The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney

The Mormon Moment(s)

leave a comment »

It’s been called the Mormon moment.

Mitt Romney’s run at the Presidency brought renewed attention to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from around the country and around the globe.  The “moment” brought positive and uplifting dialogue along with negative, demeaning, and stereotypical discussion along all forms of media.

But for Mormons it’s never been about a moment, but a series of moments seen and unseen for 182 years now.   Moments where the desire to follow the example of Jesus Christ are put into motion through action.

The Savior said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  He also taught that the first and great commandment is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. …And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Latter-Day Saints, Mormons, take those simple instructions to heart and if they are living their faith their actions will show it.

This short film shot in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy exemplifies what Mormons believe.

That faith without works is dead.

The Trick or Treat Media

leave a comment »

The media has been full of tricks if you’re a conservative and treats if you’re a liberal this week of Halloween.  But this year the scary holiday has taken a more frightening turn in the Northeast as Hurricane Sandy slammed the east coast.

Our thoughts and prayers are turned to those in harm’s way dealing with the aftermath of this terrible storm.  We praise those good souls who are at the ready and hurrying to the aid of those in great need whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually.  God Bless them all.

Unfortunately we are in a political season and presidential campaign where one side has openly stated “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

Obama Biden sign under waterNo sooner had Hurricane Sandy come ashore did some in the media find a story they thought could damage Mitt Romney’s bid at the Presidency with the election only a week away.

MSNBC  followed the Democrats lead singer Bill Clinton who basically said the storm (Sandy) and the President’s response to it showed the real difference between Romney and Obama.  MSNBC then proceeded to explain why Romney isn’t ready for Hurricane Sandy, as if Romney was the current President.  The Huffing and Puffington Post ran a piece completely devoid of facts accusing Romney of wanting to completely abolish FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) using an editorial from the NYT as “proof” and a silly story by another HuffPO contributor that claimed Romney never contacted a Massachusetts Mayor when her town saw flooding from the Green River and 75 homes in a trailer park were flooded.  As if that was a major statewide disaster…

The New York Times then chimed in with its own op-ed explaining to all of us simpletons how Big Government is necessary for Big Storms.  Tell that to the people of Joplin, Missouri who were mobilizing and rebuilding after devastating tornadoes ripped it apart and before Big Government had time to put on its pants for work.

The misinformation of the media aside, the real story of serious cuts coming to FEMA is being ignored because it isn’t politically beneficial to the President.  The reality is President Obama’s budget sequestration proposal (try as he might to deny it’s his) will cut FEMA to the bone.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Will Be Hit With $878 Million In Cuts.
FEMA’s Disaster Relief Funding Will Be Hit With The Largest Cut At $580 Million
FEMA’s State & Local Programs Would Receive $183 Million In Cuts
What’s more, the OMB report explains just how devastating the Obama sequestration will be in other areas, along with FEMA:

“On the non-defense side, sequestration would undermine investments vital to economic growth, threaten the safety and security of the American people, and cause severe harm to programs that benefit the middle-class, seniors, and children.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s ability to respond to incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events would be undermined.”

Let us review. blogged on this as well reporting The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler said the idea of sequestration was “a White House gambit”.  Bob Woodward’s book called The Price of Politics stated members of the Obama administration proposed the idea to Senator Harry Reid.

“Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seemed tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from defense, and the other half from domestic programs.”  (Excerpt from The Price of Politics)

But many in the media would have you believe it’s Mitt Romney and the Republicans who want to rid the world of FEMA, when in fact they simply want more control given to local and state government at the first response level.

But that headline isn’t nearly as attention grabbing as “Romney to Shut Down FEMA!”

Silly media, tricks are for kids, treats are for Halloween.

Perpetuating the Lie that Romney is a Liar

with 4 comments

My liberal friends like to remind me often that my candidate for President, Mitt Romney, is a liar.  They then parade the fact checkers out as proof to their premise that Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, habitually breaks the 9th commandment.

The most recent accusation came in the form of this article at with the headline: “At The Last Presidential Debate: Romney Told 24 Myths In 41 Minutes”  If you’re not familiar with ThinkProgress, I would characterize as the Liberal equivalent to on the right.  If you’re not familiar with either one you’re not missing anything but extreme partisanship, hyperbole, and group think (My opinion of course).

So I decided to go through these 24 myths and research their explanations to see if  the man I think is best suited to preside in this nation is indeed a dirty rotten scoundrel and a liar.

This will be a rather long post as I am including each “Myth” and the explanation given by ThinkProgress with my retort underneath in bold italics.  Bear with me as I hope this exercise will show that the true “Myth” is in our perception of another’s words as seen through our own world view.  This is not to say that President Obama and Mitt Romney have been 100% accurate in the debates or on the campaign trail when addressing each other or the issues, but it is to say that both men are explaining their positions in the best light possible and their opponents in the worst.  That’s politics and by its nature that is going to include elaborations, hyperbole, and yes  inaccurate depictions from each.

I think overall the fact checkers bring it all back to reality, but that doesn’t mean you should never check the fact checkers too!

The 24 “Myths” as presented by

1) “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” Romney has his geography wrong. Syria doesn’t share a border with Iran and Iran has 1,500 miles of coastline leading to the Arabian Sea. It is also able to reach the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

Geography gaffe, not a lie.

2) “And what I’m afraid of is we’ve watched over the past year or so [in Syria], first the president saying, well we’ll let the U.N. deal with it…. Then it went to the Russians and said, let’s see if you can do something.” While Russia and China have vetoed multiple resolutions at the U.N. Security Council on Syria, the United States has also been working through the Friends of Syria group and other allies in the region. Obama’s approach “would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.”

I see a very sharp difference of opinion here but nothing to indicate a whopper being told. TP does not refute Romney’s initial premise, rather they try to clarify Obama’s position.

3) “Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy. We need to have as well a strong military.” If Romney is worried about the national debt, why does he want to increase military spending from 3.5 percent of GDP to 4 percent? This amounts to a $2.1 trillion increase over a ten-year period that the military says it does not need and Romney has no plan to pay for it.

Again sharp difference of opinion nothing more.

4) “[W]hen — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake.” Obama spoke out about the Revolution on June 15, 2009, just two days after post-election demonstrations began in Iran, condemning the Iranian government’s hard-handed crackdown on Iranian activists. He then reiterated his comments a day later in another press conference. Iranian activists have agreed with Obama’s approach.

Obama made two statements, a few brief words, and did nothing more, in Romney’s opinion and that of many others in this country, it could be seen as relative silence on the issue. I disagree here with Romney’s interpretation because Obama did acknowledge the situation if barely, but this doesn’t meet the definition of a lie.

5) “And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

Here’s the problem with this one. We’re talking about projections and estimates. One side says they believe their projections and estimates to be accurate and the other side says they don’t. As I’ve read the pros and cons on Romney’s plan it has become very apparent that both sides rely heavily on semantics and varied interpretations of the studies attributed. Frankly this is a Nancy Pelosi moment. “We won’t know what Romney’s jobs plan will do until we implement it”.  No lie just a lot of guesswork and pontificating.

6) “[W]e are going to have North American energy independence. We’re going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables.” Romney would actually eliminate the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

An argument about different environmental opinions on standards and not explained very well here.  Not a lie though.

7) “[W]e’re going to have to have training programs that work for our workers.” Paul Ryan’s budget, which Romney has fully endorsed, calls for spending 33 percent less on “Education, training, employment, and social services” than Obama’s budget.

So spending less means no training or education possible?  More money doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality. #7 is a joke and Think Progress is showing its stripes here. 

8) “And I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget.” Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut plan and his increases to military spending could explode the deficit.

Same Princeton economist and others refute this opinion. again no lie here folks.

9) “Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom.” Education experts have faint praise for his proposals while he was governor. “His impact was inconsequential,” said Glen Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. “People viewed his proposals as political talking points, and no one took Romney seriously.”

Think Progress doesn’t like his proposals on education. Imagine that! Now a quote Think Progress surely could have found to balance it’s report “Governor Romney’s education reform plan addresses the single biggest challenge for our state’s economy, which is supplying the pipeline of skilled workers that technology employers need for sustained future growth,” said Massachusetts High Technology Council President Christopher R. Anderson. “The Governor’s plan rightly focuses on attracting and retaining the best math and science teachers, while giving them the support and tools they need to prepare students for the competitive global economy.”  No lie here but some serious bias on the part of TP in my opinion.

10) “So I’d get rid of [Obamacare] from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out.” Romney cannot unilaterally eliminate a bill passed by Congress and his plan to grant states waivers may also be a non-starter.

Correct.  As Romney stated, he’ll get rid of Obamacare “to the extent humanly possible” TP confirms that.  Where’s the whopper?

11) “Number two, we take some programs that we are doing to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor.” Medicaid isn’t just a program for the poor. While it provides health coverage for “millions of low-income children and families who lack access to the private health insurance system,” it also offers “insurance to millions of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities” and is “the nation’s largest source of coverage for long-term care, covering more than two-thirds of all nursing home residents.” Medicaid is also a key source of coverage for pregnant women.

Semantics. Medicaid is more than just a program for the poor, OK…but not going into more detail certainly isn’t a lie. 

12) “[W]e’ll take [Medicaid] for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently.” A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

Very tricky handling of this by TP. Romney says give it to the states to run, but doesn’t say cut federal funding. TP turns to “what ifs” by pointing to Ryan’s budget proposal, which is just that, a proposal. Muddy analysis by TP, but yes you could accuse me of splitting hairs. Still no lie being told here.

13) “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917…That, in my view, is making — is making our future less certain and less secure.” The U.S. Navy is smaller than it was in 1917, but it is not making America less secure. The navy has actually grown in the sheer number of ships under Obama and Romney’s plans to increase shipbuilding is unrealistic. As one historian told PolitiFact, counting the number of ships or aircraft “is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades.” Romney’s comparison “doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’” he said.

According to NPR, analysts are divided on whether there is a need for a larger Navy.  However, in the same Politifact report used to glean the historian’s quote it says “In recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to approach its 1916 level.  In both 2009 (the most recent year of the Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.  So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric — which, as we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength.” So they’re arguing a perspective of “perfection”?  Really?   A lie?  No.

14) “And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.” Obama never embarked on an “apology tour.”

I concede. It is clear the President never used the words “sorry” or “apologize”  and did give praise to America while at the same time knocking America for sins perceived by Obama. It’s obvious Romney and others interpreted this as being apologetic to gain favor of other nations and therefore labeled it an Apology Tour. I think he should have changed the title and focused on what I see as a weakness in Obama and the First Lady.  That being their apparent lack of belief and conviction in US exceptionalism in the world.

15) “And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well.” They haven’t noticed because it’s not true. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN, “President Obama is doing . . . more than anything that I can remember in the past [in regard to our security].” “When I look at the record of President Obama concerning the major issues, security, I think it’s a highly satisfactory record, from an Israeli point of view,” said Israeli President Shimon Peres.

TP quotes two Israeli Liberals, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres to bolster their premise and the Obama narrative that Obama is doing so much more for Israel than ever before. This one made me laugh out loud honestly. If you’re up on recent headlines you probably chuckled too. Read up on Barak and Peres and see where their political ideologies lie and you’ll see why TP didn’t want to mention Israel’s Prime Minister or conservative Jews at all. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Ambassador Dan Shapiro recently engaged in a sharp, un-diplomatic exchange in September over Netanyahu’s frustration with the Obama Administration’s Iran policy, according to US congressman, Mike Rogers of Michigan who attended the meeting.  It is very clear Israels highest officer is not happy with Obama’s policies concerning Israel.  Of course liberals are going to say what liberals want to hear.  Think Progress not being very balanced or objective here and ignoring the other side completely.

16) “And — and — we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.” Obama hasn’t wasted time on Iran. In July 2012, Obama signed into law the most effective sanctions ever put into place against Iran, targeting the country’s oil and financial sectors. These sanctions were imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and come in addition to the four rounds of sanctions the UN has enacted since 2006. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the sanctions “very effective,” and Romney has said he would continue them if elected.

The fact is Iran is moving forward with its nuclear plans regardless of what you believe those plans to be.  I give the President credit for what he has done with sanctions.  This seems to be nothing more than bickering about whether Obama wasted time or not. Silly.

17) “I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well.” Almost no Iranian oil has come into the United States since Ronald Reagan signed an executive order in 1987 banning all U.S. imports from Iran. The nation received a small amount of oil from Iran after the first Gulf War, in 1991.

TP is right on this one. Wondering where Romney got his info here.  Can’t find an explanation at this point.  Still, he is offering his opinion, right or wrong.  Not a lie.

18) “I see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they’re rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very strong.” Obama’s policies appear to have gravely weakened al Qaeda Central, the lead arm of the organization in Pakistan and Afghanistan principally responsible for 9/11.

Obama himself has fallen back on the rhetoric that Al-Qaeda is no longer a threat and is subsiding. We know that isn’t true. All TP dare say is Obama’s policies “appear” to have weakened Al-Qaeda. Much different from the language being used only weeks ago.  Analyst Seth Jones is leading the argument that al-Qaeda is doing better than we realize, that “the obituaries are premature”

19) “It’s not government investments that makes businesses grow and hire people.” The Romney campaign routinely touts government military spending as a way to create jobs and boost businesses.

Governments administer. It is with rare exception that government creates anything or even manages anything well. When government tries to do what the private sector does it generally does it less efficiently and more costly and there is plenty of proof to back that up. Romney is right on that one.  If you live around a military base you’ll see the effect of military spending on business and business creation in the private sector. This is just another item where TP sees the world through a different lens. No lies here.

20) “My plan to get the [auto] industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these [auto] companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy.” Romney’s plan for the auto bailout would have ensured the collapse of the auto industry. In his editorial titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney advocated for letting the private sector finance the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. Auto insiders, however, have said that plan was “reckless” and “pure fantasy.”

TP is the liar here. They mention Romney’s Op-Ed but fail to reveal the truth of it, just as Obama ignored and refuted Romney in the debate. The facts as presented by ABC News. Romney DID in that original Op-Ed, at the very end, say that there should be post-bankruptcy guarantees for financing. “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk,” he wrote. It is not clear if such post-bankruptcy guarantees could have freed up pre-bankruptcy financing. And it is not something Romney has advertised on the campaign trail. But it is accurate. By the way GM builds more automobiles OUTSIDE the US than in it and its CEO was in China just last year touting his plan to bring more work to China. Listen in to GM’s CEO Dan Akerson addressing reporters in Shang Hai China: 

21) “Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.” Ryan’s plan, which Romney has endorsed, “could cut spending on non-defence-related research and development by 5%, or $3.2 billion, below the fiscal-year 2012 budget, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Over the long-term, Ryan’s small-government approach would shrink funding for research and development to historically small sizes.”

Cutting spending doesn’t eliminate research or the need for it.  That’s just a dumb argument.

22) “One is a path represented by the president, which at the end of four years would mean we’d have $20 trillion in debt heading towards Greece.” The U.S. is not headed down a path like that of Greece. Greece, contrary to popular belief, had a revenue problem rather than a spending problem. While its spending was high compared to US standards — 50.4 percent of GDP compared to 38 percent of GDP in the US — its spending was average among European nations. As CAP’s Michael Linden and Sabina Dewan note, “Over the past 10 years, Greece has consistently spent less, as a share of GDP, than the European Union as a whole.” However, it generated less that 40 percent of GDP from revenue — one of the lowest rates in the EU.

All TP does here, is attempt to explain away Greece’s problems so they don’t look anything like ours.  Romney is not the first to use this analogy. Yes we can go the way of Greece.

23) “I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle.” Given Romney’s 844 vetoes as governor, Massachusetts legislators dispute this claim. As the New York Times has noted, “The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact.”

Important distinction TP refuses to acknowledge, the line-item veto. Yes Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and yes, the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously. But it’s ridiculous to say Romney did not get things done as governor working with that overwhelming majority of Democrats.  Romney got praise and criticism from both parties in Massachusetts which I believe shows he was bipartisan.  Even Ted Kennedy praised him.  In 2006, Kennedy had only praise for Romney: “To our governor, and to our Senate president and our speaker, we all say, ‘Well done.’  TP’s perception is the myth here.

24) “We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.” Romney’s website promises to “Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million.” “Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid,” it says. In November of 2011, Romney said he would start foreign aid for every country “at zero” and call on them to make their case for U.S. financial assistance.

TP seems to be contradicting its own premise here. Romney is saying he wants to reduce and redirect foreign aid and TP says Romney wants to reduce and redirect foreign aid… maybe you can figure out what point they’re trying to make here.  Bottom line, no lies.

What we have here are 24 points where liberals simply differ in ideology and perspective from conservatives and where a conservative articulated his ideas and opinions including those inevitable mistakes and inaccuracies due to being a human and not a computer.  That doesn’t stop Think Progress from using a misleading headline leaving the lazy reader who doesn’t go through all 24 points to assume Romney is the guy my Facebook friend Tom calls “disgraceful” and a “habitual liar”. I think Tom spends a little too much time at  Time to round out your daily reading my friends.

I fear too many “fact checkers” are what has been termed Vigilante Fact Checkers.  Atossa Araxia Abrahamian wrote, “The vigilantes work with a very different goal. They’re guerrillas; they live to pounce, to catch their enemies at their most vulnerable moments, and to parade their heads around on a stick, declaring smugly: untruth!”

Read more of Abrahmian’s article 

When a lie is exposed and proven to be an intentional attempt to mislead by any political figure I am all for making it clear and shouting it to the rooftops.  I just happen to believe most of the statements being touted as lies these days are no such thing and we need to hold to the definition of the word, taken in the proper context, and not rely solely on our perception of it.

Lie – Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

If you know the intent of another’s heart, you have a sense the rest of us don’t possess.

Written by DCL

October 23, 2012 at 4:28 pm

43% of Congress Vulnerable to Campaign Donation Fraud

leave a comment »

Government Accountability InstituteThe Government Accountability Institute, comprised of a team of investigative researchers and journalists, have published a report titled America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent  Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?

The report states that an alarming number of congressional and senatorial representatives with an online donation page do not have proper security on those sites to prevent donations to their campaigns from foreign sources.  The report also found third-party political fundraising organizations funneling money to campaigns also lacked the industry standard, anti-fraud, credit card security features to block fraudulent and international donations.

The report was not partisan in its reproach.

Both parties and specific candidates were named as having more problems than others, including Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama.  However, the Obama campaign does show a much higher rate of vulnerability than that of his counterpart Mitt Romney.

Given the state-of-the art digital sophistication of the President’s re-election campaign—including social media, micro-targeting and data-mining—its online donation system contains at least three major security vulnerabilities:




The Obama campaign lacks the industry-standard level of credit card security for donations, but uses it for merchandise purchases:  to purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation. By Gai’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees. was purchased by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China with questionable business ties to state-run Chinese enterprises: in 2008, was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities.

68% of traffic to anonymously registered is foreign (compared to just over 11% for the Romney website): according to industry leading web analytics site markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site ( features 68% foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled “who encouraged you to make this donation.” that tracking number is embedded in the source code for and is associated with the Obama victory fund. in early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama victory fund donation page.

To see the highlights and Key Findings of the report CLICK HERE.

To see the full report CLICK HERE.

Written by DCL

October 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Romney’s Gaffe O’the Day! (ALERT: Satirical Content to Follow)

leave a comment »

ALERT: the content of this blog post is satirical in nature and is not based on actual events, news reports, or quotes from MSM news-makers. Granted, it is extremely difficult to distinguish satire from reality when it comes to the news anymore. Hence, the alert.

September 28, 2012 – – 1 hour ago

Mitt RomneyMitt Romney, at an 11:00 am rally with supporters in San Diego, California, opened his remarks with “Good morning my fellow Americans!” at which point the newswires lit up with expressions of disbelief.

Rachel Maddow: “Forget opening an airplane window, Mitt Romney doesn’t even know the difference between morning and afternoon. Doesn’t he know it’s 1 PM IN THE AFTERNOON in New York?”

Lawrence O’Donnell: “Romney is just trying to confuse the public and deflect from his failed potential future economic policies.”

Chris Matthews:”Can Mitt Romney even comprehend the magnitude of racial prejudice in telling someone to have a “Good Morning”? Millions of Americans DO NOT have good mornings every day! Besides, it’s afternoon here in New York. This guy is SO out of touch!”

What lunacy can I make up tomorrow that can rival and possibly mirror the actual News Cycle we’re seeing in the mainstream media?

Feel free to share your own made-up gaffes in the comments section.

Written by DCL

September 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm

The Journalist’s Creed

with 19 comments

I’ve stated on numerous occasions here in this blog and through social media how disappointed I am with my former profession. The media, the free press, given constitutional protection by the founders of this nation to be the watchdog over the “grand experiment” that was and is America, is failing in its responsibility and, in my opinion, sacred trust and duty to inform the citizenry of the actions of its government.

The American press is negligent and derelict in its duty.

Shortly after founding the Missouri School of Journalism in 1908, Walter Williams wrote a code of ethics known as The Journalist’s Creed.  I would be surprised if even a small majority of journalists have ever heard of it let alone read it or strive to work by it in their daily profession, though it stands in bronze at the National Press Club in Washington, DC for all to see.

How many walk by it daily without a second thought?

The Journalist's Creed

The Journalist’s Creed

I believe in the profession of Journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own pocket book is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or another’s dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds the best-and best deserves success-fears God and honors man; is stoutly independent; unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power; constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of the privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance, and as far as law, an honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship, is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world.

It isn’t perfect, but neither is the profession occupied by imperfect human beings.  That, however, does not excuse the blatant disregard for most of the tenets of this creed by our current broadcast media, print media, and news organizations.

I challenge any and all who call themselves journalists, at any and all professional levels to read the creed and then perform a sincere inventory of his or her journalistic practices.

This country needs a voice it can believe, verify, and trust.  Who will be the journalists to accept that charge? Who will follow the creed and all other ethical codes of conduct?

Please step forward.  Now.

Obama’s First Term in His Own Words

with 2 comments

President Obama is an intelligent man.  There are intelligent members of the Democrat party both in leadership and rank and file.  Contrary to what some on the right may say, the left is not stupid.

Having said that, this video, cataloging  the president’s own words at different times and with different audiences, leaves me to believe the Democrat leadership and this president have intentionally misled this country through;

  • misinformation
  • misappropriation
  • mischaracterization
  • miscommunication
  • misfeasance
  • misjudgment
  • mismanagement
  • misrepresentation
  • misspending
  • mistreatment
  • and misguidance

They can’t possibly be so stupid or shortsighted to not realize at some point the double-talk would be exposed.  You won’t see this comparison of the president’s speeches over the past 4 years on any major news network or in any major news publication.  It’s for this very reason that big government on both sides of the political aisle want to regulate the internet.  If not for the internet, few if any Americans would have the opportunity to evaluate these varying and contradictory statements spoken by candidate Obama and now President Obama.

This is more than just broken campaign promises.  This is a revealing expose’ on what the president says when in the company of the public and when he’s in the company of his ardent followers.  It proves, to me at least, the he will indeed say and do whatever is necessary to garner admiration, support, and votes.  His allies in the media have not held him accountable for the many contradicting messages over the past 4 years.

After watching this president for 4 years and hearing this compilation of his words, I have to conclude, voting for Barack Obama and giving him another 4 years in the White House would be a huge:


Rolling Stone: From Music Mag to Smear Machine

with 2 comments

Illustration by Robert GrossmanAs I started reading the Rolling Stone “expose” on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital by Matt Taibbi which is scheduled to be published in the September 13th addition, I was genuinely interested to see if someone had actually found a crack in the Romney “character” armor.


It didn’t take long to realize this was going to be nothing more than an envy laced, bigoted, intellectually dishonest, source-less, opinion piece that doesn’t even pretend to adhere to some resemblance of objective journalism.  All of which was revealed in the first two pages.

What happened to the days when Rolling Stone was about seeing your favorite Rocker on the cover?

As a retired broadcast journalist and former news director, I was trained in the old school ways of news gathering and reporting.  When journalists did their best to leave personal bias and ideology out of the story and clearly labeled opinion as such.  Not these days.

The title, Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, really should be changed. It should read “My Angry Personal Narrative About How I Believe Mitt Romney Got Disgustingly Rich, and Why it Pisses Me Off”, By Matt Taibbi.

That title would be a far more accurate indicator of the story to follow.  Oh Taibbi used all the proper dates, names, and second-hand quotes, he just organized it and spelled it out the way he sees it as opposed to how it actually happened according to those who were actually there and participated in the many Bain deals on both sides.  What we read in Rolling Stone is an interpretation.  Taibbi wasn’t there.  He didn’t participate in any discussion of any deal Bain ever did.  He didn’t even research it very well.  Where are the interviews?  The smoking guns?  Where is the irrefutable evidence that everything Taibbi is telling us is the absolute undeniable truth?

He appears to rely on old rehashed stories and quotes from other publications but even then we only get snippets and selective quotes with little or no context.   He names sources such as, former Bain employees, one Wall Street trader, or a prominent Wall Street lawyer.  Tough to cross-examine those witnesses.

He did interview a guy who was once at KB Toys, but I don’t know why.  The Bain KB Toy deal happened long after Romney had left Bain to run the Olympics and then to run for Governor of Massachusetts.

In fact Glenn Kessler, fact checker at the Washington Post had this to say about Bain, Romney, and KB Toys. “Can you really say Romney was responsible for the closing of 600 stores at KB Toys in 2004, given that the initial Bain investment took place in 2000, when he was at the Olympics, and he had clearly left Bain by 2002? It would have been fuzzier if the investment had started under Romney’s confirmed leadership, but I could find no evidence of his direct involvement in this deal.”

Taibbi’s narrative about Ampad is just as shaky. If you want to know the facts about Bain and Ampad or even GST go to this link at  It’s not quite what Taibbi leads us to believe.  I’ve also written about the GS Technology deal.  You can read about it here.

Taibbi’s method of fact gathering and reporting resembles one of a reporter who decides to do a write-up on a football game while seeing only the final score but then proceeds to tell you how he thinks the game was played based on the outcome. Even though he was never in attendance.

I get it. Your guy looks like he could be beat and all you’ve got to date is that Mitt Romney cut a kids long hair when he was 18 and he strapped a dog kennel to the roof of his car… I get it. But I don’t get the disdain for success and the need to demonize those who attain success by so many in the media and on the left. I really don’t.

Perhaps it was Taibbi’s time spent in Russia that led him to despise individual success and see it as an affront to the welfare of the collective.

This story might have been easier to swallow if it held even a tiny hint of objectivity.  Bain did have many success stories.  Companies who did make it after they were acquired and are still doing quite well.  A true story would include those truths too, would it not?  But why ruin a good smear with good news about a good man you want to look bad?

I get it.

I’ve been told Matt Taibbi wished he had been a novelist rather than a journalist. After reading this piece of fiction I’d say he got his wish.

Written by DCL

September 1, 2012 at 1:49 am

An $8 Billion Coincidence?

leave a comment »

What you’re not hearing about Medicare in all the Medicare banter these days is an interesting little coincidence President Obama hopes Seniors never hear about before November 6th.  You can all but guarantee you won’t read about it in the major news publications or see it on TV.

Here is a simple slide presentation explaining this slick move and, in my opinion, calculated act of deception by the administration.  Click the link to view.

Written by DCL

August 23, 2012 at 12:19 am

Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman

leave a comment »

What has happened to the 4th estate?  As a retired member of the electronic press, broadcast journalist, and former news director, I hardly recognize the profession I was trained in.

I watch as ABC’s Brian Ross suggests on national TV after a Google search, that a man by the name of James Holmes in Aurora Colorado, who recently “joined the Tea Party” “might” be the killer who butchered 12 people and wounded 70+ others in a Colorado movie theater…  He failed to mention that the same Google search will bring up James Holmes OWS participant or any number of other men named James Holmes.  No, he chose the Tea Party guy, because those Tea Party people have been going on so many killing rampages lately (sarcasm intended).
Harry Reid accuses Mitt Romney of Tax evasion.I watch as Harry Reid slanders Mitt Romney on the Senate floor by insinuating that Romney has evaded taxation for 10 years, a felony, simply because he got a phone call from someone who says so.
Then the Washington Post’s, Ed O’Keefe jumps on it and through your newspaper perpetuates a rumor without a shred of evidence simply because in Mr. O’Keefe’s mind it “resonates” with people.  Mr. O’Keefe is listed as a political reporter, not a pundit, or editorial contributor.  Reporters report facts backed with multiple sources and preferably both sides of the story.  When did those rules of reporting, objectivity, and responsibility to “seek truth and report it.” change into what we see all too often today.
What makes Mr. O’Keefes work even more disturbing is the fact that he reported on a similar story but with a 180 degree shift.  The headline should refresh your memory.
“McCain defends Clinton aide accused by 5 in GOP: Senator decries letter linking Abedin to Muslim Brotherhood.”
In that piece O’Keefe gave a scathing rebuttal to those “fringe voices” on the right spreading “conspiracy theories” without any evidence.  Please Mr. Pexton, help me understand the difference in overall context between these two “reports” and I use that term loosely.
In both cases unproven accusations were made.  In one case O’Keefe called out the accusers, in the other he supported him.  In both cases the parties being scolded or held up for ridicule are conservatives.
I’m sure neither you nor your colleagues see what I and millions of Americans see in the daily press, where 85% of reports on Mitt Romney are negative while the opposite is true for the President, and rumor is reported as fact or at the very least reported with a caveat at the end of “we not sure yet”.  But Americans are starting to see the mainstream media for what they are, clueless, biased, and elitist.  So much so that even some of those who’ve spent careers in the news industry with admitted liberal political ideologies are getting fed up.
A former Network TV News Producer after seeing Andrea Mitchell’s poorly edited Mitt Romney remarks blogged:
“Forget it. I’m done.  You deserve what they’re saying about you.  It’s earned.  You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you.   You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more.  You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press”
I must echo his sentiments and it pains me to see my former profession sink so low.
The only news in the Reid vs Romney story is either Reid is a liar and slanderer or Romney is a felon.  Perhaps Mr. O’Keefe could do some actual journalistic research, interviews, and reporting to tell us which is true.  Only one can be, so it shouldn’t be all that hard.
Doug Long
UPDATE:  On August 6th I received the following email from Patrick Pexton, Washington Post Ombudsman concerning the Ed O’Keefe article discussed in my letter.  Here is his response.
“Thanks Doug, I am disturbed by this too, I’ll have to look into it a bit more before I write, but my initial reaction is that this should never have been printed, no substantiation at all.”
Patrick B. Pexton
Washington Post Ombudsman

Written by DCL

August 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm