

Ann Romney wore a different dress, more toned downed and age appropriate.
She basically followed the same pattern, my life, Mitt’s life, love my husband, trust Mitt.

Michelle brought up abortion, and the parties firm stance that women deserve them.
She also brought up gay marriage.

(Those items not on the RNC Platform)

Otherwise, it’s as if they road into prime time, to blame Mitt and to look an awful lot just the crowd we saw just last week.

But the delivery and the messaging was a far cry from the earlier messaging of the DNC - where the earlier message was “we are all under the control of the government and we love it!! (ok, that’s not a direct quote but watch the video here from YouTube – “We All Belong to the Government featuring large, melting ice sculpture of President Obama

No Kidding - now this is entertainment!

Fact Check – Governor Deval Patrick – Democrat Convention Speech – Pinocchio is Blushing!

Governor Deval Patrick (MA-D) speaks to Democrat Convention Party Goers - we've run out of Pinocchio's!

Massachusetts Governor, Democrat, Deval Patrick, gave the 9 o’clock hour speech at the DNC Convention in Charlotte last night, a rousing, come-to-meeting, call-to-arms riff that was short, sweet and to the point – however – chock full of, and shall we say, exaggerations and outright fibs.
The full text of the speech is available at The Huffington Post, an excerpt from that blog is shown below:

In Massachusetts, we know Mitt Romney. By the time he left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation—during better economic times—and household income in our state was declining. He cut education deeper than anywhere else in America. Roads and bridges were crumbling. Business taxes were up, and business confidence was down. Our clean energy potential was stalled. And we had a structural budget deficit. Mitt Romney talks a lot about all the things he's fixed. I can tell you that Massachusetts wasn't one of them. He's a fine fellow and a great salesman, but as governor he was more interested in having the job than doing it.


When I came to office, we set out on a different course: investing in ourselves and our future. And today Massachusetts leads the nation in economic competitiveness, student achievement, health care coverage, life sciences and biotech, energy efficiency and veterans' services. Today, with the help of the Obama administration, we are rebuilding our roads and bridges and expanding broadband access. Today we're out of the deficit hole Mr. Romney left, and we've achieved the highest bond rating in our history. Today—with labor at the table—we've made the reforms in our pension and benefits systems, our schools, our transportation system and more that Mr. Romney only talked about. And today in Massachusetts, you can also marry whomever you love. We have much more still to do. But we are on a better track because we placed our faith not in trickle-down fantasies and divisive rhetoric but in our values and common sense.

(HuffingtonPost)

In the first Paragraph, it is a given that Patrick should know Romney – they passed each other on the way in and the way out of Massachusetts. For example, Romney wanted to cut taxes across the board in Massachusetts, which would have helped businesses, middle and lower income families, as he had walked into a fiscal mess – but, the Democrats, worried that he might gain political advantage, stopped him in his tracks (Boston Globe, 04/26/2005)
Romney also had closed a 3 million dollar budget deficit by the time left office Boston Globe on Romney not seeking reelection

Romney left Massachusetts with a rainy day fund intact – in fact a surplus, which - which Deval Patrick ran through upon taking office – (Boston Globe Fact Check on Baker and Patrick 2010 Governors race) – the amount was in dispute, the amount that was in the rainy day fund, as well as the amount Governor Patrick ran through immediately upon taking office.

On wanting and doing the job of Governor Mitt Romney never took a salary during his time as Governor, he was asked to run by the State Republican Leadership

He was inclusive of both women and all ethnic groups – ask: Jane Edmonds, former Massachusetts Secretary of Workforce

Jane Edmonds is a self-described liberal Democrat and an African-American civil rights activist from Massachusetts, Politico reports. But more than that, she's Mitt Romney's friend. "I adore the guy," Edmonds told Politico. "I have seen him behind closed doors in Cabinet meetings. I have seen his compassion. I'm at a point in my life that the character of the human being we entrust to be president is important to me. He would make an excellent president."

(Desert News). Jane Edmonds was not the only woman or Democrat in Romney’s administration.

Deval Patrick’s speak to roads and bridges crumbling: the Big Dig comes to mind – of course, that billion dollar project was not begun by Mitt Romney, he inherited the mess – and fixed it (Springfield Republican) - without pointing a finger at anyone.

He reformed the corrupt and Democrat led Turnpike Authority (Boston Globe) and actually fixed crumbling roads, monies which went into politicians pockets went back to the state.

No need for link – the Massachusetts Supreme Court passed Gay Marriage under Romney’s administration – Deval cannot take credit for that, nor can the Democrats. (Except one can hazard to guess accurately that the Massachusetts Supreme Court is made up of - Democrats)

Romney cut income taxes, which put more money into the pockets of individuals and families as household income rose under Romney’s Leadership Pew Research
On Job creation in the state: the Boston Globe:Patrick often stretches the Truth while critiquing Romney on jobs(2006) – No Kidding – Stretches the truth is nice.

Romney brought education to its pinnacle, insured school choice, brought into play the charter schools, of which Deval Patrick sings praises as if he had something to do with it, and teed of the Teachers Unions, who would suffer if there was competition, he also did not push granny under the bus, or the poor, as he cut administrative positions that were unnecessary – not the necessary budget – (getting rid of the much expected cronyism in government job creation in Massachusetts in all areas)

Although Massachusetts Statistically did rank 47th, there was little place to go –as the unemployment rate was in the 4 percentile, jobs were plentiful,, businesses were in good shape, at least those who stayed after Romney Left realized the full impact of "tax and spend gone wild" (Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature) – because, Romney had to fight against the State’s Business taxes, which made Massachusetts the 4th highest for taxes Globally, and remains there today. Businesses do not readily come to Massachusetts, and since Romney left, so did millions of Massachusetts residents, seeking jobs, seeking a better life, seeking relief from the continues rounds of new taxes put into place by Governor Patrick to pay for expanded services and government. This is why Massachusetts lost a congressional seat with the 2010 census – go figure.

Deval Patrick has taxed Massachusetts to the brink – 19 new taxes passed alone in July of 2010 –including taxes on cable, wireless and other means of delivering entertainment, phone service and electricity to ones homes – he increased the sales tax, the income tax, and a tax on dogs. Everyone was hiding their grandmothers – she was the next “tax” on Devil’s list.

If Patrick were telling a smidgen of truth, he might have reversed the problems, he created, with the issues Romney helped and fixed, and that would have eliminated a plethora of errors.

As a citizen of the Commonwealth, and someone who did not care to learn to much about Governor Romney (as said Citizen was continuously looking at New Hampshire as a possible Haven), it is a process that one does when one vets a candidate – and Deval Patrick is something that happens when one does not vet a candidate. He flew into Massachusetts, on “yes we can”- sound familiar? – He’s the protégé of one David Axelrod (sound familiar?), and as Governor, the Commonwealth is in decline – he likes the job, his salary is available online.

No-one is fact checking the Democrats whose outrageous and inflated speeches only match their enormous egos (all politicians must have this as a prerequisite – well not all). The only one spotted so far was CNN those 4.5 million private sector jobs created by private industry (not Barack Obama) resulted in a net job gain of 300,00 over a period of years – not a huge plus.

Finally Deval Patrick cut Veteren's Benefits, it is the first item on the chopping block of those who suddenly found religion when it comes to the U.S. Military.
Additionally, there were some charges against Mitt Romney that went unanswered, this was due to time, and frankly space - if one were to Face Check Patrick, one would need greater bandwidth. It is the time of the season (political) when parties come together to - party - it's a national election - however, stretching the truth to this extent is just not acceptable. Especially from a man who won reelection by 1 point, with the help of a Democrat turned Independent until after the election was won, by that one point. Of note: one might also consider that Deval Patrick, a brother-in-arms, with Barack Obama, both under the tutelage and mastership of David Axelrod, might employ similar tactics while governing and stretching the truth- yes, yes they do.

Democrat Platform – 1980 and 2012 – Charlotte Goes Back in Time – We inherited this Mess - The Economy is in Recovery - Tax the Rich

The Delegate Map for the 2012 DNC Convention: (The Delegates are of the most import, unless Super-delegates decide to nominate someone else) - Image from: the Obamacrat.com


Just for kicks, taking the time out today, at the start of the National Democrat Convention in Charlotte, NC, taking a trip back in time to 1980 and the Convention to reelect James Carter, one looks to the party platform of the day. What was interesting is that the language used in 1980 differed dramatically from that used in the 2012 Democrat Party platform, more businesslike, less rhetoric, however, the basics remain the same (some changed due to the passage of time and history) – that said, below are some highlights with links to both platforms – Those that stayed the same: It’s someone else’s fault, I need more time, Everything is on schedule, Medicare is fine: Carter saved it, apparently, and President Obama just wants to preserve it (without mentioning bankruptcy), Women, in 1980 there was short attention paid to women, but there was the Equal Rights Amendment. The 2012 Democrat Platform finds women on page 51 – with promises of Equal Pay (even though JFK passed an Equal Pay Act back in the 1960’s, and of course, The Right to Choose – a political football that has been the mantra of the Democrats since Wade versus Roe passed, and nothing, nothing, either party has done will make a difference. The economy – Tax the Rich raise up the unions. There are, as noted in both Platforms, fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats, which..isn’t that the point? To present a vision of what would work to improve the nation, a vision of what each party stands for, and a chance to beat up the other guy and leave it for prosperity.

The reason for choosing 1980, and the Carter Convention to compare to the 2012 Obama Convention are simply the economy, and the approach used by both Conventions, thirty years apart, being so similar in scope that it is almost eerie. Therefore, to look back, as one does, when one is vested in History, one can find that repetition is inherent in the political landscape of America – affecting the economy and the way that the Democrat Party focus on the “middle class”, instead of the entire nation, bringing those on the lowest rung of the economic food chain, on a par with those on the highest rung. A nation where those born in poverty can succeed and become one of the 1%. It is, and has been, the party of promises. It is not that the Republican Platforms are all that different, however, that is the whole point of the exercise. To point out the stark contrasts or even similarities between the two – but the platform is of import, as it is a road map of what the party puts first. As a woman who would like to see JFK’s equal pay act enforced, Page 51, is not first. To a woman, who the right to choose has been an obvious political vote-getter (for both sides), the issue belongs to the individual states, and the same can be said of “Same –Sex Marriage – neither of these issues, in a party platform mean a hill of beans in the real world. What does: The economy and how to move it forward? One might suggest, after having read the Carter Convention Platform, that one research the rocket ship that was the economy once Ronald Regan was in the Oval Office, it did not happen completely overnight, but by the end of his first term (which led to a second) the “clown” in the oval office (for that was the Media speak for Ronald Reagan), had righted the ship, and one William Jefferson Clinton walked into power with the ship sustainable and went on to become another great American President – at that point, there was a slight recession, which, is normal for the economy – ups, and downs, which can be affected by policy. In matters of the economy as one looks at both platforms, one has to ask: Do either of these resemble the reality of the economy now? Sure pains a rosy picture.

The 1980 Democrat Party Platform (Excerpts):

After nearly four years in office, we Democrats have not solved all of America's problems.
Most of these problems we inherited. Eight years of Republican politics left this nation weak, rudderless, unrespected and deeply divided.
As a result of this legacy, despite our progress, inflation still erodes the standard of living of every American.
As a result of this legacy, despite our progress, too many Americans are out of work.
As a result of this legacy, despite our progress, complete equality for all citizens has yet to be achieved.
As a result of this legacy, despite our progress, we still live in a very dangerous world, where competing ideologies and age-old animosities daily threaten the peace.
As a result of this legacy, our nation is still subject to the oil pricing and production decisions of foreign countries.

We will not run from these problems, nor will we fail. The record of the past four years is a testament to what the Democrats can do working together.

Time and time again in these past four years, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President proved that they were willing to make the tough decisions.
Today, because of that Democratic partnership, we are a stronger nation.
Today, because of that Democratic partnership, we are at peace.
Today, because of that Democratic partnership, we are a more just nation.
Today, because of that Democratic partnership, honor and truth and integrity have been restored to our government and to our political process.
And so this party looks to the future with determination and confidence.

A Commitment to Economic Fairness

The Democratic Party will take no action whose effect will be a significant increase in unemployment—no fiscal action, no monetary action, no budgetary action—if it is the assessment of either the Council of Economic Advisers or the Congressional Budget Office that such action will cause significantly greater unemployment.
In all of our economic programs, the one overriding principle must be fairness. All Americans must bear a fair share of our economic burdens and reap a fair share of our economic benefits. High interest rates impose an unfair burden—on farmers, small businesses, and younger families buying homes. Recession imposes an unfair burden on those least able to bear it. Democratic economic policy must assure fairness for workers, the elderly, women, the poor, minorities and the majority who are middle income Americans. In 1980, we pledge a truly Democratic economic policy to secure a prosperous economic future.
Economic Growth—Despite the economic declines of the past few months, for the first three years of the Carter Administration our economy was strong. For the 1977—1979 period:
—Gross National Product increased by 11.8 percent in real terms.
—Real after-tax income per person increased by 10.3 percent.
—Industrial production increased by 14.8 percent.
—Dividends increased by 36 percent.
—Real business fixed investment increased by 22.9 percent.

Energy—Our dependence on foreign off has decreased—in 1977 we imported 8.8 million barrels of oil per day, and our nation is now importing approximately 6.5 million per day, a decline of 26 percent.

Consumer Protection

Since the first administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party has stood as the Party which championed consumer rights. It is our tradition to support and enact policies which guarantee that the consumer is sovereign in the market place. It is our history to institute necessary government programs to protect the health, safety and economic well-being of the American cons

Health

…. And it is our way of governing to ensure that consumers have full opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes of government.
To meet the goals of a program that will control costs and provide health coverage to every American, the Democratic Party pledges to seek a national health insurance program with the following features:

—Universal coverage, without regard to place of employment, sex, age, marital status, or any other factor;
—Comprehensive medical benefits, including preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, health maintenance and rehabilitation services, and complete coverage of the costs of catastrophic illness or injury;
—Aggressive cost containment provisions along with provisions to strengthen competitive forces in the market place;
—Enhancement of the quality of care;
—An end to the widespread use of exclusions that disadvantage women and that charge proportionately higher premiums to women;
—Reform of the health care system, including encouragement of health maintenance organizations and other alternative delivery systems;
—Building on the private health care delivery sector and preservation of the physician-patient relationship;
—Provision for maximum individual choice of physician, other provider, and insurer;
—Maintenance of the private insurance industry with appropriate public regulation;
—Significant administrative and organizational roles for state and local government in setting policy and in resource planning;
—Redistribution of services to ensure access to health care in underserved areas;

Social Security

No group in our society deserves the commitment and respect of the Democratic Party more than the elderly. They have built the factories arid mills of the nation. They have fought to defend our country. They have paid taxes to finance the growth of our cities and towns. They have worked and sacrificed for a lifetime to give their children a better chance to achieve their dreams. They have a continuing reservoir of talent, skill and experience to contribute to our future.

The basic program and guarantee for older citizens is Social Security. It is the single most successful social program ever undertaken by the federal government. Ninety-five percent of those reaching 65 are eligible for this program: without it, 60 percent of the elderly would have incomes below the poverty level.

The Democratic Party will oppose any effort to tamper with the Social Security system by cutting or taxing benefits as a violation of the contract the American government has made with its people. We hereby make a covenant with the elderly of America that as we have kept the Social Security trust fund sound and solvent in the past, we shall keep it sound and solvent in the years ahead.
In 1977, the Social Security system faced bankruptcy. The Carter Administration and the Congress enacted legislation ensuring the Social Security system's financial stability and making certain that each of the 35 million recipients received his or her monthly check without interruption.

Equal Rights Amendment

Furthermore, the Democratic Party shall seek to eliminate sex-based discrimination and inequities from all aspects of our society.

To read the entire DNC 1980 platform visit The American Presidency Project

Compare and Contrast

The 2012 Democrat Party Platform (Excerpts) (PDF)
Simpler language:

Middle Class Tax Cuts. President Obama and Democrats in Congress cut taxes for every working family,putting more money in the pockets of Americans who need it most. A typical family has saved $3,600 during his first term. Now he’s fighting to stop middle class families and those aspiring to join the middle class from seeing their taxes go up and to extend key tax relief for working families and those
paying for college, while asking the wealthiest and corporations to pay their fair share. …

Health Care

At the same time, the Affordable Care Act is not the end of efforts to improve health care for all Americans. Democrats will continue to fight for a strong health care workforce with an emphasis on primary care….

Social Security

Social Security and Medicare. We believe every American deserves a secure, healthy, and dignified retirement. America’s seniors have earned their Medicare and Social Security through a lifetime of hard work and personal responsibility. President Obama is committed to preserving that promise for this and future generations….In short, Democrats believe that Social Security and Medicare must be kept strong for seniors, people with disabilities, and future generations. Our opponents have shown a shocking willingness to gut these programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, and we fundamentally reject that approach.

Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share

Economy Built to Last

Standing Up for Workers. When the President took office, the American middle class was under assault. From 2001 to 2007, we had the slowest private-sector job growth in an economic expansion since World War II. The typical family saw its income stall and inequality climb, even as the economy grew. And we had an administration that thought the answer was limiting unions.

Democrats believe that the right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value;every American should have a voice on the job and a chance to negotiate for a fair day’s pay after a hard day’s work. We will continue to fight for the right of all workers to organize and join a union

Wall Street Reform

A strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. That’s why President Obama and Democrats in Congress overcame fierce opposition from the financial industry to pass the most far-reaching Wall Street reform in generations.

Page 51:

Women.

President Obama – the son of a single mother and the father of two daughters – understands that women aren’t a special interest group. They are more than half of this country, and issues that affect women also affect families. That is why the first bill he signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight back when they are paid less than men, and why we continue to fight to
overcome Republican opposition and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to help stop gender discrimination in pay before it starts

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose…..

Freedom to Marry.

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and
protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny
equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Read more at: The 2012 DNC National Platform

Unions now equal "The Middle Class - Women - are relegated to page 51


As to the Republican Party Platforms:

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Republican Platform

2012 Romney Convention Republican Platform

(Note: women are mentioned from the preamble forward, with specific regards to women and equality present throughout the document – inclusive of both genders.)