IF THE PEOPLE WOULD ONLY "LISTEN" TO ROMNEY.
... they would hear him pretty well.
President Barack Obama should be ready to defend his policies in the next debate with his opponent, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and be able to tell him "like it is", that he has flip-flopped on so many issues, including his opinion on almost 50% of Americans, whom he described as being dependent on government programs for a living.
He has now made another announcement that he was "completely wrong" in his characterization of his fellow citizens in a secretly taped video that he was seen and heard to be so condescending about them, in a room full of his affluent donors to his campaign last May, of this year in Florida.
Top adviser, David Axelrod, to the Obama campaign pointed out on CBS's "Face the Nation." yesterday that Romney "was dishonest during the debate, pointing to a contentious charge Obama waged Wednesday evening about his opponent’s tax plan involving $5 trillion in cuts for the wealthy - a claim CNN has rated as false."
On that issue, Obama was wholly right, as Romney would overturn any act that increased the tax burden of the wealthy, as he has consistently said on the campaign trail that he would reduce taxes on "job creators", which would in turn bring down the high unemployment rate.
So, there was no way that he (Romney) could run away from that argument. He signified that by using his hands to also demonstrate his plan, while he was talking during the debate, as witnessed by the whole nation on TV.
(... and it was Tuesday night that the debate was held, and not on Wednesday, Mr. Axelrod); but the assumption that some of the media were taking sides in the campaign as shown, that it was "a claim CNN has rated as false."
CNN was wrong, because that was an assertion that Romney has been making all along in connection with the economy; and if the company's correspondents were hard of hearing, they should be replaced by people who would not be as totally biased.
It has been noted in their "fact-check" segment of some news programs, that any remark that they thought was slightly out of place by the Obama campaign was "false", yet, if a similar comment was about the Romney campaign, they would characterize that as "misleading"; thus using different words to confuse the viewers. (So, which is which, CNN?).
Obama was rather too nonchalant in Tuesday's debate, leaving people to think that he was not interested in what was going on; however, this was a vital election in which the wealthy have a candidate to champion their cause, by saying that he would create 4 million, and sometimes, 12 million jobs to beguile the electorate.
If Obama was going to fight for the middle class and working people, he should do so without any reservation, by standing up to him, every step of the way, because Romney's sole aim was to make his backers, who for most part were millionaires and billionaires, to feel comfortable with any tax changes in the offing.
The Bush era tax breaks for them were coming to an end, and Obama would produce on his mantra that "the wealthy must pay their fair share in taxes," and so he would jack up their tax rates from 12% or so to a whopping 35% and even beyond.
They were fretting and sweating that nothing of that sort would ever happen, and the only person, who could swindle his way out such a "mess" was Mitt Romney, from his experience as the CEO of Bain Capital, a venture and private equity company that closed plants in the United States and outsourced jobs overseas, to China and India, in particular.
Obama should straighten up and (to) come out of his slump, and to do something in the next two rounds of debates for the middle class and workers; and also to clinch victory for his own reelection, for goodness sake.
That was what his supporters were waiting to see; and not the one, who allowed Romney to get away with almost everything in a debate as important as that; and saying that he would "create" millions of jobs and get the economy moving again. That was a bait for the masses of people, who were out of work, and for their vote.
In fact, that was a ploy, as his ultimate ambition was to satisfy his base; and that was freeing the wealthy from their frustration of having someone coming in and raking up their tax rates; meaning, Obama.
The Affordable Care Act would be gone, and regulations on big banks and financial institutions would be dismantled, and who would be the beneficiaries of that happening?
Well, to put it mildly, they (beneficiaries) would not be the middle class and ordinary workers, the poor, the elderly and the needy, for sure.
P.S. Check this link on the Internet: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829 (Copy and paste in your browser).