2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lemur]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four. For anybody who hasn't been following, here's the basics (bolding for what I believe is the most relevant bit):

Thursday morning, the Obama campaign released a tough ad attacking the record of downsizing and outsourcing at Romney's old firm, Bain Capital.

The Romney campaign reacted with outrage. That same day, it announced a multimillion-dollar purchase of airtime for an ad that bluntly accused President Obama of lying.

In support of the ad, Romney's team argued that he had left Bain Capital in February 1999; the incidents alluded to by the Obama campaign all occurred after that date and had nothing to do with Romney.

Wham. The first attack on Romney had been a jab, dropping Romney's guard against the haymaker: On Friday, the Obama team counter-charged that it was Romney who was lying in his ads or who had committed a felony, lying on 140 official forms that he signed as CEO and sole shareholder of Bain between 1999 and 2002.

Romney now chased the Obama story, granting five TV interviews to reiterate his version of events. The more he talked, the more deeply into trouble he sank. By Sunday, even Romney supporters were urging the thing he wants least: release of more income tax returns.

And here again, what got Romney into the trouble was his war room. It was the too-fierce response to Attack 1 -- the adamant insistence that Romney had nothing, nothing to do with anything that happened at Bain after February 1999 -- that set up Romney for Attack 2: Did he lie on SEC forms? And now he will struggle through the rest of the election trying to reconcile his answers. [...]

Romney's core problem is this: He heads a party that must win two-thirds of the white working-class vote in presidential elections to compensate for its weakness in almost every demographic category. The white working class is the most pessimistic and alienated group in the electorate, and it especially fears and dislikes the kind of financial methods that gained Romney his fortune.

Romney has a strong potential defense: Bain was in the business of making companies more efficient and profitable. Downsizing and outsourcing were necessary -- and often indispensable -- means to that end. In a growing economy, the workers who lost their jobs should find new jobs elsewhere, and it's precisely the relentless search for profitability that causes economies to grow in the first place.

That's an argument that, to borrow an old joke of Henry Kissinger's, is not only convincing but has the additional merit of being true. However, it's not an argument that appeals much to the voters Romney most intensely needs to win. Hence his unleashing of the war room -- but in the end, there's only so much a war room can do.

[Hooahguy]

Id say Obama has it pretty bad too.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Whelp, once again, on the fence. As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.

Interestingly enough, I cant find any major news source save for Fox News that even mentions that. But then again, I didnt look very hard. Still, the fact that the media is taking sides, regardless of which side they take, is disturbing,

[Lemur]

As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.

Actually, if you read what he said, it's obvious he was talking about things like infrastructure. Or as a conservative intellectual put it:

The first thing to say about the president’s argument is that most of it is true, and is very, very obvious. No one would disagree with the specific things he says, except perhaps the vague and strange “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Who? But the president clearly thinks that some people do disagree with his more general point that everyone depends on society. It’s very evident from this passage and from a great deal of what he has to say about his opponents that Obama thinks he is running against a band of nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivists who champion complete and utter radical individualism.

Or, if you'd rather get your interpretation of the quote from someone who actually is a nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivist who champions complete and utter radical individualism:

I'll tell you what. I think it can now be said, without equivocation -- without equivocation -- that this man hates this country. He is trying -- Barack Obama is trying -- to dismantle, brick by brick, the American dream.

There's no other way to put this. There's no other way to explain this.

He was indoctrinated as a child. His father was a communist. His mother was a leftist. He was sent to prep and Ivy League schools where his contempt for the country was reinforced. He moved to Chicago. It was the home of the radical-left movement. He hooks up to Ayers and Dohrn and Rashid Khalidi. He learns the ruthlessness of Cook County politics. This is what we have as a president: a radical ideologue, a ruthless politician who despises the country and the way it was founded and the way in which it became great. He hates it.

[Hooahguy]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

[Lemur]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.

Indeed, the man is so toxic (to all but his 1.4 million-or-so listeners), I'm kinda surprised no Republican presidential candidate has had a Sister Souljah moment with him. Alas, Romney does not have the conservative bona fides to do so, so it ain't gonna happen this cycle.

[Centurion1]

What is with right-wing pundits trying to equate "American" with "Republican"?

There's nothing un-American about leaning to the left, but there's a lot of things un-American about trying to paint all the opposition as unpatriotic. People like Rush Limbaugh up there really need to just quietly go away.

I concur with your second point. However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals. Democrats are not necessarily wrong because of that it is simply a fact.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love the whole "you outsource jobs" argument that is going on, when Democrats are just as guilty of it, and the POTUS job creation ad about the green energy jobs that fails to mention the cost per job.

I had the pleasure of viewing half a dozen Senators and Reps financial disclosures the other day. Dems and Repubs. I was thoroughly disgusted at how these people have their filthy little fingers in virtually everything, and we allow them to "self police" when it comes to conflicts of interest, etc.

And meawhile we pay for their conventions

[a completely inoffensive name]

However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals.

Let's see we have:

1. Generalized statement about mythical, homogenous "Founding Fathers".
2. An unfounded connection between 18th century political science and 21st century labels.
3. An overall point that is of no relevance whatsoever because as Thomas Jefferson said:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.

[...]
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

EDIT: I guess I should post the continuation of that statement for the full context. More context was added. Source is listed as "Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816"

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

Indeed, it was exactly what you would expect from a man who has never run a business. Yes, yes, I know the comment was made in the midst of the standard liberal straw man on taxes (as if anyone is actually arguing for no taxation), but it reads like a Freudian slip. If you've spent your life in academia and on the government dole and never actually had to take a loan out against your house to make payroll, it's very easy to view business as dependent on the state's largess. It wasn't your time, resources, and soul that built that internet business - it was Al Gore. The reality is quite different, however. Without the business community, Al wouldn't have had the tax base to invest in the military's internet R&D budget. Whether Obama cares to admit it or not, business was here long before the government built the interstates or the internet - and paid for much of both of them.

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resources to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Edit: Also, I think Romney needs to go nuclear on Obama. The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resource to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Tbh I think you are just reading too much into a reality you have painted in your own head. Talking about class warfare is rush's territory.

[Major Robert Dump]

I knew these girls once who would shoplift as a team

The hot one would show her breasts, and the fat one would run out with the beer

By giving us free boobies,

The government steals all of our beer


I cannot beieve GM and the Green Energy stimulus is actually being used as a pro-Obama campaign message. The fact that they are certainly shows how jacked up things are, and what we consider successful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yep, ineffectual leadership on the part of the GOP has prompted hardliners to urge a "go bold or go home" response, even among the non religious like PJ. This is the essence of how politics as a game destroys a liberal democracy from the inside out.

[Lemur]

The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.

Actually, if you remember from the primaries, candidate Romney's complaints sound an awful lot like what we were hearing from Santorum, Gingrich, et al. This means Romney is more than capable of going negative when he sees a profit in it. And as soon as he sees a stronger upside than downside to attacking candidate Obama personally, he will do so. Romney is nothing if not practical and opportunistic.

In fact, Romney's surrogates and spokescreatures (Sununu in particular) spent the last two days qustioning the American-ness of Obama. I suspect they did this in an attempt to fire up the base, which is not (and may never be) enthusiastic about Romney.

I think Romney is in a funny position; most Americans like Obama the person, even if they disagree with Obama the politician. (I know, on the far right Obama is the mutant spawn of Satan and Hugo Chavez, but that's a take largely limited to the GOP echo chamber. Polling shows that most Americans think Obama is okay, even if he's misguided.) So personal attacks on Obama are chancy. On the other hand, the GOP base is not real excited about Romney. So what to do? Argue policy and watch the base go to sleep? Or fire up the Obama-as-Antichrist crowd and risk alienating indy voters, who decide the elections?

Not an easy path to walk.

[Major Robert Dump]

HAHA

Pantywaist

http://news.yahoo.com/star-pro-obama...182157898.html

[PanzerJaeger]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four.

And yet, it seems to be having absolutely no effect outside of the Beltway. $100 million in anti-business ads bought Obama... his lead?

Declining confidence in the nation’s economic prospects appears to be the most powerful force influencing voters as the presidential election gears up, undercutting key areas of support for President Obama and helping give his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an advantage on the question of who would better handle the nation’s economic challenges, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to further define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.

But with job growth tailing off since spring and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, wondering aloud whether the labor market is “stuck in the mud,” the poll showed a significant shift in opinion about Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, with 39 percent now saying they approved and 55 percent saying they disapproved.

In the Times/CBS poll in April, when the economy seemed to have momentum, 44 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved.

The new poll shows that the race remains essentially tied, notwithstanding all of the Washington chatter suggesting that Mr. Romney’s campaign has seemed off-kilter amid attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns. Forty-five percent say they would vote for Mr. Romney if the election were held now and 43 percent say they would vote for Mr. Obama.

When undecided voters who lean toward a particular candidate are included, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.

Obama is arguably in an even more difficult position than Romney. He certainly cannot talk up his stewardship of the economy on the campaign trail, but every day he campaigns on Bain and other ancillary issues no one really cares about, he looks weaker and more out of touch. Americans are facing a fourth year of economic stagnation that, incredibly, seems to be getting worse and the president is running ads and holding rallies trying to define the exact date Mitt Romney left his business over a decade ago.

It is madness, but what else does he have to talk about?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, someone bought into the political talking point machine.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_p...1.html?pos=hln

[Strike For The South]

As soon as we wrap our heads around the fact corporatism runs rampant, the easier figuring out our political system becomes. The difference between between Bush and Obama is infinitesimal. The system is broken and the people on the fringes have ideas that don't square in a post-industrial, globalized world.

I say we burn something

[Major Robert Dump]

The moon

[Strike For The South]

The moon

Was he even born in America?

[PanzerJaeger]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_p...1.html?pos=hln

That's nothing. Obama's attacks on American business are Swiftboat-level in their disingenuousness.

Forget what Obama says.

Look at what he does and ponder who he is. Were America divided into two economic tribes, the "American protectionists" and the "Acela corridor elites," Obama would belong to the latter. He surrounds himself with guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who recently said, "There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world. We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing."

Obama's present strategy is so pernicious because he is misleading the tribe of "American protectionists" into thinking that he shares their populist attitudes. Nonsense. If reelected to another term, he's no more going to stop outsourcing or end offshore bank accounts (though some of Romney's seem shady) than he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. He's going to keep staffing his economic team with establishment elites from Wall Street and Ivy League universities. Any blue-collar populist who votes for Obama is going to be and feel betrayed. They're going to have less faith in politics. Told that a pol shares their perspective, only to find out that they were misled, some of them will wind up radicalized.

They'd be better off if Obama were just honest with them: Free trade, outsourcing, and Swiss bank accounts aren't going anywhere, regardless of who is elected in November and sworn in next year. In America, the left has no champion on these issues. Obama would be within his rights to claim that he has a plan to marginally reduce outsourcing, but that plan is premised on the notion that bad policy presently creates an incentive for companies to shift their labor abroad; it's therefore at odds with the idea that a CEO whose company outsourced is a pernicious man or bad leader. By the logic of Obama's own plan, tax policy is the problem, not guys like Romney. Do you know what figure I'd love to see? The number of Obama staffers and advisers who've outsourced a job at some time versus the number who've ever had one of their jobs outsourced.

Not to mention that the Obama's themselves, along with pretty much anyone with a 401k, own stock in companies that outsource.

President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.

“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.

The whole outsourcing line of attack is a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the economy, which, as I discussed above, is not working. I would argue that such blue collar populism turns off more independent voters than it attracts, as they tend to be more educated. Sure, you're going to fire up what uneducated, union labor is left in the Rustbelt who do not understand that screwing in a car seat is not worth $65,000 a year, but those folks were going to vote Dem anyway.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the international business environment understands that companies outsource (and insource) out of economic necessity.

[Strike For The South]

I can get 65k for screwing in a car seat!

Obama is pro business, Romeny is pro business. Obama pays a slightly higher degree of lip service to the peoples needs but that's all it is. Of course anyone who agrees with me on the former sentence turns out to be batshit insane. So I just won't vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

[Strike For The South]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

Wasn't it clear a few months ago that PJ is touting Romney because he wants him to win? I love indignation as much as you but I think PJ's post in this thread are best viewed through a lens of lesser evil. I doubt he is as big a Romney cheerleader as you think he is

[Strike For The South]

Also, Ann Romney just dropped a "you people" bomb

The blogosphere is literally exploding

[PanzerJaeger]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

This is the second one of your posts today that seems like it is directed toward one of my posts but is just vague enough to make me cautious about responding.