Mitt Romney is fighting hard . . . and the liberals don’t like it.

From Donald Douglas:

Left-Wing Strategy Preview: Attacking Mitt Romney as a ‘Nasty Jerk’

BuzzFeed reports on Mitt’s aggressive campaign stance, which has endeared him to the conservative base: “Mitt Romney Wins Over The Right By Confronting Obama.” (Via Memeorandum.)

And this “punch back twice as hard” campaign has the radical left all wee-wee’d up and whining pathetically about how Mitt’s all “mean” and “nasty.” See Jed Lewison at Daily Kos, “Right wing falls in love with Mitt Romney … because they finally realize he’s kind of a jerk“:

And what did former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) do to confront President Obama? He went to Solyndra, the bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer on whom the Obama Administration had lavished loan guarantees. Simply put, Governor Romney put the focus on the President’s economic decisions, which is exactly where he should put his focus.

The Democrats are upset that he didn’t somehow disavow Donald Trump’s questioning of Mr Obama’s actual birthplace, and whether he qualifies for the presidency by being a “natural born citizen,” but Mr Romney isn’t tooting that horn himself, and is staying on message. Mr Lewison’s complaint is that Mr Romney is still that mean ol’ bully from prep school, because he is campaigning hard, much harder than Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was seen as doing in 2008.

BOSTON, Mass. — After a day spent waging bi-coastal combat with the Obama campaign, Mitt Romney’s team in Boston earned the highest compliment Rush Limbaugh has ever paid them Thursday afternoon: “I’m telling you,” he said. “This is not the McCain campaign.”

Once-skeptical conservatives knew exactly what he meant. In the eyes of many on the right, John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid was a disaster not because he lost, but because he refused to fight. Conservatives believe McCain bought into a liberal media narrative that personal attacks on Barack Obama were unseemly and even racist. The conservative caricature of Candidate McCain that emerged in the wake of the Republicans’ defeat wasn’t of an unreliable moderate — rather, it was one of an Establishment figure paralyzed by political correctness, and unwilling to go blow for blow with Obama.

But if the Vietnam veteran disappointed conservatives with his gun-shy campaign in 2008, Romney is uniting the right by playing the role of the bomb-thrower.

The unapologetically aggressive tone of Romney’s campaign is manifest at every turn — from his aides’ fierce Twitter wars, to the candidate’s surprise press conference at failed green solar company Solyndra, and the campaign’s continued refusal to apologize for Donald Trump’s outlandish conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth certificate. It’s all part of a deliberate — and, so far, successful — strategy aimed less at convincing undecided voters, and more at rallying the Republican Party around its candidate.

In that, I think that McKay Coppins was wrong: Mr Romney is being very aggressive, but by staying on message, by hammering at the President’s economic policies, he is hammering on exactly the issue about which the undecided voters are most concerned. “Birtherism” might be red meat thrown to the dogs, and Mr Romney apparently doesn’t have much of a problem with a surrogate doing so, but that’s red meat thrown to the dogs who were already going to vote against President Obama. It keeps the silliness away from the candidate, and keeps the candidate focused on what is important.

Mr Lewison, of course, didn’t like that, but I would note that his article is time stamped 0717 Pacific Daylight Time on Friday, or almost two hours after the Bureau for Labor Statistics released the latest unemployment numbers, showing that the official unemployment rate rose to 8.2%.1 The Democrats realize full well a simple truth that your Editor has mentioned many times: if this race can be focused on something else, anything else other than the economy, President Obama has a decent chance to win re-election, but if this election is focused on the economy, the President is in real trouble. If the economy picks up, to the point at which people can actually see it improving, can feel it in their bones as getting better, then the President will win re-election, but if it does not, he will lose, period.

And few people see much positive happening with the economy in the five months before the election. The official unemployment rate might come down marginally, but few expect it to drop substantially.2

So, what is making Mr Romney mean and nasty as far as our friends on the left are concerned? He’s actually fighting to win, actually fighting to defeat President Obama, and he’s doing so in a manner which has the best chance of him winning the election.
____________________________

  1. Interestingly enough, the report called the unemployment rate “essentially unchanged” at 8.2%, up from 8.1% the previous report. One wonders if the rate had dropped 0.1% whether BLS would have called it “essentially unchanged,” or we would have been told that the President’s policies were slowly but surely working.
  2. Had unemployment decreased from 8.1 to 8.0% in May, and the rate were to drop by 0.1% every month between now and the end of October, it would have been 7.5% in the last report prior to the election. That would still be high, but perhaps the President could successfully claim that it showed his policies were working; now that possibility seems more remote.

44 Comments

  1. Pingback: Obama Dives in the Polls, Romney Piles On, and Libs Don’t Like It | THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE

  2. The fact that Willard Romney did not speak out against the nasty foolishness of the Donald, like John McCain did against the lady in his crowd, this is a big black mark on his character, as if we did not already know that, as for example in his remark several months ago about having no problem with firing people. Yeah, he did actually say that.

    Romney’s campaign rhetoric to date has placed pandering to the Republican extreme Right as his first priority, which is the “on message” to which you both refer and prefer.

    And if you can repeat something again, I choose to do so as well: The main goal/priority of the Republican Party from day one of the President Obama term, was to assure that he be held to one term. Forget all about governing these four years, obfuscate, undermine, and deal out a continuous stream of lies, and let FoxNews and Rush present them as though they were truths. We’ve known this for a long time.

    To that end, I’m sure you were ecstatic to see the drop in job numbers and the increase in unemployment just announced. Three cheers for that!!!

    Since you, or someone from your cadre, recently complained that President Obama was responsible for gasoline price increases upwards to $4 per gallon, why have you not credited him for now having lowered them by about $.50 per gallon, about 13%?

    Gasoline prices are pretty much out of the control of a President, as we all should acknowledge, just as what is happening in Europe is as well, including their impact to our economy. What on earth can President Obama do to save Greece from a default?

    If by some remote chance Candidate Romney were elected to office, I can already hear you fending of criticism coming from the Left about why the economy does not do better.

    As a matter of fact, should an elected Romney then implement the Ryan Plan of austerity, as he has committed to do, just like for the UK, our economy will go negative, jobs will be lost, and the deficit will grow. I just want to be on record now about that!

    Mark my words Mr Editor, at which you will be tempted to respond: Well he inherited a mess from President Obama. Sounds familiar, yes?

    You will say that, won’t you Mr Editor?

    I almost hope that Romney will win, because the Repubs will then be out of favor for decades as the economy really tanks for many years. We will then see McConnell and Boehner and the TEA Party eating their words and cowering in a corner. What a delight that would be!

    Don’t worry, though, because I would not become a birther, touting the actual fact that Romney was born in Mexico.

    But of course, I don’t wish any of this for our country, even though as you folks wished exactly this for us because you hated Obama that much, and still do.

    This is one reason of many why I will vote for the reelection of President Obama, thus simultaneously being for Obama and against the Republican ideology as it now exists. In fact, I truly hate your right wing ideology, because it is indeed unpatriotic and anti-American, in my view!!!

  3. The fact that Willard Romney did not speak out against the nasty foolishness of the Donald

    What foolishness? It was Obama himself who first listed himself as being from Kenya! This was the standard biography until 2007 — right until he decided to make a run for the presidency. The Breitbart site exposed this ignored-by-the-MSM fact weeks ago. This bio was used by the publicity agency that advertised Obama’s books. Once exposed, the agency called it a “editing error.”

    This isn’t to say that Obama was born in Kenya; but, like Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren in Massachusetts, Obama knew how to play the “diversity game” among the academic elite, and having a Kenyan birthplace enhanced that sort of cred. Why else won’t we see Obama’s college records? I bet this is precisely why: They’ll reveal he had his birthplace as Kenya, and would show him a liar, not only for the “cred,” but for any financial “ease” that may have accompanied it.

    So, Trump is merely playing the “game” originally established by Obama himself.

  4. Mr Editor, I have a few observations which I’ll break down into individual comments. (I’m having problems with my laptop again.)

    1. I disagree that Romney is Fighting Hard. He’s not yet begun to fight, but you’re correct about liberals not liking his rather mild resistance to watching himself and his wife and family being maligned by the Democrat Party’s corrupt stooges in MSM, as well as watching his record of outstanding personal and professional accomplishment belittled by partisan political hacks while at the same time Barack Obama’s record of one monumental failure after another gets praised as if failure was the crowning achievement of President Obama’s Administration. Because, of course, it is.

  5. In fact, I truly hate your right wing ideology, because it is indeed unpatriotic and anti-American, in my view!!!

    Once again we witness the schizophrenia exhibited by the “man” known as Passive-Aggressive Perry. He has once again wished for “civil” dialogue after he was called out for yet another unsubtle threat against me, yet, with this same garbage AGAIN, he proves he doesn’t want that at all.

    What he wants is to be free to call anyone anything he wishes, and be 100% from any ramifications.

    Well, frankly, he can shove that you-know-where.

  6. 2. Focus on Obama’s birthplace is misplaced. His place of birth isn’t the issue, it’s a distraction. The issue is Obama’s phony birth documents.

    First we had the woefully inadequate and obviously fraudulent short-form certification, then when Donald Trump made an issue out of it a year ago, Obama suddenly produced the computer copy of his long-form certificate, which is also an obvious fraud.

    (Anyone with an open mind and 15 minutes to look at the evidence can see it’s an obvious fraud as long as they also have the courage to acknowledge the truth when it’s right in front of their nose along with the brains tell the difference between a hawk and a handsaw. It’s not even a close call, it’s as obvious as a heart attack.)

    Barack Obama isn’t so much concealing the place of his birth, likely Honolulu, but the other information on his birth certificate. What exactly that information might be will remain largely speculative until the real birth certificate sees the light of day, and the corrupt men and women around the pretender just can’t let that happen. And, there’s nothing silly about it, it’s life and death at the highest and most powerful levels of US government.

  7. In fact, I truly hate your right wing ideology, because it is indeed unpatriotic and anti-American, in my view!!!

    Okay, so you’re a HATER and a far left extremist whacko!

  8. The fact that Willard Romney did not speak out against the nasty foolishness of the Donald, like John McCain did against the lady in his crowd

    Of COURSE you want Romney to be like McCain. McCain never fought and therefore he LOST!

  9. As a matter of fact, should an elected Romney then implement the Ryan Plan of austerity, as he has committed to do, just like for the UK, our economy will go negative, jobs will be lost, and the deficit will grow

    IOW, just like if Obama gets a second term.

  10. Here is what I wrote:

    “In fact, I truly hate your right wing ideology, because it is indeed unpatriotic and anti-American, in my view!!!”

    Here is koolo’s response:

    “Once again we witness the schizophrenia exhibited by the “man” known as Passive-Aggressive Perry. He has once again wished for “civil” dialogue after he was called out for yet another unsubtle threat against me, yet, with this same garbage AGAIN, he proves he doesn’t want that at all.”

    Show me exactly where I made even a “subtle” threat against you, koolo. Obviously, I did not. I was speaking against an ideology, not a person. Your response is by a person who perceives threats which do not exist, which is clearly paranoia, or even worse, the word you just used to characterize me, “schizophrenia”.

    I think you’d best settle yourself down, and perhaps avoid this blog for a while, because clearly, this is getting the better of you.

    But I do ask: Why cannot we not Just express our differences without all this hysteria which you just exhibited on here? This means, one expresses one’s views on a topic, the other does likewise. Hating an ideology is a strong statement, not against a person, but against a person’s ideology. There is an obvious distinction between these two statements, a distinction which you did not appear to grasp.

  11. “IOW, just like if Obama gets a second term.”

    Eric, even in the absence of his opposition party being willing to work across the aisle, and with the headwinds from the Euro zone more recently, under President Obama, the economy has gone from negative to positive growth, from losing hundreds of thousands per month to positive job growth, and to enviable corporate profits. If we get Romney plus austerity, we will likely go the way of the UK. We need to phase in austerity, which is what President Obama has said we are going to do in his second term, cutting $4T in 10 years being the goal.

    How has your IRA been doing since mid-2009, Eric? And you are still employed, correct? Under Romney, I believe the outcome for you would be worse after his first 3.5 years, for reasons given.

  12. 3. I also disagree with the conventional wisdom that an improving economy will result in an Obama victory in 2012. Yes, I know it’s taken as a given and repeated as though it represents divinely inspired truth, but I’m not buying it, not by a long shot.

    The disappointment, dismay, and outright anger which began building up against Barack Obama since shortly after he took office has reached critical mass. No rosy news reports of a budding recovery, or any sort of feeling in the bones, or even solid evidence of an improving economy could even begin to compensate for the overwhelming hostility Obama’s Administration has generated.

    Obama has proved that he’s both incompetent and incapable of leading our nation. If Americans believed Obama was up to the job and had our interests at heart, he’d be reelected. But that’s not the case. Obama is unworthy of the Oval Office and Americans don’t just don’t trust him with the keys to our nation’s future.

    Take heart, our national nightmare will soon be over.

  13. “Of COURSE you want Romney to be like McCain. McCain never fought and therefore he LOST!”

    A decent person would respond the way McCain did. In this case, Romney was not decent, nor usually is the Donald.

  14. “Okay, so you’re a HATER and a far left extremist whacko!”

    Of the extremist ideology you exhibit, Eric, yes. I venture a guess that you would say the same about my ideology, correct? This is why we need to work across the aisle, don’t you think, to achieve the common ground, to bridge the gap.

  15. WW wrote:

    The fact that Willard Romney did not speak out against the nasty foolishness of the Donald, like John McCain did against the lady in his crowd, this is a big black mark on his character, as if we did not already know that, as for example in his remark several months ago about having no problem with firing people. Yeah, he did actually say that.

    And what did it get Senator McCain? He lost, remember? Mitt Romney is playing to win, and your comment is all the proof we will ever need that liberals really despise him for playing to win.

    And, of course, you were dishonest concerning the actual quote:

    I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

    You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.

    What Mr Romney said was that he likes having the authority to terminate a contract with someone who is not providing the services he likes. And I’d extend that: an employer should be able to fire an employee who is not performing adequately. Why, do you think that an employer shouldn’t be able to get rid of a non-performing employee?

  16. A very worried Wagonwheel wrote:

    As a matter of fact, should an elected Romney then implement the Ryan Plan of austerity, as he has committed to do, just like for the UK, our economy will go negative, jobs will be lost, and the deficit will grow. I just want to be on record now about that!

    Mark my words Mr Editor, at which you will be tempted to respond: Well he inherited a mess from President Obama. Sounds familiar, yes?

    You will say that, won’t you Mr Editor?

    I shouldn’t have to, because I know that, to be consistent, you will be making such excuses for him, won’t you? :)

    However, I have already said that austerity will have some real short term pain involved, but that it is necessary that we go ahead and get it over with, sooner rather than later, because the longer we put it off, the worse it will be.

    I almost hope that Romney will win, because the Repubs will then be out of favor for decades as the economy really tanks for many years. We will then see McConnell and Boehner and the TEA Party eating their words and cowering in a corner. What a delight that would be!

    Actually, I absolutely concede such a possibility, especially looking at the election results in Greece and France. It is entirely possible that, in saving the United States fiscally, the Republicans will anger the electorate sufficiently that they get thrown out. Then it will be up to the Democrats: will they (under their breaths, of course) thank the Republicans for doing their dirty work for them, and maintain a fiscally responsible program, or will they move hard left, and spend wildly again? If they choose the former, they could govern for quite a while; if they choose the latter, they won’t last long.

    The difference between us? You are hoping for a victory of party, while I am hoping for a victory of responsibility. If the Democrats were to become a party of responsibility, it would be difficult for true conservatives to oppose them. And we have had some Democratic presidents who were economically responsible: Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. They all enjoy good reputations, other than Mr Clinton’s personal foibles, and the American people admire them.

  17. WW wrote:

    If we get Romney plus austerity, we will likely go the way of the UK. We need to phase in austerity, which is what President Obama has said we are going to do in his second term, cutting $4T in 10 years being the goal.

    That’s just plain bovine feces. As has been documented on this site innumerable times, President Obama specifically proposed maintaining total federal spending at much higher levels than any previous President since World War II. Even during years in which he projected strong growth, and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been finished, he proposed spending more than 22% of GDP at the federal level.

    The Democrats talk about phasing in fiscal responsibility and spending cuts later, somewhere down the road, but it never, ever happens.

  18. WW wrote:

    How has your IRA been doing since mid-2009, Eric? And you are still employed, correct? Under Romney, I believe the outcome for you would be worse after his first 3.5 years, for reasons given.

    Unless Eric is planning on retiring within the next 3.5 years — and he’s not that old — that would be a good thing: he could buy more stock, at lower prices, and thus see greater rewards in the outyears.

    The on-paper value of someone’s portfolio can go down, but it isn’t a loss unless the person sells at a loss. The long-term investor, and a retirement plan should be seen as a long term investment, should not be overly concerned with daily or even yearly losses in paper value, but whether the value of the portfolio will be good when it is time to cash it out.

  19. “And what did it get Senator McCain? He lost, remember? Mitt Romney is playing to win, and your comment is all the proof we will ever need that liberals really despise him for playing to win.”

    All because he is “playing to win”, he can say anything, is that it Mr Editor. Uh oh, the Machiavellian part of our Editor has reappeared again. I don’t despise the man, like you obviously despise President Obama, but I do not support his economic policies as revealed so far, because some, like deregulation of the banks and the rejection of the Volker Rule, put us right back to the same policies which brought on our Great Recession. And I don’t support his cure for our fiscal problems, because they put us on the same track that the UK is on as we speak. You support Romney for the following reason: He is anti-Obama. Cannot you hold your ideological emotions in check, Mr Editor, in order to return to rationality? You should be able to do this if you try harder!

    “What Mr Romney said was that he likes having the authority to terminate a contract with someone who is not providing the services he likes.”

    He may have said that later, I don’t know, but he generated a major gaffe when he said something to the effect of his “liking to fire people”. He also claims to have created 100k jobs. My understanding of the truth is that for every 100k he destroyed, he created 20k, the so-called 80-20 result.

    Here are his exact words: “”I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” Romney said.” Now it is true that he later provided the context that you have given, but the fact that he would blurt these words out without thinking, says something about Romney’s insensitivity to the working man. He simply does not connect to them. For saying these words, he was also attacked by several of his foes, your Rick Perry being one of them.

    A liberal group made this statement about Romney’s attitude, exhibited in his statement:

    “The thousands of workers at Worldwide Grinding Systems and Ampad and GS Industries and Dade International and DDI Corp that were laid off by Bain Capital while Romney profited are no doubt relieved to hear that someone found joy in the process,” said the group’s communications director Jeremy Funk. “As the new Wall Street Journal analysis shows, these bankrupted companies and offshored jobs were not isolated cases – they were business as usual for Romney and company.”

  20. Twisting words, taking things out of context, blowing up small events into major incidents, manufacturing controversy, can anyone remember a recent time when an outspoken Democrat actually made an effort to be intellectually honest?

  21. “Of COURSE you want Romney to be like McCain. McCain never fought and therefore he LOST!”

    A decent person wimp would respond the way McCain did.

    FTFY

  22. Show me exactly where I made even a “subtle” threat against you, koolo. Obviously, I did not.

    Obviously you did, so much so that Editor not only had to edit it, but give you a stern warning. Do you really think we’re stupid, Passive Aggressive Perry? The threat you made is right here, you douche: http://www.journal14.com/2012/05/28/the-frustrations-of-paul-krugman/comment-page-1/#comment-33124

    I think you’d best settle yourself down, and perhaps avoid this blog for a while, because clearly, this is getting the better of you

    .

    To the contrary, in order to avoid being suspended a second time, or even banned outright this time, why don’t you take your own advice … just once?

    But I do ask: Why cannot we not Just express our differences without all this hysteria which you just exhibited on here?

    LOL!!! There it is AGAIN — the ‘ol “I want my cake and eat it too” scenario expressed by our resident personal information digger for the millionth time. Spare us, you phony jerk. You don’t want this at all. Once again, you make excuses for your use of pejoratives against your rivals (“unpatriotic,” “un-American”), and then have the utter gall to request civility. And that’s just what they are: Excuses. Cheap, shallow excuses — that they’re somehow against “an ideology,” yet knowing all the while that all of your opponents in here share that ideology to varying degrees.

    I was joking before about the schizophrenia; I think I may actually be 100% correct about it, now. You really do have some major issues and/or disorders you need to solve.

  23. Of the extremist ideology you exhibit, Eric, yes. I venture a guess that you would say the same about my ideology, correct? This is why we need to work across the aisle, don’t you think, to achieve the common ground, to bridge the gap.

    It’s hard to “Work across the aisle” when you claim to “Hate” our ideology and use extremist terms like “Unpatriotic” to describe mere differences of opinion.

  24. Wagonwheel errs:

    “What Mr Romney said was that he likes having the authority to terminate a contract with someone who is not providing the services he likes.”

    He may have said that later, I don’t know, but he generated a major gaffe when he said something to the effect of his “liking to fire people”. He also claims to have created 100k jobs. My understanding of the truth is that for every 100k he destroyed, he created 20k, the so-called 80-20 result.

    Here are his exact words: “”I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” Romney said.” Now it is true that he later provided the context that you have given, but the fact that he would blurt these words out without thinking, says something about Romney’s insensitivity to the working man. He simply does not connect to them. For saying these words, he was also attacked by several of his foes, your Rick Perry being one of them.

    No, that was the original quote, period. Here is the source citation, stating that he made the comment in question that day (January 9, 2012), with the entire comment quoted. It took me a whopping three seconds to look it up — it was referenced in the previous link I had given — and had you bothered to look it up for yourself before you started typing, you would not have made such an error. For someone who so frequently demands source citations, you sometimes seem a bit lax in checking what you present as fact.

  25. Notice how diligently the Democrats in Wisconsin have been working across the aisle with Governor Walker and his new Administration following his election in 2010.

    The Democrat definition of working across the aisle hasn’t exactly been a very pleasant experience for the people of Wisconsin, its been more like an expensive and childish temper tantrum organized by mealy mouth Democrat politicians and their gangs of greedy union thugs.

  26. Eric wrote:

    Of the extremist ideology you exhibit, Eric, yes. I venture a guess that you would say the same about my ideology, correct? This is why we need to work across the aisle, don’t you think, to achieve the common ground, to bridge the gap.

    It’s hard to “Work across the aisle” when you claim to “Hate” our ideology and use extremist terms like “Unpatriotic” to describe mere differences of opinion.

    Eric, you just don’t understand what our Democrat from Delaware means by “work(ing) across the aisle.” He means, as he wrote here:

    A decent person would respond the way McCain did. In this case, Romney was not decent, nor usually is the Donald.

    A decent person, someone who works across the aisle, is really defined as someone who loses an election to a Democrat.

    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney wins the election, and that the GOP achieves a majority in the United States Senate as well, while maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives. It is your Editor’s guess that, should such occur, Wagonwheel will not be writing to condemn use of the filibuster, nor saying that the congressional Democrats should “work across the aisle” with the Republican majority to help put Republican policies into force.

  27. Ropelight pointed out:

    Notice how diligently the Democrats in Wisconsin have been working across the aisle with Governor Walker and his new Administration following his election in 2010.

    Rope, you simply fail to recognize something: the “aisle” to which Wagonwheel referred was actually the Illinois border. :)

  28. Obama will not win any states he lost in 2008. I guarantee that. So, Obama has to hold onto the states he won in 2008. And he will lose some of those states. I guarantee that, as well.

    Obama will lose Indiana and North Carolina, two states he won in 2008. That’s “settled science.” Trends show Obama losing Florida. Ohio and Virginia are sliding toward the Republican column. Nebraska split its electoral votes in 2008. The Democrat Cornhusker Kickback was so roundly despised by the Cornhusker State that I project a full slate of Republicans in their electoral college. And it is likely that New Hampshire returns to its Conservative tradition (or New England Conservative, which is far squishier than the vast majority of the nation’s Conservatives).

    So, breaking down what I wrote above:
    Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia flip from Democrat to Republican, and Nebraska goes from split electors to a full slate of Republican electors.

    That is all that is necessary to boot the Socialist from the Oval Office.

    But Obama cannot just focus on those states. Round about 50 million Union dollars spent in Wisconsin to get rid of the Republicans (who righted Wisconsin’s economic ship and reduced Wisconsin’s tax burden) all for naught. The Republican Governor and the Republican Government survives. In fact, the Republican Governor could very easily win with a double-digit margin, making the Recall election a Republican Mandate — to the horrors of a great many Democrats, who are suddenly down-playing the Wisconsin Recall after they had previously declared it something far more. Democrats had pointed to Wisconsin and declared, basically “this is what happens when you go against the Unions and Democrats.” But what happens? You win and the Unions and Democrats (same thing, really, Socialists, all) lose. So they’re now down-playing the Recall Election after they basically spent 50 million dollars leading up to it.

    So Obama could lose Wisconsin, the “birthplace of American Progressives”. Meatchicken (I’m from Ohio, and that’s how any honorable Ohioan would spell that State Up North, as Woody always called it) is in play. Obama could lose Meatchicken. Pennsylvania is looking stronger and stronger for Republicans this cycle. Maine could go Republican this cycle. Nevada is not a Democrat lock, by any stretch of the imagination. Iowa could flip Republican.

    There are actually rumblings that New Jersey, with Chris Christie being rather liked for his major fixes to that chronically damaged and chronically Democrat state, might be ready to go Republican this cycle.

    There are essentially 3 main reasons why Barack Obama is doing so poorly:

    1) Barack Obama himself, and his massively over-reaching, totalitarian Socialist agenda that too many patriotic Americans hate.

    2) The TEA Party and their Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Patriotic aims.

    3) The exploding blogosphere, breaking through the Hard-Left agenda of lamestream media.

    Those three points should very likely mean the death of the contempt of Federal Court Barack Obama Regime.

  29. Pingback: How Barack Obama Loses In 2012 « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

  30. Pingback: How Barack Obama Loses In 2012 « Truth Before Dishonor

  31. Upthread, our Editor made the following statement:

    “The Democrats talk about phasing in fiscal responsibility and spending cuts later, somewhere down the road, but it never, ever happens.”

    Sigh! This statement simply is not true, rather it is a myth/lie which Republicans, our Editor included, attempt to promulgate on a daily basis.

    For the facts, concentrating first on President Obama vs President GW Bush, look at this graphic which clearly proves you wrong, Mr Editor.

    In the chart we see that for non-military spending, Bush increased his by +8.1 and +14.1 compared to Obama +8.3 (from inauguration to the end of the third year in each term). And of course, Bush’s military spending far exceeded Obama’s.

    The same conclusion is reached comparing Clinton vs HGW Bush, for both non-military and military spending, following the well-known Reagan spending splurge (to the point where Reagan actually had to raise taxes a number of times to offset his growing deficits).

    So now that you have been presented with the facts, Mr Editor, I know you will keep on making the same claim as in the opening quote, in the future, because this is simply what you do all the time!

  32. “However, I have already said that austerity will have some real short term pain involved, but that it is necessary that we go ahead and get it over with, sooner rather than later, because the longer we put it off, the worse it will be.”

    Yes, you did already say that, Mr Editor, but I don’t understand your basis for think that. As ending the Great Depression taught us, it was the stimulus generated by the huge spending in support of WWII which ended the depression, the Keynesian approach put into practice. There is no reason to think that this will continue to work now; in fact, it already has, though not to the same scale as back then.

    I like the idea of more stimulation now, phasing it out gradually as we phase spending cuts in gradually, especially with military spending. To support this, I favor borrowing some of the idle corporate money, and from citizens too, so borrowing can be made from within our own country, as it was in the ’40′s, instead of creating a lot more foreign debt.

    On the Romney/GOP/Ryan/Pico concept of austerity, Arianna Huffington put it well, I think, with the following statement published today:

    “And even if Republicans don’t come around on actual policy shifts, they seem to be getting the message that the public is turning against austerity. This can be seen, to great comic effect, in new rhetoric from the GOP’s demigod architect of austerity, Paul Ryan. Appearing on Meet the Press, he hilariously declared that “the whole premise of our budget is to pre-empt austerity.” That’s right, the new line the GOP is running up the flagpole is that we can “pre-empt austerity” with… austerity. In the same way we can “pre-empt” osteoporosis by jumping in front of a bus.”

  33. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  34. So now that you have been presented with the facts, Mr Editor, I know you will keep on making the same claim as in the opening quote, in the future, because this is simply what you do all the time!

    There is PAP, failing basic civics again. Please explain to us how presidents spend money as provided for in the Constitution, oh Mr. Former Teacher.

  35. Perry continues to push idiot nonsense:

    Here’s a fact: Our national debt is up $1,590,000,000,000 (that’s One Trillion, Five Hundred Ninety Billion dollars)in the first 15 months since the new GOP Congress took office.

    That’s more debt than the first 97 US Congresses combined.

    Yet, Arianna Huffington thinks that’s an example of austerity! And, Perry uses this flaming idiot as a source, he thinks we should spend even more.

    At some point, even a drunk has to face facts, drink the bottle dry and there just ain’t anymore. Just like no one can spend their way to prosperity, no one can drink from an empty bottle. That ain’t rocket science, it’s common sense and it’s as true as true can be.

    Why would anyone with the brains of a turnip think otherwise?

  36. On the Romney/GOP/Ryan/Pico concept of austerity, Arianna Huffington put it well, I think, with the following statement published today:

    Arianna Huffington? Seriously? This woman who married a rich gay California GOP congressman in order to ride him into the Senate, and then when he (narrowly) lost, she jumped ship, divorced him, and became a left winger? THIS is creibility ???

  37. It’s not just Mitt who’s fighting back — Florida is too … against the wildly political Eric Holder:

    Will Florida stand fast, or cave in? Florida has a winning case here. Firstly, the statutes allowing the purge have already been precleared. DOJ will have to climb onto the far limbs of Presley vs. Etowah County in claiming the way Florida conducted the foreign voter purge must be submitted to DOJ for approval. Second, if Section 5 allows the Attorney General to stop states from ensuring that citizens of foreign countries don’t vote for President, I doubt Holder will find much support on the Supreme Court.

    Third, if Florida stands fast, expect wide popular support against an unpopular Attorney General, but only if Floridians call their Secretary of State and support him. Also expect citizens groups to intervene on behalf of Florida and election integrity.

    Holder faces another danger. The more he appears to assert unconstitutional federal power, the more states will push back against his overreach – including increasing defiance. The Voting Section only has so many lawyers. At some point, it can pick only so many fights. Worse yet, if you are a supporter of Section 5 as a protection against genuine racial discrimination, the stupid fights Holder is picking to placate his radical lawless base may unravel the statute. Even supporters of Section 5 should urge Holder to stand down and let Florida clean up their voter rolls of dead people and foreigners.

  38. WW wrote:

    Yes, you did already say that, Mr Editor, but I don’t understand your basis for think that. As ending the Great Depression taught us, it was the stimulus generated by the huge spending in support of WWII which ended the depression, the Keynesian approach put into practice. There is no reason to think that this will continue to work now; in fact, it already has, though not to the same scale as back then.

    That’s a very interesting statement. In it you have admitted that it was “the stimulus generated by the huge spending in support of WWII which ended the depression,” which you called “the Keynesian approach put into practice.” That points out that the Keynesian approach, in peacetime, did not end the Depression, but it took the huge stimulus of a global war, which aided our virtually untouchable industrial base to [prosper while other nations saw their industries being bombed to smithereens. Yeah, World War II did wonders for our economy, but fifty million people had to die in the process. Are you sure that this is how you want to do things?

  39. It wasn’t simply government spending that ended the Depression, (the Editor explains it above) it was private sector jobs. Sure, government borrowed and spent huge sums of money, but it wasn’t for government bureaucrats or for phony green energy projects, or for some idiot 1940′s version of so-called shovel ready jobs.

    No, the spending was for durable manufactured goods, war materials mostly, and the money was spent on wages for workers toiling in America’s factories, on farms, and in military service. Later, the recovery was sustained by soldiers and sailors returning from the war and buying new homes, new cars, and starting families.

    The kind of spending Perry and his ilk support is a repeat of Obama’s monumental failures, Stimulus (which only stimulated more debt and kept government bureaucrats on the payroll), and ObamaCare with all it’s ugly crooked kick-backs and dirty underhanded special exemptions for backroom political accommodations, and so-called green energy projects which were really just payoffs to Obama’s campaign contributors so they could buy his reelection with taxpayer money siphoned off from green investments designed to fail from their inception, one hand washing the other.

    So, it isn’t simple minded spending that encourages the economy, or spending on phony investments, it’s spending on real jobs for real people to produce goods and services other people want to buy. In short, it’s not public sector spending that can or will solve our economic problems, never has, never will.

  40. I use a PS3. Gaming + movies, and it has all the features of a high quality standalone blue ray player. It also has a web browser and can go online. And it can play games.

  41. “Are you sure that this is how you want to do things?”

    And this a serious question, Mr Editor? My point was/is to illustrate that growth is stimulated by demand side economics, otherwise called the Keynesian approach, about which both you and ropelight, and other Conservatives on this blog, are in denial of the salient historical facts.

    Other than government stimulus, the other factor involved was/is control of the deficit by assuring an adequate revenue stream, which increases with both stimulated and normal growth of the economy. Tax increases are sometimes needed for this purpose, which is why the Norquist no tax increase pledge has been so destructive to recovering our economic growth. It is also one big reason why your party cannot be put back in power in 2012.

    Your idol Ronald Reagan used this exact approach, spending to stimulate the economy, a tactic in which Jimmy Carter did not engage, concerned about the huge increase in crude oil prices at the time. It worked for RR. I will admit that stimulus by government spending is counterintuitive, but the history of doing so proves the point. Following the stimulus, the approach which has worked is to ease off the spending as growth improves, then to ease in the raising of taxes, if necessary, to offset the ballooning deficit.

    RR made the mistake of simultaneously increasing spending and cutting taxes, which caused the deficit to balloon, causing him to have to reset his tax policies. He realized his mistake, then proceeded to raise taxes in his second term a number of times to curtail the building deficit. Today’s extremist Conservatives conveniently forget this RR experience that is an undeniable historical fact.

    Clinton learned this lesson when he increased taxes during a period of a growing economy, which produced a surplus by the end of his second term.

    Then, as we all should know now, GW Bush made the exact same mistake as RR, in spades, by increasing government spending while simultaneously cutting taxes. The problem was that he and his Republican cohorts refused to increase taxes to control the ballooning deficit, thus contributing hugely to the Bush Great Recession which President Obama inherited.

    Of course an unregulated Wall Street gone wild, especially creating a raft of toxic mortgages and mortgage paper, majorly contributed to our (and the global) economic downfall in the Fall of 2008, the end of the Bush second term.

    The national debt about doubled during the GW Bush years. If keeping the country from Great Depression II in President Obama’s first year is rightfully taken into account, the GW Bush policies which carried over actually account for almost tripling our national debt over his two terms!!! Conservative extremists don’t like to be reminded of this truth; in fact, they deny it!

    The dramatic factual backing of these contentions can be seen right here, focusing in particular on the following two charts:

    Slowest Spending in Decades

    Federal Spending Flattens Under Obama

    The bottom line on the Obama deficit/debt is that it ACTUALLY IS the GW Bush deficit/debt. This Bush Great Recession caused GDP to drop precipitously, causing a rapid increase in unemployment, thus causing revenue to decrease precipitously due to the recession and unemployment, thus causing the deficits to balloon. This is exactly what happened.

    This is not that difficult to understand, Conservatives! Then why do you continue to be in denial about the causative policies of the Republican GW Bush administration which carried over into the Obama administration and has not undergone significant recovery, as is normal for serious economic downturns? Are you folks living a lie, or in fantasy land, or both? For the sake of our country’s well being, this simple message has to be known by the American people before they cast their ballots, else eventual chaos!

Comments are closed.