Final post before the votes counted--
RealClearMarkets - Obama's Jobs' Spin Speaks to Desperation: "while it is amazing that the American people would even consider giving a CEO with a performance record like Obama's another term, it is even more amazing that the best candidate that the Republican Party could come up with to oppose him is in serious danger of losing."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Forget the mainstream media pro-Obama hype and spin - this election could go either way
What will the election outcome be? Well who do you believe?--
Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite - NYTimes.com: "By NATE SILVER--If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.” What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is: Obama’s ahead in Ohio . . . ."
Karl Rove: Sifting the Numbers for a Winner - WSJ.com: " . . . Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd. In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more. --Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads."
One thing for sure--they both can't be right!! Here's the real map as best as I can tell on the eve of the election--you can plug in the actual results as they occur in real time: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html
Yes, I have Virginia as red (for Romney) as the most reliable polls have a slight edge for Romney. IF Romney wins Virginia and the other states he is currently leading, the map will look as shown above--quite a difference from what mainstream media would have you believe (LOL)!! That would leave New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado--just 7 states. Yes, it's possible Romney won't win ANY of those 7 states. It's also possible he could win the election by winning Ohio and just one other state among those 7 toss-ups. If Romney wins more than that, it's not a "close" election (at least in electoral college votes). Stay tuned.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite - NYTimes.com: "By NATE SILVER--If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.” What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is: Obama’s ahead in Ohio . . . ."
Karl Rove: Sifting the Numbers for a Winner - WSJ.com: " . . . Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd. In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more. --Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads."
One thing for sure--they both can't be right!! Here's the real map as best as I can tell on the eve of the election--you can plug in the actual results as they occur in real time: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html
Yes, I have Virginia as red (for Romney) as the most reliable polls have a slight edge for Romney. IF Romney wins Virginia and the other states he is currently leading, the map will look as shown above--quite a difference from what mainstream media would have you believe (LOL)!! That would leave New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado--just 7 states. Yes, it's possible Romney won't win ANY of those 7 states. It's also possible he could win the election by winning Ohio and just one other state among those 7 toss-ups. If Romney wins more than that, it's not a "close" election (at least in electoral college votes). Stay tuned.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Still an Economy Election
The facts--just the facts:
Fix this economy - NYPOST.com: "Bill Clinton stumbled into the truth about the US economy recently when he conceded that Mitt Romney is right, “It is true, we’re not fixed.” During the more than three-year Obama recovery, we’ve recovered only 4.8 million private-sector jobs of the 8.9 million lost in the Great Recession. At the current pace of job creation the past two years (and assuming labor force participation stays constant), the economy won’t return to the Bush low of 4.4 percent unemployment for nine more years. The current level of private-sector jobs remains nearly 13 million below where it would be if the labor market were back to normal and creating jobs at what economists call a “trend recovery.” And what kind of recovery is it when incomes decline faster than during the preceding downturn? The Great Recession never ended, not really. It just morphed into the Long Recession. So things are most definitely not fixed. And in some ways, they’re getting worse. The United States now ranks seventh of 144 nations in the World Economic Forum competitiveness rankings. In 2008, it was first. Fewer new firms are being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended, according to a Hudson Institute study. US government publicly held debt as a share of GDP was 41 percent in 2008; it’s projected to be 76 percent next year — and, under the most recent Obama budget, it’ll more or less stay at that historically high level for another decade."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Fix this economy - NYPOST.com: "Bill Clinton stumbled into the truth about the US economy recently when he conceded that Mitt Romney is right, “It is true, we’re not fixed.” During the more than three-year Obama recovery, we’ve recovered only 4.8 million private-sector jobs of the 8.9 million lost in the Great Recession. At the current pace of job creation the past two years (and assuming labor force participation stays constant), the economy won’t return to the Bush low of 4.4 percent unemployment for nine more years. The current level of private-sector jobs remains nearly 13 million below where it would be if the labor market were back to normal and creating jobs at what economists call a “trend recovery.” And what kind of recovery is it when incomes decline faster than during the preceding downturn? The Great Recession never ended, not really. It just morphed into the Long Recession. So things are most definitely not fixed. And in some ways, they’re getting worse. The United States now ranks seventh of 144 nations in the World Economic Forum competitiveness rankings. In 2008, it was first. Fewer new firms are being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended, according to a Hudson Institute study. US government publicly held debt as a share of GDP was 41 percent in 2008; it’s projected to be 76 percent next year — and, under the most recent Obama budget, it’ll more or less stay at that historically high level for another decade."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Who Has A Plan for Economic Recovery?
OK, I get it--the election is about the economy: Change (Romney) vs More of the Same (Obama). And I expected the liberal economist Paul Krugman to blast Romney in the New York Times, but I was surprised to read what he wrote about Obama--
Pointing Toward Prosperity? - NYTimes.com: "So, is Mr. Obama offering an inspiring vision for economic recovery? No, he isn’t. His economic agenda is relatively small-bore — a bunch of modest if sensible proposals rather than a big push. More important, it’s aimed at the medium term, the economy of 2020, rather than at the clear and pressing problems of the present."
As I've said before, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Pointing Toward Prosperity? - NYTimes.com: "So, is Mr. Obama offering an inspiring vision for economic recovery? No, he isn’t. His economic agenda is relatively small-bore — a bunch of modest if sensible proposals rather than a big push. More important, it’s aimed at the medium term, the economy of 2020, rather than at the clear and pressing problems of the present."
As I've said before, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, November 1, 2012
How the Democrats Lost This Election
In order to keep the campaign on message, Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton's Little Rock campaign headquarters that read:
Change vs. more of the same
The economy, stupid . . .
It's still about the economy, stupid--
How the Democratic Base Could Lose This Election for Obama - Clive Crook - The Atlantic:
"President Obama is prepared to veto legislation to block year-end tax hikes and spending cuts, collectively known as the 'fiscal cliff,' unless Republicans bow to his demand to raise tax rates for the wealthy, administration officials said." So reported the Washington Post on Thursday. The article assumes, plausibly, that nothing will actually happen until after the election, and points out that whoever wins, the tactical calculations will then look different. True. In the meantime, though, this veto talk gives Romney an opening. . . . The Democrats are so keen raise taxes on the rich that they're willing raise everybody's taxes in order to do it. Democrats apparently think Obama's position is more appealing to centrist voters than Romney's. They're wrong. . . Romney can say he's prioritizing growth--that that's his overriding goal. The only way to read the Democrats' reply is that redistribution matters more. Their position looks all the more unreasonable if you agree with Democrats (as you should) about the economic dangers of an abrupt fiscal contraction. As good anti-austerity Keynesians, they should be more willing than Republicans, not less, to delay tax increases while the economy's so weak. Their zeal to raise taxes on the rich outweighs every other consideration: That's the message. . . . --but if Obama isn't careful, the base-pleasing hard line on the fiscal cliff could send Romney to the White House. Courtesy of progressives."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Des Moines Register endorsement: "Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision"
If Romney wins, this will be the overriding "reason"--
The Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision | The Des Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com: "The nation has struggled to recover from recession for the past 40 months. Still, the economy is growing at an unacceptably anemic rate of around 2 percent a year and could slip back into recession depending on what happens in the European Union and China. The workforce is still 4.5 million jobs short of the nearly 9 million that were lost in the recession. Longer term, looming deficits driven by Social Security and Medicare pose the single greatest threats to the nation’s economic security. The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
The Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision | The Des Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com: "The nation has struggled to recover from recession for the past 40 months. Still, the economy is growing at an unacceptably anemic rate of around 2 percent a year and could slip back into recession depending on what happens in the European Union and China. The workforce is still 4.5 million jobs short of the nearly 9 million that were lost in the recession. Longer term, looming deficits driven by Social Security and Medicare pose the single greatest threats to the nation’s economic security. The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, October 28, 2012
DNC website has all the details on Mitt Romney's tax plan
Whether you are for or against Romney or Obama, the Democratic National Committee gets the prize for the cleverest (and most humorous) campaign website--www.romneytaxplan.com
For all the details on Mitt Romney's 5 trillion dollar tax plan visit ROMNEYTAXPLAN.COM: "For a detailed explanation of how the Romney-Ryan tax plan is able to cut taxes by $5 trillion without exploding the deficit or requiring tax hikes on the middle class, simply click the button . . ."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
For all the details on Mitt Romney's 5 trillion dollar tax plan visit ROMNEYTAXPLAN.COM: "For a detailed explanation of how the Romney-Ryan tax plan is able to cut taxes by $5 trillion without exploding the deficit or requiring tax hikes on the middle class, simply click the button . . ."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Second Debate: America Deserves Better
OK, a posting on last night's second "Presidential Debate" (in reality a "forum") held in New York (solid blue state), moderated by CNN's Candy Crowley. Obama came out swinging to satisfy those unhappy with his performance in the first debate. Romney pretty much held his own, though I thought he "muffed" his chance to KO Obama on the Obama administration's gross incompetence on Libya (Obama, Clinton, Susan Rice, et al, blaming it on an obscure YouTube video, etc.). I came away with the following impressions:
Next time (in four years) there is a forum held, it needs to be held in a state that is neither solidly blue nor solidly red. New York was an inappropriate choice--no offense to the New Yorkers--but you are not representative of the independent-minded voters who will decide this election in places like Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc.
Candy Crowley was awful (as I suspected she would be)--she failed to control the candidates (Obama got a lot more time than Romney), started to become "Judge and Jury" during the debate, and betrayed a partisan (Democratic) bias in other ways. In short, she's not up to the job and should be banned from further debates as a moderator.
The candidates? As I've written before--pick your poison. That said, I am starting to feel a little sorry for Obama--I think he knows there's a good chance he is going to lose the election, and now he's trying too hard to try to get the advantage back. He (and some of his campaign spokespeople) are starting to sound "desperate"--hardly "Presidential." As a result, he's losing the advantage any incumbent President always has, and allowing Romney (who always has a CEO/Mormon/Midwestern bearing) to look/sound more "Presidential." I know this is "optics," not substance, but Don Draper would tell you "optics" can and does win elections (think of JFK-Nixon where John Kennedy won the debate, and probably the election, on "optics"). So on points, it was pretty much a draw, maybe even give Obama the edge. On optics, Romney won. The "experts" say any challenger who can come out of a debate with a sitting President in an even draw, wins.
Finally, I wonder what the debate last night would have been like had the Presidential candidates been Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton? Much better, I suspect, than what we got. Much better. And America deserves better.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Next time (in four years) there is a forum held, it needs to be held in a state that is neither solidly blue nor solidly red. New York was an inappropriate choice--no offense to the New Yorkers--but you are not representative of the independent-minded voters who will decide this election in places like Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc.
Candy Crowley was awful (as I suspected she would be)--she failed to control the candidates (Obama got a lot more time than Romney), started to become "Judge and Jury" during the debate, and betrayed a partisan (Democratic) bias in other ways. In short, she's not up to the job and should be banned from further debates as a moderator.
The candidates? As I've written before--pick your poison. That said, I am starting to feel a little sorry for Obama--I think he knows there's a good chance he is going to lose the election, and now he's trying too hard to try to get the advantage back. He (and some of his campaign spokespeople) are starting to sound "desperate"--hardly "Presidential." As a result, he's losing the advantage any incumbent President always has, and allowing Romney (who always has a CEO/Mormon/Midwestern bearing) to look/sound more "Presidential." I know this is "optics," not substance, but Don Draper would tell you "optics" can and does win elections (think of JFK-Nixon where John Kennedy won the debate, and probably the election, on "optics"). So on points, it was pretty much a draw, maybe even give Obama the edge. On optics, Romney won. The "experts" say any challenger who can come out of a debate with a sitting President in an even draw, wins.
Finally, I wonder what the debate last night would have been like had the Presidential candidates been Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton? Much better, I suspect, than what we got. Much better. And America deserves better.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Counter View: Obama won the Debate
Oh I know, all the pundits and "flash polls" say Romney won the debate. However, I watched the "whole thing" and it was clear before, during, and after the debate that Romney's math still doesn't "add up." Forget the style, forget the "spin," forget the debate "points." At the end of the night, Romney's statements (though they may sound "good" in the moment) are not credible--his math doesn't "add up." Even Paul Ryan dodged the question from Fox News' Chris Wallace when asked Sunday how the Romney math "added up." The longer this goes on, the more it seems Romney-Ryan are trying to "con" the American people. Five more weeks to election day is a LONG time for their con game to continue. Even the media (who now apparently want a "close election"), will eventually press Romney-Ryan for an answer or begin to expose their fraud. In the meantime, only the gullible will believe the Romney-Ryan plan. Over the next few days, bloggers and other media pundits will expose Romney's statements of last night for their lack of "substance."
As for President Obama, no damage done. His "likability" is intact, he made his points and appeared calm and "Presidential" (even if a bit "weary" of Romney's political game-playing). Obama played it right last night--he played it to win the election in November and not just one night in October.
That said, I will say that Romney opened the door last night for Joe Biden to be "unchained." I wouldn't be surprised to see "fireworks" when Biden and Ryan meet for the Vice Presidential debate next Thursday, October 11th. Joe Biden (unlike Obama) doesn't have to appear "likable" and the Democratic Party base now wants "blood." Joe's been around Washington a while. He's seen guys like "Paul Ryan" come and go. He knows the stuff Romney-Ryan are trying to sell is BS. Ryan may not even see it coming.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
As for President Obama, no damage done. His "likability" is intact, he made his points and appeared calm and "Presidential" (even if a bit "weary" of Romney's political game-playing). Obama played it right last night--he played it to win the election in November and not just one night in October.
That said, I will say that Romney opened the door last night for Joe Biden to be "unchained." I wouldn't be surprised to see "fireworks" when Biden and Ryan meet for the Vice Presidential debate next Thursday, October 11th. Joe Biden (unlike Obama) doesn't have to appear "likable" and the Democratic Party base now wants "blood." Joe's been around Washington a while. He's seen guys like "Paul Ryan" come and go. He knows the stuff Romney-Ryan are trying to sell is BS. Ryan may not even see it coming.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Saturday, September 15, 2012
What's Wrong With Romney?
"Pick your poison" was my last statement on the quandary the American electorate faces in this year's Presidential election. But despite Obama's vulnerability to defeat, the Republicans and Romney are doing their best to re-elect Obama. Want some specifics? Here are two sources--
Listen to David Brooks on Charlie Rose
Romney Re-Explains Why He Can’t Be Trusted on Health Care - Bloomberg: "For a conservative approach to fix at least part of the affordability problem, see this article from National Affairs by James Capretta and Tom Miller. Capretta and Miller propose to combine a Romney-style proposal on pre-existing conditions with significantly expanded funding for high-risk insurance pools, in hopes of covering up to 4 million uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. But Capretta and Miller estimate that their plan would cost somewhere on the order of $200 billion over 10 years. Where is the indication that Romney plans to make such a significant financial commitment, let alone get one out of a Republican Congress? Romney's platform is full of expensive promises -- restore $700 billion in Medicare cuts, grow defense spending to 4 percent of GDP, cut tax rates. It funds these promises in part by drastically cutting spending on health care for the non-elderly. . . "
Insincerity, bumbling campaign management and worse--I wonder if Romney is trying to lose because he understands the dire fiscal situation of the United States and knows neither the Obama campaign nor his campaign are telling the American people the truth, and whoever wins the election is probably the "loser" because of the almost impossible task ahead.
Tip to the Obama campaign--just pick up on Bill Clinton's arithmetic theme for the Presidential debates ahead--Romney's math doesn't "add up" and the American people don't like being played for suckers. Offense is the best defense for the Obama campaign since the President can't run on his record and of course he can't talk about the true reality of our fiscal mess and weak economy.
Tip to the Romney campaign--get honest, sincere, and competent real fast, or forget about ever winning the Presidential race.
Oh well, whoever wins, we'll muddle through--so go ahead, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Listen to David Brooks on Charlie Rose
Romney Re-Explains Why He Can’t Be Trusted on Health Care - Bloomberg: "For a conservative approach to fix at least part of the affordability problem, see this article from National Affairs by James Capretta and Tom Miller. Capretta and Miller propose to combine a Romney-style proposal on pre-existing conditions with significantly expanded funding for high-risk insurance pools, in hopes of covering up to 4 million uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. But Capretta and Miller estimate that their plan would cost somewhere on the order of $200 billion over 10 years. Where is the indication that Romney plans to make such a significant financial commitment, let alone get one out of a Republican Congress? Romney's platform is full of expensive promises -- restore $700 billion in Medicare cuts, grow defense spending to 4 percent of GDP, cut tax rates. It funds these promises in part by drastically cutting spending on health care for the non-elderly. . . "
Insincerity, bumbling campaign management and worse--I wonder if Romney is trying to lose because he understands the dire fiscal situation of the United States and knows neither the Obama campaign nor his campaign are telling the American people the truth, and whoever wins the election is probably the "loser" because of the almost impossible task ahead.
Tip to the Obama campaign--just pick up on Bill Clinton's arithmetic theme for the Presidential debates ahead--Romney's math doesn't "add up" and the American people don't like being played for suckers. Offense is the best defense for the Obama campaign since the President can't run on his record and of course he can't talk about the true reality of our fiscal mess and weak economy.
Tip to the Romney campaign--get honest, sincere, and competent real fast, or forget about ever winning the Presidential race.
Oh well, whoever wins, we'll muddle through--so go ahead, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Friday, September 7, 2012
The "Economy Election" - no recovery "in sight"
It's the "Economy Election" right? This explains it all in one picture (source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ via Paul Krugman):
Civilian Employment-Population Ratio (2007-2012). Sorry Mr. President -- no recovery "in sight."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Civilian Employment-Population Ratio (2007-2012). Sorry Mr. President -- no recovery "in sight."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama
Samuelson (Washington Post) grades Obama "C- or D" (poor) for all of his term excepting the "first six months"--
Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama’s economics - The Washington Post: " . . . For the first six months, I’d award him (Obama) an A-; for the rest, a C- or D. . . . The recovery is subpar. After the economy hit bottom in mid-2009, it has grown at a feeble 2.2 percent annual rate. By contrast, growth in the nine other recoveries since 1950 has averaged 4.2 percent for their first three years. During the slump, the economy lost 8.8 million jobs. Only 4 million, less than 50 percent, have returned. The grim job figures explain “why a great many people don’t believe there’s a recovery,” says economist Nariman Behravesh of IHS. Obama can’t escape some responsibility for this dismal performance. His mistake was assuming he could pursue his political agenda without compromising the recovery. Passing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) weakened the economy. For starters, the complex law discourages job creation by forcing some firms to provide health insurance or pay a fine. If you make hiring harder and costlier, you will get less of it."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama’s economics - The Washington Post: " . . . For the first six months, I’d award him (Obama) an A-; for the rest, a C- or D. . . . The recovery is subpar. After the economy hit bottom in mid-2009, it has grown at a feeble 2.2 percent annual rate. By contrast, growth in the nine other recoveries since 1950 has averaged 4.2 percent for their first three years. During the slump, the economy lost 8.8 million jobs. Only 4 million, less than 50 percent, have returned. The grim job figures explain “why a great many people don’t believe there’s a recovery,” says economist Nariman Behravesh of IHS. Obama can’t escape some responsibility for this dismal performance. His mistake was assuming he could pursue his political agenda without compromising the recovery. Passing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) weakened the economy. For starters, the complex law discourages job creation by forcing some firms to provide health insurance or pay a fine. If you make hiring harder and costlier, you will get less of it."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Blue States and Red States
"Rhode Island and Hawaii are the most Democratic states in the U.S., along with Washington, D.C. Utah is the most Republican. In 2012 to date, 17 states are generally Democratic, down from 36 in 2008; 18 are Republican, up from five." Read more at GALLUP.com.
In truth, the election will be "lost" or "won" depending on the outcomes in less than a dozen states since the vast majority of states are either "blue" or "red" before the first votes are cast.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Obama's in charge - be careful where you fly!
If the hassles and indignities of TSA aren't enough--there's more reason not to fly--
Midnight Was Movie Hour, Nap Time in New York Air Tower - Bloomberg:
" . . . In New York, investigators found a facility in which FAA managers were unwilling or afraid to discipline controllers’ union members, the reports said. Supervisors who tried to enforce the rules had their cars vandalized or were threatened. The result was widespread violations of rules that undermined safety, reviews by the special counsel and FAA found. . . ."
Remember President Reagan and PATCO? Still think it doesn't make a difference who is President?
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Midnight Was Movie Hour, Nap Time in New York Air Tower - Bloomberg:
" . . . In New York, investigators found a facility in which FAA managers were unwilling or afraid to discipline controllers’ union members, the reports said. Supervisors who tried to enforce the rules had their cars vandalized or were threatened. The result was widespread violations of rules that undermined safety, reviews by the special counsel and FAA found. . . ."
Remember President Reagan and PATCO? Still think it doesn't make a difference who is President?
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Meet the Romneys
Ignore the mainstream media narrative, and meet the Romneys:
"I think there's one word that would be high on my list of a few words you would describe Mitt with. It would be trust. I think the qualities Mitt would bring to the Oval Office would be integrity, intelligence, an ability to see a problem and see a solution and make people recognize that he has those leadership qualities that would unite many people." - Ann Romney
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
"I think there's one word that would be high on my list of a few words you would describe Mitt with. It would be trust. I think the qualities Mitt would bring to the Oval Office would be integrity, intelligence, an ability to see a problem and see a solution and make people recognize that he has those leadership qualities that would unite many people." - Ann Romney
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)