It’s the economy, stupid!

From


Romney narrows gender gap


By Jonathan Easley – 06/07/12 05:00 AM ET

Mitt Romney has significantly narrowed the gender gap with President Obama despite massive Democratic attacks on the GOP over a variety of issues.

As recently as April, Obama led Romney by 18 percent among women voters in a USA Today/Gallup poll of 12 swing states. The huge advantage with women gave Obama an overall edge of 9 percent.

Recent polls show Romney has sliced into that lead.

In the same USA Today/Gallup poll from early May, the president’s lead among women was cut to 12 percent, reducing Obama’s overall swing state lead to 2. A CNN-ORC poll released this month showed Obama’s lead among women nationally was down to 3 percent, 49 percent to 46, and equal to the president’s overall lead in that poll.

A majority of women have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election going back to 1980. But with the candidates in a dead heat nationally, and neck and neck among male voters, President Obama can’t afford for the gap among women voters to narrow much more.

Much more at the link.

Your Editor has said it before, many times: the only polls that actually mean anything are the ones held on election day, and the election is still five months away. But the results of this poll, if they are accurate and consistent, show that women are just as concerned as men with the primary issue, really the only issue that counts, the economy and President Obama’s (mis)handling of it. There are a lot of issues in which American women are somewhat more politically liberal than men, but those issues all become secondary to the family’s economic survival.

Governor Romney made the point that women have suffered the majority of job losses in the economic downturn since President Obama took office, a claim that the Obama Administration tried to refute, but was one that was true; the Administration claims that men have lost more jobs since the recession began — which is accurate — but women have lost the majority of jobs since the President took office. It’s an interesting economic debate, but in one way, it’s meaningless: arguing who lost jobs, and when, is somewhat less important than the fact that today, right now, the economy under the Obama Administration is not recovering those jobs to any significant extent.

An anecdote, which illustrates the problem for the President: your Editor’s wife is a registered nurse, and RNs have, for many years, been somewhat transient. They could be, because RNs could always get good jobs, and there was a real shortage of nurses; many hospitals were offering substantial sighing bonuses for registered nurses.

With the start of the recession, that changed. It wasn’t that there was a dramatic loss of nursing positions; accidents and illnesses don’t seem to care much about economic conditions. Certain medical specialties, the ones which involved elective procedures, saw a decline, but the necessities did not. However, available nursing positions really tightened up, and the reason was simple: job resignations among nurses declined, because so many of them decided that they could not afford to quit because their husbands had lost their jobs, or they believed that their husbands might lose their jobs. New nursing grads, who used to get jobs right after they were graduated, even before they passed their boards,1 were having to wait months to get hospital jobs,2 and many had to work as nursing assistants until an RN slot opened.

Nursing is a profession heavily dominated by women, and what happened to nurses demonstrates the problem: when men lose their jobs, it affects women. Even in families where the wife was an RN, but her husband made enough money that she did not have to work professionally, the recession and its impact on the jobs of men still nudged the wife to work, just in case. In good times, where most people don’t have to worry about their jobs, some of the issues on which women are generally more liberal than men can come to the forefront, and these issues would help the President in his re-election campaign. But these are not good times, and though we are technically in a growth period, it is a very slow growth period and unemployment remains high; the issues on which President Obama specifically, and the Democrats in general, have an advantage among women simply do not take precedence over the economy.

Your Editor has said it many times: if the economy was in good shape, or even if it was just visibly, noticeably3 recovering, the President’s re-election would not be in doubt. But the economy is not in good shape, and as the recent increase in unemployment indicates, is not getting noticeably better. If Governor Romney is closing the Republican disadvantage among female voters, it is because they, like males, recognize that the economy is the most important issue out there, and they are more and more dissatisfied with the President’s performance in that area.
_________________________________

  1. Hospitals had to place restrictions on their work, primarily involving direct supervision by an RN, until they passed their licensing examinations.
  2. It was easier to get jobs working in nursing homes, but even those tightened up.
  3. Noticeably, as used by your Editor, means something that the general public can perceive, something that “feels” real and believable to them; it is not used in reference to statistical improvements alone.

30 Comments

  1. My point about nurses staying with their jobs was anecdotal, but this is not. From Bloomberg:


    Americans Cling to Jobs as U.S. Workforce Dynamism Fades


    By Rich Miller – Jun 7, 2012 12:01 AM ET

    After 4½ months of meetings, interviews and hand-holding, personnel recruiter William Rowe thought he had sealed the deal.

    The senior executive of a major corporation Rowe had been courting finally agreed to take a top post at a venture capital- backed technology firm in California. Then four days after giving notice, the executive, who is in his 40s, had second thoughts about leaving the security of his company and returned to his old job.

    “He decided to go back to the mother ship” and not uproot his family to take a chance on joining a new firm, said Rowe, vice chairman of Pearson Partners International Inc., a search firm in Dallas.

    The deepest economic slump since the Great Depression has left its mark on both job seekers and job creators, making them more wary about taking risks in a slowly recovering labor market.

    Spooked by the severity of the recession and stuck with underwater home mortgages, Americans are less inclined to leave their jobs and less willing to strike out on their own to build businesses, government data show. Even with swelling profits, companies are holding back on hiring, complaining that they can’t find skilled workers for positions they do have open.

    More at the link.

  2. Your Editor has said it many times

    A kindly suggestion: If you have said somthing many times before, then there’s no need to repeat it again.

  3. “Your Editor has said it many times: if the economy was in good shape, or even if it was just visibly, noticeably3 recovering, the President’s re-election would not be in doubt. But the economy is not in good shape, and as the recent increase in unemployment indicates, is not getting noticeably better. If Governor Romney is closing the Republican disadvantage among female voters, it is because they, like males, recognize that the economy is the most important issue out there, and they are more and more dissatisfied with the President’s performance in that area.”

    I just love how our Editor pins his hopes on the current increase in unemployment. The overall trend during President Obama’s tenure is that unemployment is decreasing. With that trend, and the stock market having trended upwards, in spite of the euro headwinds, these trends are exactly what Republicans probably don’t want to hear. I base that on the fact that during most of President Obama’s tenure, they did practically nothing to help the recovery, so the President has had to consider Republicans like a headwind, just like the euro crisis is a headwind. Up until recently, fuel prices were also a headwind, though recently gasoline has dropped about $.50 per gallon. All these factors are pretty much out of the control of any President, Repub or Dem, but according to extremist Repubs, any negative trend is Obama’s fault, and they will campaign on just that. I think most American voters will see through these obfuscations.

    Regarding closing the gap among women voters, I seriously doubt that, as the War on Women by Republicans is right there for all women to see. Republicans want to take control of their bodies, they want to actually intrude into their bodies with trans-vaginal probing, they just voted against equal pay for equal work, voted to defund Planned Parenthood, called a hearing on women’s health with five men on the panel, proposed redefining rape to only cases of “forcible rape” to deny access to women’s health services, attacked Sandra Fluke for speaking out for covered contraceptive services for women, …..

    Frank Rich recently wrote a piece on this subject in the New Yorker, which began with this:

    “At the very top of the Washington GOP Establishment, however, there was a dawning recognition that a grave danger had arisen—not to women, but to their own brand. A month of noisy Republican intrusion into women’s health and sex organs, amplified by the megaphone of Limbaugh’s aria, was a potentially apocalyptic combination for an election year. No one expressed this fear more nakedly than Peggy Noonan, speaking, again with Stephanopoulos, on ABC’s This Week. After duly calling out Rush for being “crude, rude, even piggish,” she added: “But what he said was also destructive. It confused the issue. It played into this trope that the Republicans have a war on women. No, they don’t, but he made it look that way.”

    Note that she found Limbaugh “destructive” not because he was harming women but because he was harming her party. But the problem wasn’t that Limbaugh confused the issue. His real transgression was that he had given away the GOP game, crystallizing an issue that had been in full view for weeks. That’s why his behavior resonated with and angered so many Americans who otherwise might have tuned out his rant as just another sloppy helping of his aging shtick. It’s precisely because there is a Republican war on women that he hit a nerve. And surely no one knows that better than Noonan, a foot soldier in some of the war’s early battles well before Rush became a phenomenon. In her 1990 memoir about her service in the Reagan administration, What I Saw at the Revolution, she recalls likening Americans who favored legal abortions to Germans who favored killing Jews—a construct Limbaugh wouldn’t seize on and popularize (“feminazis”) until Reagan was leaving office and Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton emerged on the national stage.”

    When Peggy Noonan says something, you Repubs ought to perk up and listen!

  4. WW wrote:

    I just love how our Editor pins his hopes on the current increase in unemployment. The overall trend during President Obama’s tenure is that unemployment is decreasing. With that trend, and the stock market having trended upwards, in spite of the euro headwinds, these trends are exactly what Republicans probably don’t want to hear. I base that on the fact that during most of President Obama’s tenure, they did practically nothing to help the recovery, so the President has had to consider Republicans like a headwind, just like the euro crisis is a headwind. Up until recently, fuel prices were also a headwind, though recently gasoline has dropped about $.50 per gallon. All these factors are pretty much out of the control of any President, Repub or Dem, but according to extremist Repubs, any negative trend is Obama’s fault, and they will campaign on just that. I think most American voters will see through these obfuscations.

    WW, the Obama record on the economy can be looked at like a joke: if you have to explain it, it isn’t funny. And no matter how many hoops through which you jump or gyrations you manage to wiggle, the plain truth is that the President and the Democrats and you are trying to explain away the simple record of an economy in the doldrums to try to make it anyone else’s fault but the President’s. The President will be held accountable for the state of the economy because the President is always held responsible for the state of the economy, whether it’s somehow his fault or not.

    Even the President said that he should be held accountable for getting the economy going, remember, and that he thought that was a good thing. Of course, that was February of 2009, when he thought that his stimulus plan would actually get the economy jump-started.

    And that’s the whole point: President Obama, who said that it was irresponsible and unpatriotic of President Bush to borrow $4 trillion from the Bank of China over eight years, added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt himself, in the first month of his presidency, on a huge stimulus project that didn’t work! If it had worked as advertised, or even anywhere close to it, he’d be a shoo-in for re-election; instead he just flat blew $850 billion — or whatever the final number was — and didn’t accomplish one fornicating thing.

  5. You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I really don’t give a damn what a few polls indicate, polls are more than unreliable, often they’re intentional misrepresentations, designed from the outset to deceive rather than to inform. I suspect the deceptive ones outnumber the faithful ones y babout 4 to 1, but that just me.

    From what I was taught in college about the manipulation of statistical outcomes predicated on the mathematical models selected, combined with the ability to get the desired responses to surveys by the wording of the question, or on the sequence the questions were asked, or in a dozen other ways, leads to a great deal of skepticism of polling results. At the most fundamental level polls are untrustworthy and more often than one might suspect polls are flat out fraudulent.

    Sure, when a number of polls, say half a dozen or so, all report the same or very similar results we can assign a higher level of confidence the conclusions likely do reflect general public opinion. But, still, lets remember that public opinion can be shaped and manipulated, (many thousands of professionals are hard at work at it every day) and public opinion has been known to be wrong on the facts and inaccurate in interpretation.

    So, let’s keep polls and polling date restricted to a category near the level of informed speculation where it belongs. No decision of even minor importance should ever be made based on polls or surveys, nor should their results ever be misconstrued as proof of anything.

    Elections are another matter altogether.

  6. “And that’s the whole point: President Obama, who said that it was irresponsible and unpatriotic of President Bush to borrow $4 trillion from the Bank of China over eight years, added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt himself, in the first month of his presidency, on a huge stimulus project that didn’t work!”

    I don’t know whether to call the above statement an outright partisan lie or an error, so maybe I’ll just back off and call it ignorant. But a warning to the reader, one must scrutinize the Editor’s statements very carefully, as he appears to be relying on talking points from his extreme right, and they are not accurate, not even close!

    First off, a couple of small points worth making anyway, the ARRA (the stimulus) was estimated to cost $787B, which is not “nearly” $1T, and, it still is not even all spent. Moreover, our Editor forgets to acknowledge that 40% of it was tax cuts. Don’t Conservatives like tax cuts? I guess it is not politically wise to mention these tax cuts, for partisan political purposes. And by the way, is $787B “nearly $1T, as our Editor stated? Why not just report the real figure?

    Secondly, the national debt under Bush increased by $4.9T, so the $4T “borrowed from the Bank of China” gives the reader a false impression, probably intended by our Editor.

    Thirdly, our Editor continues to not hold Bush accountable for the spending picked up under Obama in his first months of office when there was great concern that the Bush Great Recession might turn into Great Depression II. How easily it is for the Editor to gloss over the state of our union which President Obama inherited from (President) Bush.

    Forthly, the Washington Post conceived an interesting graphic which compares the spending over the Bush eight years compared to the Obama eight years, assuming that he is reelected and extrapolating his current spending policies. This is yet another way to view the point that I’ve been making over and over on here, that one must attribute to Bush the spending policies which the current President inherited. A comparison of the cumulative totals for each President is as follows: the cost of Bush’s spending policies from 2001 through 2009 far exceeds the costs of Obama’s spending policies from 2009 through 2017. The former (Bush policies) cost $5.1T, the latter (Obama’s policies) cost $0.983B. Thus, Bush policies cost us about 5 times what Obama’s policies will have cost us.

    You now need to sit down in a chair and swallow really hard, Mr Editor!!!

    Fifthly, regarding the impact of the stimulus, it is not what our Editor would have you believe, that it was a failure. See the next post, as our Editor limits a commenter to one cite per post.

  7. Continuing from the previous post, on the fifth point I would like to make, here countering our Editor’s oft repeated claim on her that the Obama stimulus did not work, the CBO does not agree, as testified to by the Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf just the other day:

    “On Wednesday, however, Douglas Elmendorf, the current director, annoyed Republicans on the House Budget Committee a little more than usual when they made several unsuccessful attempts to get him to say that President Obama’s stimulus program was a failure.

    First, Bill Flores, Republican of Texas, asked him which was more effective at increasing economic activity, private- or public-sector spending. The congressman clearly wanted the answer to be private-sector, but Mr. Elmendorf wouldn’t help him, saying both would be equally effective. Mr. Flores pushed on anyway, asking why a second stimulus would be any more effective than the first one.

    “But Congressman,” Mr. Elmendorf replied, “as you understand –and I recognize you don’t agree with us – but our position is that the recovery act was not a failed program. Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”

    To which the congressman could only respond, rather sarcastically, “Thank you, that was fascinating.”

    A few minutes later, Tim Huelskamp, a freshman Republican from Kansas, made the often-stated point that the stimulus didn’t bring the jobless rate down as low as the Obama administration predicted it would, and demanded to know how that could have happened.

    Mr. Elmendorf explained that the recession turned out to be far deeper than anyone had anticipated, but said a University of Chicago survey of distinguished economists showed that 80 percent of them believed the stimulus was good for the economy.

    “Because of the recovery act, the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill,” he said. In fact, he said, it saved or created more than 3 million jobs.

    Republicans quickly changed the subject.”

    Now Mr Editor, please, do not repeat your statement about the failure of the stimulus ever again! Promise?

  8. “Elections are another matter altogether.”

    Ropelight, I basically agree with your critique of polling, but I must disagree with your statement above, especially now in the aftermath of the Citizens’ United decision and the resultant super PAC’s, not to mention the unbelievable amount of money both parties are collected for their campaigns.

    Equating money to power is real, so that our government, instead of being responsible to the American people, is becoming more and responsible to wealthy elites. Even though I suspect that you are in favor of the politics of the majority of our current wealthy elites, I suggest that you direct your thinking past your political leanings and toward the damage being done to our country and people by these self-centered people. Moreover, I think you might agree, that this is not what our forefathers would approve, in that it was similar domination and intolerance which we now see growing, from which they and their ancestors fled their home countries to this homeland of great potential. They thought they were setting up a government free from all they fled. However, in a few short 200+ years, their dreams are being subverted as we speak, in my opinion.

  9. Perry, since Obama outspent McCain by 3 to 1 in 2008 I suggest that you direct your thinking past your political leanings and toward the damage being done to our country and people by the unbroken string of monumental failures Barack Obama, the Democrat Party and the greedy self-centered Wall Street bankers, Union thugs, welfare cheats, food stamp free loaders, illegal aliens, and green energy scam artists who’s dirty money bought the office of the president and bestowed it on one of the most uncaring, incompetent, uneducated, greedy, self-centered con artists ever to darken the doors of American government.

    Moreover, I think you might agree, that this is not what our forefathers would approve, in that it was similar (arrogance, incompetence, and greed) domination and intolerance which we now see growing, (like a cancer on the body and soul of our nation) from which they and their ancestors fled their home countries to this homeland of great potential.

    (Our forefathers) thought they were setting up a government free from all they fled. However, in a few short 200+ years, (the Democrat Party and their unholy alliance with Union thugs, Wall Street bankers, welfare cheats, illegal aliens, Eco weenies, jihadists, traditors, communists and other and types of socialist pigs) their dreams are being subverted as we speak, in my opinion.

  10. And, lets not forget Barack Obama has a history of blatantly lying to us about election funding. Back in 2008 he and John McCain promised to limit the influence of money in their Presidential election by restricting themselves to public funding.

    However, once Obama found out he could raise much more money on the Internet than McCain had any chance of matching, Obama cynically reneged on his pledge.

    Here’s a contemporaneous excerpt by Brian C Mooney staff writer for The Boston Globe, June 20, 2008: (bold added)

    In a shift, Obama rejects public funding

    Barack Obama rejected public funding for the fall presidential campaign yesterday, a dramatic blow to 1970s good-government reform that has been overwhelmed by an explosion of private money.

    John McCain confirmed later yesterday that he will take $84.1 million in taxpayer funding for the general election, and accused Obama of reneging on a pledge to do the same. “He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people,” McCain told reporters.

    Obama’s decision to become the first major-party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election frees him to continue his record-shattering, Internet-driven fund-raising until November – and probably to outspend McCain by a vast amount. But it opens the Democrat to accusations of an about-face on past statements that he would take the public grant and limit spending to that amount if the Republican nominee agreed to do likewise.

  11. Now Mr Editor, please, do not repeat your statement about the failure of the stimulus ever again! Promise?

    The Stimulus failed by Obama’s own criterion. Remember how he said unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%? It eventually hit 10%. So much for the Suck-Sess of that giant waste of money.

  12. WW wrote:

    “But Congressman,” Mr. Elmendorf replied, “as you understand –and I recognize you don’t agree with us – but our position is that the recovery act was not a failed program. Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”

    To which the congressman could only respond, rather sarcastically, “Thank you, that was fascinating.”

    A few minutes later, Tim Huelskamp, a freshman Republican from Kansas, made the often-stated point that the stimulus didn’t bring the jobless rate down as low as the Obama administration predicted it would, and demanded to know how that could have happened.

    Mr. Elmendorf explained that the recession turned out to be far deeper than anyone had anticipated, but said a University of Chicago survey of distinguished economists showed that 80 percent of them believed the stimulus was good for the economy.

    “Because of the recovery act, the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill,” he said. In fact, he said, it saved or created more than 3 million jobs.

    Republicans quickly changed the subject.”

    Now Mr Editor, please, do not repeat your statement about the failure of the stimulus ever again! Promise?

    Note the highlighted portions: it is their position, they believe, it is their opinion. I do not share that opinion, and am measuring it against a hard criterion: what the President’s economic team said the stimulus plan would do if passed. It did not meet the standards set for it, didn’t even come close, and unemployment is higher today than the President said would be the maximum it would be under his program. For the beginning of 2012, according to the President, unemployment should have been below 6%.

    Those are hard markers, WW, absolute criteria for grading passing and failing . . . and the President’s economic measures have failed, rather spectacularly.

    And while I realize that you and several other people try to excuse the failures of the President’s program to achieve the markers set for it by saying, Oh, things were just so much worse than we thought they’d be — and if so, why should we trust their judgement? — and the economy would have been in far worse shape than it got to, and is, were it not for the stimulus program. Given their admitted inability to see how bad the recession was going to be, how can we have any faith that in their current statements?

    The fact is that we don’t know what the recession would have been like without the stimulus plan, and anyone who tells you that he does know is lying to you. All we do know is that we spent $850 billion, and things were worse than the President said that they’d be if we had done nothing.

    Oh, and we also know that we are nearly a trillion dollars deeper in debt than we would have been otherwise, all for a program which did not work.

  13. Let me put it another way. If your were in business school, you’d learn what are really a few simple rules. Let’s assume, for example, that you are the production manager at a company which manufactures a product called “ropelights.” You are told by your CEO that you need to improve productivity. the CEO has set the general goal, and, as production manager, you must now define achievement of that goal, with measurable criteria, and present it to the CEO for approval. You go back to him and state, “I will improve productivity by 5%, as measured in the number of ropelights produced per man-hour.” You do not define it in a way which is outside of your authority, such as “I will increase the number of ropelights produced per dollar of wages paid,” because wages are outside of your authority; that’s part of human resources. You might, through whatever means, achieve an increase of 5% of ropelights produced per man-hour, but if the employees are given 3% raises, something out of your control, your 5% increase per man-hour will not translate to 5% per dollar of wages paid.

    The problem is that, if you set your measurement criterion at the 5% per dollar of wages paid, and you have not met that criterion, you might be fired. Since you did not set your criteria properly, you might be able to make all kinds of excuses, but the fact remains that you did not meet your stated objective. Another rule in business school is that subordinates must be held accountable for their performance, and that excuses don’t cut it.

    It could be argued that President Obama, when he set the criteria on which the stimulus program should be measured, set the criteria improperly. that is, in effect, what you are arguing: things were worse than we thought, and, gee, he did a really, really good job considering, but the criteria weren’t fair. That, unfortunately, does not obscure the fact that the specified criteria were not met.

    The vast majority of Americans have never been to business school, but the basics of business school are just plain, common sense . . . and the American people have a lot of that. They are seeing that the President and his policies have not met the criteria he set for them, and I don’t think that most of us are going to be all that sympathetic to excuses for substandard performance.

  14. WW said:

    The former (Bush policies) cost $5.1T, the latter (Obama’s policies) cost $0.983B. Thus, Bush policies cost us about 5 times what Obama’s policies will have cost us.

    OK, let us assume that statement is true. Barack Obama has been President of the United States for three years, four years and 19 days; George Bush has been retired and living back in Texas for all of that time, without any governmental authority whatsoever. If the former Bush policies cost $5.1 trillion, why doesn’t President Obama reverse them? He had a compliant Congress, overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats, for his first two years, and he never even tried to reverse those oh-so-expensive Bush Administration policies, did he?

    Heck, I’m not even sure why you want to see President Obama re-elected, since, according to you, he hasn’t been responsible for very much at all; he’s pretty much been along for the ride!

    The public expect performance, not excuses. That’s a big part of the reason that y’all got your feelings hurt in Wisconsin: whether people liked his methods or not, Scott Walker did what he said he would do, balancing the budget without increasing taxes. That’s performance!

  15. “Oh, and we also know that we are nearly a trillion dollars deeper in debt than we would have been otherwise, all for a program which did not work.”

    Mr Editor, repeating this same meme over and over again, ad nauseum, does not make this statement true.

    Apparently, you think you know more than Mr Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office! Well you do not!!

    As I pointed out here with my quote of Mr Elmendorf and the link therein, he clearly refutes your claim that the stimulus did not work, and he states clearly that the recession was far deeper that it appeared at first.

    Several House Republicans attempted to make the same points that you are making, because it is part of your partisan narrative, upon which Mr Elmendorf essentially shut them off by reciting the facts which I just did.

    Thus your partisan rhetoric is essentially false, therefore you should not repeat it again, otherwise you will demonstrate that facts mean nothing to you, only taking power by whatever means you and your party can gin up, is all that counts to you. You need to confess these sins to the priest, because lying is a sin!

    PS: And please don’t forget the successful bail out of the US auto industry the next time you want to claim that President Obama has failed. Your party opposed that, nor will they credit our President for that, but there are many folks in MI, OH, and IN who are grateful to have their jobs.

  16. “The public expect performance, not excuses. That’s a big part of the reason that y’all got your feelings hurt in Wisconsin: whether people liked his methods or not, Scott Walker did what he said he would do, balancing the budget without increasing taxes. That’s performance!”

    Part of the President’s performance relates to the truth, which you and your party have not only thrown every roadblock possible against him, but you folks are also either lying about his performance. The truth of your public debt/deficit/debt lie is presented right here.

  17. As I pointed out here with my quote of Mr Elmendorf and the link therein, he clearly refutes your claim that the stimulus did not work, and he states clearly that the recession was far deeper that it appeared at first.

    “The recession was far deeper that it appeared at first.” What a weaselly excuse!

  18. “The vast majority of Americans have never been to business school, but the basics of business school are just plain, common sense . . . and the American people have a lot of that. They are seeing that the President and his policies have not met the criteria he set for them, and I don’t think that most of us are going to be all that sympathetic to excuses for substandard performance.”

    Mr Editor, your analogy here is much too simplistic to be seriously compared to the extremely complex situation which President Obama faced upon taking his oath of office. This is the kind of an argument which might be suitable for a social studies class at the sixth grade level. Perhaps a bright student might ask what happens if the plant burns down, is the manager still held accountable, the point being that the plant was burning down when President Obama took office.

    Another fallacy which you perpetuate is that President Obama only makes excuses. Obviously you do not differentiate between an excuse and an explanation, possibly typical of the way the brain of an absolutist operates: It’s either black or white, shades of grey are not permitted. I’m surprised that your experience in raising two fine daughters has not introduced nuance into your thinking machine! Said daughters are every bit as complicated as the Federal Government! :)

  19. WW complained:

    Another fallacy which you perpetuate is that President Obama only makes excuses. Obviously you do not differentiate between an excuse and an explanation, possibly typical of the way the brain of an absolutist operates: It’s either black or white, shades of grey are not permitted.

    Sorry, but they are nothing but excuses. Trying to make “explanations” for why the results of your actions did not yield what you said they would yield won’t help your career anywhere. Barack Obama was given the biggest job in the world, because he told people he could produce. He didn’t, period.

  20. Your party opposed that, nor will they credit our President for that, but there are many folks in MI, OH, and IN who are grateful to have their jobs.

    Since Indiana will go Republican in November and Meatchicken has recently polled in favor of the Republican and Obama is facing major problems in Ohio, you might want to pick different states, Perry. Might I suggest California, Illinois and Delusion? They are more fitting states for you to list than the ones you did.

  21. “Since Indiana will go Republican in November and Meatchicken has recently polled in favor of the Republican and Obama is facing major problems in Ohio, you might want to pick different states, Perry. Might I suggest California, Illinois and Delusion? They are more fitting states for you to list than the ones you did.”

    I don’t doubt that, John. A lot depends on how well the Dems will get their message across, made even more difficult by the Super PAC’s and the voter suppression efforts in the states battleground states you mentioned, and others. As far as the delusion goes, I don’t buy it.

  22. In doing research for my latest article, It’s About The (Union) Money, I came across Wisconsin’s AFSCME site. They had the mockworthy claim that Republicans and Republican backers suppressed the vote during the Recall Election! More people voted in the Recall Election — a Special Election — than voted in the 2010 TEAnami election. And yet, Walker got a higher percentage of the vote and larger numbers of voters in the Recall Election, where there was supposed vote suppression, than when he was elected during the TEAnami, when there was heavy voter involvement.

    These whacked-out Unionistas will say anything to push their poisonous agenda and it doesn’t even matter that they’re intentionally spreading lies that the easily fooled (Perry of Lose Delaware) will buy, hook-line-and-sinker.

  23. My statement at the bottom of my article (italicized in the original):

    (The above chart is of the all-time top political contributors nationally, as documented by Open Secrets. The top four circled political contributors are all Public Employee Unions and the bottom circled political contributor contains Public Employee Unions. Before any radical Leftist start screaming about the Koch Brothers not being on the list, they are … at number 77.)

    And my comment I added to the article:

    Act Blue has outspent the Koch brothers 5 to 1. AFSCME has outspent the Koch brothers roughly 4 to 1. NEA has outspent the Koch brothers 3.5 to 1. SEIU has outspent the Koch brothers 3 to 1. AFT has outspent the Koch brothers 2.7 to 1. AFL-CIO has outspent the Koch brothers 1.8 to 1. Look at the chart. There are many more Unions on that list in the top 33, all of whom have massively outspent the Koch brothers. And Unions are using, for the most part, forcibly taken Union dues while the Koch brothers are using voluntarily given money.

    But, if people follow Wisconsin’s lead and develop a backbone, Union money will dry up because they will no longer be able to forcibly take that money from people who don’t like how they are spending it.

  24. Wagonwheel wrote:

    “Since Indiana will go Republican in November and Meatchicken has recently polled in favor of the Republican and Obama is facing major problems in Ohio, you might want to pick different states, Perry. Might I suggest California, Illinois and Delusion? They are more fitting states for you to list than the ones you did.”

    I don’t doubt that, John. A lot depends on how well the Dems will get their message across, made even more difficult by the Super PAC’s and the voter suppression efforts in the states battleground states you mentioned, and others. As far as the delusion goes, I don’t buy it.

    First of all, your Editor is quite stunned pleased that these two gentlemen replied to each other so politely! :)

    But the Democrats’ performance in Wisconsin begs the question: in what manner didn’t they get their message out? Was there anyone in the badger State who did not know about the recall election or what the issues were or what it was all about?

    Then there is the obvious question: what is the Democrats’ message? In Wisconsin, it was, “Scott Walker is a meanie!” which might be true, but it didn’t outweigh Governor Walker’s message: Judge me on my job performance. In November, the Democrats’ message is going to have to be one of defending a stimulus program which did not work, and defending deficits and debt the likes of which this nation hasn’t seen since World War II. Wagonwheel has already given us the Democrats’ message, of course, and it’s one of trying to explain away President Obama’s failed record. And, of course, they’ll be working overtime to trash Mitt Romney, because the President can’t run on his record.

  25. The Democrats’ real message is loud and clear. It has been repeated in so many various forms so often and in so many venues over such a long period of time that no one who’s paying attention is even slightly unaware that no matter what the talking point of the moment happens to be:

    Walker outspent the Unions, requiring an ID to vote is racist, the GOP is at war against women, blacks, immigrants, working families, welfare recipients, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and the list goes on and on. You can read Perry’s comments for a reliable regurgitation of each and every manufactured outrage, gross misrepresentation, twisted context, outright lie, distortion of the facts, con, and silly pretense Democrats and their propaganda wing in the print and broadcast media can make out of whole cloth.

    No, the real Democrat message is hidden from all but the inner circle and only revealed at key points like when ObamaCare was up for a vote. Democrats wanted that legislation so much they couldn’t let anything get in the way, not the facts, not the clear opposition of the American people, not even elected Democrats in Congress. (Recalcitrant Dems were cajoled, threatened, and eventually bought off.)

    The hidden message of the Democrat Party elite is that they’re committed to installing a socialist dictatorship in the USA. They only pretend to support representative democratic institutions in order to infiltrate them, subvert them, and to dominate the offices of governmental authority and power. And, they don’t give a damn if the voters like it or not. Like ObamaCare they don’t intend to give voters a chance to see what’s in store for them till it’s too late.

  26. I don’t doubt that, John. A lot depends on how well the Dems will get their message across

    You REALLY think a superior sales and marketing job will succeed in moving a lousy product?

Comments are closed.