At 5:00pm Eastern this evening, the 2012 Democratic National Convention will officially be called to order. There are a series of speakers scheduled for the week, most notably First Lady Michelle Obama tonight and keynote speaker San Antonio's Mayor Julian Castro.
It will be the first time that a Latino gives the keynote speech of the Democratic National Convention. Throughout the week, Democrats are also going to try to convince voters that they are better off now than they were before President Obama took office.
DNC chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) shares details on the agenda for the convention.
"Over the course of the week, you'll hear a very different tone than the one that you heard last week in Tampa, which was really essentially one nonstop series of attacks on President Obama," Wasserman Schultz says. "We're going to layout the case for moving the economy forward. President Obama and speakers throughout the week will talk about and have an honest conversation about where we were when he first took office and where we are now after four years of his policies and 29 straight months of job growth in the private sector. We need to continue to move forward and we've got a ways to go. But we're moving in the right direction and need to focus on rebuilding our economy from the middle class out and bottom up and not go back to the failed policies of the past."
Schultz also addresses Soledad's question as to whether Mitt Romney really attacked President Obama in his Republican National Convention speech.
"I was pretty disappointed [Romney] was as disingenuous as he was in saying that he had been rooting for President Obama to succeed...in my home state, the night Mitt Romney won the primary, he said you have to remember what this election is really about, to his supporters and his answer was not creating jobs or getting the economy turned around, it was defeating Barack Obama.
So spare me if I don't really trust that Mitt Romney has been rooting for President Obama to succeed. We need to talk about how to move forward together and help make sure that everyone in America has an opportunity to be successful, not just people who already are like Mitt Romney has proposed," she says.
Schultz also addresses the main question of the convention: Are we better off than we were four years ago?
"Yes, we're absolutely better off. There's no question when President Obama took office, he inherited the largest set of problems of any president since FDR. The economy under President Bush and the previous six months had lost 3.5 million jobs and we were hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month when he took office. Now again after four years of President Obama's policies, not only do we stop the hemorrhaging, but we began to turn things around," she says.
Well no one believes what you say anymore, Wasserman.....I guesss it is time to make up some more lies...
Finally, it is Congress who has the responsibility and the power to pass a budget and approve spending as set forth in the US Constitution, Artcle I, Section 8. During the last two years of President Bush's time in office, Congress had a Democrat majority. Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong. President Bush may have spent lots of money but who approved it??? A Democrat led Congress??? Did President Bush return any budget bills unsigned during those years as per Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution that would have solved the spending problem?
Oh, and please stop talking about what he inherrited. He knew the condition of the country when he decided that he wanted the office. He was already "inside Washington." Yeah, we know he got the bill for the guy that ate at the table before him. But he knew he would get that bill and still wanted to sit at that table. Come on! If he didn't want that bill, he shouldn't have taken that table. Once you buy a used car, it's yours. Congress is fully aware of the nations economic position today and yesterday. Start talking about how you intend to fix it.
You know, it's not hard to believe that someone could be against another and yet hope for that person's success. To believe otherwise does not pass the logic test. I did not vote for President Obama but I have always hoped for his successful Presidency because if he succeeds, I benefit (if he is the President for all). If he runs his Presidency with bias towards or against particular groups, it is possible for some to not benefit. Since I am in the middle class, I would expect to see the benefits of his Presidency being that he claims to be pushing hard for the middle class. I am having difficulty seeing the benefit through all the mudslinging (from both sides). But like I said, it’s not hard to believe that someone could be against another and yet hope for that person's success.