Former Vice President Dick Cheney went on the offensive against President Barack Obama today and said it is imperative that the country mobilize to elect Mitt Romney, who Cheney had just thrown a fundraiser for at his Jackson Hole, Wyoming home.  The former Vice President, and White House power broker then went on television and really went after Obama.

In an interview to air later this week, Cheney went on Hannity and had this to say about the President,

“I think he’s been a terrible president,”

He also needed to defend his position that he thought it was a mistake for then Republican nominee John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate to take on Obama in 2008.

“It wasn’t aimed so much at Governor Palin as it was against the basic process that McCain used. … My point basically dealt with the process in terms of that basic requirement: Is this person prepared to step in to be president of the United States when they’re picked?” he said. “And it was my judgment — I was asked if I thought the McCain process in ’08 had been well done or was it a mistake, and I said I thought it was a mistake. That’s not … meant so much as a criticism of Governor Palin as it is that I just thought it was not — the process didn’t meet the standards I would like to see our candidate pursue when they pick a running mate.”

Cheney headed the Vice Presidential search for then candidate George W. Bush before accepting the position himself.

Dick Cheney: Obama Has Been A Horrible President is a post from: The Inquisitr

Election 2012 is heading towards the ridiculous as the Presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and President Obama have begun to mock each other for their signing ability. Both campaigns keep highlighting there economic visions and pointing out that they are the soul arbiter of what is right for the middle class, but they usually do it by pointing out that every time either candidate sneezes it is detracting their focus from protecting the Middle Class.

Two days ago President Obama slammed Romney in a television ad which mocked him signing America the Beautiful. Now Romney is hitting back with a webvideo making fun of Obama singing Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.”

Romney has had a bad PR week.  The Obama Campaign has capitalized on the recently revealed news that Romney didn’t actually leave Bain Capital in 1999 when he said he did, staying on the Board until 2002.  Romney claims he had nothing to do with the company at that time because he was busy planning the Olympics.  Obama has challenged him to release Board Meeting Minutes to prove he is telling the truth.

The The Obama campaign and Democrats in general have slammed Romney for only releasing his 2010 tax returns instead of many years past as President Obama and Romney‘s own father did when he ran for President.  Even some Republicans have joined the chorus of those calling for him to be more honest about is taxes and any tax shelters he stores his wealth in.

Watch the video the Romney Campaign released to mock the President!

Mitt Romney Mocks President Obama’s Singing is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mitt Romney is facing a growing chorus of calls from within his own party to release his tax returns going back many years before 2010.  Romney recently announced that he will not release his tax returns beyond the 2010 returns (which he already released) and the 2011 returns when they are finished.

Conservative political analyst Bill Kristol criticized Romney’s refusal to release his taxes saying that all Presidential nominee’s should have to bear the fallout from their tax records.

Kristol told Fox News Sunday,

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It’s crazy,. You gotta release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two.”

Candidates commonly release many years of tax records so that the electorate can see they have nothing to hide.  President Obama has released his tax records going back to the year 2000.  Romney’s own father, when he ran for President in 1968, made it a point to release 12 years of tax records.

Kristol is not alone on the Republican side of the isle calling on Romney to be more straightforward about his taxes.

Other prominent Republicans who have called on Romney to release tax documents include Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and strategist Ana Navarro.

Speaking at the National Governors Association meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia  Alabama’s Republican governor, Robert Bentley, called on Romney to release all the documents requested of him.

Bentley said,

“If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong. I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people.”

A top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, on Sunday also ramped up attacks on Mitt Romney’s tax record, saying he had used “every single conceivable tax shelter and loophole.”

Axelrod told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.”,

“I’m not suggesting that, based on what we know, that he’s done anything illegal. I’m not suggesting that. But what I am suggesting is that he’s taken advantage of every single conceivable tax shelter and loophole that we can see.”

The issue of Romney’s tax returns has dogged him since the early days of the primaries.  Newt Gingrich made Romney’s refusal to release his tax records a key component of his failed run at the Presidential nomination.

Republicans Want Romney To Release His Past Tax Returns is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama’s campaign team is putting their cards on the table.  They say it is reasonable to expect that they are going to be outspent by Mitt Romney and the Republicans this election cycle.  This is a dangerous admission for a President who has long been credited with being one of the best fundraisers the Democrats have ever seen.

Speaking to a group of Washington D.C. based reporters the Obama campaign said that Romney and affiliated Super PAC’s will spend more than $1 billion dollars to defeat the President in November.  The number is significant because Obama himself predicted that he would be able to raise $1 billion dollars towards his reelection.  A number that seems increasingly difficult for him to reach.

The Campaign also predicted that Mitt Romney himself would raise more than $100 million dollars in June.  If Romney does pull off that feat, it could demoralize Democrats as they expect Obama to be able to pull off the fundraising advantages he was able to enjoy in 2008.

A top Obama official said,

“Citizens United has ushered in a very different era in politics, the possibility of the spending advantage we might have had has been erased. I think Romney is going to have big months. We are going to be outspent, that is clear.”

There is speculation in Washington that the Obama campaign is trying to paint a picture in the press that Romney will never be able to live up to.  Romney is having a very impressive month to be sure, but a $100 million dollar month still seems difficult.

In a mocking statement, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an e-mailed response,

“President Obama said if he didn’t turn the economy around in 3 years, he’d be looking at a one-term proposition, and, now, he’s asking for 4 more years. President Obama’s team also said they’d raise $1 billion. The Obama campaign is used to moving the goal posts.”

The Obama Campaign said that for the last two months they have been outspent by Republicans at a rate of more than 3-1.

One nervous campaign official said,

“It is a harbinger of what’s to come. That’s something that worries us. It is a source of concern. There is no point in being cute about it. I think we have certain advantages that will allow us to overcome that: the president is a well-known person in this country, he has got a big following, we have got a big organization. And while we don’t have $10 million donors we do have millions of donors giving an average of $51 a piece. We will chip away at it.”

Obama Campaign Says Mitt Romney On Target For $100 Million Dollar June is a post from: The Inquisitr

Although Democratic presidents and candidates are traditionally considered to be “anti-war” (at least in the past decade), some opinion writers have openly speculated about President Obama’s “legacy of war.” Though instead of a grand showing and multi-billion dollar invasions, President Obama’s war tactics rely on stealth, subterfuge, and secrecy. This is true of the literal wars the president is waging, as well as the metaphorical ones he allegedly wages here at home.

Ari Shapiro of NPR wrote an op-ed concerning President Obama’s preference, and indeed favoritism, concerning the use of unmanned drones in the fight against terrorism. It is true that the Obama administration has used a record number of drones in various conflicts around the world, including the assassination of radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. This prompts Shapiro to consider the question: Are drones Obama’s legacy? That question begs another question. Is that something to be proud of?

“Drones target individuals, and they fly into countries where they may not be welcome. Solis says they pose thorny new legal and moral questions such as, ‘Where is the battlefield? Can we fly these individual aircraft into Pakistan [or] Yemen? Where can we take these planes and kill people?’ writes Shapiro. “Smaller and more efficient drone aircraft could put even more power in the hands of a wide array of countries in the future,” she concludes. “So as the technology gets smaller, the legal and moral questions might only get bigger.”

Also, what of Obama’s alleged culture war right here in the United States? As the window closes between the now and election time, the president has finally taken firm stands on social issues. Immigration, gay marriage, and contraception; these are only a few of the issues Obama has clocked-in a bit late for. You could say that he’s been too concerned with a broken economy to handle social issues throughout his first term, but I would reply, “Okay, what about the beer summit?” on the small scale and “What about healthcare?” on a large “moral” scale.

He’s been biding his time. Just in case he had to take an election from the base.

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post calls Obama’s strategy in his “endless culture war” an “inherently aggressive” strategy. “Why not use government power to undermine the resistance of private institutions to reproductive rights by giving funding only to charitable organizations that refer for abortions? The Obama administration already imposed this requirement on a recent grant dealing with human trafficking. So why not take a similar approach on gay rights or gender equality, denying public benefits to organizations with illiberal views?” he writes.

Why not? Because it’s not openly aggressive, is it not threatening? Take an honest look. Are we a pluralistic country that thrives on the difference of opinion and perspective, or are we marching forward to… whatever? Call it socialism, call it progress, call it autocracy, call it fascism, communism, whatever label you want.

For me, none of those words are as scary as the idea that encompasses them all. Idealistic monopoly. Right or Left, I don’t want that. I don’t think anyone honestly does.

I think we have to wake up and realize the same rights that allow that dummy over there to believe the ridiculous things he believes and spout off the ridiculous perspectives he entertains are the same rights that allow me to do the same.

Is Obama waging war in the election like he does overseas? With secrecy and subterfuge? Perhaps most importantly, is pluralism disappearing? Sound off below!

President Obama’s Legacy Of War: Is Pluralism A Thing Of The Past? [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

As the 2012 election heats up, one topic that is starting to trend on the campaign trail is that of salary stagnation. Since President Obama took office, wages haven’t exactly gone up or down – they’ve stayed exactly the same, which might end up being worse for Big-O as Mitt Romney increases his attacks on the president’s economic policies.

“It’s unprecedented how modest the wage gains have been over this recovery,” said Sherry Cooper, chief economist and executive vice president at the BMO Financial Group. “It’s painful for consumers and detrimental for labor.”

Politico notes that the average hourly wage only went up a meager 42 cents to $23.41 since 2008. High unemployment does not bode well for Obama either, and wages probably won’t go up any until that rate comes down 2 or 3 points from its current 8.2%. Though it’s much-ado-about-nothing in the campaign right now, it might become a major factor as Mitt Romney continues to point to Obama’s economic policies as justification to make Big-O a one-term prez.

Romney has already been hard at work tearing down Obama before he even gets a chance to speak. Earlier, he said that “You’re going to see him change course when he speaks tomorrow, where he will acknowledge that it isn’t going so well,” adding, “My own view is that he will speak eloquently, but that words are cheap,” regarding Thursday’s Cleveland speech.

The fallout over wages may be, in part, Obama’s own doing. Since his now-infamous “the private sector is doing fine” comments, more attention is being paid to exactly how the private sector is doing. Obama back-tracked these comments, but it may be too late. “Maybe he can ask families whose household income dropped $4,300 if they’re ‘doing fine,’” read a campaign email on Saturday.

The moderate approach? This really isn’t about how we got here as much as it’s about how we’ll get out of it. Many economists are saying that it’ll take years before Americans see an increase in wages, regardless of who is president. Unemployment almost has to come down on its own to what is considered a “natural rate” of 5 or 6 percent.

What does this mean? Whether it’s Obama 2012 or Romney 2012, don’t hold your breath.

2012 Election Woes: Wages Haven’t Budged Since Obama Took Office is a post from: The Inquisitr

With a Supreme Court ruling expected by the end of June, the fate of ObamaCare is at the back of everyone’s minds right now. Unfortunately for Big-O, more than two-thirds of Americans want ObamaCare gutted, neutered, or thrown out completely, according to a poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News. A mere 24% want the law to stand, unaltered.

The new poll doesn’t show too much change between public sentiment now and before the Supreme Court first faced the challenge against President Obama’s controversial healthcare reform in March. As for the now, almost half of those polled, 41%, say that the law should be dropped without a second thought. Of the remainder, 27% seem to accept most of the reforms, but specifically say that the individual mandate needs to be dropped. Only 24% want the law to remain as it is.

One of the main problems with the law is that it has faced intense criticism and opposition from the right, while only fetching mediocre support from the left in recent months. Of course, two-thirds of Republicans want the law gone. That should be obvious. But only a meager 43% of Democrats want the law preserved in its entirety. On the Independent side, 70% want the law to be changed or dropped, with most of them favoring the “dropped” option. Only 22% of Independents want the law to stay as is.

The demographic spread of the poll yields some interesting results as well. One-third of the respondents with a college degree want the law upheld, while only 20% without support it.

But will nationwide sentiment affect the decision-making process of the Supreme Court Justices?

Probably not.

“Supreme Court justices care more about the views of academics, journalists and other elites than they do about public opinion,” said authors of a 2010 study on the subject published in The Georgetown Law Journal. “This is true of nearly all justices and is especially true of swing justices, who often cast the critical votes in the court’s most visible decisions.”

The authors of the study, Lawrence Baum of Ohio State University and Neal Devins of the College of William & Mary, concluded that Supreme Court Justices are pretty uninterested in what we have to say.

Now for the boring stuff: The nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews conducted May 31 through June 3 on land-lines and cellphones with 976 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Do you support ObamaCare? What do you think the Supreme Court will decide?

New Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Want ObamaCare Neutered or Gone is a post from: The Inquisitr

Some might say that President Obama was elected in 2008 due to his massive (if not wishy-washy) drawing power in the middle class. While that may be true, it doesn’t hurt that he had the full support of our idols, our Greek pantheon, I’m talking about our movie stars and celebrities, working pro-bono to spread the word about the then-Illinois Senator. Though Hollywood is often considered almost unilaterally liberal as a culture of folk, as many as 8 high-profile outspoken-liberal celebs are pulling support from Obama as he begins to seek re-election. So who made the list?

Gene Simmons -The KISS frontman is disenchanted with Obama, particularly his perceived failure in reviving a stubbornly moribund economy. Though he backed Big-O in ’08, he regrets it now, shifting support to Mitt Romney, saying, “America is a business and should be run by a businessman.”

Matt Damon -Perhaps one of the list’s biggest surprises is this publicly liberal celeb who fought particularly hard to get Obama elected in ’08. His disillusionment was voiced in December when he bemoaned Obama’s inaction when it comes to stifling and halting Bush-era policies. He has also challenged Obama to get even tougher on Wall Street.”A one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better,” he said.

Barbara Streisand -Long-time liberal Streisand concurs with Damon’s perspective, though she soured on Obama much earlier than the Bourne actor. In 2010, she said that Obama should use his presidential swagger more forcefully, repealing policies like the now-dead “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” immediately. “People admire real strength,” she said.

Jane Lynch – The GLEE actress and comedienne called Obama a “huge disappointment” for his lack of action regarding gay rights. Lynch, herself a lesbian, contends that America’s majority shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority group, saying, “If people voted on civil rights in the ’60s, it would have never happened.”

Angelina Jolie – Though it was reported (read: misquoted) that Jolie had called Obama a “one-term president”, the actress is half-empty, half-full on the prez. “There are many wonderful things that have moved forward, and of course, some other things that are very frustrating,” she eloquently and tactfully stated.

Bill Maher – Though well-known for his liberal leanings, Maher admitted he was “really mad” at Obama after the BP oil spill, holding him more in contempt than Republicans. Maher is disappointed in Obama for not coming down harder on oil companies, saying, “Why isn’t Barack Obama getting more shit for this?” UPDATE: Perhaps not too sour given his $1M donation to Obama’s camp, but disappointed nonetheless.

Hugh Hefner – Hef turned on Obama pretty quickly, but his reasons concerned the war. He saw Obama’s foot-dragging in pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq as Vietnam-era mistakes. “We can’t please the world,” he said. “We go in with the best possible intentions, but we make enemies.”

Harry Belafonte – Liberal activist and singer Belafonte contends that Obama took office “under such hugely dramatic circumstances” that he had a “splendid opportunity to do more than most presidents,” but blew it. The 84-year-old said that Obama should have followed his heart to make choices the way “we had all hoped,” because it “would have helped him make [better] choices.”

With these 8 liberal celebs now down on Obama, who in Hollywood do you think will answer the call in the fight to get Obama re-elected?

Check out the original list with photos and more info at TheWeek.com

8 Liberal Celebs Turned-Sour On Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama has denounced what he referred to as a “Trojan horse” budget plan proposed by the House Republican, which he warns will hurt working class families.

Democrats claim the the $3.5 trillion budget proposal will dramatically reduce taxes for the wealthy while cutting into Medicare, highway projects, and college student aid programs. Obama was quoted criticizing the House Republican budget plan in a speech delivered during The Associated Press luncheon of publishers and editors:

“It’s a Trojan horse. Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism.”

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), who proposed the $3.5 trillion budget which passed the House last week on a mostly party-line vote, released a statement in response to Obama’s attack against his budget plan in which he stated:

“History will not be kind to a president who, when it came time to confront our generation’s defining challenge, chose to duck and run. The president refuses to take responsibility for the economy and refuses to offer a credible plan to address the most predictable economic crisis in our history. Like his reckless budgets, today’s speech by President Obama is as revealing as it is disappointing: While others lead by offering real solutions, he has chosen to distort the truth and divide Americans in order to distract from his failed record. His empty promises are quickly becoming broken promises – and the American people will hold him accountable for this violation of their trust.”

Ryan’s $3.5 trillion budget plan may have very well passed the House on a near-party-line vote, however, the Democratic-led Senate immediately shot it down.

What are your thoughts on Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan?

Source: Politico

Obama Speech Denounces $3.5 Trillion Republican “Trojan Horse” Budget Plan, Paul Ryan Responds is a post from: The Inquisitr