Racial Cooperation in Election 2012 and Beyond:The Multiracial Face of the Democratic Party

By: Edward Wyckoff Williams

Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM

A major takeaway from Obama's win is how people of all races formed a coalition to re-elect him decisively.

(The Root) -- For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And so today it seems almost serendipitous that the xenophobic campaign employed to undermine and delegitimize President Obama laid the very seeds of the GOP's electoral demise on Nov. 6, 2012.
Obama's Electoral College victory of 332 to 206 was achieved because of the disproportionate support he received from Asian Americans, African Americans and Latinos. Much of the postelection analysis has claimed that these results could have been read in the tea leaves of the 2010 census. But Obama's rainbow coalition wasn't just about numbers and demographic shifts -- his success reflects changing attitudes about racial identity, social cohesion and a growing cooperation among minority communities.
Obama's strong showing of 93 percent among African Americans was all but guaranteed, but the true game changer came with winning 73 percent of the Asian-American vote and 71 percent of the Latino vote. Asians in particular, who tend to be a wealthier, more educated minority population, have remained an elusive swing-voter bloc for decades. Bill Clinton received only 31 percent of their vote in 1992, and Al Gore won 54 percent in 2000. Their decisive support of President Obama might have a lot to do with immigration policy and Republican rhetoric.
Despite the immigration debates being so heavily focused on Latinos, Asians actually outpace Hispanics in population growth, jumping from 11.9 million in the U.S. in 2000 to 17.3 million in 2010 -- a 46 percent increase -- and two-thirds of Asian Americans are foreign-born. They have settled in key swing states like Arizona, Virginia and Nevada (where they outnumber the much-touted Mormon population).
This is the demographic reality in which Republicans waged a culture war demonizing China, the largest of all Asian countries, and framing Obama's Kenyan heritage as inherently problematic. It seems that the GOP made a terrible error: assuming that only black Americans would hear their coded denigrations that the president needed to "learn how to be an American." Perhaps they assumed that Latinos and Asians wouldn't take offense at the Birther calls for Obama to "show his birth certificate" or the "pernicious narrative" that blacks and Latinos are "dependent on government."
Asian Americans can hail from Korea, Vietnam, China, the Philippines or South Asian nations like Pakistan, India and beyond. Latinos share an equally diverse heritage, from the Caribbean to Mexico and throughout Central and South America. But their journey to the United States is in no way different from that of European immigrants who flooded the halls of Ellis Island in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
And herein lies the tone deafness of GOP xenophobic dogma. In the same way that African-American voters were galvanized by restrictive voter-ID laws that reminded them of poll taxes, water hoses and men in white sheets, Asians and Latinos heard the dog whistles and responded in kind.

So much of my work has focused on exposing subversive Republican tactics and Jim Crow-style politics: educating potential voters about America's long, dark history and how racially divisive strategies still work with key demographics -- namely some white voters. My fear was that Mitt Romney and those committed to "taking back our country" would successfully steal the presidential election -- by suppressing votes, exploiting racial animus and, perhaps, even rigging voter machines and discarding legitimate ballots.
But my fears appear to have been overrated and overindulged. It was difficult to hear and see through the smoke screens of the Republican Party's race-based war on Barack Obama. I, too, had become convinced of the enemy behind the imaginary Maginot Line: not the anti-colonialist, radical-socialist invention of Dinesh D'Souza and Newt Gingrich, but the angry white man who worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Thankfully, it was all a mirage, and the rainbow coalition did not discriminate: Obama's showing among blue-collar whites in the Rust Belt was strong, despite Romney's lead among white voters nationally. And 56 percent of all Obama voters were white.
This is key, and has real consequences for how we should now see our body politic. No longer can politicians, pundits or partisan operatives lazily assume that the American electorate is so black and white. Beige and brown have become the order of the day, and even white voters can see through the dated race-baiting intended to manipulate them.
Of course, Obama's success required hard work and strategy as well. The president's Chicago team brilliantly employed a well-organized ground game of volunteers alongside a sophisticated system of analytics. It allowed them to micro-target everyone from blue-collar whites in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa; African Americans and independents from Denver to Portland, Ore.; and young Cuban Americans and Puerto Ricans in Miami-Dade, Fla. This reflects the new face of an increasingly diverse electorate.
In the wake of defeat, Republicans are now touting a need to adjust their outreach and messaging -- especially to Latino voters -- but what is actually needed is a full repudiation of the racist, xenophobic elements within the GOP. It has been tolerated for far too long, and window-dressing the problem with a Herman Cain or Marco Rubio won't solve the problem.
If Asians, Latinos and African Americans continue to find common ground -- both in social policy and in social identity -- the Republican Party may well find itself marginalized and beholden to a dying demographic. And as Arizona and Texas, with their wealth of electoral votes, become increasingly diverse, that fate seems all but certain.

Reasons for Obama's 2012 Win: 8 People and Things

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Reasons for Obama's 2012 Win: 8 People and Things

Americans are particular about what kind of rich people they will vote for, drawing the line at those who seem to make their money at the expense of other Americans.

From voter-ID backlash to Hurricane Sandy, here's what made the difference on Nov. 6.

(The Root) -- After nearly two years of campaigning, billions of dollar spent and thousands of hours of TV ads, the 2012 presidential election came down to just one night and nine swing states. But what, ultimately, made the difference between who won and who lost? Below is a look at the eight people and things most responsible for giving Barack Obama a second term in office.
1. First Lady Michelle Obama
Her bumpy introduction [7] to the American people on the campaign trail four years ago is a distant memory now. She has spent much of her husband's first term being much more popular [8]than he -- or anyone else in politics -- is. Her speech at the Democratic National Convention, which was considered one of the week's best (even better than the commander in chief's), confirmed what the president said in his victory speech [9] on election night: that just as he fell in love with her 20 years ago, America has fallen in love with Michelle Obama, too.
2. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, aka the Republican Rape Jokers
If there are two people to whom Democrats should send the world's biggest thank-you bouquets, they are Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin and Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, because if it weren't for these two geniuses, the GOP would likely control the Senate [10] next year. When asked for his opinion on whether abortion should be allowed for rape survivors, Akin replied, "If it's a legitimate rape, [11] the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Akin had been leading his opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill, in a race that many expected Republicans to win. Akin's comments, however, received national attention and ended up hurting not only his campaign but also the campaigns of many Republicans running this year, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Romney's newly selected running mate, Paul Ryan, was asked to weigh in, and while he and Romney disagreed with the offensive delivery of Akin's remarks, the controversy cast a spotlight on the fact that Ryan opposed abortion, even in the case of rape and incest [12], the same position held by Akin [13].
Months later, after the Romney campaign had finally begun to close the gap with female voters [14] (thanks in large part to his performance in the first presidential debate), Mourdock said in an Indiana Senate debate, "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Within days he began to free-fall in the polls, taking Romney's newfound momentum with him.
Romney had the misfortune to have recently endorsed and filmed an ad for Mourdock. Though he denounced the remarks, Romney declined to pull the campaign ad, a move that he may now be rethinking as he reflects on his loss, particularly since President Obama won the election in part because of a double-digit advantage [15] with female voters.
3. Brown Voters 
In an interview with The Root, [16] Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) expressed concern over strict voter-identification laws, spearheaded primarily by Republicans after President Obama's historic 2008 win, which was powered by a coalition of nearly 5 million new voters of color [17]. He worried that the laws could jeopardize President Obama's re-election if they resulted in a decrease of 2 to 5 percent of the black vote. He needn't have worried.

---

Despite fears among progressives that President Obama's supporters would be less enthusiastic this election, black voters made up 13 percent of the electorate, just as they did four years ago, and more than 90 percent [18]of them supported President Obama. Pre-election analysis [19]had speculated that without record African-American support, the president would be unable to carry the state of Virginia. He did carry it.
Latino voters also significantly increased their share of the electorate, from 6 percent in 2000 to 10 percent [20] this time. They, too, overwhelmingly supported President Obama.
4. Voter-ID Laws
As mentioned above, there were fears among progressive activists and Democratic leaders that voter-identification laws could have a chilling effect on the electorate this election cycle. Apparently it did -- just not the impact that some voter-ID proponents may have hoped for. Bucking conventional wisdom that they would be less enthusiastic this election than last, black voters increased their turnout this election cycle over 2008 in the swing states Ohio, Florida and North Carolina [21]. Their turnout was so impressive -- and surprising -- that it led Republican mastermind Karl Rove to cry that it was the Obama campaign that actually engaged in voter-suppression [22] efforts this election through negative campaign ads about Romney. No, that is not a joke.
5. James Carter IV
Some of you may have just scratched your heads, asking "Who?" while others may have just said, "That name sounds familiar." It should. James Carter IV is the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter. Thanks to this election, Carter IV has now secured his own place in presidential history. Working for the publication Mother Jones, Carter IV did something that no Democratic operative working for President Obama or the Democratic National Committee had been able to: He saw footage of Mitt Romney on tape saying what he really thinks about poor people, andconvinced the owner to let the magazine run the video [23]. Carter unearthed the footage of Romney speaking about the "47 percent" [24] at a private fundraiser through good, old-fashioned digging. It became one of the defining moments of the presidential campaign.
6. Bain Capital
Americans don't mind voting for rich people. Just ask the Kennedys, the Bushes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But apparently, Americans are particular about what kind of rich people they will vote for, drawing the line at those who seem to make their money at the expense of other Americans.
That was the perception that many voters had of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital. A recent Washington Post [25] article on how the president ultimately won highlighted how devastating the Obama campaign's early attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital proved to be for the GOP. Those attacks created a gap with working-class voters -- many of whom had more in common with some of the workers laid off during Romney's successful Bain Capital run than they did with Romney himself.
7. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
The idea of putting the governor on this list would have been laughable just a few short months ago. The man who said of President Obama at the Republican National Convention [26], "You see, Mr. President, real leaders do not follow polls. Real leaders change polls," was an unlikely candidate  to help salvage the president's struggling campaign.
But when Christie said in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy [27], "I have to say, the administration, the president  himself and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate have been outstanding with us so far. We have a great partnership with them," he helped solidify the president's image as a leader who is willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, something particularly appealing to independent voters. Clearly, the weight of Christie's praise was not lost on Republicans, who criticized the governor's comments and his literal (as well as symbolic) embrace of the president.

---

8. Hurricane Sandy
No one predicted that just before Election Day, a heretofore-unknown name would end up affecting the outcome of the election, but apparently a hurricane-turned-superstorm by the name of Sandy did just that. A number of disappointed Republicans [28]blamed the storm for Romney's defeat, and according to exit polls, they had good reason to.
According to Fox News, 4 out of 10 voters [29] based their vote in part on the government response to Hurricane Sandy, and those voters overwhelmingly supported the president. His response drew praise from Christie and secured the endorsement of Republican-turned-independent Mayor Bloomberg. It probably didn't help matters that  during a presidential-primary debate, Romney had hinted at eliminating the disaster-relief Federal Emergency Management Agency [30].

President Obama’s full victory speech - The Washington Post

President Obama’s full victory speech - The Washington Post

Text of Barack Obama's Speech After Re-Election

ABC OTUS News – 21 hrs ago

President Barack Obama's speech in Chicago after his re-election Tuesday night, as transcribed by Roll Call:

———

Thank you so much.

Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.

It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.

Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.

I want to thank every American who participated in this election, whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix that. Whether you pounded the pavement or picked up the phone, whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard and you made a difference.

I just spoke with Gov. Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign. We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son Mitt, the Romney family has chosen to give back to America through public service and that is the legacy that we honor and applaud tonight. In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.

I want to thank my friend and partner of the last four years, America's happy warrior, the best vice president anybody could ever hope for, Joe Biden.

And I wouldn't be the man I am today without the woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago. Let me say this publicly: Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch the rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation's first lady. Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes you're growing up to become two strong, smart beautiful young women, just like your mom. And I'm so proud of you guys. But I will say that for now one dog's probably enough.

To the best campaign team and volunteers in the history of politics. The best. The best ever. Some of you were new this time around, and some of you have been at my side since the very beginning. But all of you are family. No matter what you do or where you go from here, you will carry the memory of the history we made together and you will have the lifelong appreciation of a grateful president. Thank you for believing all the way, through every hill, through every valley. You lifted me up the whole way and I will always be grateful for everything that you've done and all the incredible work that you put in.

I know that political campaigns can sometimes seem small, even silly. And that provides plenty of fodder for the cynics that tell us that politics is nothing more than a contest of egos or the domain of special interests. But if you ever get the chance to talk to folks who turned out at our rallies and crowded along a rope line in a high school gym, or saw folks working late in a campaign office in some tiny county far away from home, you'll discover something else.

You'll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who's working his way through college and wants to make sure every child has that same opportunity. You'll hear the pride in the voice of a volunteer who's going door to door because her brother was finally hired when the local auto plant added another shift. You'll hear the deep patriotism in the voice of a military spouse who's working the phones late at night to make sure that no one who fights for this country ever has to fight for a job or a roof over their head when they come home.

That's why we do this. That's what politics can be. That's why elections matter. It's not small, it's big. It's important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

That won't change after tonight, and it shouldn't. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.

We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. We want to pass on a country that's safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this — this world has ever known. But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.

We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker's child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president — that's the future we hope for. That's the vision we share. That's where we need to go — forward. That's where we need to go.

Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It's not always a straight line. It's not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won't end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin.

Our economy is recovering. A decade of war is ending. A long campaign is now over. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you've made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.

Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We've got more work to do.

But that doesn't mean your work is done. The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America's never been about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating, but necessary work of self-government. That's the principle we were founded on.

This country has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military in history, but that's not what makes us strong. Our university, our culture are all the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth. The belief that our destiny is shared; that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. The freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for come with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That's what makes America great.

I am hopeful tonight because I've seen the spirit at work in America. I've seen it in the family business whose owners would rather cut their own pay than lay off their neighbors, and in the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see a friend lose a job. I've seen it in the soldiers who reenlist after losing a limb and in those SEALs who charged up the stairs into darkness and danger because they knew there was a buddy behind them watching their back.

I've seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders from every party and level of government have swept aside their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage of a terrible storm. And I saw just the other day, in Mentor, Ohio, where a father told the story of his 8-year-old daughter, whose long battle with leukemia nearly cost their family everything had it not been for health care reform passing just a few months before the insurance company was about to stop paying for her care.

I had an opportunity to not just talk to the father, but meet this incredible daughter of his. And when he spoke to the crowd listening to that father's story, every parent in that room had tears in their eyes, because we knew that little girl could be our own. And I know that every American wants her future to be just as bright. That's who we are. That's the country I'm so proud to lead as your president.

And tonight, despite all the hardship we've been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I've never been more hopeful about our future. I have never been more hopeful about America. And I ask you to sustain that hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. I'm not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.

I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try.

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We're not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

And together with your help and God's grace we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you, America. God bless you. God bless these United States.

COMMENTARY: Job Well Done, Mr. President | Black America Web

Michael CottmanSenior Writer, Blackamericaweb.com

COMMENTARY: Job Well Done, Mr. President

CHICAGO – In the final days leading up to Election Day, a friend told me that God wasn’t finished with President Barack Obama because he has four more years of important work to do on behalf of the American people.

I believe she was right. And I also believe that many African Americans feel the same way.

And it's no coincidence that  “Barack” means “Blessed One.”

Millions of Americans – a determined multi-cultural coalition – returned Obama to the White House for a second term Tuesday and embraced Obama’s message of hope and resilience in the face of economic adversity.

“Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come,” Obama told 10,000 supporters at McCormick Place Convention Center in his hometown of Chicago, Illinois.

Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney decisively with 303 electoral votes, compared to 206 for Romney. Obama also won the popular vote in a race where Republicans tried to define Obama as a poor fiscal manager. In fact, Obama beat the odds: He is the first president in decades to win the White House when the unemployment rate is over 7.2 percent.

But Tuesday’s victory for Obama was a phenomenal accomplishment for an African American to win two presidential elections in a deeply divided nation.

Obama, in an impressive triumph, won at least six battleground states.

“Whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you. I have learned from you. And you’ve made me a better president,” Obama said. “And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.”

The president won key battleground states including Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And he won these states – and others – with strong support from African Americans, Latinos, whites, young voters and women who stood in extremely long lines to cast their ballots.

And they also took advantage of early voting, following Obama’s lead when, last week, Obama became the first president in history to vote before Election Day.

Tuesday’s victory for Obama was not just about an election, it was a continuation of a social movement that started during his historic election in 2008.

It’s a movement of optimism that continues with people like an African American doorman of a Chicago hotel who said he’s motivated to work harder because of Obama’s encouragement; or the black woman serving sandwiches in local a deli who said her son is turning his life around because of the president’s leadership; and the Arab cab driver who said Obama was an inspiration to people a world away.

"We are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation," Obama told the crowd. "The best is yet to come."

A year ago, Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, told me that Obama would win re-election in large part because of a solid grass-roots ground game that Democrats put in place all across the country.

It was a ground game that buried Romney.

“I pray the president will be successful in guiding our nation,” Romney said in an early-morning concession speech. “And I trust that his intellect and his hard work and his commitment to principle will continue to contribute to the good of our nation.”

For Obama, his decades-long superstition of playing basketball on Election Day continued Tuesday -- and it worked. But superstition aside, many black Americans believe Obama’s resounding victory over Romney was in some way a result of divine intervention.

“While our journey has been long,” Obama told a cheering crowd, “we have picked ourselves up.”

Obama is starting his second term in the White House the way he ended his 17-month campaign: with a passionate directive of hope.

And “God’s grace.”

What Happened at the Second Presidential Debate | Swampland | TIME.com

By ADAM SORENSEN AND MICHAEL SCHERER | October 17, 2012

BROOKS KRAFT / CORBIS FOR TIME

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama spar over energy policy during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University on Oct. 16, 2012, in Hempstead, N.Y.

0 minutes. Both men mean business. They are out with smiles, mouthed “Thank You’s” and a perfunctory handshake. The American people have been subjected to political debates for more than a year. But this one is bigger than any other. Romney won the first decisively, and pulled ahead in many of the polls. Now, the rematch.

3 minutes. The town hall format means the first question goes to a college kid, who resembles a young Adam Sandler. He asks Romney about what will happen after graduation. Romney runs through the high points of his education record, and the low points of Obama’s economic record, then asks, “When do you graduate?” The Sandler-like kid says, “2014.” “When you come out in 2014, I presume I’m going to be president. I’m going to make sure you get a job,” says Romney. That’s good news for the kid.

5 minutes. Obama takes the question and pivots to what he never did in the first debate: Demonstrating that he wants the job of president for a second term. He even steals Romney’s move to do it, the Powerpoint list: Number one, number two, etc. Number one mentions Romney wanting Detroit to go bankrupt. That’s how it goes.

8 minutes. Romney clarifies that his desire to let Detroit go bankrupt was not as menacing as Obama makes it sound. “The president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did,” Romney says. He is right. The difference between the candidates is at what point in the process the government should have intervened, not whether bankruptcy was the proper course.

10 minutes. But this is the new Obama, the Obama on offense. So he doesn’t take that. “What Governor Romney said just isn’t true,” Obama says. “He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs.” The question being raised here is whether Romney still would have resisted government bailouts if it became clear, as Obama suggests, that the companies would have folded otherwise. But this is a presidential debate. So we don’t get there. Instead, Obama says of Romney, “He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.”

11 minutes. Obama gets a question about gas prices. He lists off his various energy planks. Then attacks Romney. “Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies,” he says. This allows Romney to lay into Obama’s energy record. “What we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal,” he says of Mr. Obama. Romney also hits Obama for a decline in permits for new federal drilling.

17 minutes. “Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true,” Obama says smiling. Here follows a squabble between the two men about just what Obama has done with federal drilling leases. At points, the two men are almost shouting over each other, looking at each other, just a few feet away. It’s full contact debate. The truth is that the drop in federal leases began under President George W. Bush, and continued after the moratorium in response to the gulf oil spill. But at moments like these, the theater overwhelms the facts. And what is clear is the change that has taken place in two weeks. In Denver, Obama was willing to defer. In New York, he has come to rumble. The President starts to eat into Romney’s time.

22 minutes. Romney starts appealing to moderator Candy Crowley of CNN for more time. “Candy, Candy,” he says. Then Obama tries to interrupt. Crowley regains control. Next question.

23 minutes. It’s about taxes. What loopholes in the tax code is Romney planning to eliminate? The mortgage interest deduction? The charitable giving credit? Romney says he would just set a ceiling on how much people can deduct. “One way of doing that would be say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use,” Romney says. He doesn’t say he is fixed on that number, which means voters won’t be able to calculate before they vote whether their individual taxes will go up or down under a Romney plan. Romney also says he will get rid of taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains for middle class people, which would be good for the middle class people who have extra money to invest.

27 minutes. Obama says that his tax plan is focused on cutting taxes for the middle class, while Romney is worried more about the rich. “That’s exactly the kind of top-down economics that is not going to work if we want a strong middle class and an economy that’s striving for everybody,” Obama says. “I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people,” Romney responds. “Settled?” asks Crowley.

31 minutes. “No, it’s not settled.” Obama criticizes Romney for not explaining how he’d simultaneously cut taxes, lower the deficit and increase military spending. The words come out fast and precise. Someone switched Obama’s Benadryl for Adderall. “If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t take such a sketchy deal and neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up,” he says.

35 minutes. “Well of course they add up,” Romney responds. “I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget” as a governor. He got help from the federal government to do both those things, but never mind. “When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years?”

37 minutes. New topic: What is each candidate doing to close the pay gap between men and women. It’s kind of a gimmee for Obama, who launches into his stump speech: Raised by a single working mom; grandmother got passed over for promotions at her bank job; first bill he signed in office made it easier for women to file equal pay suits. Romney tells a nice story too. When he first became governor of Massachusetts, all the recommended cabinet members were men, so he sent his team out to find “whole binders full of women” to hire. This didn’t really happen. Someone else compiled the list of women before Romney won office. But the binders were real. Next, Obama says a Romney presidency would be bad for women.

45 minutes. A tough one for Romney about how his policies would differ from George W. Bush’s. Romney thanks the questioner and then argues with Crowley about whether he was supposed to get a rebuttal to Obama’s last point. He wins enough time to say “the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong,” then answers the Bush question. Romney would be tougher on China’s trade practices and better about deficits. “President Bush and I are different people and these are different times,” Romney says. Fact check: True. Obama says Romney is more conservative than Bush on social issues and can’t be trusted on China because he invested in companies there.

51 minutes. A former Obama supporter asks what the President has done to deserve a second term. This is Obama’s big shot to defend his record, something he totally whiffed on last time around. Out comes the PowerPoint: taxes cut, Iraq exited, bin Laden killed. Obama explains health care reform in plain terms: “Insurance companies can’t jerk you around.” When he runs out of bullet points, he just lights into Romney some more. “I think you know better,” Romney responds, embarking on a misery tour of economic data from the last four years, some of it true. He says Obama predicted 5.4% unemployment by now—he didn’t, it was economists working for Obama’s transition team in 2008 before the depths of the recession were apparent—and blames the President for rising health care costs that were increasing before he took office. Obama tries to object, but we’re moving on to the next question.

59 minutes. “This is for Governor Romney?” Obama asks. “It’s for Governor Romney,” says Crowley. “Is it Loraina?” Romney asks the questioner. “Lorraine.” “Lorraine?” “Yes, Lorraine.” “Lorraine,” repeats Romney. “How you doing?” Lorraine asks. This isn’t her question. She wants to know what Romney would do about undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. “Thank you,” Romney says. “Lorraine? Did I get that right?” He did. Romney likes legal immigration–”this is a nation of immigrants,” he says–but he does not like illegal immigration and the President is to blame because he failed to pass comprehensive reform when Democrats controlled Congress. Now it’s Obama’s turn. “Lorranna,” he begins. “Lorraine. We are a nation of immigrants.” Obama says that he too loves immigration but Romney held up reform by calling a controversial Arizona law a “model for the nation.” In reality, Romney was only referring to one largely uncontroversial part of the law. Not democracy’s finest moment.

66 minutes. Romney remembers his rebuttal to that thing Obama said about Chinese investments 20 minutes ago and confronts the president at center stage. Romney’s money is in a blind trust and Obama’s pension invests in overseas companies too. “Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney says. “It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long,” Obama fires back. “We’re way off topic here,” says Crowley.

70 minutes. A guy named Kerry Ladka says his buddies at a telecom supply company in Mineola were all talking about Libya the other day and wanted to know whether the Obama Administration denied additional security to the consulate in Benghazi where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed on Sept. 11. The back story seems highly implausible, but at least neither candidate tries to say his name. Obama says he responded to the attack responsibly while Romney politicized it, which doesn’t really answer the question. But it’s a powerful exchange. “This calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East,” Romney says. “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime,” Obama says. “And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.”

76 minutes. Romney thinks that he has caught the President telling a whopper. “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror?” he says, grinning. “I want to make sure we get that for the record.” “Get the transcript,” Obama deadpans. Crowley back him up: “He did in fact, sir.” Romney looks like a guy whose steak dinner has sprouted legs and crawled off his plate.

77 minutes. The debate has pretty much entered stoppage time. “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” asks one voter. “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment,” Obama begins. He and Romney go on at some length, but neither has proposed new gun laws. The NRA guys watching at home pour themselves another scotch.

85 minutes. A question about outsourcing, scourge of the undecided voter. Obama and Romney have already used most of their economic talking points and China trade barbs so they both just cycle back through the list. Obama wants more education. Romney wants business-friendly taxes.

94 minutes. We’re well into overtime and Crowley brings our attention to the audience for the final question of the night. “I think this is a tough question,” the voter begins before lobbing a mushy softball up onto the stage. “What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate?” Romney goes first and explains, “I care about our kids,” and “I believe in God.” He also says that Obama’s efforts to paint him as out of touch aren’t fair. “I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future.” Perceptive. Obama ignores the question entirely and goes after Romney on this exact front. “I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about. Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country.” He keeps going. Romney never gets a chance to respond. Only one more debate. We”ll see you Monday night.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/17/what-happened-at-the-second-presidential-debate/#ixzz29YuiGJHl

Steve Jobs' 1983 Speech Makes Uncanny Predictions About The Future

Apple, Steve Jobs, Apple, Careers, Video, Steve Jobs Apple, Lost Steve Jobs Speech, Steve Jobs 1983, Steve Jobs 1983 Speech, Steve Jobs 1983 Tape, Steve Jobs Lost, Steve Jobs Lost Speech,Steve Jobs Lost Talk, Steve Jobs Speech, Steve Jobs Speech 1983, Steve Jobs Talk, Steve Jobs Tape,Topicapple, Topicstevejobs, Technology News

In 1983 Ronald Reagen was president, the Washington Redskins went to the Super Bowl and Steve Jobs spoke about the future of the tech industry at the International Design Conference in Aspen, CO.

In August, the first 20 minutes of the now infamous speech (titled "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be") from the former Apple CEO was released by the Center of Design Innovation, offering listeners a glimpse of the Apple co-founder's past vision. The recording circulated quickly around the web, but some enthusiasts noticed that the question-and-answer session orchestrated by Jobs was missing from the audio clip.

This week the final 40-minute portion of the recording was released, thanks to the handiwork of Marcel Brown, creator of the Life, Liberty, and Technology blog. One of Brown's clients had personally attended the speech in 1983 and supplied Brown with a cassette tape (remember those?). He then digitized this recording, which you can listen to in full, below.

Now that we've got almost 30 years of perspective on this speech, let's see if Jobs' predictions were spot-on or not.

Even in the very opening of the speech, Jobs states, "The kids growing up now are definitely products of the computer generation, and in their lifetimes the computer will become the dominate medium."

But what's most notable is Jobs' discussion of the personal, portable computer.Gizmodo points out that in 1983, the Macintosh hadn't even been released. Still, Jobs certainly had a vision of what he wanted Apple to accomplish.

From the recording, per Gizmodo: "Apple's strategy is really simple. What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you and learn how to use in 20 minutes. That's what we want to do and we want to do it this decade."

What he says next might send shivers up the spines of those reading while connected to the Internet via WiFi: "And we really want to do it with a radio link in it so you don't have to hook up to anything and you're in communication with all of these larger databases and other computers."

Jobs also says that his company was "about five years away from solving the problem" of connecting computers together in the office, and ten years away from "hooking" computers together in the home. According to The Next Web, his predictions were very close to reality, as there was "significant adoption" of the internet by 1993.

Brown lists several other points on his blog that Jobs makes about the future. Some highlights are below:

• Jobs stated that we will "spend more time interacting with personal computers than cars."
• Brown further explains how Jobs imagined a world where "people could be walking around anywhere and pick up their e-mail."
• Jobs tried to explain his opinions of Apple's role in distributing knowledge. He stated, "We are all bombarded with information every day," noting that much of this information would not distill "wisdom" (ahem, YouTube cat videos.) Thus, his goal was to provide tools "to distribute that intelligence" for something useful, that could be "possess-able by everyone." Given the vastness of the internet and the mobile technology we have today, his predictions are are startlingly accurate.
• Jobs recognized the difficulty of voice recognition early on. "This stuff is hard," he said toward the end of the discussion. Brown mentions that this is an interesting statement, considering the (often criticized) Siri app on iPhones today.

To listen to the entire speech, check out the digitized clip provided below, or click over to Brown's blog. The previously unheard Q&A begins about 21 minutes into the recording.

Were you surprised by these predictions from the 1980s? Let us know what you think about Jobs' talk in the comments section, or tweet us at [@HuffPostTech].

Source: Marcel Brown:

French Honeybee Study Linking Pesticides And Colony Collapse Called Into Question

By Chris Wickham

LONDON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - British scientists have shot down a study on declining honeybee populations that triggered a French ban on a pesticide made by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta.

France's farm minister Stephane Le Foll withdrew Syngenta's marketing permit for the pesticide Cruiser OSR in June, citing evidence of a threat to the country's bees.

But a study by Britain's Food and Environment Agency with the University of Exeter says the results of the original research were flawed.

The study, published in the journal Science, does not deny that pesticides could be harmful to individual bees but argues there is no evidence they cause the collapse of whole colonies.

"We do not yet have definitive evidence of the impact of these insecticides on honeybees and we should not be making any decisions on changes to policy on their use," said James Cresswell, the ecotoxicologist who led the latest study.

The previous research, led by French scientist Mikaël Henry and published in Science in April, showed the death rate of bees increased when they drank nectar laced with the neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, the active ingredient in Cruiser OSR.

Henry's work calculated this would cause a bee colony to collapse completely but Cresswell said the French study seems to have used an inappropriately low birth rate, underestimating the rate at which colonies can recover from the loss of bees.

"They modelled a colony that isn't increasing in size and what we know is that in springtime when oilseed rape is blossoming they increase rapidly," Cresswell told Reuters.

The French study has been cited by scientists, environmentalists and policy-makers as evidence of the impact of these pesticides on bees, which are declining around the world.

"We know that neonicotinoids affect honeybees, but there is no evidence that they could cause colony collapse," said Cresswell. "When we repeated the previous calculation with a realistic birth rate, the risk of colony collapse under pesticide exposure disappeared."

Cresswell said Henry's research also used a dosage of pesticide equivalent to a whole day's intake by the bees, akin to testing the effect of coffee on people by making them drink eight cups in one go, rather than spread out over the day.

Henry was not immediately available for comment.

Neonicotinoids are among the most widely-used agricultural insecticides.

"I am definitely not saying that pesticides are harmless to honeybees, but I think everyone wants to make decisions based on sound evidence, and our research shows that the effects of thiamethoxam are not as severe as first thought," the British scientist said.

(Editing by Belinda Goldsmith)

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor 

(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that "GMOs are safe" are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war.

As a shocking new study has graphically shown, GMOs are the new thalidomide. When rats eat GM corn, they develop horrifying tumors. Seventy percent of females die prematurely, and virtually all of them suffer severe organ damage from consuming GMO. These are the scientific conclusions of the first truly "long-term" study ever conducted on GMO consumption in animals, and the findings are absolutely horrifying. (See pictures of rats with tumors, below.)

What this reveals is that genetic engineering turns FOOD into POISON.

Remember thalidomide? Babies being born with no arms and other heart-breaking deformities? Thalidomide was pushed as "scientific" and "FDA approved." The same lies are now being told about GMO: they're safe. They're nutritious. They will feed the world!

But the real science now coming out tells a different picture: GMOs may be creating an entire generation of cancer victims who have a frighteningly heightened risk of growing massive mammary gland tumors caused by the consumption of GM foods. We are witnessing what may turn out to be the worst and most costly blunder in the history of western science: the mass poisoning of billions of people with a toxic food crop that was never properly tested in the first place.

Remember: GMOs are an anti-human technology. And those who promote them are, by definition, enemies of humankind.

GMOs are unfit for human consumption

The evidence keeps emerging, day after day, that GMOs are absolutely and without question unfit for human consumption. France has already launched an investigation that may result in the nation banning GM corn imports. It's already illegal to grow genetically modified crops in France, but the nation still allows GMO imports, meaning France still allows its citizens to be poisoned by imported GM corn grown in America.

The GMO industry, not surprisingly, doesn't want any independent research conducted on GMOs. They don't want long-term feeding trials, and they most certainly do not want studies conducted by scientists they can't control with financial ties.

What they want is to hide GMOs in products by making sure they're not listed on the labels. Hence the biotech industry's opposition to Proposition 37 (www.CArighttoknow.org).

The tactics of the biotech industry are:

• HIDE genetically modified ingredients in foods
• FALSIFY the research to claim GMOs are safe
• MANIPULATE the scientific debate by bribing scientists
• DENY DENY DENY just like Big Tobacco, DDT, thalidomide, Agent Orange and everything else that's been killing us over the last century

Monsanto is now the No. 1 most hated corporation in America. The company's nickname is MonSatan. It is the destructive force behind the lobbying of the USDA, FDA, scientists and politicians that have all betrayed the American people and given in to genetically modified seeds.

These seeds, some of which grow their own toxic pesticides right inside the grain, are a form of chemical brutality against children and adults. This is "child abuse" at its worst. It's an abuse of all humans. It is the most serious crime ever committed against nature and all of humankind.

Science for sale

That's what you get with payola science... science "for sale" to wealthy corporations. Nearly all the studies that somehow conclude GMO are safe were paid for by the biotech industry. Every one of those studies is unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Every scientist that conducts "research" for Monsanto is almost certainly a sellout at minimum... and more likely a jackal operative working for anindustry of death.

Corporate science is fraudulent science. When enough money is at stake, scientists can be bought off to even declare smoking cigarettes to be safe. And they did, throughout the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Some of those very same scientists are now working for the Monsantos of the world, peddling their scientific fraud to the highest bidder (which always happens to be a wealthy corporation).

There is no poison these scientists won't promote as safe -- even "good for you!" There is no limit to their evil. There are no ethics that guide their actions.

GMO-promoting scientists are the most despicable humanoid creatures to have ever walked the surface of this planet. To call them "human" is an insult to humanity. They are ANTI-human. They are demonic. They are forces of evil that walk among the rest of us, parading as authorities when in their hearts and souls they are actually corporate cowards and traitors to humankind. To pad their own pockets, they would put at risk the very future of sustainable life on our planet... and they do it consciously, insidiously. They feed on death, destruction, suffering and pain. They align with the biotech industry precisely because they know that no other industry is as steeped in pure evil as the biotech industry. GMO pushers will lie, cheat, steal, falsify and even mass-murder as many people as it takes to further their agenda of total global domination over the entire food supply... at ANY cost.

This is war at the genetic level. And this kind of war makes bullets, bombs and nukes look downright tame by comparison. Because the GMO war is based on self-replicating genetic pollution which has already been released into the environment; into the food supply; and into your body.

The hundreds of millions of consumers who eat GMO are being murdered right now, with every meal they consume... and they don't even know it. GMO-pimping scientists are laughing at all the death they're causing. They enjoy tricking people and watching them die because it makes their sick minds feel more powerful. These were the geeks in school who were bullied by the jocks. But now, with the power of genetic manipulation at their fingertips, they can invoke their hatred against all humankind and "bully" the entire world with hidden poisons in the food. That makes them smile. It's the ultimate revenge against a world that mistreated them in their youth. Death to everyone!

Society must respond in defense of life on Earth

The sheer brutality of what the GMO industry has committed against us humanity screams out for a decisive response. It is impossible to overreact to this. No collective response goes too far when dealing with an industry that quite literally threatens the very basis of life on our planet.

To march government SWAT teams into the corporate headquarters of all GMO seed companies and shut down all operations at gunpoint would be a mild reaction -- and fully justified. To indict all biotech CEOs, scientists, employees and P.R. flacks and charge them with conspiring to commit crimes against humanity would be a small but important step in protecting our collective futures. To disband all these corporations by government order have their assets seized and sold off to help fund reparations to the people they have harmed is but a tiny step needed in the defense of life.

The truth is that humanity will never be safe until GMO seed pushers and manufacturers are behind bars, locked away from society and denied the ability to ever threaten humanity again.

What the Nuremberg trials did to IG Farben and other Nazi war crimes corporations, our own government must now do to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

It is time for decisive intervention. Monsanto must be stopped by the will of the People. The mass poisoning of our families and children by an evil, destructive corporation that seeks to dominate the world food supply must be halted.

The GMO debate is over. The horrors are now being revealed. The truth can no longer be hidden, and the reaction from the public cannot be stopped.

Prediction: Activist attacks on GM seeds and the criminals who promote them

The era of GMO deception is history. A food revolution is upon us. And if governments will not halt the mass poisoning of our world by evil corporations, I have no doubt that the People will, by themselves, eventually invoke other necessary methods of halting this great evil.

I predict a future where -- and for the record I DO NOT encourage this -- shipments of GM seeds to farmers are raided and destroyed by activists. I predict Monsanto employees being publicly named and shamed on websites. I predict -- but DO NOT CONDONE -- scientists who conduct research for Monsanto being threatened, intimidated and even physically attacked. Again, for the record, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY condone such behavior, but I predict it will emerge as an inevitable reaction to the unfathomable evil being committed by the GMO industry and all its co-conspirators. The "Army of the 12 monkeys" may become reality. (See the sci-fi movie "12 monkeys" starring Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis.)

What we are fighting for here is the protection of our species. We are fighting for the sanctity of life on our planet. Those who threaten that life must be stopped from continuing to harm us. This evil must be put back in its box and prevented from ever threatening us again.

Even Congress is starting to state the obvious on how evil Monsanto really is. Just yesterday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich demanded GMO labeling in a powerful speech. Watch that at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg

Also, watch this video of the French scientists discussing how GMOs and Roundup caused grotesque cancer tumors to grow in mice: