5 Things (Binders and Rose Gardens Excluded) You Might Have Missed From Debate #2


Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/mejuth/public_html/wp-content/themes/simplemag/formats/format-standard.php on line 28
This country has to decide at some point to stop ignoring climate science, and I believe that time is now. More and more people are starting to come around to the conclusions that are essentially unavoidable. If Romney doesn't think he looks like a Luddite, foolishly clinging to "Drill, baby, drill" and "clean coal, FTW" he's sorely mistaken. Climate science may not be a determining factor in this year's election, but in years to come, the GOP had better shape up, or just like gender equality and immigration policy, they'll be leading from behind. Again.

From our good friends with The House Elf Liberation Front.

5. Binder or Not, Mitt Romney Isn’t Sure Women Should Be In the Workplace

You know, if your public reputation is that you’re not all that hip or modern, maybe you should be a little more careful about how talk about things that have been accepted fact since World War II. In this case, it’s women in the workforce. Now, I know that women have been in the workforce for far, far longer than World War II, but as far as my estimation goes, that was the first time that we as a society really were clamoring to get women to work. 

Here’s a Romney answer from the second debate

ROMNEY: I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women.

Keep in mind, the question was “what will do to close the pay equity gap between men and women?” Apparently Romney is still not sold on the whole “women in the workplace” thing since he chose to use the phrase “if you’re going to have women in the workforce.” By now, shouldn’t it just be commonly held fact that women work too? I don’t know if the memo’s gotten to Mitt yet, but “Mad Men” isn’t reality TV. Women deserve and are rightfully demanding to be treated equally.

4.  Business People’s Math Works Because They Said So

Paul Ryan told Chris Wallace that the math was too complicated to explain in a short interview, but that his and Mitt’s tax plan totally works. Bill Clinton of course famously called “bullshit” or rather, “arithmetic” on  that claim, and since then, the Romney/Ryan explanation has been basically “trust us.” Last night was no exception. 

 

CROWLEY: If somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent…

ROMNEY: Well of course they add up. I — I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years, and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years.

Remember in math class in school when your teacher started asking you to show your work? For me it was Algebra. When those funky letters started messing with my numbers, the teacher started asking that we show our work. You know why they do that? So that you prove to them you know your stuff and aren’t just copying someone else’s work, or more importantly, that we’re not just making shit up.

 So basically what Romney and Ryan are telling us is “We are good at math. Trust us. Everything will work perfectly.” And then we we ask them to show us their work, they balk. That either means they don’t know what they’re talking about, the math doesn’t add up, or they’re just making shit up. I tend to vote for an answer that includes all three possibilities.

#3. Climate Change Is Not A Laugh Line For President Obama

Remember how Mitt Romney mocked climate change at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this year? I do. I remember these things not just because that’s sort of what I do here, but also because that was a historically significant moment. The scientific community really is not debating whether climate change is real, nor are they still trying to figure out if mankind has played a part in speeding up the climate changes that the evidence shows. Republicans, and especially Mitt Romney, are on the losing side of yet another historical showdown over a paradigm shift. They don’t see any reason to alter our energy policy to look to the future when we have all that gas underneath our feet. Never mind the raping of the Earth that’s needed to get that oil. We’ll deal that later.

Obama on the other hand, sees things far more realistically, and long-term. 

OBAMA: So, I’m all for pipelines. I’m all for oil production. What I’m not for is us ignoring the other half of the equation. So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says “these are imaginary jobs.” When you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that — in Iowa is all for it, providing tax breaks (ph) to help this work and Governor Romney says I’m opposed. I’d get rid of it.

That’s not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future. And I intend to win it as President of the United States.

This country has to decide at some point to stop ignoring climate science, and I believe that time is now. More and more people are starting to come around to the conclusions that are essentially unavoidable. If Romney doesn’t think he looks like a Luddite, foolishly clinging to “Drill, baby, drill” and “clean coal, FTW” he’s sorely mistaken. Climate science may not be a determining factor in this year’s election, but in years to come, the GOP had better shape up, or just like gender equality and immigration policy, they’ll be leading from behind. Again.

#2. Mitt Romney Loves Small Businesses (And Not Just As Fodder For Bain Capital!)

Uh. So when did Republicans start caring about the little guy? That’s the whopper that Romney wants us to believe now. He said the following in the second debate:

ROMNEY: And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.

His answer was in response to the question about something that sets him apart from George W. Bush. The actual answer is of course, “My magic underwear and not much else.” The idea that a Republican president would create business policies that help out small businesses and not Wall Street and the mega-corps is so laughable, I think not much else is needed to be said on the subject.

#1. Guns Don’t Kill People…Single Parents Do

Perhaps most galling of all the idiocies that Mitt fronted in the second debate, is the notion that we can solve gun violence by teaching our kids to get married before they procreate. 

ROMNEY: But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.

This of course goes back to that conservative cliche about the decline of civilization being tied to the surge in divorce rates. But that’s the oldest straw man they’ve got. The simple fact is that single parents are no more to blame for gun violence than any other social “issue” that doesn’t directly revolve around the relative ease with which you can purchase firearm in this country. What exactly is the implication? That only children of single parents commit gun violence? Are we really so sure that if we look back over time at all the instances of mass shootings that not a single perpetrator with two parents in a committed marriage will be found among them?

This of course speaks to the deepest disregard that conservatives profess for those who do not live the idyllic, Bible-sanctioned lifestyle. Romney did give lip service to our culture of violence, but to pin it on single parents, that if somehow we keep kids in two-parent households no one will ever get shot again is like saying that sick people should just go to the emergency room when they’re sick. Oh wait, Mitt already did that too, didn’t he? 

 

 

More from James Schlarmann

Marco Rubio: Syrian Refugees Can Wear Special Patches to ‘Help Spot Them in a Crowd Better’

Does Marco Rubio think asking Syrian refugees to wear special patches will...
Read More