nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 37 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Women need president who can create jobs


Do you realize, according to the Government Bureau of Labor Statistics:

● That 92 percent of jobs lost since President Obama took office were women's jobs?
● That the number of unemployed women increased from 7.0 percent to 8.1 percent?
● That according to the LA Times, "newly created jobs go mostly to men"?
● That the poverty level rate among women is at its Highest level in 17 years?
● That more than 40 percent of single mothers live in poverty?

Is this really a president that women should support? The majority voted for a "change" four years ago - and are we better off? Wasn't the "change" for the worse?

Now is the time to make a better choice. That choice for president of the United States is former Gov. Mitt Romney. Women need a president who is more able to turn this economy around, create more jobs and give women their rightful place in the workforce. Please join me at the polls on Nov. 6. I will cast my vote for the Romney/Ryan team and I hope you will also.

Sue Hughes, Virginia Federation of Republican Women, Sixth District Representative


Mitt Romney chart claims Barack Obama has 'the worst record on female labor force participation'

--The drop in female labor participation is -- so far, at least -- pretty small.
--The decline in labor force participation under Obama was similar for men.
--In analyzing this question, the age of the workforce matters.
--The decline in labor-force participation under Obama can’t be attributed to his policies alone.
--Our ruling

Romney's website said, "What president has the worst record on female labor force participation? Barack Obama."

According to federal statistics, every president since 1948 except for Obama and George W. Bush has seen women’s participation in the labor force rise on their watch, and Obama’s decline was bigger than Bush’s. So there’s a grain of truth to Romney’s claim -- but not much.

The increases for presidents between 1948 and the late 1980s are largely due to broader social trends beyond the control of any president, so saying that Obama did worse than them is a red herring. Meanwhile, other cuts at the data paint a different picture. Under Obama, the decline in workforce participation for women was actually smaller than it was for men, and calculating the data using slightly different age groups shows that George W. Bush had a slightly worse record.

This lack of context weakens Romney’s claim that Obama has the "worst record on female labor force participation" of any president. We rate this statement Mostly False.


After two years in office, Governor Romney had nominated 19 judges, 17 were men; after three years, he had a total of four women on the bench. In this last year as Governor, with his eye on the White House, by the end of his term, Romney had named 18 women out of a total of 65 judicial nominees. (Boston Globe)

"[Romney] came in; it went backwards quickly," Berman (president of the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts) said. "It was horrifying. It was just horrifying. Here you are in this progressive state and you are going in reverse."


Hughes: That according to the LA Times, "newly created jobs go mostly to men"?

One reason: Male-dominated manufacturing, which experienced sharp layoffs during the recession, has rebounded in recent years, while government, where women hold the majority of jobs, has continued to be hit hard. But there's something else at work. Men are grabbing a bigger share of jobs in areas, such as retail sales, that typically have been the province of women, federal data show...Men now account for 51% of the 14.75 million retail jobs in the country.

Similarly, the male share of payrolls has inched higher in financial services such as banking and real estate, healthcare and education, and leisure and hospitality businesses, although women still outnumber men in each sector.

In recent months, women have picked up a bigger share of the new jobs than they had before, but it's uncertain whether that trend will continue.

(BTW, above info gleaned from the LA Times referenced by Hughes.)

However, I am puzzled as to how the President of the U.S. is responsible for these trends? What would be the outcry if he attempted to require retailers to hire a certain number of women?

My initial reaction to this letter was the snarky comment about not fitting into a binder before making sure us little women get home in time to cook the big mens their grub.

Here are my issues with Romney directly relating to women
1-He refuses to answer in regards to the fair pay act. That's a biggie. Right here in the Shen Valley when I started a job a step under my previous position, I was told by another employee(male btw) the only way I was moving up as a female was being related, marrying in, or offering "side action" to a member of upper management. This was 2007. When the first position opened up, myself and few other ladies that had actually worked there doing the specific job for years applied. They promoted a boy who literally could not even explain the job duties, who spent his lunch getting high in the parking lot. People do not understand situations such as this until they experience it first hand, but equality in the work place sadly still needs the Fed to enforce.

2- Hey says he will keep provisions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. A-Romney says alot of things, the man literally tailors his stances to the moment. While on the other hand countrywide the GOP has been pushing for outlawing every provision. A- I am at risk for tubal pregnancy, I shouldn't have to die because some whackjobs believe they are God and they get to place judgement. B- In this scenario, its a male on female rape or incest. A bunch of male lawmakers have no business deciding what constitutes rape, not now, not ever. C- No woman should have be faced with the further indignity of proving her rape to anyone. Contrary to these idiots thoughts women aren't leaping up and down to cry rape. More often than not, women are silent victims because they are ostracized doing so.I am a firm believer the government has no business in the female body, and Willard will not stand up against the whackjobs.

3- Saying contraception does not prevent abortion is like saying firemen do not put out fires. The government, employers, or the church should not be able to dictate to another which medications they get to have insurance for based on a religious belief. Willard will not stand up for Women in this regard.

4- Single Mothers are not the blame for criminals. Especially when you are standing there debating the POTUS, a child of a single parent.

5- I don't need to be home in time to cook dinner. This isn't 1950 my friend. In fact there are things he even cooks better than I. But that implication that women belong in the kitchen was not lost on me.

6- I'm also a mother of a child who has paid out of pocket for insurance, only to have it denied on the basis of pre-existing condition that was never even diagnosed prior to the need. Willard will not stand for me or her.

There are numerous infractions Willard has made along the campaign trail, but my tendency for being long winded annoys those who disagree.

Lastly, its the economy, and 2+2 does not equal -5 in the real world. Maybe it does in teabilly land, but I want details. I want more than a promise to add to the debt without a known plan to pay for it and reduce the debt. Willard has not offered this to me.

Dear Sue Hughes,

After you tried to break Obama's knees with boilerplate rhetoric, your letter failed to tell us how Romney will create jobs.

I await your response... and please, be specific, if you can. You have a number of flip-flop-flips to choose from.

I'm sorry, but I put little value into what Mitt Romney calls the truth since little of what he says stays the same from one speech to the next and it seems to depend on who he is talking to at the moment as well.

Electing Romney would be of great detriment to women considering he wants to throw out Planned Parenthood, overturn Roe v Wade, and just plain plunge women back into the last century, I feel he will do little to boost women in any way much less create jobs for us. He seemed rather pleased with himself during the second debate when he proudly boasted that he carried binders full of women! Good grief!

President Obama has daughters that he fights for and understands that he wants them to have the same opportunities their male counter parts share. He also understands that government has no business getting between a woman and her doctor. My vote is for Obama!

On closing, I have to ask....if Romney was such a great gov. of Massachusetts, why is his own state backing Obama at 57% with Romney trailing at 42%? I would think that alone speaks volumes!

Tstar, Someone will surely respond to you that Massachusetts is a blue state and that is true; however, the good people of Mass also know Romney is lying when implying credit for the success of the school system there.

Romney claimed credit for top scores by Massachusetts grade-schoolers while he was governor. But they tested at the top, or near it, before Romney took office. (Factcheck)

This man is a leader (High Priest) in the Morman church? Unbelievable.

I guess since I vote for the man not the party I would have thought that regardless, if Romney did such a great job while governing MA, it would surely speak well of his bid for the presidency and MA's polls would be reflective of their high regard for him and the job he did...or not.

I have some friends in MA and their rendition of his job as governor is nowhere close to how Romney describes his job well done.

"By 1983, Hayes was 23 and back in the Boston area, raising a 3-year-old daughter on her own and working as a nurse’s aide. Then she got pregnant again. Single motherhood was no picnic, but Hayes said she had wanted a second child and wasn’t upset at the news. “I kind of felt like I could do it,” she said. “And I wanted to.” By that point Mitt Romney, the man whose kids Hayes used to watch, was, as bishop of her ward, her church leader. But it didn’t feel so formal at first. She earned some money while she was pregnant organizing the Romneys’ basement. The Romneys also arranged for her to do odd jobs for other church members, who knew she needed the cash. “Mitt was really good to us. He did a lot for us,” Hayes said. Then Romney called Hayes one winter day and said he wanted to come over and talk. He arrived at her apartment in Somerville, a dense, largely working-class city just north of Boston. They chitchatted for a few minutes. Then Romney said something about the church’s adoption agency. Hayes initially thought she must have misunderstood. But Romney’s intent became apparent: he was urging her to give up her soon-to-be-born son for adoption, saying that was what the church wanted. Indeed, the church encourages adoption in cases where “a successful marriage is unlikely.”

"Hayes was deeply insulted. She told him she would never surrender her child. Sure, her life wasn’t exactly the picture of Rockwellian harmony, but she felt she was on a path to stability. In that moment, she also felt intimidated. Here was Romney, who held great power as her church leader and was the head of a wealthy, prominent Belmont family, sitting in her gritty apartment making grave demands. “And then he says, ‘Well, this is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church,’ ” Hayes recalled. It was a serious threat. At that point Hayes still valued her place within the Mormon Church. “This is not playing around,” she said. “This is not like ‘You don’t get to take Communion.’ This is like ‘You will not be saved. You will never see the face of God.’ ” Romney would later deny that he had threatened Hayes with excommunication, but Hayes said his message was crystal clear: “Give up your son or give up your God.”

"Not long after, Hayes gave birth to a son. She named him Dane. At nine months old, Dane needed serious, and risky, surgery. The bones in his head were fused together, restricting the growth of his brain, and would need to be separated. Hayes was scared. She sought emotional and spiritual support from the church once again. Looking past their uncomfortable conversation before Dane’s birth, she called Romney and asked him to come to the hospital to confer a blessing on her baby. Hayes was expecting him. Instead, two people she didn’t know showed up. She was crushed. “I needed him,” she said. “It was very significant that he didn’t come.” Sitting there in the hospital, Hayes decided she was finished with the Mormon Church. The decision was easy, yet she made it with a heavy heart. To this day, she remains grateful to Romney and others in the church for all they did for her family. But she shudders at what they were asking her to do in return, especially when she pulls out pictures of Dane, now a 27-year-old electrician in Salt Lake City. “There’s my baby,” she said.

(another incident)

"Despite Romney’s willingness to allow some changes in 1993, he and Dushku had clashed over the church’s treatment of women. “He says something like ‘I suspect, if you’ve gotten through both of the interviews, there’s nothing I can do to keep you from going to the temple,’ ” Dushku recalled. “I said, ‘Well, why would you want to keep me from going to the temple?’ ” Romney’s answer, Dushku said, was biting. “He said, ‘Well, Judy, I just don’t understand why you stay in the church.’ ” She asked him whether he wanted her to really answer that question. “And he said, ‘No, actually. I don’t understand it, but I also don’t care. I don’t care why you do. But I can tell you one thing: you’re not my kind of Mormon.’ ” With that, Dushku said, he dismissively signed her recommendation to visit the temple and let her go. Dushku was deeply hurt. Though she and Romney had had their differences, he was still her spiritual leader. She had hoped he would be excited at her yearning to visit the temple. “I’m coming to you as a member of the church, essentially expecting you to say, ‘I’m happy for you,’ ” Dushku said. Instead, “I just felt kicked in the stomach.”

Read More? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202

This article also contains a more realistic account of how Romney got started in Bain Capital.

Assuming your references are true, they don't please me. But neither do they convince me to change my vote. I think both men have bones in their closets they would prefer to keep hidden. I am convinced that Obama feels compelled to change the basic framework, and I can't support him.

For a counterpoint, I ask that you watch "2016: Obama's America" which is available now on DVD. While I'm sure you will consider it biased, on the whole I think it is factual. The producers seemed to attempt to stick to facts. It provides an interesting theory for why Obama thinks the way he does. Yes, I know a theory is an opinion.

So you trust a man who can change his position depending on who is standing in front of him at the tome. God help the USA.

I thought you were a stay at home mom.

I am now Debt. Not my entire life, I miss working very much and fully intend to be back to it when I am no longer needed at home.

In the film, a psychologist discusses the detrimental effect of an absentee father on his children.

Really? My husband walked out on me, leaving me with a 4 yr old boy and a 6 yr old girl...I didn't even drive. I worked two jobs, eligible for food stamps but refused them. No child support for five years, then $120 p/m until they were 18. When I joined the Foreign Service and we went overseas, he tried to get out of paying the $120 p/m claiming I was taking them out of the country and thus preventing him from seeing them. Never mind the fact that he had asked to visit them one repeat one time in the nine (9) years since he left--no birthday cards, no Christmas cards, etc. My daughter finished her high school in an International School in one country and my son finished his in another country. My daughter then left home and lived in London for nine years. The exposure and education they received from my overseas assignments elevated their awareness and intellect. Both children have great marriages, beautiful children, homes; and my son recently retired US Air Force--making me one very, very proud mom!!!!!

Exposure to other people and their culture is a positive, not a negative. If it were a negative, why do the Mormons send their male sons away for circa two-three years to foreign lands? For example, Craig Romney served his 'mission' in Santiago, Chile between 2000 to 2002. Chileans voted in the first round of presidential elections on 13 December 2009.

BTW, when Obama's mother married his father in 1961, the man was a citizen of The United Kingdom; Kenya did not receive its independence from the UK until 12 December 1963.

Dear Valley Patriot,
Here is your bloodly nose.... but you knew it was coming, didn't you.


Don’t see 2016

A writer recently stated everyone should see the film, “2016 Obama’s America.” Don’t bother. This is a paranoid, conspiracy-theory thriller that the far right will revel in, but it’s not very entertaining when it claims to be the truth.

In this film there’s a brief history of colonialism, and a short bio of Obama, focusing on a father he barely knew. The film gets into some odd stuff, alleging that Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain as a way to demonstrate his hatred of colonialism. The fact is, the bust was a loan and the U.S. agreed to return it before Obama took office.

The film gets even nuttier. It leads one to believe Obama got elected to his first term just so he could get elected to his second term and then shift the world’s power to second and Third World countries. This is the kind of movie that works for the people that already believe what it says, and those that still don’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

Save your money folks. You can get the same information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for free.
Gary Krueger


Joe Leydon of Variety Magazine said "The deft editing and overall technical polish -- as well as a generous travel budget -- go a long way toward making the pic an attention-grabber" but that "the pic comes off as a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling" making it "highly unlikely that anyone predisposed to championing Obama would be won over".


Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly called the film, "A nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination".


Ben Mankiewicz stated, "I think [the film] is another reminder of how many people in this country find Obama so shockingly unlikesome that they are seemingly ready to believe the most nonsensical theories about him.




The film flutters to the ground like so much GOP convention confetti, all assertions, few facts and little substance other than the conspiratorial right wing talking points that are D'Souza's bread and butter. Roger Moore - McClatchy-Tribune News Service

The film is a sleepy dud, a polemic that, like D'Souza himself, is at once both outrageous and deeply boring. Alan Scherstuhl - Village Voice

Viewers may do some headscratching. This can be a very strange movie. Mark Feeney - Boston Globe

D'Souza never actually shows...Obama's own words or deeds. Instead, he engages in guilt by association. Kevin Carr - 7M Pictures

Anti-Obama documentary trades objectivity for persuasion. Renee Schonfeld - Common Sense Media

--Joe Leydon of Variety said "The deft editing and overall technical polish -- as well as a generous travel budget -- go a long way toward making the pic an attention-grabber" but that "the pic comes off as a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling" making it "highly unlikely that anyone predisposed to championing Obama would be won over". He also stated, "there's no gain saying the value of '2016' as a sort of Cliffs Notes precis of the conservative case against the re-election of our current U.S. president.

--Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly called the film, "A nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination". Ben Mankiewicz stated, "I think [the film] is another reminder of how many people in this country find Obama so shockingly unlikesome that they are seemingly ready to believe the most nonsensical theories about him."

--In the New York Times, Andy Webster labeled the film "strident" and said "D’Souza stumbles when interviewing George Obama, the president’s half-brother, an activist who voluntarily lives amid squalor in Nairobi, Kenya."

--Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press questioned some of the film's points and said its central thesis that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, "is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best"

--In the Washington Post, Michael O’Sullivan described the movie as a "slick infomercial...destined to irritate the president’s supporters while mobilizing his detractors, even as it is doomed to win precious few converts", while also criticizing D'Souza for "fear-mongering of the worst kind".

-- Bill Goodykoontz of The Arizona Republic said it was "preaching to the choir" in a style similar to Michael Moore's films, but without the humor, straw men, and views from the other side.

--John Fund of National Review wrote that "D’Souza obviously wants his film to be taken seriously, and it deserves to be." He praised the production and feels that the film will appeal to conservatives as well as independents who are unsure of Obama.

--Christian Toto from the website breitbart.com, also praised the production quality of the film, stating that "It's rare to see unabashedly right of center films, and when they arrive they typically reveal their modest budgets in every scene. '2016' is different." He described the film as "clearly a conservative's effort to explain the president's actions while cautioning against a future in which Obama is unchecked by political reckoning."


You know Debt, I really am flattered as the only other person on this earth who has been able to remember just about everything I've ever said to them is my husband. Although, he has rarely done so in hopes of later weaponry, but who knows....(I may just annoy him that much at some point, I do try)

Rest assured I have no need to make up my own scenarios to try to make old Willard look bad.

Sorry, ROFLMAO, great minds, etc, etc. :)

In my opinion, either candidate from the Dominionist Empire Musical Chairs Party will be a disaster for the USA in the next four years. My wife and I still plan to protest vote for our neighbor's cat. The reasons are spelled out in detail here:


I have no idea what you are talking about. I based my guess on the fact that you have so much time to post every day.

I'mdebtfree:"I have no idea what you are talking about."

Yeah, we know.


Jane8, no harm, no foul, I slip a good one in every once in a while. My wife says I don't slip a good one in often enough to suit her....

Well played sir.

Willard's current debacle in his shining endorsement of one Richard Mourdock is yet another fine example of just how wrong he is for women voters.

*Just how wrong anyone with the GOP stamp is tbh.

Re 2016: I did not say the producers' conclusions were fact. I said they were opinions. "The producers seemed to attempt to stick to facts. It provides an interesting theory for why Obama thinks the way he does. Yes, I know a theory is an opinion."

The bases for their conclusions, however, appear to be fact, including his absentee father, his statements and writings about colonialism, and the extreme leftist people who influenced him during his youth and early manhood.

The film caused a lot of comment - including here. Interesting, though, that none of you saw ANYTHING of value, assuming you saw it, and are not relying on the opinion of someone else. For example, none of you acknowledged that the film confirmed that "birther" theories are incorrect. For me, the film provided information and food for thought, some of which I accept as fact and some not.

The thing that strikes me is that all of you really do seem to have swallowed the "koolaid." I am a conservative but do not agree with everything that Rep national, state, and local elected SERVANTS have done. But you guys seem to be ok with everything the Dems do and don't ever agree with any criticism of your guys.

I can see the blemishes on Romney, but consider them less disfiguring than those on Obama. I know you feel differently.

Be Specific. That seems to be your response to EVERYTHING. And when someone is specific, you don't like it. STRANGE!!!!

valley patriot, I agree with your last sentence about how "we feel differently" from you and others on the conservative side and maybe that is why in this country folks from both sides will never really understand one another.

No president from the time of our very first has ever been perfect, but President Obama is a far superior president and commander-in-chief to what Romney could ever possibly be. Nevermind that Romney does not have a clue nor experience (neither he nor Ryan) on foreign affairs, one of the things that really bothers me greatly about Romney (and should worry conservatives, by the way) is the fact that Romney has completely changed his positions on major issues going 180 degrees sometimes in a matter of hours! And there is enough tape out there for those who refuse to believe this, in which you hear the words coming from Romney's mouth---both sides of his mouth! Who is the REAL Romney? What does he actually believe? How will he actually govern if he is elected---and God forbid he is elected for the good of this country--- how can anyone ever trust someone who glibly can look you in the eye and claim they did not change their position when there is proof they did?

We all agree that all politicians will try to "fudge" the facts to make themselves look better than their opponent, but Romney with his major flip-flop-flip-flops demonstrating such lack of character, has brought this to such a new low that if it were not for the fact that there could be such dire consequences with such a man in power, it would comical.

VP- I'll play.

1- I have not and do not intend to give right wing extremists my money intentionally. I could go out and interview the women from Romney's church that have shared his he-man women haters club stories, the people that went to school with him that have shared stories of bullying, even photos of Willard playing gay, the people that have shared the horror stories from Bain days, the people that worked with his Father and have publicly stated Willard cant hold a candle, I could travel to Mexico and interview his family still living the polygamy style cult life....and then make it all one big movie and present it as the "real Willard". But that kind of BS is a right wing tactic.

2- Now Kool Aid*. In its sense its almost comical. First, it was Flavor Aid, if you guys are going to be persistent in using horrific events as political fodder, get it right! Secondly, Do you realize or even care that the only purpose it serves when you conservatives throw that out there is to remind people of just how dangerous religious extremes can be??

3- Criticism. There is a difference between criticism and flat out lies and/or half truths. I'm not going to criticize President Obama for saying "You didn't build that", because that's not all he said and the way cons present it is definitely not as it was intended. I'm not going to criticize the President because "he" didn't create more jobs, when it wasn't the President that didn't pass the Jobs Act and the Veterans Jobs bill. I'm not going to criticize him for the credit downgrade(s) because I read the report, and its not the Democratic party that refuses to compromise and is off signing pledges against the American people. Letting a temporary cut expire is not raising taxes.

I can't even criticize him because our economy hasn't recovered "fast enough". That is just the most ignorant of all. "I" not someone I know, spent 3 years recovering when I left my first marriage. Myself, my children, our clothes. It took three years to recover all we had lost, and that was only because I had parents to help care for my children so I could work 72-84 hrs a week. That's just me, one lone citizen. I can not even begin to imagine when its on the scale of millions of people. You guys act like it was one day event (the recession) and there is so such thing as a domino effect. We are making progress, only this time around its in a more sustainable fashion.

The President isn't perfect but at we least we know what he stands for.

@ song98 re October 24, 2012 3:45 PM post: Your crystal ball must be very good. I don't know what kind of pres Romney will be. But I know what kind Obama is and I am not satisfied. As I have said before, I believe he intends to change the basic framework of our country and I can't support that.

I also understand your concerns about "flip-flopping" but, again, the above outweighs that for me.

V.P., I sure do not need a crystal ball to see what kind of president Romney would be and what I see is frightening for the future of this country. As I said in my previous post, when I see someone (Romney) who so easily lies, so easily switches positions 180 degrees, so easily goes from "moderate" to "conservative" to "moderate" flip and flop and flip and flop like a human chameleon on steroids, does he even know himself what he actually believes in? Now maybe others because of their hate for President Obama don't care about that, but we are talking about a dangerous world and many problems and the last thing I want is someone (Romney) who does not even seem to have a moral core or any convictions or honesty.

Valley Patriot, I will not watch 2016 anymore than I would pay to watch those Michael Moore conspiracy flicks. I did read about 2016 on Wikipedia.

As you seem to appreciate films of this type, here's one I found while searching another topic. Warning: Not for the faint of heart.


It is crazy but there are people that obviously believe it to be true. Let me know your opinion...if you can sit through the entire film.

I did finish watching and declare it to be pure BS...EXCEPT at the last when the narrator is discussing the Islam film...probably a element of truth to parts of that!

@ katybug re October 24, 2012 3:46 PM post:

#1 Maybe you could; but so far no one has. But I'll cede your point. I've said before they all have bones to hide. But to allege that right-wingers are the only culprit is just wrong.

#2 Seems as if you think everything is a conservative plot. I'm sure you know that "kool aid" has entered our lexicon as a metaphor that refers to a person or group's unquestioning belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. I know some conservatives who have swallowed the kool aid. I suppose when liberals "throw it out there" it is for a different purpose. Summary: your reply underscored and highlighted my point.

#3 I said you guys don't ever agree with any criticism of your guys. (Should have said "seldom.") You cited some examples that may or may not be valid, but you do not disprove my point. Likewise, reciting your personal hardships do not disprove my point. See #2.

@ jane8 re October 24, 2012 7:00 PM & 8:13 PM posts: You were right - I couldn't sit through it. But what I did see gave more food for thought. I never examined the "flip-flopping" accusations because they all seemed to be related to the "liar" accusations. I ignored those accusations because, in my opinion, Obama is just as bad. (Before you ask, go to Fact Checker or PolitiFact. You'll find them there, along with Romney's.) But I will research the "flip-flopping" issue.

Consider watching "2016." It's not the nightmare this one is. You might hear some things you were unaware of; and I don't mean of a negative nature about your guy.

VP- I wasn't saying the extreme right are the only culprits, but in 2016 they happen to be *the* culprit, which is what we were discussing.

I prefer "sheep". No mass suicides or murders of sheep in the name of some whackjob's take on religion. (to my knowledge)

My "personal hardships" was simply to show you why "I" have no expectation of a magic fix it wand that can fix years and years of damage in a comparatively short amount of time. I understand it gets worse before it gets better, and it takes a heck of a lot of work to dig back out. Just sharing my perspective if you will.

No, I don't believe "everything" is a conservative plot. I do believe that the last 4 years conservatives have plotted to do any and every thing they could to try to keep the President from a second term. Its not really such a stretch, when it was publicly announced. America be darned, as long as they can take one mans job away.

@ katybug re October 24, 2012 11:36 PM post: Your last sentence is a stretch but, overall, agreed.

VP, I go to FactCheck, PolitiFact, Snopes, and truthorfiction a lot. It is not only the "lie" that I weigh; it's also the "weight" of the lie. Take a look at Romney verses Obama again.

They have fact checked Obama about X3 more than Romney so the odds aren't looking good for Romney!

Romney's statements by ruling

True 30 (15%)(30)
Mostly True 30 (15%)(30)
Half True 54 (28%)(54)
Mostly False 33 (17%)(33)
False 32 (16%)(32)
Pants on Fire 17 (9%)

Obama's statements by ruling

True 99 (22%)(99)
Mostly True 104 (23%)(104)
Half True 119 (27%)(119)
Mostly False 56 (13%)(56)
False 63 (14%)(63)
Pants on Fire 7 (2%)

Leave a comment

What do you think?


Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on removing it from our site if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.


Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary

News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!

nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com