|Tom Hanks, Conan O'Brien, and Grandpa?|
Enjoy the picture because I know I have!
Oh, and to add a little more humor to this all, I noticed this on Conan's twitter:
I never realized Conan O'Brien and Mitt Romney were so alike!
|Tom Hanks, Conan O'Brien, and Grandpa?|
|"It is okay to limit contributions from unions but I think it is okay for my friends in the private sector to give as much money as they want."|
|"Did I ever say something strikingly similar to that which I will criticize today?"|
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."Understandably so. The above statement reveals political opportunism at its worse. Although it is uncertain what type of crisis Emanuel was discussing, the right interpreted his comments to mean an Obama administration was hoping for tremendous failures so they can take advantage of the situation.
Wonder why President-elect Obama resigned from the Senate so early (while Vice President-elect Joe Biden remains an active member) and is hanging back, not wading into the debate over bailouts etc, and naming candidates for nearly every Cabinet post save Treasury (the man or woman who will have $350 billion to dispense when he/she walks through the door)?With all that being said, what would Motley, or any conservative pundit have to say for that matter, if the Republican presidential nominee made a similar, if not more specific statement?
Based upon what Emanuel is saying, the conclusion one might draw is that the Obama team wants the uncertainty this foments to fester and grow, thereby increasing the gravity of the crisis upon which the Administration then intends to capitalize.
And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him [Reagan] solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they'd go, "Now hold on. It's really a -- " I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.Mitt Romney seemingly tells millionaire donors that he would take advantage of a situation like the 1979 hostage crisis, deeming such an event as an "opportunity," and he did. On September 11th, despite making a promise to not launch any negative attacks against the president, the protests at the consulate in Libya and the embassy in Egypt took place and Romney used the crisis as an opportunity to criticize the president, just as he said he would in that private meeting with wealthy donors.
|"If elected, I promise not to help those people."|
|"I'd gladly cling to my |
|"Now calm down. It appears the embassy in Cairo has decided to agree with me. Now let's all pivot to the economy and Obama's failures."|
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”Why is this important?
“What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well,” Romney told George Stephanopoulos.So does this mean Romney is now sympathizing with the rioters and being an apologist for America with his latest flip-flop?
This is fairly impressive verbal gymnastics. Yes, the White House distanced itself from the initial statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that condemned a crass anti-Muslim film that had been making the rounds on the Internet. And yes, Romney also criticized the issuance of that statement.
But Romney also accused the president of sympathizing with the rioters because of that initial statement, despite the fact that the embassy released it hours before the attacks took place. And while Romney may want to focus attention elsewhere, it was that specific attack on Obama that had Democrats, foreign policy experts, and a good chunk of Republicans criticizing his conduct. His statement didn't comport with the actual timeline of events.
|"If I'm elected I would have sent in the army and started wars with Libya and Egpyt... and our No.1 geopolitical foe, Russia."|
|"Don't worry guys. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan believe free-market principles will help take care of your illnesses caused by your selfless acts eleven years ago. Besides, you'd rather die then be part of a new unfunded entitlement program bankrupting America anyway, right?"|
“Eleven years ago today, from Capitol Hill, I could see the smoke rising from the fires burning in the Pentagon. Like all Americans, I will never forget the moment that our homeland came under attack. For me, this is a day to remember those who perished on that day of terror, including the first responders. It is also a day to pay tribute to all those who have worked quietly and tirelessly both on the home front and abroad to prevent a repetition of such terrible events. And it is a day to give honor to those in our military who have sacrificed so much, including their lives, for the same end. Their courage and heroism and willingness to answer the call of duty have kept America safe and strong and free. We are truly the home of the brave.”That is all fine and dandy but what does Paul Ryan really think of the first responders - those who risked their lives at a time of terrible uncertainty? When Congress was considering legislation that would aid the first responders back in 2010, the bills was voted against none other than Mitt Romney's own Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan voted against the First Responders Bill three times - two "No" votes and one "Against" vote, meaning he was too busy to even vote up or down. Ryan also never issued a statement for September 11th two years ago when he was busy voting against the first responders and his fellow Republicans in Congress called aiding these American heroes fiscally irresponsible, job-killing, and just another entitlement program. Republicans successfully watered down the legislation, reducing the amount of the bill to only a couple billion and preventing first responders with September 11th-related cancer diagnoses from being covered. Just for a point of reference - America is spending roughly $10 billion a day for the wars Paul Ryan voted for. What was Paul Ryan's reasoning for not wanting to help the first responders? Ryan said the following on the floor when he got back from spending Christmas vacation with his healthy family:
Madam Speaker, I was absent for legislative business and missed rollcall vote 663 on December 21, 2010, and rollcall vote 664 on December 22, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 6547, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 664 (H.R. 847).So Paul Ryan wanted to thank the first responders by not funding their medical care (while he comfortably collected government-paid health care) all because he didn't like the accounting, which by the way placed the burden of costs on non-American entities. For instance, the Travel Promotion Act places a mere $10 fee on foreign travelers to America that do not require a visa. This would not amount to a tax on the average American and would raise the revenue needed to help fund the health care of those who risked everything for this nation.
The vote I wish to discuss is the bill H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Without a doubt, Republicans and Democrats can agree that both the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and the first responders who bravely served following the attacks deserve to be fairly treated and compensated. However, this bill would create a new health care entitlement, the World Trade Center Health Program, while also extending eligibility for compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. As a result, had I been present, I would have voted against passage of the bill.
Since the terrorist attacks occurred nearly nine years ago, I have supported legislation to ensure that these individuals are cared for and receive access to the services they deserve. However, rather than working with Republicans to craft a bill which truly addressed the shortcomings in care provided to those directly impacted by the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Majority instead rushed this bill to the floor in the waning hours of the 111th Congress, refusing to allow an open debate or consider amendments.
The result is a deeply flawed bill. H.R. 847 creates yet another mandatory spending program--increasing spending by $4.2 billion dollars over 10 years--and paying for it by an Excise Tax on Foreign Manufacturers, an extension of Travel Promotion Act fees, and the extension of HI-B visa fees.
There is no doubt that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who came to the rescue of countless individuals following the attacks on September 11, 2001, but these provisions distort that noble goal. At a time when our budget deficit is $1.3 trillion and our national debt stands at $13.8 trillion, we must accurately account for those programs that take priority. I remain hopeful that as the 112th Congress convenes, my colleagues and I can work together to reform some of my concerns with this proposal and truly provide the services these first responders deserve.
|Which one is Paul Ryan?|