Romney’s Video Moment Betrays a Loathing, Disdain for the Average American –
The term class warfare has been increasingly used in recent election cycles to denigrate efforts to point out the disparate impact of policies on the rich versus the poor. The truth is that there are legitimate policy implications of tax policies that divide the political landscape in this country.
The comments that Mitt Romney is in hot water for making are not new comments, both in the sense that the video is old and in that the thoughts behind them are even older.
In his hastily-called news conference on Monday, Mr. Romney was correct when he noted that, while the comments were blunt and “not elegantly stated,” he had made similar observations in the past without generating controversy.
The problem is that he stated out loud and in very stark terms what Republicans – particularly country club Republicans like Mr. Romney – think.
Here’s what he actually said: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
There are several different kinds of problems embedded into this statement.
First, is the notion that there are 47 percent of the people who are… let’s just sum it up neatly, “lazy.” He didn’t use the word lazy, but he might as well have.
Republicans for years have gotten away with these kinds of lines because they have been careful to encode the message. It was welfare queens or coded language that made it clear that they were dealing with someone else – hopefully someone who did not vote.
By hitting 47 percent of the population, he is cutting a deep swath. Part of the problem that he faces is that part of the Republican constituency receives public assistance, just as much as the Democratic constituency does.
He has cut a deep deep swath of voters here. There was already a huge constituency within the Republican Party that was uncomfortable with Romney’s country club status. There was already a huge percentage of voters that believed that Romney was out of touch with the middle class.
And that is whom he is attacking when he hits on the 47 percent.
The other problem that he now has is that he argues that it is not his job to worry about those people.
If he wants to be President, it is his job to worry about everyone, whether they vote for him or not.
Mr. Romney said he was “speaking off the cuff in response to a question” at the fund-raiser, and added that he wanted “to help all Americans – all Americans – have a bright, prosperous future.”
Mr. Obama’s campaign accused Mr. Romney of having “disdainfully written off half the nation.”
It was already a rough time for Mr. Romney, as he attempted to restart his campaign and refocus his message.
As the New York Times suggested this morning, “Now, the video has raised the possibility that Mr. Romney’s campaign will be sidetracked, with attention focused again on his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, the release of his personal tax returns and his ability to connect with middle-class voters. With its unvarnished language, the video seems to undermine what aides have argued is an enduring attribute that would appeal to independent voters: a sense that Mr. Romney is, at base, an empathetic and caring man.”
But it is worse than that. The real damage is not the disruption of another news cycle focused on the defense – a problem in and of itself.
The real problem is that they handed Obama the tool that he needs to close the sale to the American people that it is worth doubling-down on his Presidency rather than risking an unempathetic and out-of-touch Mitt Romney.
Clips of that video will now be ground up into tiny sound bites that will blast his error across the country over and over again.
Mr. Romney attempted to address the video, arguing that his words represented “a question about direction for the country: Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits? Or do you believe instead in a free-enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?”
And undoubtedly that is what he meant, but the language he used betrays a loathing of the average person, a contempt for the average person’s struggles and hardships.
The problem is that the slip, the blunt language, is not the aberration but rather the window into the truth that cuts through the talking-points and well-scripted words of a Presidential candidate.
Is this the death-knell for Mitt Romney? Too soon to tell. We have seen candidates in worse shape come back.
But the stark reality is that, on Monday morning, most people did not believe Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama. On Tuesday morning, that number is smaller still.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The American People don’t seem to agree with your partisan view.
The latest poll by Rasmussen shows Romney up by two percent.
[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll[/url]
Despite all the efforts by people such as you, I don’t believe that this nation is foolish enough to reelect Obama after seeing his disastrous record.
Rasmussen notoriously skews Republican. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa[/url]
The media works extra hard to assign sinister motives to this obviously kind guy from a big house; while assigning kind motives to the obvious sinister guy in the White House.
Astounding.
Romney will surge. The media cannot maintain the shroud of deceit for that long. Most Americans still want a job and freedom… even though the Democrats have also been working extra hard to strengthen their looter-moocher codependency lock.
It is well known the reddest states receive the greatest largess from the government. Democrats have wondered why these states are so red in spite of the fact that they are the greatest beneficiaries of the policies Republicans claim to be against such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Farm Subsidies and Welfare.
Maybe this will wake them up or hopefully enough of them will come to understand that Romney and the rich don’t care about those less fortunate than themselves that the election will return the President and a democratic majority that can start to address the serious problems this nation faces.
Jeff Boone: “Romney will surge.”
Mitt Romney: “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”
A surge to nowhere.
The Romney quote about the 47% will lose him as many votes as the Obama quote that people didn’t build their business (that someone made in to a great rap video):
http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/09/17/MC-Bama-raps-U-Didnt-Build-That-in-Obama-Hammer-mash-up-video/7221347905606/
Mr Toad wrote:
> Democrats have wondered why these states are so red
> in spite of the fact that they are the greatest
> beneficiaries of the policies
Huge numbers of voters are single issue voters (religion, gay rights, abortion, gun control, etc.) and those people in both red and blue states will NEVER vote for someone that does not agree with them on their single issue no matter how good the other guy is on other issues or no matter how bad their guy is on other issues…
> that the election will return the President and a
> democratic majority that can start to address the
> serious problems this nation faces.
I don’t think that Obama (with or without a Democratic congress) or Romney (with or without a Republican congress) will make any effort to address the fact that we are spending about 40% more than we take in or any other serious problems tat thie nation faces it will just be more of the same (with minor tweeks) until people stop buying our debt and the person in the white house is actually forced to make some changes…
[i]It is well known the reddest states receive the greatest largess from the government.[/i]
Only if you include farm subsidies. Which Romney would not.
Trust me, being from the Mid West I can assure you that there is nothing that Romney can say that would make up for the dislike of Obama.
Drive up and down I-5 to note all the anti-Obama signs.
These people take the entitlements because they are handed out; not because they demand them. This argument is the same trap that the left uses on taxation. The government sets all the tax loopholes and then the left and left-media uses the fact that successful people exploit them in LEGAL tax avoidance strategies to wage class wars.
Obama is once again out campaigning promising to cut our debt if he’s re-elected.
He lied about that last election when he promised to cut it in half by 2013 (instead he added over 5 trillion) so why should anyone believe the liar this time?
[i]Romney will surge.[/i]
Jeff: no candidate in the history of modern polling who was behind in the polls at this stage has won the popular vote. Debates haven’t created a surge, ever. I don’t see a path through the electoral college for Romney either.
I would think after the gaffes by George Allen and Barack Obama in past election cycles, that any candidate would know that every word he or she utters is very likely being recorded. No single event like this is going to cost him the election, but it’s sure been a bad couple of weeks for the Romney campaign at a time when most elections are pretty well decided.
Rusty, I took your advice and my wife and I went to see Obama 2016. I am not much of a conspiracy theory guy, and thought there was not much I would learn about the man, but it did end up connecting a lot of dots.
The fascinating thing for me was how little we actually know about this guy, and how little the media has done to pursue the answers to the questions about him.
It is clear to me that this president is pursuing an agenda to weaken America, and there are enough fool voters in the country to let him do it.
Dumm Dumm Americans chasing an American idol president that they can love and makes them feel good while he proceeds to tear them down.
From my perspective, libs have fallen for an actor. A wolf in sheeps’ clothing.
If and when they wake up, it will probably be too late.
Romney is boring, moral, nice, grounded, experienced… all the things we should want in a President.
Don, no presidential candidate in the history of American politics has been re-elected with the lousy record Obama has.
Interesting. So if we support Obama you think we are stupid, uninformed, or — as Romney said — dependent on the government? It couldn’t be that we share his values, or prefer them to those espoused by the other party and its candidate? We couldn’t possibly be making an informed decision?
Thanks for the insult.
Don Shor:
“Rasmussen notoriously skews Republican.”
Not according to Wikipedia:
“According to Politico, “Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome.”[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, “Rasmussen’s final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama’s final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there.”[40] A Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.[41]”
Not according to a professor at Fordham University:
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll accuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
Don, I think you are one of the smartest guys in the room, but blinded by ideology and love for this President. So, in that you are a dumm dumm.
Wake up… he is transforming America before our eyes into a weaker version of itself. The explosion of debt, the rejection of domestic energy production, the slow continued destruction of American industry, the class wars, the apologies… all of this is evidence of a larger plot.
rusty: Rasmussen in 2010 — [url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/[/url]
[i]”…polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.”[/i]
Your best bet is to look at the average of polls. That’s what I find useful about the RealClearPolitics site.
Jeff: I’m not “blinded by ideology.” I just disagree with you about, well, pretty much everything.
Jeff:
“Rusty, I took your advice and my wife and I went to see Obama 2016. I am not much of a conspiracy theory guy, and thought there was not much I would learn about the man, but it did end up connecting a lot of dots.”
Jeff, wasn’t that movie well done? It wasn’t a total Obama bash but very inciteful. It stayed away from many of the conspiracy issues like the birther movement and concentrated on Obama’s upbringing and education (teachers, mentors) and why he thinks the way he does now. It showed how his policies are all leading to a weaker America by design. The ending was very powerful and scary, I have no doubts where Obama will take this country if he gets re-elected and doesn’t have to worry about another election. America needs to wake up and rid us of this cancer.
[i]Jeff: I’m not “blinded by ideology.” I just disagree with you about, well, pretty much everything.[/i]
LOL!
I don’t know why that makes me smile, but it does!
Don Shor, Rasmussen was the best pollster in the last presidential election.
Enough said.
This is a delicious Freudian slip:
“It wasn’t a total Obama bash but very inciteful.”
🙂
K.Smith, have you seen the movie?
Nope. But I know it has people all up in arms, hence my comment on the insightful/inciteful slip.
Yes, you’re right, that is a good Freudian slip.
The Legatum Institute publishes a global prosperity index every year since 2007. The study has been simplified in presentation since the early versions. Currently it measures the following eight categories:
1. Economy
2. Entrepreneurship & opportunity
3. Governance
4. Education
5. Health
6. Safety and Security
7. Personal Freedom
8. Social Capital
The definitions and indexes can be found here: [url]http://www.legatum.com/external?http://www.prosperity.com[/url%5D
In 2007, the US ranked #3 behind Norway and Denmark.
In 2011 the US ranks #10, with Norway and Denmark still in the lead.
The US ranked #7 or #8 in health until the study included healthcare spending per capita in 2011. The result of that put the US at #1. If US healthcare spending per capita was replaced with Norway’s, the US would still rank #7.
However, it is clear that since the Great Recession and the Obama presidency, the US has been in decline related to most of these categories.
This election should be about which President gives us the most hope for improving our ranking of these categories. That President is clearly not Barak Obama. He is the antithesis of hope for this direction.
Since Norway and Denmark espouse a “socialist” approach to their economies, is that an approach you suggest for the US, Jeff? What is an individual’s total tax rates in those countries? Do you recommend we follow suit?
BTW, Jeff, how much of Norway and/or Denmark’s resources, money, people, etc., is devoted to fighting terrorism in the world?
Romney’s comments sound like a form of class warfare to me; or at least something to help further polarize the US population. If the candidates can stay successful in further dividing and polarizing the American Public, so that the republocrats spend their energy demonizing the democans and vice-versa; this helps distract the population from noticing that the rich are continuing to get richer and the poor to get poorer (the bottom line, so to speak).
As if all poor people are poor due to laziness; when the evidence shows that most job-openings have multiple applicants and most of the unemployed are indeed looking for work but have not been able to find it. Yes there are some lazy deadbeats, drug addicts, and criminals among the poor; the same is true for the rich; and it is as ridiculous to say that most of the poor are so corrupted as it is to say that most of the rich are.
I think Romneys tactics are shameful; appealing to and strengthening employed people’s sense of virtue, by casting dirt on the unemployed, who are lumped into one group of criminals and lazy people and thus are unemployed and poor due to their inferior virtue (I.e. getting one group of people to feel higher by degrading another group of people as being lower).
Don’t vote for either of the two crooked enablers that are the Repub & Demo candidates.
That way, when someday you arrive at the pearly gates and your record is being reviewed with you by St. Peter, you don’t have to explain why you voted for Satan instead of Lucifer or vice-versa; better to vote for a man of integrity that would seem to have no chance (imagine if everyone did this, instead of falling for the typical game of the system of voting for the lesser of two evils).
Jimt
Unfortunately, I believe that this is the argument that was made by those who chose to vote for Nader. This action I feel was likely decisive in the selection of the younger Bush with the outcome of at least one, or possibly two completely unjustifiable wars, depending on point of view, and the catastrophic economic and social policies of the oxymoronic use of the phrase compassionate conservatismm. Like Jeff, I believe that there is a real choice to be made this time. I simply disagree with his choice.
Sorry for the run on sentence, Rifs. Insomnia dulls the writing skills if not the underlying sentiment.
“Don, no presidential candidate in the history of American politics has been re-elected with the lousy record Obama has.”
I’ll jump on this point. Since “lousy record” is ambiguous and also subjective, I’ll look at the economy and suggest that 1932 might be good analogous situation.
We can debate the record, but taking off the partisan hat for a moment, given the polling, I don’t see how Romney is going to win without a major intervening event at this point.
Curious as to what conservatives think about David Brooks’ column:
[quote]The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.
But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.
People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear. [/quote]
He concludes:
[quote]Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop? [/quote]
[i]Since Norway and Denmark espouse a “socialist” approach to their economies, is that an approach you suggest for the US, Jeff? What is an individual’s total tax rates in those countries? Do you recommend we follow suit?[/i]
hpierce – It is foolish to think we can replicate the social, economic and social design of these two countries. They are a mostly homogenous people without a border through which millions of uneducated poor people stream in. They are much smaller in geographic size, much smaller in population… they run more like a US state, than a country. Their GDP is about the size of Michigan and Indiana. However, their GDP per capita is higher (Norway) or about the same (Demark) as the US because they are lucky to have copious natural resources to share with their smaller, more homogenous population.
The point made is that we are in decline. What is the plan for each of these two men for improving each of those eight items on the list? Obama’s plan would cause a greater decline… it already has.
[i]We can debate the record, but taking off the partisan hat for a moment, given the polling, I don’t see how Romney is going to win without a major intervening event at this point.[/i]
Other than all the major intervening events occuring all around you (Arab Spring, Obama trampling our freedom of speech, the US Justice Department working directly with Media Matters), the big one will be the awakening of a larger percentage of the population to what Obama and the Democrats have done to the US economy, and the risks for the explosion of debt that they are failing to address.
“Lousy record” is not ambiguous unless you want to ignore the state of the economy, or give the president an Affirmative Action pass as a victim of mistakes made by the previous white people in charge. That is certainly unprecedented don’t you think?
Also, on the point about Norway and Demark… both countries have reduced their tax and regulator burdens in response to the global recession.
[i]BTW, Jeff, how much of Norway and/or Denmark’s resources, money, people, etc., is devoted to fighting terrorism in the world?[/i]
hpierce – Exactly!
This brings up a thought.
I think there is a growing percentage of the US population that does not connect with the alpha position the US holds, and would prefer that we back off and stay out of so many world affairs.
However, these same people seem to think that we can still maintain our freedoms and our standard of living just from their well-educated brain power. In other words, we can be a larger Norway or Denmark.
It is interesting, when you look at the list of the top 100 countries ranked at GDP per capita and/or ranked by the Legatum prosperity index, MOST of them at the top are countries the US either defeated and rebuilt, or invested significant blood and treasure in to protect and then help rebuild. Norway and Denmark are included in this list of course.
What would happen to those two countries if the US suddenly pulled out of NATO, and we shrunk our military to be about the size of all these European countries admired by my friends on the left?
[i]”or give the president an Affirmative Action pass as a victim of mistakes made by the previous white people in charge.”
[/i]
Wow. You’ve really outdone yourself with this one, Jeff.
Give me a break Don. How else do you explain the love fest for this President even though he has failed on almost every committment made? You tell me then, why is he not being held to the same performance expectation? Do you really want to take a stand that his race is not an issue here with many voters?
Even though I did not support him, my heart swelled with pride when the US elected our first black President. It confirmed what I have always thought and continue to believe… that we no longer have significant enough problems with racism to warrant all the media attention.
What I failed to consider is that the same sensitivity that contributed to us electing Obama would serve to prevent us from holding him similarily accountable for his failures in performance. Therein lies our racial problem… that which causes some people to want to treat people of different races differently.
Take Obama’s record and put any other past President in his place, and that person would be toast this election.
“Take Obama’s record and put any other past President in his place, and that person would be toast this election.”
Jimmy Carter comes to mind.
Jeff: Again, I think you are wearing your hat a bit too much for the purpose of my question.
“the big one will be the awakening of a larger percentage of the population to what Obama and the Democrats have done to the US economy”
I used to think that way as well when Bush was President.
Objectively speaking, the economy is probably not that far off from where it should have been expected to be given the magnitude of the collapse. At this point, it’s in the gray area. The reason Romney has a chance is that it isn’t better. The reason Obama is ahead is that it isn’t worse.
I don’t see it changing much in the next month plus.
“Other than all the major intervening events…”
You are either being obtuse here or didn’t seem to understand, I meant a future event capable of shaking up the current calculations I mentioned above.
“”Lousy record” is not ambiguous”
I’ll ignore your bait and just suggest that the economy is in the gray area, lousy record depends on where you sit ideologically and the bottom line is that Romney has turned this into a contest rather than a referendum.
“How else do you explain the love fest for this President even though he has failed on almost every committment made?”
I don’t see a lovefest. In fact, the one measure in the polling still shows an enthusiasm gap, particularly at the high end in favor of Romney.
Instead what I see is a weak candidate in Romney and a country that is probably uneasy moving back to the hard-core right policies – if you look at the polling on those type of measures, you see a gap even wider that Obama’s leap (in the same polls). Plus I think you are biased in your assessment of Obama’s presidency and far harsher than the typical voter.
“Jimmy Carter comes to mind.”
The difference is that things have improved under Obama since the bottom of the recession, whereas things were getting worse under Carter. I also think that Carter lost in part because of his own personality was difficult to deal with whereas Obama has managed to avoid those pitfalls at least during the election.
[i]I used to think that way as well when Bush was President.[/i]
The economy was fine (at least appeared fine). The only significant performance issue with Bush at the time was the Iraq war. You can make the case that this was a big failure, but a lot of voters did not agree with you on this… and frankly you and Obama and Biden were all wrong about how it would end. You were also wrong about the motives of the US (e.g., not “OIL, OIL, OIL!!!!” as was screamed non-stop by the left.)
Bush did not make any commitments that he did not follow through on and accomplish except one. In fact, if you go back and read the RNC platform from the first election, Bush accomplished everything on the list except social security reform which was blocked by congressional Dems. However, I still consider that a failure of Bush since a President has to figure out how to work with Congress to get anything done.
Obama made many, many commitments being elected President and he has failed on most of those commitments. Let me know if you want a list.
The “lousy record” is the record of accomplishments to commitments. It is not ambiguous, nebulous or subjective. It is measureable… unless you accept that he lied to get elected and then support his policies despite of that.
Many voters and many in the media are giving him a pass for these failures. Making excuses for him. Allowing him to make excuses. It was “that previous President!”. Is was “conservatives”, the “GOP”, “wealthy people”, “religious (white) people that cling to their guns and religion”. It was our past foreign policy. He is a President of excuses. He is a pseudo leader. He is not being held to the same performance standards of previous Presidents. He gets softball questions, while the other guy is relentlessly attacked. Why?
People like Obama and his family. He connects and communicates well. His personal favorability ratings remain high. By comparison, Romney doesn’t relate well. Basically, nobody likes Romney: not Republican conservatives, and certainly not anyone left of center. They don’t find him trustworthy or believable. This may seem like a shallow perspective, but how well a candidate or president ‘connects’ is an issue. It was one of the things that sunk Carter once people got to know Reagan.
This is a choice, not a referendum. The choice Republicans have put forward is unappealing. The party appears very strident, and their standard-bearer has hewn to extreme positions. His selection of Ryan and these unguarded comments reinforce that perception. A moderate Republican might have been able to beat Obama, but — sad to say — all the other viable candidates were even worse than Romney.
[i]”Do you really want to take a stand that his race is not an issue here with many voters?”
[/i]His race is barely an issue, except with a shrinking number of bigots.
[i]His race is barely an issue, except with a shrinking number of bigots.[/i]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/obamablacksupport.jpg[/img]
Jeff: For an intelligent man, you sometimes don’t think. Clinton had similar numbers. African Americans vote for Democrats by that number.
Yes, Jeff, look! 5% more “non-Hispanic Blacks” than “Democrats” give him high approval. I think you nicely proved my point.
Now, who knew that Yahoo and Esquire did polls? I certainly didn’t, and I don’t know what kind of track record they have. But cool graphics: [url]http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-obama-poll-numbers-2012?hootPostID=5d8a8e9f36d0df7f85685c10d6990ed5[/url]
Note that this poll was taken before the recent video of Romney.
Don,
To understand this Obama love-fest syndrome, go here and compare Obama’s Democrat job approval with Carter for example:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx[/url]
Here is the graph:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/ObamaDemLove.jpg[/img]
Admit it Don, you guys are in love with this President. It is an abusive relationship. You need to get out now!
Jeff: I’m holding my nose and voting for Obama. I’m not a fan, so I’m not sure who you refer to with “you guys.”
David:
As per your point about Clinton being supported by the black population of voters at a level similar to Obama, the difference is that the economy was humming when Clinton was in office and we were in an unprecedented period of peace.
“You Guys” are all the folks that represent that top line.
Here we are with an economy still stuck, debt that will already take generations to pay for and there is $3.5 billion added every day, and a foreign policy in shambles. And all of this happening under the leadership of a President that has failed to deliver on almost all of his campaign promises and Party platform commitments.
And… look at that top line!
It is unprecedented that a sitting President would continue to be this popular in the current situation. There must be other factors driving it. Romney’s “weakness” as a candidate does not explain it because he has a much stronger resume than does Mr. Obama.
Non-conservatives believe that the economy is slowly improving, that debt is a bi-partisan issue, that foreign policy is not in “shambles” (any more than usual) — and, most important, that the other guy wouldn’t make any of that better and would very likely make all of those things worse. In some cases, particularly foreign policy, much [i]much[/i] [u]much[/u] [b]much [/b]worse.
Most also probably don’t believe that Romney’s resume is particularly appropriate to the presidency.
Yes, I approve Obama more than I did Carter, although I did vote for Carter four times. Largely because of who the alternative was.
Don, I guess sheep can vote…
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/157385/economic-confidence-surged-points-last-week.aspx[/url]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/sheep.jpg[/img]
Apparently their love for Obama messiah is so strong, all he needs to do is TELL them the economy is improving and they will believe him.
The problem is that there are not hardly any economists that beleive the same. In fact, if the economy was doing so well, why did the Fed need to start dumping billions more into the banking system?
Are we seeing a Jim Jones syndrome here except the dangerous Kool Aid is ideological?
The “debt is a bipartisan issue” because most people don’t understand what it means to them and their future and their kid’s future. There is a great teaching moment opportunity for Romney. The debates will open a few eyes as long as Romeny doesn’t let Obama snake around his ownership of the mess like he is so good at doing with help from his softball media pals.
And we are ABSOLUTELY going to have to agree to disagree on you claim that foreign policy will get much, much worse under Romney. I suppose when you get used to chronic pain you can always take the position that it could be worse. I would not settle for the current situation. Again, thinking about my kids and their kids.
Jeff, I’m really skeptical about the debates. All three moderators are left leaning Democrats and we saw last week how the press was conspiring before they questioned Romney makes me doubt that he’s going to get a fair shake. The questions will be tilted to favor Obama and I would go as far as believing that Obama will get fed the questions in advance so he’ll be more prepared.
Rusty, I think it will be more difficult for them to treat Mr. Obama with kid gloves because they have to ask both the same questions. So, if they want to trap Romney they will catch Obama in the same fish net.
Now your point about Obama getting the questions in advance is a good one especially considering the recent news about the Obama justice department working with Media Matters to help spin the Fast and Furious debacle.
Oh, and by the way… you won’t hear about this on any of the liberal mainstream media.
[url] http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/%5B/url%5D
Try again…
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/[/url]
Jeff, I heard about the DOJ scandal yesterday. You’re right, most of these liberals on here I’m sure had no idea about this. MSNBC would never report on it, it would require them to change the channel.
I don’t even know what channel MSNBC is. Nor do I think most people are paying attention to the F&F issue.
[quote]How else do you explain the love fest for this President even though he has failed on almost every committment made? [/quote]
Because Jeff, I do not feel he has failed on almost every commitment made, at least not those of most importance to me. So for the short list:
1) Obama care – probably saved my daughters life and me from bankruptcy. Invaluable to many of my patients.
2) Ended Don’t ask, don’t tell
3) Moved forward with the portion of the “Dream Act” that he could do unilaterally.
4) Equal pay for equal work
5) Winding down the wars – messily, but never the less
6) Got Osama bin Laden ( not that I think this was right, but it was a commitment)
Just because you do not like any of these, this was the platform on which he ran and partially for which he was elected. I am sure you can post a list of what he didn’t accomplish. Fair enough. But he did not “fail on almost every commitment” even with roadblocks thrown up at every turn both those whose stated goal was to cause him to fail.
And since when does continued support because you find Obama’s positions closer to your own than those of
Romney equal a “love fest” ?