Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 04:28:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 136103 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 573


« Reply #1750 on: August 27, 2012, 11:12:19 AM »

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSez25yb_g0&feature=player_embedded#!
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1751 on: August 29, 2012, 09:18:10 AM »

Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
 Search Peggy Noonan's Blog1   . Aug 29, 2012
1:44 AM Ann Romney and Chris ChristieTags
Campaign 2012
 
A read on the first night of the convention:

They lit the candle. They got past the ill luck of the storm and declared there’s a convention going on.

Ann Romney was stunning, sweet, full of enthusiasm, a little shy, a little game for the battle. Her speech was fine. I think the headline was that she and Mitt got married young, lived in modest circumstances and struggled a bit while he studied and tried to get a foothold in business. But it was scattered, full of declarations — “Tonight I want to talk to you about love” — that weren’t built upon but abandoned. Strong as the impression of personal beauty is, I think she missed an opportunity.

Here’s how I see it. I have just spent the past two and a half days talking to people who’ve known Mitt Romney well for ten, twenty and thirty years, even more. They love him, and in all their conversations they say either literally or between the lines, “If only you knew him like I do.” It is their mantra. They mean it, and they are so frustrated. They believe he is a person of unique and natural integrity, a kind man who will give you not only his money but his time, his energy. They see him as a leader. They know the public doesn’t see this. They don’t understand why. And, actually, I don’t blame them, because it really is a bit of a mystery. If he’s so good why can’t his goodness be communicated?

The opportunity Ann Romney missed was to provide first person testimony that is new, that hasn’t been spoken, that hasn’t been in the books and the magazine articles. She failed to make it new and so she failed to make it real.

I’m not sure her speech was a loss but it doesn’t feel like a gain. We’ll see. The real reaction to a highly publicized speech emerges not overnight on twitter but over days and weeks as people chat in the office and on the sidewalk in front of school. So we’ll see what they say, we’ll see how it bubbles up.

*

Chris Christie’s speech was big. It was hopeful. It said the American people can turn their country around, that they actually want candidates who speak the truth, that they will follow difficult prescriptions if they seem grounded in reality. Christie always reminds me a little of Jackie Gleason — “To the moon, Alice!” But he is one shrewd political mind, and he actually thinks about the meaning of things. He played the common man Tuesday night but he was high minded, and he beautifully skewered the hypocrites and reactionaries in the teachers’ unions, who have made it so clear to so many the past decade that really, they are all about pensions and bennies, not about students, and if you don’t like the longterm cost of the deals they make with pols you can just avoid the property taxes by selling your house and going to rent somewhere. They don’t care where because there will be a teacher’s union there, too.

So look, all of this was good, and right, and big. But.

Chris Christie is a politician and there’s nothing in it for him, as a New Jersey Republican, as a guy trying to survive and prosper in a Democratic state, in really bringing it to President Obama. He stuck to thoughts on governance. This was worthy.

But you know, this is how the Republican base feels: No one classy and admired like Chris Christie has ever taken it to Obama and been as tough a partisan as, say, Joe Biden, or as amusing and pointed as — well, actually, I can’t think at the moment of a truly pointed and funny Democrat, but whoever that person is would be is the person I mean.

Republicans aren’t really hungry for red meat, that’s not what this is about. They’re hungry for someone who is an elected official at a high level, and who is admired, to push back, to have fun, to stir the blood, to make the case, to get the troops going again.

I want to tell you they marched out of the hall Tuesday night on fire for their side. But I was there and they did not. They walked out like people who weren’t quite sure what to think or how to feel but were hoping for the best because they love their country. A lot.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 09:23:09 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1752 on: August 29, 2012, 09:24:15 AM »

second post:
 
Inside the GOP's Tampa convention hall this week, one prominent feature is a debt clock ticking toward $16 trillion. With due respect to that horrifying number, it's the wrong figure to watch. What Mitt Romney and the GOP need above all is a growth clock and a persuasive case for economic revival.

Most Americans have concluded that Obamanomics is a failure, but polls also show that independent voters remain skeptical that either party has an answer to the malaise of the Obama and latter Bush years. This cynicism plays into the hands of President Obama, who is trying to convince Americans that 1.5% growth and 42 months of more than 8% unemployment is the best we could have expected.

Our view has long been that Republicans have the best chance of winning when they make the growth message their top priority. That's especially true this year. The Reaganites had it right: Rapid economic growth causes the deficit and debt to fall, not the other way around.

Without a sustained recovery in national output to 3% growth or more and without putting millions more Americans back to work, there is no politically feasible spending reduction or tax increase that could balance the budget even if Ron Paul ran Congress. Tax revenues have remained below 16% of GDP for the last four years because the economy is in a slow growth rut. The growth deficit, not the budget deficit, is the great issue of our time.

The Reagan years offer an instructive history, because the economy's troubles in the 1970s and the steep drop in real middle-class incomes (some $4,000 per household since 2009) were so similar to today's. Reagan put pro-growth tax cuts and a rebuilt military ahead of his ambitions to balance the budget, and he was right.

After his tax cuts fully kicked in on January 1, 1983, annual growth averaged some 4% over five years, while employment gains were swift and long-lasting. The deficit fell in half from a peak of 6% of GDP in 1983 to under 3% in 1989.

The temporary surge in federal borrowing that the media fretted so much about at the time was dwarfed by private asset and wealth gains as national net worth doubled. Annual tax revenues soared to nearly $1 trillion in 1989 from $517 billion in 1980 with much lower tax rates.

The pattern continued in the 1990s, after the mild recession of 1990-91 and a decline in the rate of growth in the Clinton tax increase year of 1993. The real reasons the budget balanced by the end of that decade were the peace dividend after the Cold War ended, spending restraint mid-decade after the GOP took Congress in 1994, and above all another burst of economic growth. Revenue surged into the Treasury from 1996-2000, including a wave of capital gains after the tax rate was cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Even the last decade produced a revenue surge after the much-maligned 2003 investment tax-rate cuts—the rates Mr. Obama wants to raise. Revenues increased in nominal dollars by more than in any previous four-year period until the housing bubble burst.

Consider what would happen if economic growth increased today to what it would be in a normal economic expansion—about twice what Mr. Obama has delivered. That return to prosperity would raise far more revenue for Uncle Sam than the panoply of Mr. Obama's planned estate, capital gains, dividend and income tax hikes.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that each increase of 1% in GDP means $2.78 trillion more in revenue over a decade. Nearly every problem known to man is more solvable with a larger economy—and what better gift to leave our heirs.

 
Getty Images
 .
***
This is not to say that cutting spending and reforming entitlements aren't necessary or economically beneficial. The Obama era is different than the Jimmy Carter days because the baby boomers are that much closer to retirement and health-care spending has increased enormously. Our debt burden as a share of the economy is also higher.

So spending restraint is crucial. Under Mr. Obama, federal spending has taken between 24% and 25% of GDP for four years, higher than the recent average of about 19% or 20%. This spending share will rise rapidly once ObamaCare kicks in and if Mr. Obama's other budget priorities prevail.

Mr. Romney is promising to reduce spending to 20% of GDP over time, which means taking it back to where it was in 2007. This is achievable. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan's Medicare reform offers the promise of slowing the increase in health-care spending in the long run.

But none of this will be possible politically without the ballast of faster growth and rising incomes. And that is why Mr. Romney and the GOP need to resist what former Buffalo Congressman and supply-side evangelist Jack Kemp used to call "root canal" Republicanism. The road to revival doesn't require a prescription of pain, suffering and tax increases. This brand of Republicanism repels voters, which is why it makes liberals cheer.

Messrs. Romney and Ryan have a defensible economic revival plan—marginal-rate tax reductions and reform, regulatory relief, sound money, and an energy policy to promote domestic production. American entrepreneurs, workers and investors will do the hard work. What they need to hear from Republicans in this election campaign are specific pro-growth policies and a message of optimism that they know how to regain America's lost prosperity.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1753 on: August 29, 2012, 11:36:03 AM »

Third post

On the Web: http://patriotpost.us/editions/14565/
Printer Friendly: http://patriotpost.us/editions/14565/print
PDF Version: http://pdf.patriotpost.us/2012-08-29-chronicle-2eb91c04.pdf

-------------

The Foundation

"[A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another,
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

-------------

Editorial Exegesis

"n Tampa, the Republicans have an opportunity to make stark the contrast between
fear and facts, by making their convention -- and the Romney/Ryan candidacy -- about
something good. The convention not only needs to give an attractive picture to the
country of who Mitt Romney is, and who Republicans are, but also of who
conservatives think Americans are and aspire to be. Aspiration is the key. The
Democrats have a habit of presenting Americans as passive victims of tragedy in need
of government succor. Some people do need government assistance, of course, but most
Americans do not see themselves as powerless in the face of forces beyond their
control. They have goals and ambitions. They don't need help from the government so
much as they need obstacles removed, and institutions reformed so as to facilitate
rather than frustrate or threaten their plans. In making the case that America is on
the wrong track and in need of new leadership, it will be tempting -- sorely so --
to emphasize the incumbent's failures. But it is crucial that Republicans point out
that the obstacles and dysfunctional institutions standing in Americans' way precede
Obama, even if he has in some cases made them worse and in others failed to do
anything about them. This account will be more plausible for voters than one that
implicitly or explicitly blames Obama for everything bad in American life, or that
could be read to suggest that rolling back the Obama years (and thus returning to
those of you-know-who) would simply fix everything. As much as it is said that the
election is a referendum on Obama, the American people will not deliver a mandate to
a negation. [This week] in Tampa, Republicans have a singular opportunity to
demonstrate what they are for. It should not be wasted." --National Review
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315053/tampa-timbre-editors )

-------------

Upright

"[Ann] Romney succeeded in conveying to the audience in the hall -- and, the
campaign hopes, to the millions watching on television -- her love for her husband,
her belief in his essential goodness, and, perhaps most importantly, her implicit
faith in his abilities. 'This man will not fail,' she assured the audience near the
end of her speech. 'This man will not let us down.' Mrs. Romney clearly believes
that if she were flying in a plane, and the pilot died from a heart attack, Mitt
Romney would find a way to land the plane safely. She wanted to communicate that
faith to the audience, and she did." --Washington Examiner's Byron York

"When politicians said anything that suggested women working outside the home were
neglecting their children ... they bristled with anger. 'Choice!' they screamed.
Abortion must forever and ever be not only legal but celebrated and endorsed. Ann
Romney presented a different view, one that I suspect makes a lot more sense for
women under 50 and those over that age who never became advocates of the 'choice'
movement. She showed that she shared the everyday experience of mothers, married and
single, pro-choice and pro-life. An illuminating picture, one worth reflecting on
for all of us." --political analyst Michael Barone

"[Chris] Christie's speech ... I thought was a mild disappointment. It was clearly
rushed at the end and felt undisciplined and self-indulgent throughout (it took a
very long time to mention the nominee). I loved the themes of the Christie's speech,
however, and I think that the Romney campaign wanted different things from these
speeches than I was looking for. Both Ann Romney and Christie seemed to be working
harder at bolstering the Republican brand than the Mitt brand. Perhaps the target
audiences they're going after need to be seduced into feeling okay to vote
Republican before they can be convinced to vote for Romney. That's a good ambition,
it seems to me, and if these speeches worked to that end that's great. Mildly
disappointing those ... looking for more red meat is a small price to pay."
--columnist Jonah Goldberg

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1754 on: August 30, 2012, 10:46:46 AM »

I thought Ryan's speech last night was GREAT!

==========
WSJ:

A funny thing didn't happen on the way to Paul Ryan's rousing speech Wednesday night accepting the GOP nomination for Vice President. The Republican ticket hasn't sunk in the polls, Democrats haven't nationalized the race around Medicare to their advantage, and seniors haven't fled Mitt Romney in droves.

All of those outcomes were predicted with utter certainty by the great political sages when Mr. Romney selected Mr. Ryan on that mid-August weekend. Go back to the videotape for the August 12 Sunday talk shows. Many Republicans—some in Mr. Romney's own campaign—said the same thing sotto voce. (We know who you are.)

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press/Charles Dharapak
 
Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan
.So far they've all been exactly wrong, as the polls show Mr. Romney having closed the gap against President Obama not only in Mr. Ryan's native Wisconsin but in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. On Medicare, an issue that Democrats usually dominate, Mr. Romney is battling to a draw at worst and is nearly even among voters on which candidate is most trusted. This hasn't happened since the dawn of the entitlement age.

 Paul Ryan formally accepted his party's nomination for vice president in Tampa, Florida Wednesday night before thousands of cheering Republicans and blamed President Obama for a sluggish economy.
.What's going on? The Romney campaign deserves credit for staging an Inchon landing by skillfully using ObamaCare to go on offense against Mr. Obama on Medicare. Liberals and the reporters they dine with still can't bring themselves to believe that their historic achievement is unpopular, so they and the press corps refuse to admit that the Affordable Care Act has changed the entitlement debate.

But retirees know that Mr. Obama robbed Medicare's accounts to make ObamaCare's budget impact look benign. And even if they can't follow the deliberately convoluted details of phony Beltway bookkeeping, they are learning that Mr. Obama's Medicare "cuts" are immediate and Mr. Ryan's reforms won't apply to anyone over age 55. The Obama campaign won't give up on Mediscare, but it has been caught unprepared.

Mr. Ryan has also performed better on the national stage than even many of his supporters anticipated. Even Democrats have had to concede he's no lightweight and does his homework. He has put a new, youthful face on the Republican Party, and his earnest enthusiasm is a walking refutation of Democratic claims that he's a Randian radical. He looks and sounds like Janesville.

The latest assault is that Mr. Ryan won the genetic lottery, has no feeling for his fellow man, and thus wrote a budget that grinds down the less fortunate. These attacks will be on full display next week in Charlotte, especially now that it has become clear that Mr. Romney might win.

The best response to these attacks is for Mr. Ryan to keep showcasing his natural optimism and Midwestern equanimity, as he did on Wednesday. Mr. Ryan had the difficult job of introducing himself to a public that barely knows him while also fulfilling the running mate's traditional job of dismantling the record of his opponents.

He did the first by focusing on his family, his Wisconsin roots and by paying tribute to his mentor, the late Jack Kemp. On the latter, he showed the ability to expose the President's failures more in sorrow than in anger. His line about jobless college graduates in their 20s "staring up at fading Obama posters" in their childhood bedrooms is the line of the campaign and was Reaganesque in its subtle but still withering truth. This sets up Mr. Romney to offer his own positive vision and agenda on Thursday.

Perhaps the best explanation for Mr. Ryan's impact on the race may be how it has changed perceptions of the man at the top of the ticket. Nearly everyone had expected Mitt Romney, the cautious technocrat and political calculator, to make the "safe" pick. In choosing Mr. Ryan, the Governor showed both a political daring as a candidate and a seriousness about governing if he wins.

This has motivated the GOP base, in case it needed any more motivating. But it doesn't seem to have hurt among independents, who can appreciate a candidate who seems sincere and unafraid in his desire to address the country's serious problems.

Mr. Romney has had a hard time inspiring enthusiasm less because of his personality than because his candidacy has seemed more a personal crusade than a cause. In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney gave Americans hope that he is trying to rally the country for the larger purpose of greater freedom and national revival.

=============

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1755 on: August 30, 2012, 05:52:21 PM »

"I thought Ryan's speech last night was GREAT!"

That was my reaction as well.  Vision and clarity.  More important might be what a real swing voter thought of it.

I am looking for a home run-grand slam from Romney tonight.  The stage is set for really laying out a contrast and an opposing vision in a very Reaganesque way.  Friendly audience, perfect timing, doesn't need to go through Gwen Eifel or Charlie Gibson or anyone else to talk directly with the American people.

We will see.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1756 on: August 30, 2012, 07:06:58 PM »

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan
Follow Peter Drucker's advice: Don't solve problems, pursue opportunities. Like unlocking America's entrepreneurial value.

(WSJ excerpt, please subscribe at https://buy.wsj.com/offers/html/offerN.html?trackCode=aap3ejic for full coverage)

By GEORGE GILDER

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could soon be facing a David Stockman moment. Mr. Stockman was President Reagan's young, first-term budget director assigned the titanic task of retrenching government spending in the midst of the Cold War. In this role, he made the covers of all the most fashionable magazines as "Mack the Knife" or some other compassionless conservative slashing the growth rate of federal spending to a Dickensian 2% above the inflation rate.

Yet Mr. Stockman ended up capitulating to his critics, abandoning supply-side economics as a naïve mistake, and skulking off to write books and articles about the virtues of "spreading the wealth around."

Mr. Stockman has re-emerged in this election year echoing President Obama. He writes in the New York Times that vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan's "sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to 'job creators' (read: the top 2%) will do nothing to reverse the nation's economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse." Fashioning himself as the nemesis of "crony capitalism," Mr. Stockman blames much of the current economic crisis on the Republicans' supposed "tax cuts for the two percent." Here he's taken a sure path to lavish media laurels as a heroic truth-teller applauded by all the Democratic cronies.

How can Messrs. Romney and Ryan escape the Stockman fate?

By grasping the Peter Drucker wisdom: Don't Solve Problems. When you solve problems, you end up feeding your failures, starving your strengths, and achieving costly mediocrity. You become a Stockman. Instead of solving problems, pursue opportunities.

Ronald Reagan in the White House with his first budget director, David Stockman.

Everyone knows about America's liabilities. Everyone knows that they will have to be addressed and many know that Mr. Ryan's plan will address them. But the real opportunity is to transcend them by reversing the devaluation of America's human and capital assets, which is what renders the liabilities increasingly unsupportable.

Today, 70% of government discretionary spending devalues human assets by paying people to be unemployed, unmarried, retired, sick, poor, homeless, hapless, disabled or drugged. With the eclipse of family life in the inner cities of America, we have created a welfare state for women and children and a police state for boys. Supposed problem-solving programs accomplish nothing beyond expanding themselves by spreading dependency and tragic waste. Reforming them is all upside.

Such upside policy change can redeem all the stocks and bonds and hopes for initial public offerings dashed and devalued by the maze of taxes and regulations; all the land wasted and ruined by ethanol and windmills and druidical sun henges and water rules; all the industrial innovation and venture capital sicklied over by a pale cast of green goo; all the real energy resources capped and crimped by litigation, chemophobia and specious species bans; all the real estate wasted and plundered by federal blight and insurance scams; all the youthful aspirations and talents depleted by debt loads at schools of self-esteem; all the banks debauched by federal insurance, zero interest rates, Treasury privileges and social causes; and all the military deterrence and innovation depreciated by disarmament pandering from President Obama and his team.

Mr. Stockman may have disdained Reagan, but Reagan understood the Drucker rule. Reagan horrified David Stockman by raising government spending massively more than his predecessor did. He did so to pursue the opportunity of leading the West to victory in the Cold War.

Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

Ultimately the Reagan boom would raise private-sector assets by another $60 trillion over 20 years, not halting until 2007. Under the Obama administration, for the first time since the 1970s, the U.S. economy is suffering capital flight. For the first time ever, as economist David Malpass has reported, it is experiencing a net emigration of high-technology talent.

The Romney-Ryan opportunity is an all-upside campaign to reverse these crippling trends.

The challengers understand that capital and labor are not competitive but complementary. As workers become more productive, employers hire more—not fewer. Capital linked with private-sector knowledge releases creativity and new employment. With drastically lower marginal tax rates on income and capital formation, Mr. Romney's plan would endow millions of more jobs at higher pay. To further spur companies away from tax-and-profit avoidance—and toward creativity and entrepreneurship—Mr. Romney might also embrace Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the world's highest corporate rate eventually be replaced with an 8.5% business-consumption tax applying to the difference between costs and sales.

With their skills, experience and improving health, seniors could remain in the workforce as assets rather than becoming liabilities for their diminishing numbers of grandchildren. Saving Social Security and Medicare is an opportunity for keeping seniors healthy and in the workforce rather than driving them out by punitive tax rates on their earnings and halting innovation in government-directed health care.

The most obvious rule of social science is that people will abuse any free good. The price of "free" evokes unbounded demand while choking off supply. In the perverse feedback loops of "free," free health care comes to mean hypochondria, illness caused by needless exams and treatments, queues for an ever-expanding portfolio of mediocre services, and ultimately euthanasia under government bureaucracy. Free drugs mean widespread addiction to existing medications and an end to medical innovation. Free money, manifested in the near zero-interest-rate policy of the Federal Reserve, diverts the wealth of savers to favored governments and crony capitalists while creating shortages for everyone else.

A supply-side change in policy can effect an instant and sharp improvement in the value of all entrepreneurial assets. If Messrs. Romney and Ryan win election and choose to pursue this path, they can galvanize another American century.

Mr. Gilder is a founding fellow of the Discovery Institute. His books include "Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century" (Regnery, 2012).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1757 on: August 30, 2012, 07:49:37 PM »

WWWOOOFFF!!! cool cool cool
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1758 on: August 31, 2012, 07:57:41 AM »

I only saw Eastwood, Rubio, and MR. 

I really enjoyed the Clint Eastwood bit and think/hope it will go a long way towards changing the cultural landscape when it comes to the helping people wrap their minds around voting against BO and for MR.

I thought Rubio was very good, with some moments of great, but occasionally I also felt him flirting with going over the top a bit.

On the other hand IMHO Romney's speech sounded like he had been taking too much advice or , , , I dunno.  Whatever the case it certainly underelined the case for MR not being a great speaker and for being a rather stiff/wooden guy.   Don't get me wrong, he had moments where he came alive and spoke well and I think/hope it will do, but for me a fair amount of "opportunity missed". 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1759 on: August 31, 2012, 09:57:05 AM »

As for the speech, Eastwood was fantastic.  He ran wild with the numbers a little, but who cares; he's great. Rubio was up to the challenge; his speech was good too.  That left Romney with some tough acts to follow.

As a side note, I picked up on Crafty's comment, "On the other hand IMHO Romney's speech sounded like he had been taking too much advice or , , , I dunno."

I know Crafty was applying that to this speech, but I would like to note that in general I think Romney "takes too much advice". Frankly, he wasn't a bad guy on a lot of issues, however in the last
few months he has turned sharp right; full speed ahead.  I don't really think that's him, but if he doesn't have enough backbone to say "No, this is what I believe" then I guess it's his own fault.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1760 on: August 31, 2012, 08:04:16 PM »

I thought Romney's speech, in the context of following superb works from Christy, Ryan, Rice, Eastwood, the Olympians and Rubio, was just right.  I give the whole lineup the grade of  A and I thought Romney hit all the right notes.

Hard to say when was the last time a candidate looked that Presidential or came in that prepared for the office.. maybe Eisenhower

The stage is set for an Obama rebuttal and a robust, 2 month, back and forth debate leading up to the election.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 08:44:09 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1761 on: August 31, 2012, 10:06:14 PM »

Big Dem line of the season is that Rs are waging a war against women.

Then for their own keynote mentor they choose their most notorious abuser of our time.

Still waiting for a mainstream commentator to note the contradiction.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1762 on: September 01, 2012, 08:32:45 AM »

I agree about Clinton, but even larger for me is that the idea that not having someone else (the taxpayer) pay the costs of having consequenceless sex  (birth control, abortion) is a "war on women" is being taken as a reasoned thought boggles the mind.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1763 on: September 01, 2012, 11:26:24 AM »

A federal judge ordered the battleground state of Ohio to open its polling places three days before the Nov. 6 election, giving a victory to the Obama campaign and marking the sixth ruling in recent weeks to block or void new voting rules set by Republican-dominated state legislatures.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voting-rights-20120901,0,146164.story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1764 on: September 01, 2012, 11:28:02 AM »

One of the points I noticed in the chattering class AAR's of the Rep. convention was MR's failure to discuss the war that 75,000 or so of our troops are fighting in Afpakia.  Yes, Condi spoke well in generalities, and yes MR has on occasion mentioned the cognitive dissonances of BO's "strategy" for Afpakia, but what in point of fact would he do?   BO has succeeded in seeming to respond to the understandable war weariness of the American people (and one suspects of many of our troops as well).  This weariness is understandable.  Bush-Rumbo led the Iraq War poorly, barely leaving at last a doable situation with the Surge (thrown out by BO though) while letting Afpakia go down the tubes due to inattention and a tragically flawed strategy (alliance with Pakistan?  tongue )

The American uni-polar moment is gone, but some of MR's panderings to what he thinks the hawks of the Rep party think IMHO show a serious case of tin ear to the mood of the American people.   On the whole, I think his instincts in this regard are good (Strong is good, BO's cuts are a disaster in the making, etc) but I see BO campaign talking about bringing the troops home, he killed OBL, he's droning AQ etc.  These points sound good and as I have mentioned here before more than once, the Reps are letting this issue, which once they owned, slip away from them.

PS:  Michael Yon calls for end to US involvement in Afpakia. 
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/apache-apocalypse-real-faces-of-war.htm
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 11:49:22 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1765 on: September 01, 2012, 12:51:52 PM »

Crafty I agree with your post.

"The American uni-polar moment is gone"

And good riddance.  

I only saw a small portion of the convention but someone (Mitt?) was speaking about "only America can lead the charge against crises around the world" (or something to that effect).

This is in my opinion a blunder.  I personally, and believe most Americans have come to agree that we DO NOT want to be the policemen for the world.

It may have been John McCain who was stating this stuff.  I do not agree with we should be getting involved in every middle east country every time there is a crises.

America should not be taking on the role of spreading Democracy around the world.  We can encourage it, promote it but keep our troops our money out of it.  I think most Americans agree with me.   And Dick Morris also said as such when he mentioned how when he listened to McCain speech "alarm" bells starting going off in his head - those who were hearing the speech would be thinking, oh no not again.

I generelly like McCain but on this he is nuts.  We don't need more wars unless it is in our absolute security interests.

I feel helping Israel is in our direct security but of course I am biased because I am Jewish.  I don't know if JDN and the rest of Americans can be persauded as such.  On this I like what Romney has to say for it is clearly inevitable that military action is needed to stop Iran from finishing the job they are hell bent on for 2-3 decades.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 12:53:44 PM by ccp » Logged
ya
Power User
***
Posts: 216


« Reply #1766 on: September 01, 2012, 02:57:02 PM »

http://2016themovie.com/

Nice movie, explains Obama from the colonial POV...I think there is some truth to it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1767 on: September 02, 2012, 01:16:49 PM »

Barone's view matches my reaction pretty closely.  I know people only tuned in here and there if that but still I see the whole week as the Romney speech.  He chose the people who chose the speakers and the messages and orchestration and viewed together I thought he got the job done.
What people didn't see the first time is still excellent material available for campaign advertising this fall.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-inspiring-but-not-slick-romney-showed-right-stuff/article/2506637#.UEOeEVKIhdg

Inspiring but not slick, Romney showed right stuff    Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

The 40th Republican National Convention is now history, and political strategists and pundits are poring over the poll numbers to see whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are getting a post-convention bounce in what have been very closely divided polls.

Romney's convention managers made some correct and some interesting decisions. First, don't relitigate 2008, as some conservatives would love to do.

Romney and Ryan both acknowledged the hopes for change motivating so many erstwhile Obama voters. They looked back on his record in office more in sorrow than in anger.

Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis eloquently described his own disenchantment with the president. You can see why they didn't want to air a minute of his talk on MSNBC. It would have undercut the cable channel's relentless narrative that Republicans are racists.

There was a special callout to young voters, 66 to 32 percent for Obama last time, when Paul Ryan talked of 20-somethings in their childhood bedrooms "staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."

And there was a reachout to the unquantifiable but undoubtedly large number of voters who feel that it would be a bad thing for Americans to be seen rejecting the first black president.

That's the one reason I can think of why the Romney people made the otherwise puzzling decision to put on Clint Eastwood at 10:00 Eastern, when the broadcast networks began their hour of coverage. It's summed up in one sentence: "And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go."

This was not as tightly scripted a convention as the George W. Bush or Bill Clinton conventions. Eastwood spoke without a teleprompter, and so, very effectively, did Condoleezza Rice.

In back-to-back speeches, Ann Romney talked about "love" and Chris Christie said respect was more important than love. That seemed dissonant.

Actually, the two themes are reconcilable. A leader acts out of love for the people but, as Machiavelli taught, prefers to be feared than loved.

But slicker convention management would have rewritten one of the texts. The Romney folks left interpretation to a mostly hostile press and, they hope, a more sympathetic public.

I suspect the point was not to seem slick. Romney has a cool demeanor and the convention was a device to humanize him.

He and his wife described their personal lives in ways that resemble those of almost everyone. The kids roughhousing, the misfortunes that come sooner or later: They may have more money, but their lives are like those of lots of people.

The testimony of fellow church members about the Romneys' service and caring were genuinely moving, recounted by people who are the opposite of slick. The convention floor was almost silent as they spoke, and we'll see them again in TV ads.

The point is that the Romneys contributed something that is in short supply even among the very rich: time.

The convention also addressed concerns that have undoubtedly surfaced in focus groups. Yes, the candidate is open to women taking a lead role, as they have on his staff.

Yes, the candidate did help create businesses that employ tens of thousands and provide goods and services that people found they needed. Yes, Republicans care about education, and education choice so that disadvantaged children have a chance to move upward.

Romney made that point in his speech, and it was underlined earlier in the evening by Jeb Bush, an extraordinarily successful governor and a politician whose behind-the-scenes support at crucial moments made possible the national career of the man who introduced Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio.

Coming off the convention floor, I heard raves about Romney's speech from rank-and-file delegates and limited praise from those more experienced. Not spectacular, they said, but good enough.

That's actually high praise. Democrats like their presidential candidates to be philosopher kings. They must be not only competent, but intellectually dazzling and oratorically thrilling.

Republicans have more modest ambitions. They see politicians as tools, and are satisfied if they are good enough to do the job.

Mitt Romney, in selecting Paul Ryan, in staging an inspiring rather than slick convention and in delivering his acceptance speech, convinced Republicans in the hall and around the nation, and probably many undecideds, that he is a more than sufficient tool to do the job.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1768 on: September 04, 2012, 09:50:41 AM »

The Foundation

"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow."
--Benjamin Franklin

-------------

For the Record

"Eight years ago, when John Kerry tried to defeat the incumbent George W. Bush, he
accused Bush of leading a 'jobless recovery.' When the economy started creating
hundreds of thousands of jobs, Kerry and the Democrats then claimed that Bush was
creating mostly 'McJobs,' low-wage positions rather than higher-paying jobs for
people with significant skills. ... Today, the Obama administration keeps claiming
to have added 4.3 million jobs by choosing to start from February 2010 rather than
the start of the recovery in June 2009 or the passage of Barack Obama's stimulus
package in February 2009. The Obama recovery in full has only added less than 65,000
jobs per month, far below the level needed to keep up with population growth
(125K-150K per month), and the civilian population participation rate has fallen to
a 30-year low this spring. A new study now shows that even those jobs that have been
added are the 'McJobs'
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html
) that Kerry inaccurately accused Bush's recovery of generating. ... We're not even
keeping up with population growth in this recovery. The average jobs added per month
since January has been 83,286 according to the BLS ... still a long way from keeping
up with population growth. That's not a recovery in jobs at all, which anyone
looking at the participation rate (63.7%) would instantly recognize. The data shows
that even the paltry job creation of the Obama recovery has done little to advance
the economy. Businesses won't invest in job-creating activities that require more
expensive labor until they can reliably calculate future costs, which in this
regulatory and tax environment, they cannot do. That's why companies are sitting on
their capital, and why we won't get anything but McJobs in significant numbers until
those policies change." --columnist Ed Morrissey
(http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/31/the-mcjob-recovery/ )

-------------

Opinion in Brief

"Both the offensive and defensive segments of [Mitt Romney's] speech [Thursday
night] -- as of this convention as a whole -- strike us as a success. Romney's
remarks about his own agenda were sketchier but promising, and conservative. In the
past Romney has described conservatism as a three-legged stool resting on free
markets, moral truth, and national strength. He mentioned all three elements
[Thursday]: promising to protect the sanctity of life, to guard against unwise cuts
to the defense budget, and above all to remove governmental impediments to economic
growth. The economic policies he suggested -- energy development, school choice, new
trade agreements, spending restraint, reductions in taxes on business, regulatory
simplification, and the replacement of Obamacare -- impress us as sensible if
incomplete. (We also need a monetary policy, for example, that reduces uncertainty
rather than adds to it.) We would not be surprised if the president delivers a finer
literary production in his speech next week. What he cannot talk away is a high
unemployment rate, a legislative record most Americans dislike, and a philosophy
they do not share. [Thursday] night may be remembered as when the Obama tide began
to recede." --National Review
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315600/offensive-and-defensive-success-editors
)

-------------

Political Futures

"[Paul] Ryan's speech made an understated bow towards Reagan's political message
with a signature passage. 'The right that makes all the difference now is the right
to choose our own leaders. You are entitled to the clearest possible choice because
the time for choosing is drawing near,' Ryan told the Tampa convention crowd. There
is no doubt that he was reaching back to Reagan's classic political debut speech
endorsing the 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater. Reagan burst onto the national
scene with a speech he called 'A Time for Choosing.' He told his audience back then,
'The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without
controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use
force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.'
... Liberals are already throwing spitballs at Ryan. They recognize that his
candidacy has energized Mitt Romney and the conservative base to run a campaign on
bold ideas that calls on voters to make a fundamental choice about the country's
future. ... Now we'll see how much the country likes the newly unveiled Romney-Ryan
team. So far the signs are favorable." --columnist John Fund
(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315425/young-vs-useless-touch-gipper-john-fund
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1769 on: September 04, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »


https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/314773/689-reasons-defeat-barack-obama

The first few of them...............



1. Because he was not the one we were waiting for.

2. “Forward.”

3. Because Julia needs to get off her lazy, federally subsidized butt, get a real job, and pay for her own damned birth-control pills.

4. Because lots of people fail at their first real job.

5. Because “Winning the Future” was not a very good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt’s.

6. Because the country is ready for its first African-American former president.

7. To give him the free time to write his third memoir.

8. Because he’ll have even more “flexibility” after November if he’s back in Chicago.

9. Joe Biden.

10. So that dissent will once again be the highest form of patriotism.

11. Because he didn’t quite get the message in 2010.

12. For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.

13. And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.

14. To remind him that debt used to be, in his own words, “unpatriotic.”

15. Because the buck never stops.

16. For blaming President Bush.

17. For blaming headwinds.

18. For blaming Japanese earthquakes.

19. For blaming ATMs.

20. He can’t get the vice president to stop calling him “Barack” in public.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1770 on: September 06, 2012, 12:21:56 AM »

Looking forward to reading a point by point rebuttal to Bull Clinton's speech tonight.  If the Romney campaign can't get it done on their own, we will do it for them here on the forum.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1771 on: September 06, 2012, 08:27:25 AM »

The chair rams through platform amendment  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISvoPQ5jtzk&feature=youtu.be

Unencumbered by its variances from reality and the facts, unfortunately Clinton gave a politcally masterful speech last night IMHO, well designed to appeal to fence sitters.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1772 on: September 06, 2012, 08:57:00 AM »

Clinton was outstandinding.  grin
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1773 on: September 06, 2012, 12:27:36 PM »

It remains to be seen if CNN and other MSM do "fact checks" on Clinton's speech which reminded quite well how he can spin anything and the media will drool all over him.  Truth, reality, facts, history - for some reason because he spins it so well he gets away with anything.

He apparently has that ability to fool some of the people "all of the time".
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1774 on: September 06, 2012, 12:42:47 PM »

One of the most surprising statistics of the night came from former President Bill Clinton. Since 1961, he said, 24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg News analysis and federal labor statistics.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1775 on: September 06, 2012, 02:35:09 PM »

JFK cut taxes and so too did Clinton-- when forced to by Gingrich et al.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1776 on: September 06, 2012, 03:15:22 PM »



The Democrats Rally
.
Article

Peggy Noonan's Blog HOME PAGE »
.




smaller
Larger
.



















.




The Democrats killed. The first night of their convention was a great success. The question is: Killed in the room or killed also in the country? We’ll get a sense of that through polls and comments over the next few weeks.
 
The elements of last night’s success:
 
The crowd was happy, attentive, responsive and moved. And there were many thousands of them. All eyes were trained on the stage. The Republican convention site last week never looked so full, so crowded and full of human passion. The Democrats had animal density.
 
They stayed on schedule—they weren’t going to allow the audience’s engagement to dissipate.
 
The speakers were uniformly interesting, some absolutely first-rate and some—that would be you, Ted Strickland—sourly mean-spirited and ad hominem. But that was interesting too. It told you, again, how the Dems will spend the next eight weeks going at the Reps.
 
Highlights:
 
Julian Castro, smooth, handsome, bright, winning. “Gee, why didn’t I think of that?” was a great line because it cut to the bone of a certain kind of Republican cluelessness, and did it with humor. His conceding that Mitt Romney is not a bad man was clever—it made his subsequent sharp criticisms of Romney seem fair-minded, or at least lacking in animus. Castro and many other of the speakers were at great pains to get across a point that might be called We Are Spiritually Normal.
 
The Democratic Party is the party of abortion; it supports the widest possible interpretation of choice, and is heavily funded, literally, by the abortion industry. Abortion involves the killing of children. Sometimes Democrats speak of it, publicly, in such a way that it sounds like a small thing, a tooth extraction; sometimes they speak of it in a way that suggests it is a holy right, a high value, a good thing. Because of this, there’s a shadow of weirdness over their party, and it’s been there for at least a quarter century. When Kathleen Sibelius walked out to speak I did not think, “There’s the HHS Secretary,” I literally thought, “There’s abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sibelius, who decided to make the Catholic church bow to her need to spread abortion-inducing drugs.”
 
Julian Castro and other speakers were at pains to dispel the Shadow of Weirdness. Twice he spoke of his grandmother making the sign of the Cross as he went to school. (There were a lot of babies and children in the audience, and their parents held them tenderly, and I’m telling you, even those babies were watching that stage.) Anyway, Castro and others were at pains to communicate that they do not see themselves as cruelly outside the mainstream. He seemed like a very nice young man, and certainly gifted in terms of political communication.
 
Too smooth? Yes. But there’s a lot of too smooth on the other side, too. It’s the thing that marks the rising generation of political stars 30 to 50, they’re all too smooth. Remember when you were learning “Now I know my ABC’s . . .”? They learned it too, but on a teleprompter.
 
* * *
 
Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable. She is a strong woman. People have asked the past few years where the Barack Obama of 2008 went. I have wondered where the Michele Obama of 2008 went. She was so compelling and interesting on the trail that year, so proud and eager and, occasionally, awkward, which only underscored her good points. Then in the White House she often looked unhappy, resentful, going through the motions. Last night she was none of those things: ’08 Woman was back.
 
She was beautiful with an almost eloquent beauty, she was dazzling in that salmony, orangey dress, she spoke clearly and with complete confidence, and she enjoyed, it seemed, being the focus of all eyes. The first half of her speech was socially conservative and could have been given to great hurrahs at the Republican convention, although oddly enough from a Republican it would have sounded preachy. She sounded like a woman who respects standards, had good role models, came from a home that was full of love and discipline, and whose lack of the broadest or richest material comforts did not leave her bitter or misshapen, it left her committed. The second half of the speech was more political and partisan and might have been the point at which you started daydreaming. I continued listening because I am interested in how she thinks, and how she sees what is at issue. She did not seem at all apologetic as she spoke of her husband’s leadership. She seemed proud, and protective.
 
Near the end, as she spoke of her daughters, her eyes seemed to fill with tears.
 
In the camera cutaways many of the audience’s eyes were full of tears.
 
* * *
 
Rhetorically, a number of Democrats last night used the old ways, the old tricks: call and response, involving the crowd, making them yell “Yes!” and “No!,” bringing them into chants that energized the speaker and enhanced the effectiveness of the text. It was great stuff. Props to Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland: the “Forward, not back!” chant was the best of the night.
 
They ended the night with a prayer.
 
I remember when Republicans did better conventions than Democrats—better staging, better films, better speeches, more fun. So far, looking at both last week and last night, that’s being turned on its ear.
 
Does any of this matter? Will it affect the outcome? We’ll see. But if I’m a Democrat, I’m looking at last night and thinking, “That didn’t hurt. That didn’t hurt at all.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1777 on: September 06, 2012, 03:29:33 PM »

Looks like this writer from the WSJ has been reading my posts here , , ,

Clinton's False Narrative .
by JASON L. RILEY

If Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren used their speeches at the Democratic convention last night to rile base voters, Bill Clinton was clearly reaching out to the independents, and Republicans would be wise to focus on rebutting the crux of what the former president said.
 
"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple," said Mr. Clinton. "We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."
 
Mr. Clinton's pithy explanation, however misleading, of how we got here is filling a vacuum created by the Romney campaign's inability so far to communicate an alternative narrative. Mitt Romney has been focused on telling voters that unemployment is too high and that economic growth is too slow. Team Obama doesn't quibble with that but denies responsibility, and last night Mr. Clinton gave the president cover.
 
"No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage [to the economy] that he found in just four years," said Mr. Clinton. "But he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity." Translation: The Obama presidency hasn't been a failure. Rather, it is being held to impossibly high expectations by the GOP.
 
Never mind that Mr. Obama hasn't met the economic and employment expectations that he set for himself. Never mind that the real criticism of Mr. Obama is not that he hasn't "fully repaired" the economy but that the recovery has been too slow under his leadership due to misguided policies and priorities.
 
The challenge for Mr. Romney is to come up with his own plausible narrative so that Democrats don't ride Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama's false one to victory in November.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1778 on: September 06, 2012, 07:07:46 PM »

"Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable'

Truthfully, wouldn't most people get good at making speeches if they do it frequently for years?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1779 on: September 06, 2012, 07:14:53 PM »

"Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable'

Truthfully, wouldn't most people get good at making speeches if they do it frequently for years?

Actually no, just watch Romney.  smiley
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1780 on: September 07, 2012, 11:38:10 AM »



Noonan: The Democrats' Soft Extremism

Obama is out of ideas, and Clinton's speech was unworthy of him.



By PEGGY NOONAN


Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.

It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.

His daughters have grown beautiful.
 
As for Joe Biden, I love him and will hear nothing against him. He's like Democrats the way they used to be, and by that I do not mean idiotic, I mean normal—manipulative only to a normal degree, roughly aware of the facts of normal life, alert to and even respecting of such normal things as religious faith. I wish he did not insist on referring to his wife as "Dr. Jill Biden." I'm sure she has many doctorates, but so do half the unemployed in Manhattan.

John Kerry was on fire. It was the best speech of his career. He drew blood on foreign policy: "Talk about being before it before you were against it!" Obama will take that message, on Afghanistan, into debate.
 
***

Was it a good convention?

Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.

There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.

The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
 
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
 
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
 


Convention Journal

Related News:

Obama Pledges a U.S. Revival

Capital Journal: Two Divergent Paths to Prosperity

Democrats Party on Corporations' Tab

More Opinion:

Review and Outlook: Transformers 2

Potomac Watch: The Party That Obama Un-Built

OpinionJournal @ the Convention

Peggy Noonan's Blog
.
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.

And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.

Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.

***

Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.

Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut?

Here's what I'm seeing the past 10 years. The baby boomers have been supporting their grown children and their aged parents. They are stressed, stretched and largely uncomplaining, because they know that as boomers—shallow, selfish—they're the only generation not allowed to complain. And just as well, as complaints are the only area of national life where we have a surplus. But they are spiritually and financially holding the country together, and they're coming to terms with the fact that it's going to be that way for a good long time. They're going to take a keen interest in where Medicaid goes.

Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.

***

So: was it a good convention? We'll know by the polls, by the famous bounce, or lack of it. A guess? Dead-cat bounce. Just like the Republicans got.
 
Maybe Mr. Clinton made a bigger, more broadly positive impression than I suspect; maybe a sense the Democrats were extreme will take hold. People left both conventions talking about only one thing: the debates. They know they didn't move the needle in Tampa and Charlotte. The people in charge of politics aren't so good at politics anymore.
==============================
For all the spin and deception of politics, sooner or later every politician reveals his true purposes. For Barack Obama, one of those moments came when he declared shortly before the 2008 election that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Above all else, the President who asked voters for a second term Thursday night sees himself as destined to transform America according to his own progressive dreams.
 


Related Video



 

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg on President Obama's recent decline in the polls and whether he'll get a bump from the convention. Credit: Associated Press
.
.
For most of 2008, Mr. Obama was able to disguise this ambition behind his gauzy rhetoric of hope and post-partisanship. The fine print of his agenda betrayed his plans to expand and entrench the entitlement state, but most voters ignored that as they chose his cool confidence over John McCain's manic intensity amid a financial panic.

Candidate Obama was eloquent and likable. His personal story echoed of America's history as a land of opportunity. Voters put aside any worry about his ideology and took a chance on his promise of a better tomorrow.

Four years later the shooting liberal star, as we called him then, has come down to earth. What should have been a buoyant recovery coming out of a deep recession was lackluster to start and has grown weaker. The partisanship he claimed to want to dampen has become more fierce. The middle-class incomes he sought to lift have fallen. These results aren't bad luck or the lingering effects of a crash four years ago. They flow directly from his "transforming" purposes.
 
***

To our mind, two events amid hundreds stand out as defining President Obama's first term. The first is his go-for-broke pursuit of progressive social legislation instead of focusing on economic recovery. The second is his refusal to strike a budget deal with Speaker John Boehner in 2011. Both reveal a President more bent on transforming America than addressing the needs of our time.
 
Mr. Obama was elected first and foremost with a mandate to fix the economy. Yet when he found himself by rare confluence of luck with 60 votes in the Senate, he put nurturing a fragile recovery secondary to the pursuit of pent-up liberal social policies.







Enlarge Image




Corbis.
Consider the amazing course of ObamaCare. Rather than craft a White House proposal and draw in Republicans from the start, he let Pete Stark and the most liberal House Democrats write the bill. As public opposition built and the tea party rose in 2009, he doubled down with a September speech extolling the virtues of government.

Opposition continued to build. But when Rahm Emanuel and other advisers urged him to compromise on something smaller, he still pressed ahead. Even after Scott Brown's January 2010 victory to replace Ted Kennedy gave the GOP 41 Senators, Mr. Obama endorsed an effort to abuse Congressional procedure to ram the bill through.
 
The result is a monster that will transform a sixth of the U.S. economy, but at huge cost to growth, political comity and America's long-term fiscal health. Never before has a new entitlement passed on such narrowly partisan lines. The new taxes and burdens on small business in particular have helped to slow job creation. Voters reacted by imposing historic losses on House Democrats.
 
After that 2010 "shellacking," as Mr. Obama called it, he had another chance to steer a more moderate course. Believing that bipartisan cover offered a unique chance to control the deficit, House Speaker Boehner agreed to back-room talks to pursue a grand budget bargain.

The Republican put tax increases on the table that might have cost him his Speakership, even as Mr. Obama refused to consider any modifications to ObamaCare and would allow only tinkering around the edges of other entitlements. As the deadline neared for raising the national debt limit, Mr. Obama demanded $400 billion more in revenue, and Mr. Boehner had little choice but to walk away.

This episode is all the more remarkable because the deal Mr. Boehner was offering would have divided Republicans, helped Mr. Obama with independents, and probably guaranteed his re-election. Yet the President poisoned the deal for the sake of higher taxes.

***

So now Mr. Obama is seeking a second term by asking the voters to give him more time to finish the job he started. But what job is that?

The President tried to reprise the spirit of 2008 in his speech Thursday night, but the preoccupation of this week's nominating convention has been to portray Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Republicans as mummies from the crypt.

The second-term agenda he offered Thursday was a diminished and vague version of what he offered in 2008: More government spending disguised as "investment," more subsidies for green energy, more regulation for other parts of the economy. What he didn't mention was his goal of protecting ObamaCare at all costs and passing one of the largest tax increases in history.
 
In recent interviews, Mr. Obama has said that if he wins he believes a chastened GOP will have no choice but to strike a grand fiscal bargain on his terms. This assumes that the same Republicans he has savaged for 18 months will want to become the tax collectors for his agenda. We support immigration reform, but his executive branch actions have poisoned that prospect too.
 
The more likely forecast is for more gridlock and rancor. As an unnamed adviser recently told a Journal reporter, Mr. Obama thought he could work with Republicans but "he won't make that mistake again."
 
Yet by Mr. Obama's transforming lights, his Presidency would still be a success. Re-election guarantees the implementation of ObamaCare, which means he would join FDR and LBJ in the pantheon of progressives who expanded the reach of government to "spread the wealth." Republicans may cavil, but over time they would have no choice but to agree to a value-added tax or some other tap on the middle class to finance a permanently larger, European-sized welfare state.
 
***

Were he a man of lesser ideological ambition, President Obama would now be presiding over a stronger economy and probably be cruising to re-election. He gambled instead that he could use the economic crisis as a political lever to achieve his progressive policy goals, and he now finds himself struggling to be re-elected with a campaign based almost entirely on savaging his opponents. Americans who are disappointed with Transformers 1 aren't likely to enjoy the sequel any better.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 11:46:18 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1781 on: September 07, 2012, 03:05:15 PM »

Looks like others can cover adequately Obama's speech.  Politico called it lame, Bob Schieffer: "that soaring rhetoric that we heard in the speech in 2008, I didn’t hear that tonight", "that soaring rhetoric that we heard in the speech in 2008, I didn’t hear that tonight", Washington Post: "Mr. Obama’s hazy agenda for a second term".

What he can't and didn't do is lay out a credible economic theory about how adding 50,000 new regulations in 42 months and promising to raise taxes on virtually all new employers will ever make the economy grow faster than 0.0%.
--------

Crafty wrote regarding Bill Clinton's speech: "Unencumbered by its variances from reality and the facts, unfortunately Clinton gave a politcally masterful speech last night IMHO, well designed to appeal to fence sitters."

I listened on the radio and Crafty I am guessing watched the speech.  On the radio, reduced to words, it was one notch less impressive, especially if one has a full grasp on reality.  Here is the text of Clinton's speech, interrupted in bold from time to time:
-------
Bill Clinton on stage  the DNC:  "We're here to nominate a President, and I've got one in mind.

I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children and keep their hopes alive.

I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside. A man who believes we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, education and cooperation. A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.

I want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

As I said to a liberal during the RNC, you have to endorse the candidate to get on the stage.

In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don't believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.

The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.

We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."

It is a straw argument of course to say of Republicans who will support $4trillion/yr of federal spending that ANYONE is completely on his or her own.

Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!

Crafty wrote part of this earlier, and I agree, by today's standards JFK was one of ours, same for the 6 years of Gingrich.  Nixon and Ford turned out to be two of theirs, look at the record.  The first two years of W. Bush before his policies were enacted were runners left on base by Obama's own standard, and during the two years preceding the Obama administration it was most certainly the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress in charge of domestic economic policies.  Do the math on that and you will find that nearly all economic growth is tied to pro-growth policies no matter the name of party affiliation on the oval office door.

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. After all, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and built the interstate highway system. And as governor, I worked with President Reagan on welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we've done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.

Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.

When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.

One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation. He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense, the Army and Transportation. He appointed a Vice President who ran against him in 2008, and trusted him to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both. He appointed Cabinet members who supported Hillary in the primaries. Heck, he even appointed Hillary! I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire national security team for all they've done to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm also grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the military and to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden for supporting military families when their loved ones are overseas and for helping our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs.

Cooperation?  Good God.  Obama's signature achievement by his own measure included reaching out to NO republicans for their vote.  Now it still suffers from widespread disapproval.  Clinton pivoted with the voter after 1994; Obama said fck you to the voters of 2010 and the majority party with whom they chose for him to share power.


President Obama's record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.

He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn't work out so well. Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.

Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job!

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn't say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending two trillion dollars more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another President once said – there they go again.

I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.

We lost 3 million jobs and what they call job growth now is below the rate of population increase. Aka negative growth, aka decline.

I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.

I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.

President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it.

I believe that with all my heart.

President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities.

So back to the story. In 2010, as the President's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.

The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95% of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.

Over that same period, more than more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama – the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.

The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even auto-makers that weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.

Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.

The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal: it will cut your gas bill in half, make us more energy independent, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs.

If Crony capitalism is your game and avoiding restructuring equals restructuring, then this makes perfect sense.


President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.

Pres. Obama's energy policy is called None of the above.

We do need more new jobs, lots of them, but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicants don't have the required skills. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being created in a world fueled by new technology. That's why investments in our people are more important than ever. The President has supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs in their communities. And, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we've fallen to 16th in the world in the percentage of our young adults with college degrees, his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, gives students the right to repay the loans as a fixed percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years. That means no one will have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments. This will change the future for young Americans.

College, like healthcare, is overpriced BECAUSE of 3rd party pay.

I know we're better off because President Obama made these decisions.

That brings me to health care.

The Republicans call it Obamacare and say it's a government takeover of health care that they'll repeal. Are they right? Let's look at what's happened so far. Individuals and businesses have secured more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80% to 85% of your premiums to be spent on health care, not profits or promotion. Other insurance companies have lowered their rates to meet the requirement. More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems. Soon the insurance companies, not the government, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions. And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4%, for the first time in 50 years.

So are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are.

The only popular provisions in Obamacare were also in the Republican alternative plan.

There were two other attacks on the President in Tampa that deserve an answer. Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.

The only proposal on the table to save and strengthen Medicare belongs to Paul Ryan.  Instead of running from it, Romney chose him as his running mate.

When Congressman Ryan looked into the TV camera and attacked President Obama's "biggest coldest power play" in raiding Medicare, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You see, that 716 billion dollars is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.

At least on this one, Governor Romney's been consistent. He wants to repeal the savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years. So now if he's elected and does what he promised Medicare will go broke by 2016. If that happens, you won't have to wait until their voucher program to begins in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it.

But it gets worse. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade. Of course, that will hurt poor kids, but that's not all. Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for seniors and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Downs syndrome or Autism. I don't know how those families are going to deal with it. We can't let it happen

Now let's look at the Republican charge that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work.

Here's what happened. When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%. You hear that? More work. So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true. But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself – I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.

Clinton is supposed to be quite the advocate for welfare reform, unless you remember he vetoed it twice before feeling forced to accept the stronger version they are now dismantling.  It isn't all about details of the policy, it is also about one branch undoing what took quite an effort by two branches to enact.

Let's talk about the debt. We have to deal with it or it will deal with us. President Obama has offered a plan with 4 trillion dollars in debt reduction over a decade, with two and a half dollars of spending reductions for every one dollar of revenue increases, and tight controls on future spending. It's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.

I think the President's plan is better than the Romney plan, because the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers don't add up.

It's supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with five trillion dollars in tax cuts over a ten-year period. That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out. They say they'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. When you ask "which loopholes and how much?," they say "See me after the election on that."

People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If they stay with a 5 trillion dollar tax cut in a debt reduction plan – the – arithmetic tells us that one of three things will happen: 1) they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up two thousand dollars year while people making over 3 million dollars a year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut; or 2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education and other programs that help middle class families and poor children, not to mention cutting investments in roads, bridges, science, technology and medical research; or 3) they'll do what they've been doing for thirty plus years now – cut taxes more than they cut spending, explode the debt, and weaken the economy. Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.

President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for our children, our families and our nation.

Romney's plan calls in every way for economic growth.  Economic growth by Clinton's own words is the only way to balance this budget.  Obama's policies in every way cry out for economic decline which causes revenues to shrink, spending to accelerate and deficits and debt to soar.  LOOK AT THE RECORD.

My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in. If you want a you're on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the President was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.

The American dream is not Julia growing from government program to government program.  It is a freedom that makes every individual believe anything is possible.

I love our country – and I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come out stronger than we went in. And we will again as long as we do it together. We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor – to form a more perfect union.

If that's what you believe, if that's what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama.

God Bless You – God Bless America.

Missing in the above, that everything wrong today is because of Obama's predecessors and the housing-led financial crisis, is that Bill Clinton was the architect of the CRAp and the push for lenders to lend on criteria other than creditworthiness, while Sen Obama was the number one recipient of Fannie Mae contributions opposing ANY reform during the year of the housing meltdown.

Four more years?  Four fewer would have been smarter.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1782 on: September 07, 2012, 06:37:41 PM »

And lets not forget that the reason Clinton balanced the budget was because of the largest stock market boom since 1929 casuing taxs revenues to skyrocket and then went bust two months after he left office leaving W with a recession.

You know I just read a shortened biography about WC Fields.  It describes with deep sympathetic detail how Fields ran away from home at 11 after in  self defense he smashed his cruel father over the head with a crate.  And how this child had to live on the streets in holes, in empty sewer pipes, surviving off the streets.   Then I read on Wikipedia a report that this was all bullshit.  He really left home at 18, had a decent middle class upbringing, and his supported his juggling career.  I don't know which story is accurate yet I know how people in entertainment can completely make up histories, and biographies.

There must be something about rocesea that makes people into fabulous bullshit artists.

It is bad enough when entertainers lie, and Lord knows (as do I) how they do, but when we have leaders of our country who we entrust.....

I disagree with Noonan on Clinton's speech.  It doesn't make him look small.  It is quite the opposite.  He is a little man who speaks with phoney gradiosity.  Once a liar - always a liar.  Indeed, even if he ever does tell the truth how would we know?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1783 on: September 08, 2012, 02:43:13 AM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/democrats-said-to-end-convention-15-million-short.html

 cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1784 on: September 08, 2012, 03:00:24 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8R5GvwUFU8#!
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 573


« Reply #1785 on: September 10, 2012, 11:15:21 AM »


The Democrats’ GM Fiction

By The Editors - National Review Online

September 10, 2010

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)

We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1786 on: September 10, 2012, 11:24:31 AM »

Romney's Great New Ads
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 9, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Now that the dust has settled from the two conventions, the Romney campaign has started to "carpet bomb" swing states with a fabulous new ad!  (And I have often been critical of their past efforts).
       
The ads, different in each of the swing states, each open with Romney's speech at the Convention saying:  "This president can ask us to be patient.  He can say it is somebody else's fault.  But he cannot tell us that we are better off now than when he took office."  The ads each then speak about the problems of the state in question and then go to the Romney Plan for each state. 
       
The focus on the key question of whether we are better off now than four years ago is brilliant.  It thoroughly exploits the opening Obama -- and particularly -- Clinton left for Romney at their convention.  By telling Americans they are better off now than four years ago, the Democrats are really asking us to believe their speeches, not the evidence of our own eyes.  Americans won't fall for it and the Democrats have left themselves open to their devastating answer:  "Hell no!  We are not better off!  Not by a long shot!  And if you think we are, you're living on another planet."
       
Then the ads go into the specific issues facing each state.  Particularly impressive is how they target Obama's failure to stand up to China.  By making China a key issue in the election (see our chapter on China in Screwed), Romney leads with his strength and undermines the outsourcing argument of the Democrats. In other states, he speaks of losses through defense cuts and, in Florida, on stopping home foreclosures.
       
Good for the Romney campaign!  These ads will move the numbers.

You can view all of Romney's "A Better Future" ads by state below:

Click Here to view the Florida Home Values ad!
Click Here to view the Florida Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Families ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Energy ad!
Click Here to view the Ohio Manufacturing ad!
Click Here to view the Ohio Defense ad!
Click Here to view the North Carolina Manufacturing ad!
Click Here to view the North Carolina Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Colorado Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Colorado Overregulation ad!
Click Here to view the Iowa Deficit ad!
Click Here to view the Iowa Overregulation ad!
Click Here to view the New Hampshire ad!
Click Here to view the Nevada ad!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1787 on: September 11, 2012, 10:33:56 AM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/why-obamas-convention-will-doom-his-re-election-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1788 on: September 12, 2012, 06:54:10 AM »

Apparently because there is some documentary here in the US that upset Muslim sensisbilities in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Arab world.  So yesterday, 911 Day, our embassy in Libya was attacked (apparently with loss of a life!) and our embassy in Cairo was attacked and its flag mutilated by a crowd waving AQ flags.  We did not defend US soil and tear gas/shoot/whatever the fuckers as they came over the wall.  The President did not deliver a righteous defense of our free speech in our country, nor in defense of the sanctity of US soil in the form of our embassy.  Instead the State Dept. grovelled with a statement deploring how some people abuse free speech by hurting Muslim sensibilites and the President blew off requests by Israeli PM Netanyahu to meet with him while he, Netanyahu was in town  shocked angry angry  , , , and Romney has not the wit to jump all over this. tongue tongue tongue

« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 07:01:15 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1789 on: September 12, 2012, 07:00:51 AM »

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13820723-romney-slams-obama-over-attacks-on-us-officials-in-libya-egypt?lite
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1790 on: September 12, 2012, 07:07:24 AM »

Thanks BD, I had not seen that Romney had said anything-- though I score Sarah Palin the winner in the wittiest response category  cheesy  Romney might have a chance with "Hey! We Mormons come in for plenty of disrespectful guff without getting all mob-on-a-rampage.  
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 07:18:18 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1791 on: September 12, 2012, 07:23:11 AM »

Dunno how permanent the contents of this page may be, but at the moment there's several pertinent entries

http://twitchy.com/2012/09/11/us-embassy-in-cairo-quietly-deletes-its-we-stand-by-our-apology-tweet/

Apparently, in response to enraged commentary such as mine above, the White House has disavoved the US Egypt Embassy's apology.

Apprently it was our AMBASSADOR who was killed in Libya http://twitchy.com/2012/09/12/unconfirmed-graphic-death-photos-of-us-ambassador-stevens-circulating-on-twitter/
 angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1792 on: September 12, 2012, 07:30:49 AM »

Even though this is from Pravda on the Hudson, it makes what I think are good points; indeed maybe the author has read some of my posts  cheesy


The Elephant in the Room
 
By ROSS DOUTHAT


If a polling lead in the first week of September were a guarantee of victory two months later, then John McCain and Al Gore would have both been sworn in as president of the United States. So no, President Obama’s convention bounce has not – repeat, has not — sealed the election for the Democrats.

What the Obama bounce has done, though, is dramatically reduce the possibility that this election will turn out like 1980 or 1992, when the electorate broke hard against the incumbent in the last few months of the campaign. The convention period was Mitt Romney’s best chance to pull substantially ahead of the president and set himself up to pull away. If Romney wins, it will probably be by a whisker, not a lap.

Judging by the last week’s worth of conservative commentary, this post-convention reality – a narrower path to victory for Romney and a stronger likelihood of defeat – comes as a shock to many of his backers. Not that they expected an outright landslide, necessarily. But there’s a strong consensus on the right that we should be headed for a much more decisive repudiation of this administration than the current polls suggest is possible.

“If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment,” George Will told his fellow panelists on ABC’s “This Week on Sunday,” “it has to get out of politics.” He was echoed by the popular radio host Laura Ingraham: “If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record,” she told her listeners, “then shut down the party.” Likewise the historian and prominent Romney backer Niall Ferguson, who told Newsweek’s readers that Obama’s robust poll numbers proved that “the law of political gravity has been suspended.”

In their quest to explain the president’s resilience, conservatives haven’t just done the obvious thing and piled all the blame on Romney himself. They’ve started reaching for structural explanations for Romney’s underperformance, from “the left-controlled education system that has profoundly shaped the Millennials” (in the words of National Review’s Stanley Kurtz) to liberalism’s success at making the “government economy” of “federal welfare benefits” seem more important than the real economy of job creation (to quote the influential conservative blogger John Hinderaker).

Like Kurtz and Hinderaker, I think there are very interesting conversations to be had about conservatism’s inherent disadvantages in a welfare-state society with a liberal-tilting cultural establishment. But before we lose ourselves in sociology and poli-sci, it’s worth looking yet again at the most obvious explanation for Republican underperformance: The recent presidency of George W. Bush.

Vincent Laforet/The New York TimesGeorge W. Bush was sworn into office for a second time on January 20, 2005.

Eight years ago this November, Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the popular vote, and his party gained four seats in the Senate, bringing their majority to 55 seats. Despite the controversy surrounding the Iraq War, the Republican Party of 2004 still retained the reputation that it had gained during the Reagan boom and the successful winding-down of the Cold War: A majority of Americans trusted Bush’s party to provide effective leadership abroad and to pursue broadly-shared prosperity at home, and Karl Rove’s vision of an enduring Republican majority seemed viable, if not inevitable.

Four years later, the dream was dead, and the public’s trust on both fronts was all-but-exhausted. The mismanagement of the Iraq occupation, piled on top of the W.M.D. fiasco, cost Bush’s party its reputation for foreign policy competence, while the Bush boom, such as it was, delivered weaker returns to the middle class than either the Reagan or the Clinton expansion – and then the financial crisis undid even those meager gains.

Since Bush left office, conservatives have been willing to acknowledge his failures as a fiscal conservative and to promise more responsibility on deficits and debt. This has been a necessary and important shift, responsible both for the energy of the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections and for the current Republican ticket’s (relatively) brave proposals on entitlement reform.

But the shift toward fiscal rectitude is the easy part, in a sense, because it just involved calling conservatives back to their principles, without necessarily acknowledging the places where ideology might need to adapt itself to new realities. It’s made the Republicans more serious than they were in January of 2008, but it’s left the party’s post-Bush weaknesses on the economy and foreign policy conspicuously unaddressed.

A presidential nominee could have filled this breach with fresh rhetoric and creative policy, but Romney, compromised and uncourageous, hasn’t been the right man for that job. On economics, he’s shifted awkwardly between a message that focuses (sensibly) on the struggles of the middle and working classes and a much more conventional right-wing celebration of entrepreneurs and “job creators.” On national security, he’s campaigned as a by-the-numbers hawk, with barely a hint that hawkishness might have delivered America into difficulties during the last Republican administration.

With unemployment still over 8 percent, he may be able to win with this kind of uncreative message. But the economy is stagnant, not collapsing, which means he’s not going win a big majority just by showing up.

To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the simple reality of presidential politics in 2012. Americans don’t want to give the White House back to the Republicans because they remember the Bush era all too well. If they continue to be disappointed at the polls, conservatives will eventually recognize this problem, and grope toward some sort of solution. Until then, the fault for their party’s underperformance will lie not in the stars or the structure of our society, but in their own stubborn selves.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1793 on: September 12, 2012, 05:19:12 PM »

The Obama Bounce Fades
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 12, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The post convention bounce that led to jubilation in the mainstream media has exhausted itself and Romney is coming back strongly.  Having shown Obama as much as four points ahead of Romney in the immediate aftermath of the Conventions, Rasmussen now has the president down to a one point margin:  Obama: 46  Romney: 45.

Instead, the fundamental flaws of the Democratic strategy are emerging: By tying the race to unrealistic expectations of economic recovery, Obama has mortgaged his re-election campaign to the dismal monthly and weekly economic data that assaults us constantly.

And the days after his convention recessed have not been good for President Obama.  Instead of strong executive leadership, we are seeing a world and a country in chaos while the president campaigns. 

•  Libya, which we liberated at a cost of over one billion dollars and at the risk of our military men and women, now fails to protect our embassy against Islamist extremists.  Our ambassador is assassinated in a terrorist attack.
 
•  Egypt, the recipient of $1.3 billion of U.S. aid permits a mob to storm our embassy in Cairo and burn our flag.  Our embassy issues a statement calling an independent film privately produced in the United States "an abuse of the First Amendment" rather than making clear that free speech in America is nobody's business but our own.
 
•  The president, continuing to bet on improving our image in the Muslim world, refuses to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his forthcoming visit to the United States.
 
•  Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who masqueraded as a friend of Israel when she served in the Senate from New York, declares that there are no "red lines" constraining Iranian nuclear ambitions. They can, essentially, do whatever they want without triggering an American military response.  And, despite Egyptian re-militarization of the Sinai and its increasing repudiation of the Camp David Accords, she approves additional aid and credits for Cairo.
 
•  The Federal Reserve Board warns of an impending economic catastrophe as Bob Woodward's new book excoriates the Administration for failing to conclude -- or even seriously to pursue -- a long term debt and deficit reduction agreement.
 
•  In Chicago, Obama's political base, the schools are closed and the teachers -- among the most highly paid in America -- are on strike to protest the Mayor's outrageous demand that their pay be based on their performance. 

And through it all, there is no presidential leadership.  He's too busy raising money to run ads so he can tell us what a great leader he is.

Everywhere we see, in ruins, Obama's plans for our country.  His foreign policy has encouraged revolutions that have brought our worst enemies to power in the Middle East while his environmental policies have tried -- fortunately without success -- to limit our domestic production of energy.  His education reforms have no teeth and he sits by passively as they are challenged by his own local teachers union.

Credit much of the quick end to his bounce to Romney's ads which, right off the bat after the Democratic Convention closed, rapped Obama for trying to convince us that we are better off than we were four years ago.  Obama's campaign essentially poses the question: What will you believe -- your own eyes or my speeches?

And the polls show that the spellbinding power of his teleprompter-eloquence has a shorter and shorter half life.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1794 on: September 12, 2012, 06:44:16 PM »

A point from the panel on Bret Baeir's Special Report:

The Obama Doctrine itself for the middle east is in question.  If Romney wants to take that on, then he should do so-- but just taking a hurried pot shot at the pre-emptive dhimmitude statement by the Embassy in Egypt and then going back to the economy is rather pointless.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1795 on: September 13, 2012, 04:48:30 AM »

FWIW:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai



http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/springboard-or-setback-romney-sought-now-faces-foreign-policy-test-20120912

If Romney follows through, it will set him on a course to accomplish two goals: deflect criticism of his foreign-policy inexperience leveled by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., at the Democratic National Convention, and force Obama to defend his handling of Islamic extremism and his vision of what the Arab Spring means to the region and U.S. interests there.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1796 on: September 13, 2012, 08:05:39 AM »

Quite a plehtora of anonymous sources in that first piece, though I can name one of my own:  Peggy Noonan (who gets wobbly from time to time) said that MR "did himself no favors".

I myself have said here more than once that Romney has "a tin ear" on foreign affairs.  I think Douthat's "Elephant in the Room" piece, posted yesterday by me, is on target.   That much of what has gone wrong is due to left/liberal/progressive/Democrat/media disohonorable disruption, the facts remains IMHO that Bush made some major errors and public trust in Republican foreign affairs competence is very low.  

It now looks like Romney will have to put up or shut up.  Platitudes from our squandered uni-polar moment will not address the deep questions now presented the new realities of a once again multi-polar world.  Nor will sounding like Bush.  No one wants to double down on Afpakia, BO threw away Iraq (without getting blamed yet for what will prove to be a grievious error), and saying that we should have stayed with dying Mubarak is not a real vote winner either.  Oh yes, we broke and headed for bankruptcy now too , , ,

The fecklessness of BO's foreign policy has been recorded and discussed here at length, but the fact is that the awareness and votes against it are not there and as BD's post lastnight/this morning on the Military Sciene thread indicates, MR is not showing a deft hand so far on these issues.   

This could get interesting , , ,
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 08:11:25 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1797 on: September 13, 2012, 10:55:11 AM »

"the facts remains IMHO that Bush made some major errors and public trust in Republican foreign affairs competence is very low."

In retrospect yes.

Hillary came out well in explaining the position better today.

The middle east is an inferno with no really great solution for the US or Israel.

Adding, if anyone has any doubts about Hillary running for 2016 you only need look at her today.

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1798 on: September 13, 2012, 02:04:37 PM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/249319-gop-pivots-to-broad-assault-on-obamas-foreign-policy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1799 on: September 13, 2012, 03:25:57 PM »

Sen. McCain is the kiss of death.  I wish he would STFU even when he is right.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!