• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Brad Sallows said:
>Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.

It would be more interesting if it could explain where all of the money spent to support candidates, directly or indirectly, were exposed.

"None can simply buy a congressman, or dictate the results they want."

Is that a fact?  Apparently the author has never heard of lobbyists, special interest groups, or labour unions.

And the thesis that "the rich" can block change is disproven by the 2006 and 2008 results.  If "the rich" could block change, there would not be very much of it at any time.  The article is just another example of the "America is ungovernable" drumbeat.  We hear it whenever the Democrats have anything less than a veto-proof legislative capability, because partisan fart-catchers can't distinguish between "govern" and "transform".  Strangely, the obstructionist mechanisms are vital to democracy when the Republicans hold the initiative.

Was listening to an interview on NPR while on the way to work this morning. The interview was with both  GOP and  Dem strategists responsible for ad buys and so forth during the past couple of elections. They both claimed that most (80% they said) of the money used for ad buys and so forth ends up being wasted as they have no way of really knowing the influence they have is a given area.

You know, if you are just going to throw it away, I'll take it. ;D
 
Brad Sallows said:
>And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.

You haven't tried to get a state ID or driver's license post 9-11 have you.?

It makes some of the hoops for getting an abortion look like a pleasant day at the spa.
 
>Please, cite an example if you know of one.

Great Northern Railway.  More broadly, the industrial revolution.

Obama is not making appeals in order to get people working together.  He is trying to recast himself as "Mr Reasonable/Centrist".  If you desire evidence of his authoritarianism, look to how he acts to enlarge the powers of federal agencies, to minimize or deprecate congressional oversight, and to simply selectively enforce federal laws (not to use discretion on a case-by-case basis, but to broadly select those which will be enforced and those which will not).

The fact that much federal spending is politically difficult to touch does not change the responsibility of those who introduced the problems.  They caught it; they must pay the political price to clean it.  Obviously they would rather not, but their whinging should fall on deaf ears.

>How about some examples?

"Fake but accurate".  The media collectively running interference for John Edwards's affair, but going to disgusting lengths to assault Sarah Palin.  The broad attack on the "incivility" of the political right in the wake of the Giffords shooting.  A leave-no-document-unturned level of interest in Romney, but an unofficial embargo on finding/reporting anything Obama wishes to remain private.  Claims that the Republican House is doing nothing useful about the economic situation, when reality is that the initiatives are simply ones the Democrats are simply unwilling to advance, having run out of ideas except "raise taxes".

My point about King James II is that he sought to remake the basic fabric of his nation (particularly with regard to freedom of religion and expression) and in doing so set the conditions (will and opportunity) for an alternative vision to arise and transform the nation.  I find the parallels interesting.  That the Obama administration pursues analogues of the two main lines of operation of James (increased arrogation of power to the executive in lieu of absolute monarchism, pursuit of progressive ideology in lieu of Catholicism) is trivially obvious.
 
Romney is well intentioned, but has a hard time doing "off the cuff".

A Hint for Romney

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/17/a-hint-for-romney.html

There was a good impulse here:

Mitt Romney held up the waiters and waitresses serving donors at a fundraising event Monday night as examples of people who aren't doing well under President Obama.

Addressing 300 contributors at a Jackson, Miss., fundraiser who paid $2,500, $10,000 or $50,000 to hear him speak, Romney acknowledged that the people in the room were well-off compared to many Americans. It was the middle class that had been let down by Obama, Romney said, and he pointed to the wait staff serving finger foods as an example.

But one suggestion: when drawing attention to the challenges facing lower-income Americans, think carefully about the pronouns you use. This isn't good:

"The waiters and waitresses that come in and out of this room and offer us refreshments, they're not having a good year."

Try to remember: we're all "us."
 
What does it say when John McCain selected Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney, because she was "the better candidate".

McCain: Palin was 'better candidate' than Romney

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/mccain-i-wasnt-scared-off-by-romney-tax-returns-129201.html

By MANU RAJU |
7/17/12 12:43 PM EDT

Mitt Romney's tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a "better candidate."

McCain received more than two decades worth of Romney's tax returns as the former Massachusetts governor was undergoing the vetting process four years ago, far more than Romney has released publicly in the 2012 campaign. Democrats have questioned whether McCain saw something untoward in those tax returns and decided to choose Palin instead.

But on Tuesday, McCain flatly rejected that assertion and grew angry at questions over his decision to choose Palin over Romney.

"Of course not," McCain told POLITICO when asked if the contents of Romney's tax returns disqualified him from the selection process. "I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of."

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: "Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

Steve Schmidt, McCain's top campaign adviser in 2008, told the Huffington Post that the contents of the tax returns were not viewed as a problem for their campaign. But Romney's vast wealth was seen as a political liability that McCain could ill afford, he said.

"Sen. McCain got caught flat-footed answering a question about how many houses he owned," Schmidt told the news website. "In fact, they were Cindy McCain's properties but that distinction was lost in the political optics and we knew it would be a big liability that the presidential and the vice presidential candidates together owned more than a dozen homes. It was like something out of a 'Saturday Night Live' skit. I mean, come on."

And McCain's response to the press seizing on the "better candidate" comment

McCain irked by blowback over Palin remark

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/mccain-irked-by-blowback-over-palin-remark-129251.html

By SEUNG MIN KIM and MANU RAJU |
7/17/12 4:57 PM EDT

Sen. John McCain was none too pleased by the uproar over his remarks Tuesday about why he chose Sarah Palin and not Mitt Romney as his running mate in 2008.

The ruckus started after POLITICO published McCain's response to a question about whether Romney's tax returns caused the Arizona Republican not to tap the wealthy ex-Massachusetts governor for VP. He said the returns were not a factor in his decision.

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: "Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

McCain recoiled after the media seized on his "better" remark.

"We’ve taken an answer to a question as to why I selected her not Romney and twisted it around of course to some interpretation which is obviously not the case," McCain told reporters. "It’s really getting a little disgraceful, twisting someone’s words when clearly I said and meant that she was the best fit for our campaign."

McCain continued to criticize what he called a "Chicago sleaze style campaign" on its hammering of Romney over the tax issue.

"To somehow intimate that there was something wrong with someone’s tax returns without any basis of fact whatsoever, it's really low," McCain said. "It’s gutter politics. And they should be ashamed. But they will never be ashamed."

McCain also said "of course not" when asked if Romney should release more returns, even to quell his critics.

"So if your opponent makes a big deal out of some issue then you’re supposed to do something that no one else has done?" he said. "If you’re married to a very wealthy billionaire should you be revealing her tax returns? I don’t recall that happening with the Kerry campaign."

The Arizona Republican said he could "personally vouch" that there was nothing in Romney's returns that would have disqualified him as a running mate.

"The only reason why I’m saying what I’m saying now is because (of) the scurrilous, scurrilous Chicago style sleaze intimations with no basis in fact whatsoever that there might’ve been something wrong with Mitt Romney's tax returns, which is disgraceful," he said.
 
Ironic situation with the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises".

The villain's name is Bane. ;D

If it weren't for the fact that the character was created decades ago, I'd say Hollywood has a thing against Mitt Romney.

 
George W. Bush has finally made an endorsement of Mitt Romney on camera. It was a portion of an interview on several subjects, including the release of a new book which he cooperated on and provided an introduction / forward to.

The endorsement however, can be described as lukeward or half hearted at best.

Unfortunately, the video is not up on the web as of yet, but I will post it when it comes up.

"I support Mitt Romney, I hope he does well. But I think he can do well without me." :dunno:

Update:

Here is the link from The Hoover Institute's website. The interview is over an hour, but the key section is around 14:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RbAZj9RB94&feature=player_embedded#t=846s
 
cupper said:
I'd say Hollywood has a thing against Mitt Romney.

Hollywood has a thing against Republicans or anyone who isn't a Democrat. They've proved that time and time again, they're one of the biggest lobby groups since they get all that face time with the paparazzi media.
 
And we've hit a new low.

Move On.org has now waded into the deep end. Tomorrow they will release in Ohio an attack add against Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns.

To invoke the ghost of Richard Nixon by calling him "Tricky Mitt" and having a photo of him morphing into a picture with Nixon with raised arms.

Stay classy my friends. :facepalm:

I'll post a link when they release it tomorrow, as it is not up on their youtube feed at this time.

 
Brad Sallows said:
>Please, cite an example if you know of one.

Great Northern Railway.  More broadly, the industrial revolution.

GN is a good example, agreed. Notable because it's so incredibly rare. I didn't actually know that it didn't use land grants, thanks for pointing it out.

Brad Sallows said:
Obama is not making appeals in order to get people working together.  He is trying to recast himself as "Mr Reasonable/Centrist".  If you desire evidence of his authoritarianism, look to how he acts to enlarge the powers of federal agencies, to minimize or deprecate congressional oversight, and to simply selectively enforce federal laws (not to use discretion on a case-by-case basis, but to broadly select those which will be enforced and those which will not).

Not sure how that's recasting himself. That's pretty much how he's cast himself all along.

What enlargements of the powers of federal agencies are you speaking of, and to what extent are they solely his prerogative? Selective enforcement of federal laws?! What? I can only assume with some google fu that you're referring to immigration, because that's the most common thing that searches like that came up with.

So, have a look:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/01/fact-checking-immigration/

http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=immigration

Did President Obama overstep his boundaries? Apparently not. Did he order an end to deportation of young illegals because it was a waste of resources, in part it's suggested to force Congress to pass the DREAM Act (which was iniatiated by a Republican and supported by them until they decided to change their minds and obstruct any progress? Yes. But he didn't overstep anything. He didn't give them amnesty, he directed scarce resources be focused elsewhere, which is within his right. We do that in Canada - we don't deport certain people based on a variety of assessment factors. Going to start calling our government authoritarian for selectively enforcing the law?

Funny thing is, last I read, on President Obama's watch, more illegal aliens have been intercepted and deported than under previous administrations, so the hysterics that he hasn't done anything on the issue of immigration are just that. And the number of Border Patrol agents has increased steadily.

Brad Sallows said:
The fact that much federal spending is politically difficult to touch does not change the responsibility of those who introduced the problems.  They caught it; they must pay the political price to clean it.  Obviously they would rather not, but their whinging should fall on deaf ears.

Both parties are guilty.

Brad Sallows said:
"Fake but accurate".  The media collectively running interference for John Edwards's affair, but going to disgusting lengths to assault Sarah Palin.  The broad attack on the "incivility" of the political right in the wake of the Giffords shooting.  A leave-no-document-unturned level of interest in Romney, but an unofficial embargo on finding/reporting anything Obama wishes to remain private.  Claims that the Republican House is doing nothing useful about the economic situation, when reality is that the initiatives are simply ones the Democrats are simply unwilling to advance, having run out of ideas except "raise taxes".

Palin was a terrible choice for VP, and she was skewered for her own words and actions. When Edwards' affair became news (which was after the campaign was over IIRC), the media hammered him and his party basically turned his back on him. They've given plenty of press to the sordid details. Romney's being asked reasonable questions, no one is on some kind of ridiculous witch hunt that President Obama went through over his birth certificate or anything else. Romney's the architect of his own misery, because he's refusing requests that a lot of people found reasonable. How he's being tried by the near-mythical "liberal media" is no different that President Obama is treated by the right's media. The claim that the Republican House has done nothing useful are reasonably accurate. They have voted to repeal Obamacare 33 times, each time knowing that the vote was meaningless because the Senate would not take up the vote. If they did, they've vote it down, and if somehow that didn't happen, the President would veto it. So yes, they've wasted a lot of the American people's time and money on spurious tasks. Their spineless, sobbing jellyfish of a speaker and out of touch leader may not have bright futures of the public is paying attention.

Brad Sallows said:
My point about King James II is that he sought to remake the basic fabric of his nation (particularly with regard to freedom of religion and expression) and in doing so set the conditions (will and opportunity) for an alternative vision to arise and transform the nation.  I find the parallels interesting.  That the Obama administration pursues analogues of the two main lines of operation of James (increased arrogation of power to the executive in lieu of absolute monarchism, pursuit of progressive ideology in lieu of Catholicism) is trivially obvious.

Not to me it isn't. Despite much excitement about "progressivism", I don't see that much of a major shift, particularly if you look at something like The New Deal by comparison as something that fundamentally changed American society. President Obama ain't FDR.
 
cupper said:
And we've hit a new low.

Move On.org has now waded into the deep end. Tomorrow they will release in Ohio an attack add against Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns.

To invoke the ghost of Richard Nixon by calling him "Tricky Mitt" and having a photo of him morphing into a picture with Nixon with raised arms.

Stay classy my friends. :facepalm:

I'll post a link when they release it tomorrow, as it is not up on their youtube feed at this time.

Ah moveon.org...  :facepalm:
 
Did he order an end to deportation of young illegals because it was a waste of resources, in part it's suggested to force Congress to pass the DREAM Act (which was iniatiated by a Republican and supported by them until they decided to change their minds and obstruct any progress? Yes. But he didn't overstep anything. He didn't give them amnesty, he directed scarce resources be focused elsewhere, which is within his right

I'm sorry this opinion piece isn't from Fox but I'm sure Mr. Sowell will be discounted by you just as easily... Before you ridicule him as a right wing crack pot or media hack, I'd like the readers to note :"He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in Economics from the University of Chicago."

Reproduced from this article: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/19/the_immigration_ploy

In part:

President Obama's latest political ploy -- granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children -- is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his Executive Order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year's election.

People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama Executive Order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody's guess.

Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants. Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training them, if you may be forced to fire them before a year has passed?

Kicking the can down the road is one of the favorite exercises in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear.
Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November.

The principle involved -- keeping children from being hurt by actions over which they had no control -- is one already advanced by Senator Marco Rubio, who may well end up as Governor Romney's vice-presidential running mate. The Obama Executive Order, which suddenly popped up like a rabbit out of a magician's hat, steals some of Senator Rubio's thunder, so it is clever politics. But clever politics is what has gotten this country into so much trouble, not only as regards immigration but also as regards the economy and the dangerous international situation. When the new, and perhaps short-lived, immigration policy is looked at in terms of how it can be administered, it makes even less sense. While this policy is rationalized in terms of children, those who invoke it are likely to do so as adults.

How do you check someone's claim that he was brought into the country illegally when he was a child? If Obama gets reelected, it is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will really have to prove anything. The administration can simply choose not to enforce that provision, as so many other immigration laws are unenforced in the Obama administration.

If Obama does not get reelected, then it may not matter anyway, when his Executive Order can be gone after he is gone. Ultimately, it does not matter what immigration policy this country has, if it cannot control its own borders. Whoever wants to come, and who has the chutzpah, will come. And the fact that they come across the Mexican border does not mean that they are all Mexicans. They can just as easily be terrorists from the Middle East.

Only after the border is controlled can any immigration policy matter be seriously considered, and options weighed through the normal Constitutional process of Congressional hearings, debate and legislation, rather than by Presidential short-cuts. Not only is border control fundamental, what is also fundamental is the principle that immigration policy does not exist to accommodate foreigners but to protect Americans -- and the American culture that has made this the world's richest, freest and most powerful nation for more than a century.

No nation can absorb unlimited numbers of people from another culture without jeopardizing its own culture. In the 19th and early 20th century, America could absorb millions of immigrants who came here to become Americans. But the situation is entirely different today, when group separatism, resentment and polarization are being promoted by both the education system and politicians.
 
Sowell is a smart guy, I don't often agree with him, but he's relatively correct. At least in explaining exactly what President Obama is trying to do - to force Congress to fix the system - to get on with the DREAM Act which had bipartisan support before obstructionism became the norm. Sowell highlights the games played on both sides of the aisle, and explains why such games are a problem. He's trying to push it as though it's something Obama invented, but I don't think that's accurate. When it comes to immigration, to taxes, etc, he's actually been trying to push the Congress to get on with things. Ending the Bush tax cuts so everyone will clearly know what tax rates, and fixing the immigration system are two of those problems he is trying to get them to sort out, are they not?
 
Oh, on that selective enforcement thing, there's also this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/obama-bush-immigration-enforcement

Turns out what Obama is doing with immigration is nothing new.
 
Great article from Forbes of all places.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

Rick Ungar basically lays out the reality of spending by the Obama Adminstration.

Even better, he's actively engaged in the comments section, and handily demolishes several conservative commenters attacking him by highlighting that he built the analysis from traditionally conservative sources.

I also love the jab at the Heritage Institute. Very well played.
 
Turns out what Obama is doing with immigration is nothing new.

But he campaigned on "Hope and Change", remember? You talk about the hypocrisy of the right? Bush gets blamed for what's convenient; then when able, "Bush did it too" is trotted out.
 
muskrat89 said:
But he campaigned on "Hope and Change", remember? You talk about the hypocrisy of the right? Bush gets blamed for what's convenient; then when able, "Bush did it too" is trotted out.

He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.
 
Redeye said:
He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.

Yes he did.  He set a record for rounds of golf played.

Oh and adding staggering amounts of new, burdensome regulations to the  US economy.  13,000 pages just for the introductory level of Obamacare

And ridiculous deficits . . . Can you imagine the screaming if Harper had run deficits of $150 billion for three years?

This is still the skirmish stage of the campaign.  Romney isn't panicking and is probably having a good chuckle at the expense of all the pantywaist punditry advice.

Keep your powder dry and your sights on the target.
 
Redeye said:
He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.

Really?  You *can't* be serious.

Nixon went to China

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Carter got SALT 2.

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Reagen won the Cold War

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Clinton sorted shit out in the Balkans

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.


 
To be fair, Technoviking, all of the examples you give fall within the realm of international relations, which is the purview of the executive without any need for domestic law making to come into play.

Nixon went to China? All he had to do is decide to do so, then set it up with the Chinese: all diplomacy.

Carter got SALT II? It was never ratified by congress as you know, and therefore never bound the USA (though both side did abide by it - again purely executive matter)

Etc. Etc.

None of these examples involve trying to get Congress to do what the President wishes to institute as internal reforms in the country. That record is a lot murkier for all the recent Presidents (say from Nixon on), save maybe for Reagan who was a little more successful than most in getting things trough.
 
Back
Top