President Barack Obama’s campaign found that out the hard way on Tuesday, as a careless reblog on its official Tumblr had to be taken down. The post, an e-card with the caption “Vote like your lady parts depend on it” and the subsequent comment “because they kinda do,” was picked up by conservative bloggers who took issue with the language in the card. Some even felt that the e-card’s words diminished women.
Obama’s campaign commented that the reblog had not gone through the normal approval process, and it was removed. The Tumblr blogger who had originally posted the image was unsure why the e-card post had suddenly gone viral, until another user chimed in that the president had reblogged it.
Even though the blog was taken down, the hashtag #LadyParts quickly gained popularity on Twitter. In fact, as of Tuesday, the hashtag was being used more than 1,500 times per hour. One person who seemed to not mind the diction of the e-card tweeted, “Me and my #ladyparts are voting for the candidate who wants to protect them, not police them. #Obama2012.” A Mitt Romney fan chimed in with this tweet, “Me and my ladyparts made it through Reagan and two Bush terms. I think I’ll be just fine with Mitt Romney. #TheFive.” Other people took the opportunity to further discuss how the presidential candidates’ policies will affect women in America.”
Attacks were made, counter-arguments were given, Big Bird was mentioned, Jim Lehrer lost total control, and Romney dominated Obama…at least according to social media.
LEHRER: Good evening from the Magness Arena at the University of Denver inDenver, Colorado. I’m Jim Lehrer of the “PBS NewsHour,” and I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates between President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.
This debate and the next three — two presidential, one vice presidential — are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight’s 90 minutes will be about domestic issues and will follow a format designed by the commission. There will be six roughly 15-minute segments with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment.
Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the Internet and other means, but I made the final selections. And for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the candidates.
The segments as I announced in advance will be three on the economy and one each on health care, the role of government and governing, with an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics and choices. Both candidates will also have two-minute closing statements.
The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent — no cheers, applause, boos, hisses, among other noisy distracting things, so we may all concentrate on what the candidates have to say. There is a noise exception right now, though, as we welcome President Obama and Governor Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let’s start the economy, segment one, and let’s begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?
LEHRER: You have two minutes. Each of you have two minutes to start. A coin toss has determined, Mr. President, you go first.
OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, for this opportunity. I want to thank Governor Romney and the University of Denver for your hospitality.
There are a lot of points I want to make tonight, but the most important one is that 20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me.
And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost, the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen up.
And because of the resilience and the determination of the American people, we’ve begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has come roaring back. And housing has begun to rise.
But we all know that we’ve still got a lot of work to do. And so the question here tonight is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going.
Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations, that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view.
I think we’ve got to invest in education and training. I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.
ROMNEY: Now, I’m concerned that the path that we’re on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work.
That’s not the right answer for America. I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.
LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trick-down approach, as he said yours is.
OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do. First, we’ve got to improve our education system and we’ve made enormous progress drawing on ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools. We’ve got a program called Race to the Top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country, raising standards, improving how we train teachers.
So now I want to hire another 100,000 new math and science teachers, and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so that people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now. And I want to make sure that we keep tuition low for our young people.
When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.
On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.
OBAMA: So all of this is possible. Now, in order for us to do it, we do have to close our deficit, and one of the things I’m sure we’ll be discussing tonight is, how do we deal with our tax code? And how do we make sure that we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also, how do we have enough revenue to make those investments?
And this is where there’s a difference, because Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign.
LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we’re going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can.
But, first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you’d like to ask the president directly about something he just said?
ROMNEY: Well, sure. I’d like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece.
First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.
The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle- income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.
At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up. Food prices are up. Health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family. Middle-income families are being crushed.
ROMNEY: And so the question is how to get them going again. And I’ve described it. It’s energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan.
But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I’ll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we’ve got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We’ve got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.
The second area, taxation, we agree, we ought to bring the tax rates down. And I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.
The third area, energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies.
Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I’m president, I’ll double them, and also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada.
And, by the way, I like coal. I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.
And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the government. My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.
But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And I — and to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any — any language to the contrary is simply not accurate. LEHRER: Mr. President?
OBAMA: Well, I think — let’s talk about taxes, because I think it’s instructive. Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage, I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that’s exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.
And the reason is, because I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who’s going off to college, which means they’re spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits, and then hire more workers.
Now, Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.
But I’m going to make an important point here, Jim.
LEHRER: All right.
OBAMA: When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of, you take those all away, you don’t come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending.
OBAMA: And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit or — or — or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.
Now, that’s not my analysis. That’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And — and that kind of top — top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making $3 million is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that’s not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.
LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let’s just stay on taxes.
Despite scams galore,2G, ISRO9media seems to have forgotten this,Thorium- no body bothers),CWG,Coalgate,Adarsh ,Maharastra Irrigation scam,Goa Mining…the list goes on.
The opposition initially screams and it becomes a whimper for they too have their hands in the pie.
Hence the issue of corruption has become a ritual.
One does not get the full story.
Why do not we have a Face off between the PM and the Opposition Live?
Now watch US Presidential candidates Obama and Romney slug it out.
We may not agree with the US policies, for that matter even the ordinary US citizens.
The essential difference is that while they know what is happening we remain confused.
Live debate would definitely throw more light .
Be sure to include Left parties to have some fire,not to say about Subramanian Swamy.
TV channels should do it, for TRP Ratings, if not for any thing else.
Ideal Anchors(both) Karan Thapar and Arnob Goswamy
It is good that people of the lower income groups will be eligible for for Insurancecover under Federal Mandate.
English: President signing the Medicare Bill at the in . Former President is seated at the table with President Johnson. The following are in the background (from left to right): Senator , an unidentified man, , Senator , Vice President , and . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
However a curious side show is the fact that one of the main arguments against the lower Income Group being asked to get coverage and if they failed to do so, fined.
And the objection is ‘ if the federal government could compel people to buy health insurance, it could compel them to buy almost anything, with broccoli becoming the central example in court arguments.’
How silly can one be on Social Health care for the people, that too belonging to lower income group.
If people can be forced for their welfare at their expense for their benefit, it is for their good.
At least they will have spent on a good buy.
However the States get a leeway for some time.
But the ball is set to roll.
Finally The US seems to be coming out of the rut-that of ‘of the Rich, for the rich and by the Rich’
“The decision was a striking victory for the president and Congressional Democrats, with a majority of the court, including the conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama’s term.
Many observers called the case the most significant before the court since at least the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, which decided a presidential election. In addition to the political reverberations, the case helps set the rules for one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the economy, one that affects nearly everyone from cradle to grave.
The decision did significantly restrict one major portion of the law: the expansion of Medicaid, the government health-insurance program for low-income and sick people. The ruling gives states some flexibility not to expand their Medicaid programs, without paying the same financial penalties that the law called for.
The debate over health care remains far from over, with Republicans vowing to carry on their fight against the law, which they see as an unaffordable infringement on the rights of individuals. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has promised to undo it if elected.
But the court ruling is a crucial victory for the law that will allow its introduction to continue in the coming years. Passed in 2010, the law is intended to end the United States’ status as the only rich country with large numbers of uninsured people, by expanding both the private market and Medicaid.
The key provision that 26 states opposing the law had challenged – known as the individual mandate – requires virtually all citizens to buy health insurance meeting minimum federal standards or to pay a fine if they refuse.
Many conservatives considered the mandate unconstitutional, arguing that if the federal government could compel people to buy health insurance, it could compel them to buy almost anything, with broccoli becoming the central example in court arguments.
It remained unclear whether the court officially upheld the mandate or chose a more technical path that effectively allowed it to stand.
The mandate’s advocates said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable. The law offers subsidies to poorer and middle-class households, varying with their incomes. It also provides subsidies to some businesses for insuring their workers.
The law requires states to expand Medicaid coverage for poor and nearly poor households. In all, tens of millions of people are expected to gain insurance from the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as part of a march toward universal coverage, a goal that has eluded legislators and presidents – including Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton – for generations.
The decision came on the last day of the term, which the justices extended by three days to deal with the crush of major issues. On Monday, the court delivered a mixed ruling on an Arizona law intended to crack down on illegal immigrants, which the Obama administration opposed.
Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has delivered a series of major victories to conservatives, including the Citizens United campaign finance decision, which on Monday it declined to reconsider. In next year’s term, it could take up other major issues, including affirmative action, same-sex marriage and the Voting Rights Act.
The health care ruling came three months after an extraordinary series of oral arguments in which the differences on the bench, if not the ultimate outcome, were disclosed in sharp relief.
Until those arguments, many observers – within the White House and beyond – had seen the law as likely to survive a legal challenge that even many Republicans once viewed as a long shot. But the skeptical questioning of a majority of the justices – and Justice Kennedy in particular – called that view seriously into doubt.
Rulings by appeals courts had split on the question, with two upholding the law and one striking down the mandate. A fourth appeals court deferred consideration of the law until 2015, reasoning that the courts lacked jurisdiction until the first penalties enforcing the mandate became due.”
“You may have seen the othercontroversial newsmagazine cover this week, the one where Newsweek dubbed President Obama “The First Gay President“. But as Jim Loewen at the History News Networkwould like to remind us, even if Obama were gay, he wouldn’t be the first: more than 150 years before the United States had its first black president, it had its first homosexual commander in chief.
Loewen is one of several historians who believe that James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861, was in fact our first gay president. He is the only president to have remained a bachelor throughout his life. (His niece, Harriet Lane, handled the duties of First Lady during his term in office.) He shared a home with William Rufus King, an Alabama Senator and Vice President under Buchanan’s predecessor, Franklin Pierce. Their relationship was reportedly so close that Andrew Jackson and other contemporaries referred to them as ”Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy”.
In one letter to a confidante dated May 13, 1844, Buchanan wrote about his life after King moved to Paris to become the American ambassador to France:
“I am now ‘solitary and alone,’ having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.”
Other historians, however, believe that his relationship with King was in fact more complex than that, and that the book is far from closed on the matter of Buchanan’s sexuality (he was at one point engaged to be married, and went a wooing with several ladies in addition to the aforementioned gentlemen). Either way, it’s also almost impossible to know for sure: Buchanan ordered that all his correspondence be destroyed upon his death.
But Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,notes that — importantly — Buchanan’s rumored sexuality was not a secret at the time. For much of the 19th century, American society was considerably more open and accepting than it was in much of the century that followed. It’s a concept that many of us have trouble grasping: indeed, one of the reasons Americans have trouble viewing the past as more progressive than today is because of the narrative many high school history books follow, which portrays the United States as a country that started great and is getting better — “chronological ethnocentrism”, as he terms it.
This type of thinking leaves many students to see history as irrelevant: inconsequential events of the distant past that are totally separate from issues we face today. And while Loewen notes that Obama’s stance on gay marriage is a welcome departure from our recent past, to tout modern American society as more tolerant than any in our history is a claim that has yet to pass the test of time. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/17/who-was-our-first-gay-president/?iid=obinsite#ixzz1xVkHfzdu
You must be logged in to post a comment.