Democrats & Liberals Archives

I like Mitt Romney

I won’t vote for him in November because I don’t like his politics, but I like him as a person. The most qualified guy in his pack is moving on to win the GOP primary.

Ron Paul will never lead anything outside of his district in Congress. He's too fringe. His supporters live in a delusional bubble where they force feed straw polls on every website on the Internet and convince themselves their guy's support is much larger than it is. Sorry folks. It's just not that big.

Newt Gingrich is a cry baby who blames everyone but himself for his shortcomings and his moral failings. Just look at how he barked at Fox for being biased against him somehow. No one and no thing is safe from his feigned outrage. He's staying in the race to continue to cry his way to the convention so he can work to convince the party of his relevancy despite having none.

Rick Santorum would never have won as much as he did had the leading candidate been stronger with the base than Romney. He is a kook evangelical out of touch with even most evangelicals in America. He has even less leadership experience than President Obama had when he was first running, something conservatives used to pretend to care about.

Mitt Romney on the other hand is well educated, isn't completely irrational, and is a good strong family man. He's worked successfully in business and in politics. He's the kind of guy I can honestly say will be a good president for conservatives and a OK president for all Americans should he beat President Obama. I will disagree with most of the things he will try to accomplish but I'll try hard to avoid the apocalyptic language the left would invoke against him as if our liberal world dies every night he sleeps in the White House.

The sad thing is that if this were 25 years ago the GOP might love to have Romney but these days the party craves blood. They want attack dogs that go after the media like Gingrich. They want anti-science zealots that march in the streets against logic and reason like Santorum. They want a man with catchy catch phrases like Herman Cain. They want someone who speaks truth to power like Ron Paul no matter how unlikely his plans are from a budget standpoint. They want a cowboy in-chief like Rick Perry that hints at secession and takes pictures of himself shooting pistols.

The problem is they just can't find that all in one man and it's going to lower enthusiasm for Romney this fall. I think Romney was and still is the most likely candidate to beat Obama but even so he's got a lot of work to do to make that happen.

So Mitt Romney begins his march toward November trying not to seem so out of touch with both 99.9% of Americans and the conservative movement he's flip flopped his way through his entire Republican career. He's got to restore his standing with a GOP party that clearly had a large faction working against him. He's got to restore his standing with women voters that have tied him to the worst offenders in his movement. One of his first shots at this will be his VP pick. That is probably weeks away though so we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by Adam Ducker at April 13, 2012 7:46 AM
Comments
Comment #341499

Adam,
It will be interesting to see Romney pivot as he runs in the general election. For the most part, I agree with your take on Romney. He’s the best qualified from the Republican field, well-educated, rational, and dedicated to his family and religion. If he wins, he could probably be a decent president. He lacks foreign policy experience, but if he’s as sharp as Obama, he will surround himself with good people. If he surrounds himself with Neocons, Katie bar the door. If he approaches the economy with a reasonable effort to balance spending cuts with tax increases, he could be very successful. If he implements the Ryan budget and tries to destroy the social safety net, all bets are off.

The biggest question mark with Romney is that I really, really don’t know what to believe about his politics. He has said so many contradictory things, taken so many positions. Would he defund Planned Parenthood or leave it as it is?

Would he appoint good people, or would he bring in the equivalent of a Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld?

If Romney wins, I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. However, I felt the same way about Bush. At first, Bush seemed ok. When 9/11 happened, like most Americans I stood behind him and hoped he would succeed and prove to be a good leader. Unfortunately, Bush was not up to the job. His beliefs were messed up and his people were horrible. The result was a disaster for all Americans: two recessions, two wars fought on the national credit card, including one based upon lies; tax cuts resulting in enormous deficits and a skyrocketing debt; a failed attempt to destroy social security with privatization; a federal government that spent a week ignoring New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a housing bubble followed by an asset deflation, which, coupled with deregulation and failures to provide oversight in commodity markets, resulted in a credit crunch, stock market crash, and terrible unemployment; and two Supreme Court Justice appointments that supported Citizens United and strip searche at the local jail for any misdemeanor.

It’s hard to imagine the American people would want to give Republicans another chance.

Well, like you said, let’s see where Romney goes with his VP nomination, and hope for the best.

Posted by: phx8 at April 13, 2012 12:34 PM
Comment #341505

Romney is a plutocrat for the 1%, an extreme religious conservative fully on board with the GOP’s War On Women, and an obvious phony who will say anything and everything in order to try to get elected.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 1:38 PM
Comment #341508

Adrienne,
Is Romney an obvious phony who will say anything to get elected? Absolutely. The same could be said of many politicians. Of course, Romney is worse than most, which is really saying something. Still, I think Romney is capable of reading polls, and might be more willing to compromise than a more ideological Republican. Romney might be a phony and a liar, but he is not a fool.

The thing about Romney is that he is not an ideologue. He’ll punt virtually any conviction you can name in a New York minute if he thinks it will help him politically. Romney believes in just one thing: Money. He is truly a plutocrat, and if there’s one thing Romney can be counted on to do, it’s support big money and big corporations. Romney is about the 1%. Everything else is negotiable.

I don’t think Romney is on board with the GOP War on Women. I don’t think he even gets it. He’ll say or do whatever it takes to make the polls look better. If he’s standing in front of a GOP crowd, he’ll support the War on Women. The next day, if it’s a crowd that includes independents and liberals, he’ll oppose it. Cause that’s Romney. He changes his positions so often, I can’t even keep track of where he stands on some. For example, is he for or against Planned Parenthood? But the good news is that his willingness to flip might make him willing to compromise.

Posted by: phx8 at April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #341509

The difference between Romney and Bush is that Bush’s entire campaign was a lie orchestrated over many years working with Karl Rove. Here was a wealthy, Ivy League educated rich brat running as a simple man, a common man, a guy you’d have a beer with. Rove knew that was the only way he’d ever win the White House and even that was a very close call. He built the ranch before he ran for the White House and he sold it as soon as he was done. I don’t doubt Bush’s faith, but I do doubt the candy coating put around his life and faith to make the pill easier for the values voters to swallow.

Romney has bolt from his record and tried to deny certain aspects of his life, but he’s overall running as the man he is in real life: One massively rich son of a gun. You wouldn’t have a beer with him but he might let you park a few of his cars or cook his breakfast for him.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #341510

Adam,
No one will ever have a beer with Romney. As a practicing Mormon, I doubt he drinks. It’s just awfully difficult to relate to Romney. I never even heard the word “dressage” until someone posted an open mike conversation where Romney talked about his horses.

Being the son of a Governor and Chairman of AMC and being almost unimaginably wealthy doesn’t disqualify Romney. There’s nothing wrong with that. There have been other presidents, such as FDR, who were very wealthy. The problem is that Romney lacks the ability to empathize with people who do not share his background. Everytime he tries, it’s just awkward. And even that awkwardness and inability to connect wouldn’t matter except that Romney cannot get beyond it to understand what people need. For example, Romney supports the Ryan budget. He calls it “marvelous.” The Ryan budget calls for reducing the top tax rate to 25% for the wealthiest Americans, while cutting programs for poorer Americans, the ones who actually could use some help in the first place. That’s why Romney is a plutocrat representing the 1%. He lacks the ability to see outside his own bubble of wealth.

Posted by: phx8 at April 13, 2012 3:09 PM
Comment #341513

Oh no. Romney is giving a speech in front of the NRA. Inauthenticity hits new lows. Does anybody- anybody at all, whether pro-gun, NRA member, pacifist or whatever- believe Mitt Romney cares about guns?

Posted by: phx8 at April 13, 2012 3:19 PM
Comment #341515

Phx8, you don’t have to care about guns in order to support rights.

With Romney, I doubt he cares about guns and his record shows he doesn’t care about the right.

The left could crown their King now if they wanted to.

Posted by: kctim at April 13, 2012 3:47 PM
Comment #341516

Phx8: “No one will ever have a beer with Romney. As a practicing Mormon, I doubt he drinks.”

Good point.

“Everytime he tries, it’s just awkward.”

When I think awkward I think 2008 primary Obama bowling a gutter ball and trying to look like an average Joe while Hillary swilled beer in some pub and tried to make it seem normal. Unfortunately for Romney he can’t draw a crowd and inspire his party the way Obama did. At least Romney hasn’t so far. It’s doubtful he’ll ever be anything but wooden and awkward. This is John Kerry, Al Gore style awkwardness.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 13, 2012 4:00 PM
Comment #341517

phx8:

Perceptions mean everything with the GOP, rather than realities. Btw, did Romney praise their SYG laws in that speech and/or wave the same type of handgun George Zimmerman prefers? Could see that kind of symbolism scoring a few votes amongst that particular crowd…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 4:05 PM
Comment #341518

phx8:

I don’t think Romney is on board with the GOP War on Women. I don’t think he even gets it. He’ll say or do whatever it takes to make the polls look better.

Well, looks like he is indeed on board. In that NRA speech today Romney vowed to repeal contraception coverage to female employees.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 5:01 PM
Comment #341519

Adrienne,
Thanks for the link. Wow. Knock me over with a feather. Just. Wow. So Romney wants to continue the GOP War on Women? Really? Obama must be marveling at his good luck. A knock on the White House door, he opens it, and there on the doorstep is the 2012 election, all wrapped up in a nice package, with a pretty red bow and everything.

Romney must be absolutely desperate to shore up his support among the social conservatives, even if it costs him votes elsewhere. The Freepers have already categorically rejected Romney as just another RINO. Supposedly, a couple of Romney’s buddies, investment fund equity manager billionaires, have told him to cool it with the War on Women, or they will withdraw their $. They express the wishes of the plutocrats, but Romney must feel he already has enough $. Calling all wingnuts! Your attention, please. There is a blue light special on aisle 8, featuring a full fledged attempt to restrict birth control for all those women Limbaugh called “sluts” and “prostitutes.”

So… continuing the War on Women, even after every poll show it has been an unmitigated disaster, well, that’s just amazing.

Posted by: phx8 at April 13, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #341520

phx8,

LOL! Yeah it is.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 6:53 PM
Comment #341521

“War on Women” such pretty alliteration.

Of course some of Obama’s folks think raising five children doesn’t constitute work and that a woman who survived cancer and is still struggling with multiple sclerosis has never faced any challenges in life.

Of course, Obama told her to cool it with the war on mothers and cancer survivors.

At first Hilary Rosen refused to apologize, because in her circles that is what they really believe, although they usually don’t say so. Is she still working in Obama camp? Of course she is.

Of course Mitt Romney’s assertion 92% of the the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women is technically correct, but not fair. But is IS as fair as claiming that he is fighting a war on women, even if the alliteration appeals to mini-minds.

Posted by: C&J at April 13, 2012 7:41 PM
Comment #341538
raising five children doesn’t constitute work

With nannies, and governesses, and chauffeurs and servants galore? Nope.

Of course Mitt Romney’s assertion 92% of the the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women is technically correct

Debunked. Lying about this seems to appeal to “mini-minds.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment #341582

Adrienne

It is not debunked. It is technically correct, as your own chart shows. Men lost jobs faster in the first part of the recession and then women lost relatively more. There are fewer woman and men working today than the day Obama took office, but rather more women.

You left out the end of my sentence, where I said that it was technically true, but not fair. Just as the war on women idea is not fair. I am consistent about truth and fairness. I know that may be a novel concept to some.

As for the lying appealing to mini-minds - I told the truth, as I always do. Did you?

Posted by: C&J at April 13, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #341583

Rather more women, I mean that there are fewer men and women working today than when Obama took office but rather more women remain unemployed, as the chart indicates. Thanks for providing it, BTW, and making it clear.

Posted by: C&J at April 13, 2012 10:50 PM
Comment #341584


There are far to many mini-minded voters and it has been ridiculous for the Democrats to ignore them for so long. There is even a ten million strong mini-mind fan club.

I for one am pleased to see that the liberals have finally decided to compete with the conservatives for those votes.

Posted by: jlw at April 13, 2012 10:50 PM
Comment #341585

jlw

Democrats have usually had those people. Why is it that Democrats always make such a big deal about how hard it is for Democratic voters to find polling places, make sense of ballots and not be distracted by shiny objects?

Posted by: C&J at April 13, 2012 10:58 PM
Comment #341587

This is what Factcheck writes:

“It’s true, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women, and that among women there has been a net loss of 683,000 jobs. The Romney campaign did the math and calculated that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women.”

The article goes on to explain that men lost more jobs in the recession, but they lost in the first months.

The interesting thing about this statistic is that I have heard it used by feminists to assert that women are suffering more from the recession. To the extent that these feminists are Obama supporters, they are hoisted on their own petards. They have to give up either the idea of women as victims or accept the idea that Obama has been bad for women. Actually both ideas are wrong and both can be wrong at the same time. But both cannot be true at the same time.

Posted by: C&J at April 13, 2012 11:07 PM
Comment #341593

Jack:

I told the truth, as I always do.

Uh huh. Then tell the truth and admit that the GOP under the leadership of the GOP RUINED the American economy, that the GOP’s trickle down theory is now acknowledged far and wide as complete and utter rubbish, that Democrats have always been better with turning the American economy around, and that right now the economic outlook is just now starting to improve.

As for Factcheck, nice try at a dodge, but we might as well give the rest of what they said::

But is that a result of Obama’s policies, as Romney says? A look at this chart — which we created based on official Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly figures for seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment (the standard measure for jobs) — tells another story.

What the graph shows clearly, and the numbers back up, is that men took a bigger hit than women, and the decline in jobs for men began much earlier. The downturn in male employment began in May 2007 — a full seven months before the official start (in December 2007) of what became the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Female employment continued to rise for 10 months after the downturn in male employment, and it peaked in March 2008.

By the time Obama took office in January 2009, both male and female employment were in a steep decline that continued for over a year. Male employment hit bottom in February 2010, and female employment continued to slump for another seven months, bottoming out in September 2010. And as the chart clearly shows, the job recovery for women not only started later, the rate of recovery has been slower.

Jack:

The interesting thing about this statistic is that I have heard it used by feminists to assert that women are suffering more from the recession.

Women are suffering more — because the rate recovery has been slower for us. Of course you read this, but I guess you thought it would be better to act like you didn’t. How mini-minded.

To the extent that these feminists are Obama supporters, they are hoisted on their own petards.

What nonsense. Most women will be Obama supporters — because most women are not stupid, we need and like our birth control, and we don’t want any doctors denying us abortions when we need them simply because Republican men desperately want to regain BS patriarchal religious control over us like they did back in the bad-old-days.

They have to give up either the idea of women as victims or accept the idea that Obama has been bad for women.

Lie. GOP Talking Point.

Actually both ideas are wrong and both can be wrong at the same time. But both cannot be true at the same time.

You were just hoping no one would bother to go up look at the rest of what Factcheck said, weren’t you? LOL! That’s why you didn’t bother to provide a link.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 12:20 AM
Comment #341594

Oops, typing way too fast again. That should say ‘the country under the leadership of the GOP…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 12:23 AM
Comment #341625

Romney IS supporting the GOP’s War on Women. He has clearly stated that on his first day in office he’ll issue an executive order for the federal government to do away with the Affordable Care Act, and that he will ask Congress to repeal the entire legislation as quickly as possible.

Today, in front of the NRA Romney told the nation that American women will not be able to get contraception covered by their insurance plans — because religious patriarchy is more important to him and will automatically take precedence over women’s health.

This is what he said in that speech:

As President, I will follow a very different path than President Obama. I will be a staunch defender of religious freedom. The Obamacare regulation is not a threat and insult to only one religious group - it is a threat and insult to every religious group. As President, I will abolish it.


So, now women know that if Romney is elected president, not only will they have to pay out of pocket for their contraception, but that will come on top of the fact that we are already being charged far more for health care than men are asked to pay.

Gender Gap Persists in Cost of Health Insurance

Quote:

Women still pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage, according to new research and data from online brokers. The new health care law will prohibit such “gender rating,” starting in 2014. But gaps persist in most states, with no evidence that insurers have taken steps to reduce them.
In a report to be issued this week, the National Women’s Law Center, a research and advocacy group, says that in states that have not banned gender rating, more than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men.

Jack wrote:

“War on Women” such pretty alliteration.

Jack doesn’t like this slogan and feels the need to try to mock it. That’s because it is 100% TRUE that the GOP are waging a war on women’s health, and that expression is spot-on and extremely easy to remember.

Yet women (who aren’t stupid) are already very well aware that the GOP has been waging this War against us for quite some time — and that’s why we’ve been spreading the word amongst all our women friends.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 1:51 AM
Comment #341627

Adrienne

I explained that the statistic was technically correct but unfair. That is pretty much what fact check said. I compared that to that silly “war on women” concept that uses similar tactics. You may disagree with my analogies.

Your comment about the Republicans and Democrats is your opinion, not supported by facts.

Re the truth - I have never written anything here that I do not believe is based on accurate information. I could be mistaken and on the rare occasions where someone has pointed to factual inconsistencies, I have said so.

Let’s take a simple example from what you wrote: “Women are suffering more — because the rate recovery has been slower for us. Of course you read this, but I guess you thought it would be better to act like you didn’t. How mini-minded.”

This “recovery”, what time period are we talking about? I assume you mean the Obama recovery. So during the Obama time you say “Women are suffering more …”

Read that a couple or three times and tell me what that means to you.

You believe that opposition to ObamaCare is proof that someone has declared war on women. This must mean that the majority of Americans who oppose ObamaCare are at war with women.

In you last statement, you believe that only stupid women would support the GOP? This is a stupid statement. My wife and daughter are GOP supporters and they are certainly more intelligent than …

j2t2

I used the accurate but imcomplete statistic that women have lost more jobs than men during the Obama time to refute war with women idea applied to Romney in the same rhetorical way.

I am simply spanking you all with the same methods you use. The fact that it make you all apoplectic might lead you to conclude that you should stop doing it. Probably not.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 6:37 AM
Comment #341629


“Re, the truth, I have never written anything here that I do not believe is based on inaccurate information.”


“This “recovery”, what time period are we talking about?”

C&J, you have presented a political argument rather than a factual one and one that is the exact opposite of what you were saying about the recession that Bush inherited. because of the government policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, admittedly with help from Democrats, this recession was far worse and this president had less support from Congress.

You are fond of saying that Obama and the Democrats had control of the government and could have done all they wanted, so why didn’t they.

That is an easy one, Obama couldn’t do more even if he had wanted to for the same reason that we have Obama care rather than single payer, and why Bush could not privatize S.S. even though Republicans controlled the government in 2005.

Obama has to deal with conservative Democratic party politicians and Boehner is having his problems with the reactionary tea party members.

Is it true that every Republican is opposed to equalizing pay for women? This is another conservative, it’s not that we anything against women, just equal pay for them.

The contraception argument is an example of why we need single payer health care rather than an employer based.

The argument about who pays is compromised by the fact that those who have expressed refusal for providing the coverage want to eliminate all forms of birth control. Their refusal is based on the fact that they wish to deny women the right to obtain and use these products, based on their religious dogmas. If they had the political power to deny these products to women they would do it.

Posted by: jlw at April 14, 2012 10:25 AM
Comment #341630

jlw

I am playing the game with the words and the “War with Women” I think the whole thing is silly but it is your game. The fact that I can beat you at it might make you less likely to play.

Re the recession - we have a real disagreement here. Which Bush policies to you think caused the recession? Was it pushing home ownership to people who couldn’t afford to pay? Was it growing government too big w/o paying for it?

Your comment that this president has had less support from Congress than Bush is factually wrong. For his last two year Bush faced both Houses Controlled by Democrats in large majorities. For his first two years, President Obama had majorities in both Houses the no Republican has enjoyed almost in living memory. I know Democrats think this was not enough, but they are just plain wrong on this.

RE - “Is it true that every Republican is opposed to equalizing pay for women? This is another conservative, it’s not that we anything against women, just equal pay for them.”

I support fair pay for everybody. We when you equal pay for women, what you mean is government setting pay for people in the private sector. Republican indeed do generally oppose bureaucrats and politicians telling businesses large and small how much they have to pay each of their employees. But don[t get this mixed up with equal pay.

Young women (22-30) in urban areas are actually paid 8% MORE than men. Should we lower their wages by government fiat? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook)


The contraception argument is about freedom and diversity. Contraception is not expensive and many organizations can make it available free. There is not one woman who would be denied contraception if Catholic organizations are not required to make it available free. I support contraception. In fact I think that anybody who is so poor they cannot afford contraception should be the first in line to get it. But I also know that their is no real impediment to getting it. And I also value freedom and diversity, which I prefer not to sacrifice for political expedient.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 11:06 AM
Comment #341632

jlw


“The contraception argument is an example of why we need single payer health care rather than an employer based.”

The gov’t should not be mandating what insurers must cover. This is one of the reasons for the increase in cost. People should be able to purchase a plan that covers what they feel they need covered. You’de find most would only purchase catastrophic coverage, which would be much cheaper. If you wanted to pay for more, than that would also be your choice, but would be priced according to how much extra coverage you wanted. When I was young I had a simple plan that covered catastrophic illness, and hospitalization. It was dirt cheap.

Employer coverage is a perk, not a right. The employer should decide what level of coverage they offer thier employees. In general healthcare is not a right, anymore than food or shelter are. Just because you need something does not make it a right. What the gov’t giveth, it can also take away, and will when the the financial reality forces it to do so. This is one of the best arguments I can see for not allowing a single payer system to ever be implemented in this country.


“The argument about who pays is compromised by the fact that those who have expressed refusal for providing the coverage want to eliminate all forms of birth control.”


Nonsense. There are a small percentage of people who feel that way. Most just object to being forced to pay for someone elses birth control. Personally I could care less whether someone obtains contraceptives. What I object to is being forced to pay for thier contraceptives.

The entire “war on women” concept, is nothing but leftist propaganda designed to pit one group against another. Demonization, and envy used to destroy a political foe.

Posted by: dbs at April 14, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #341633

dbs The coverage you just described is the very option you have with the new health care law. And as far as being forced to pay for something you do not personally want we all do that everyday why should I pay for roads I do not drive on or military I fell is unnecessary ?

Posted by: Jeff at April 14, 2012 12:52 PM
Comment #341634

Jeff


“And as far as being forced to pay for something you do not personally want we all do that everyday why should I pay for roads I do not drive on or military I fell is unnecessary ?”

Roads are infrastructure. Without them the things you use daily could not be transported to the stores where you buy them. They are used for commerce. In a sense you do use them. If you ride the bus you use them. If you ride a bike, you use them. As for the military, if we didn’t have one you’de find out just how necessary they are.


“The coverage you just described is the very option you have with the new health care law.”

Show me where in the new law it says I can purchase a policy that just covers emergencies. To the best of my knowlege gov’t mandates of minimum coverage have eliminated those policies from the marketplace.

Posted by: dbs at April 14, 2012 1:18 PM
Comment #341635
I am simply spanking you all with the same methods you use. The fact that it make you all apoplectic might lead you to conclude that you should stop doing it. Probably not.

No your not C&J. Comparing the Blunt bill and other attacks to the number of lost jobs is not using the same methods. It is making a weak case out of nonsense to use as propaganda against the repub war on women. Apples and Oranges.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2012 3:04 PM
Comment #341636

j2t2

The Democrat idea of a War on Women is based on similar innuendo and non sequitur.

Both men and women lost jobs under Obama. Women lost more. The math tells us that 92% of the jobs lost since Obama took office were women’s jobs. We both know that this is an artifact of the statistics, but it is true.

Up in the comments, we heard that opposition to ObamaCare is part of the War on Women. Why? Because according to somebody’s figuring, women are harmed more. This is a similar case of something perhaps being statistically true, but not substantially true.

If you all can use such silliness, so can I. I suppose the difference is that I understand enough about the statistics to know it is silly, while many on your side remain blissfully ignorant of their own misuse of the numbers. But I cannot let ignorance of the other side allow them to use foolish arguments while denying ourselves the antidote.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 3:44 PM
Comment #341637

jlw:

Is it true that every Republican is opposed to equalizing pay for women? This is another conservative, it’s not that we anything against women, just equal pay for them.

Yes, this is another area of the GOP’s War On Women. They don’t care that women still only make 76 cents to every male dollar — a loss of $650,000 in earnings over the course of our working lives.

Jack:

I support fair pay for everybody.

No you don’t. That’s why you’re always writing articles trying to point up differences between women and men — with women always on the losing side. This is the Republican stance because you prefer the way things used to be decades ago — when men were kings, and you could show women as much disrespect as you wanted to, and there weren’t very many of us in the workplace. It’s all too obvious. In your sentence above you must twist the words from equal pay to “fair pay” because you know the GOP DOES NOT believe in paying women EQUALLY TO MEN. The vast majority of Republican men never have, and they never will women as their equals.

We when you equal pay for women, what you mean is government setting pay for people in the private sector. Republican indeed do generally oppose bureaucrats and politicians telling businesses large and small how much they have to pay each of their employees. But don[t get this mixed up with equal pay.

Bullsh*t. Equal Pay means Equal Pay for the same work. For All Women, Everywhere in America.

In you last statement, you believe that only stupid women would support the GOP? This is a stupid statement. My wife and daughter are GOP supporters and they are certainly more intelligent than …

All Women who support the GOP ARE either incredibly stupid, OR they are wealthy enough not to mind the GOP’s War on Women because they can afford to pay more than men do for health insurance. And, don’t have a problem with men telling them they must pay out of pocket for contraception as well (while these men are getting free viagra on their health insurance plans), or don’t mind being denied contraception and abortions entirely because men have decided that these things are “immoral” and therefore women can’t have them, (even if or when these women would be willing to pay for them and can afford to do so). These men even consider it a “moral quandary” to provide morning-after birth-control pills to female victims of rape.

Indeed, the GOP headed up by Darrel Issa, recently formed an all male panel on birth control and claimed to be addressing the issue on behalf of “religious freedom” rather than as a universal right concerning women’s health.

Republican women have to decide if all this is acceptable to them, or not.

In addition, women who support the GOP must decide if they are actually willing to stand in support of many other things, too:

Paul Ryan’s budget (Mitt Romney fully supports it) — which for women will cut:

1. Nutrition programs for pregnant women.
2. Medicaid for poor women and children.
3. Food stamps for the poor (most food stamp recipients are women and children)
4. Planned Parenthood which provides breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings and reproductive healthcare for low-income and middle class women. In fact women who support the GOP have to be aware that Romney’s stance on Planned Parenthood is: “We’ll Get Rid Of It.”

GOP women automatically supporting the War On Women in many other ways too:

5. Romney and the Republicans oppose the entire Affordable Care Act (especially the provision that gives free contraceptive care to women).
6. Romney supported and Republicans voted for the Blunt amendment that would have given unprecedented license to any employer or insurance plan (religious or non religious) to exclude any health based on “moral convictions” because it included contraception coverage.
7. Republican statehouses across the country have, or are attempting to pass laws restricting abortions and cutting funding for basic healthcare services to women — whether through Planned Parenthood or similar organizations.
8. In Arizona they have now banned abortions after 18 weeks and have actually declared that a woman could be pregnant 2 weeks BEFORE they’ve even had sex.
9. In Texas, as mandated by law, a woman seeking an abortion must submit to an unnecessary vaginal insertion (state rape) of an ultrasound probe to monitor audio of the fetal heartbeat. The woman is then forced to listen while a doctor graphically details the fetus, and the woman is then told to leave and come back in 24 hours before she can undergo the procedure. Virginia was to follow with the same law, but the public outcry ended their ability to pass the unnecessary ultrasound state rape but they retained the 24 hour waiting period. The Texas law is what the GOP intends to pass in every state in this nation, and it is wholesale harassment of women on behalf of religious fanaticism.
10. Republicans are demanding that people collecting unemployment benefits and public assistance should all be subjected to drug testing (even though this would cost a fortune to do) and now an Idaho Republican has come out demanding that women who collect child support be drug tested every six months as well. Again, this is harassment — this time directed specifically at poor women and mothers who are responsible for raising children without the father present.
11. In addition to their wish to deny women access to health care, and prenatal health care and nutritional programs during pregnancy, and birth control, and abortion, and all forms of public assistance, and Medicaid for women and children, the GOP has blocked American women (unlike governments in 177 other countries around the world) a guarantee of paid maternity leave for themselves and their newborn children.

So yeah, women supporting the GOP are either Incredibly Stupid or they’ve got to be Very Rich — take your pick.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 3:46 PM
Comment #341638

Adrienne

“Bullsh*t. Equal Pay means Equal Pay for the same work. For All Women, Everywhere in America.”

If you find individual cases of women not getting equal pay for equal work, those are actionable under current law.

As I mentioned in the other post, educated women 22-30 are making 8% more than men in most urban areas. I assume that is because they have greater educational achievements or maybe they just work harder. Do you think we should investigate this problem and take steps to change it?

“All Women who support the GOP ARE either incredibly stupid, OR they are wealthy enough not to mind the GOP’s War on Women because they can afford to pay more than men do for health insurance.”

This is very insulting. My wife and daughter are much smarter than most others. My daughter scored in the 99th percentile on her standardized tests. How did you do?

She also did very well in math and statistics, which is probably why she understands better than you do. She is not rich and neither are we, BTW. Just smarter.

BTW - our insurance has two levels - single and family. We pay family, it doesn’t make any distinctions among men or women, just family or not. Most insurance plans are like this. I don’t know if the plan pays for Viagra or contraception. We currently use neither. It doesn’t pay for dental, which costs us a fortune. One root canal cost as much as several years of birth control and if you have ever had such a toothache you know that this is not optional.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 4:11 PM
Comment #341640
Both men and women lost jobs under Obama. Women lost more. The math tells us that 92% of the jobs lost since Obama took office were women’s jobs. We both know that this is an artifact of the statistics, but it is true.

But this is irrelevant to the charge that Obama is attacking women C&J. In fact it is pretty obvious it is irrelevant to any one that can think. It is a red herring fallacy. It makes no sense. It serves to distract from the real bills and attempted bills passed or put forth by repubs that are attacks on certain women in our society. It is easy to claim the repubs are not at war with a segment of the female population but it is much harder to prove it hence this type of red herring.

Up in the comments, we heard that opposition to ObamaCare is part of the War on Women. Why? Because according to somebody’s figuring, women are harmed more. This is a similar case of something perhaps being statistically true, but not substantially true.

But the Catholic church recently took exception to part of ACA because of mandatory birth control coverage. It is a bad example C&J and not worthy of comparison to the job loss issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2012 5:13 PM
Comment #341641

j2t2

You are probably right that the Obama government attacks on freedom of conscience are not comparable to what we hope is a temporary job loss under Obama.

Of course, the job loss and the attack on freedom of conscience both happened under Obama.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 5:21 PM
Comment #341643

adrienne

Please name some specific instances where women are not being paid the same wage for the same job. I’ve been blue collar all my life, and can assure you that if a job pays $15 an hour or $25 an hour, that’s what it pays regardless of sex.

This fabricated GOP “war on women” is just that, a complete fabrication. What do you do for work, and where do you have actual first hand experience with this so called discrimination? Divide and conquer is a typical tactic of marxist revolutionaries.

Posted by: dbs at April 14, 2012 5:53 PM
Comment #341644

adrienne

“Republicans are demanding that people collecting unemployment benefits and public assistance should all be subjected to drug testing (even though this would cost a fortune to do)”

I have to submit to random drug testing for the industry I’m in, and I’ve had to pay for it myself when I was self employed. Sorry, but it’s cheap. As far as I’m concerned if it’s ok for me to be forced to do this there is nothing unreasonable about requiring it for those living off the back of the tax payer. If you don’t want to do it, don’t take the money.

Posted by: dbs at April 14, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #341646
Your comment about the Republicans and Democrats is your opinion, not supported by facts.
My comment is supported by all the FACTS. Republicans have a long history of really sucking when it comes to running the country and dealing with the economy.

This guy lays it all out very well.

The person who wrote that didn’t mention it, but the same thing is true when we look at who has run up the nations debt.

Here’s the numbers from straight from the US Treasury Dept.:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Starting in 1994, after Reagan and Bush Sr. left office the debt load in America was $4.65 trillion
By 2000 when Clinton left office the debt was $5.66 trillion. So $1.01 trillion in debt is what Clinton left behind.
By 2009 it was $11.90 trillion when George (Tax Cuts for the Wealthy) Bush and Dick (“Deficits Don’t Matter”) Cheney left office — which amounts to $6.24 trillion of debt incurred by Bush/Cheney. As we all know, they chopped a lot of the nations revenue with the Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and Corporations, that they started Two Unfunded Wars, and that they Spent like Drunken Sailors. And, just before these clowns left office, our economy cratered, bringing on the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The Treasury website leaves off at 13.5, but today our debt load is approximately $14.2 trillion, — which works out to around $2.3 (and counting) trillion for Obama.

So, by adding together $4.65 trillion in debt from Reagan and Bush Sr. and then $6.24 trillion for Bush/Cheney we have a total of $10.89 trillion worth of debt that has been incurred by Republicans over the past 20 years.

Adding together $1.01 trillion of debt from Clinton, and the $2.3 (and counting) trillion of debt incurred by Obama gives us $3.31(and counting) trillion of debt incurred by Democrats during those same years.

The GOP, despite all of their constantly repeated claims of “fiscal responsibility” is simply terrible when they try to run our economy, and it is they who have actually been responsible for running up over two-thirds of this nation’s debt — yet are forever trying to blame it on Democrats.

These are the FACTS, not opinions.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 7:25 PM
Comment #341647

Adrienne

You really don’t know the difference between evidence and opinion. Do you really believe you can link a polemic from Daily Kos and get any respect from reasonable people?

You also don’t really get the idea of lag time and trends, do you. You really believe economic activity is turned on and off in January when a new president comes in and that you can make such simple minded charts.

You know that is exactly what I did to you with the war on women showing that Obama has caused the loss of jobs, 92% women. Do you accept that? Then why do you think it applies elsewhere.

We wonder if four years of Obama will leave unemployment higher than when he came in or lower.

I have said many times that Clinton, along with a Republican Congress, did a good job. They shrunk government. Bush with first a Republican and then a Democratic Congress grew government and debt. I have said that was bad.

So if we agree that Bush did wrong by growing the government and the debt, we should be unhappy that Obama has continued and accelerated the trend.

Can we agree that we should return to the adjusted spending levels of 1999 (when things were good) and tax high enough to support that level of spending plus a pay down of the debt, but no more?

BTW - glad you gave up insulting my wife and daughter. You were really annoying me and I would have had to let you have it and it would have been unpleasant for both of us. We will call a truce on the silly idea that GOP women must be stupid or very rich.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #341648
This is very insulting.

That is exactly what all smart women say whenever they look at what the GOP is doing by waging their War on Women.

My wife and daughter are much smarter than most others.

That’s great. In that case they probably step into the voting booth and vote for Democrats, yet don’t tell you about it afterward.

My daughter scored in the 99th percentile on her standardized tests. How did you do?

Well enough to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

She also did very well in math and statistics, which is probably why she understands better than you do. She is not rich and neither are we, BTW. Just smarter.

No, you have to be pretty well off, and not thinking too clearly — otherwise you’d be all for either Universal Health Care, (which is the smartest solution), or at the very least for the Affordable Care Act. Because they’re solutions to the incredibly high and ever growing costs of health care in America, whereas the Republicans don’t have any ideas in that regard.
Also, I have to question how smart people are when it comes to the fact that they support a party who definitely wants to restrict access to birth control for women when the impacts of doing so are guaranteed to be absolutely horrible for the American people and for our economy.

BTW - our insurance has two levels - single and family. We pay family, it doesn’t make any distinctions among men or women, just family or not.

Maybe you’re simply lucky then, because the studies have shown that women are being charged more than men are in 90% of the best selling health insurance plans in this nation.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 8:07 PM
Comment #341649
Do you really believe you can link a polemic from Daily Kos and get any respect from reasonable people?

He laid out the facts there — and he used the correct figures. He did so in a reasonable and well thought out way. If you disagree with what he was saying in that link, you can refute what he said. Go ahead — I’ll wait.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 8:18 PM
Comment #341651

Adrienne

Chrissy gives me a hard time for being too liberal. I cut President Obama a lot more slack than she thinks he deserves. The same goes for my sister, BTW. I am the family liberal.

Re my daughter and you - that would not be 99th percentile then. I only scored in the 95th percentile on my GMAT. Maybe you got me beat, although clearly not in statistics. I didn’t study for the test as they do today, so I bet I could do better with the training.

Re being rich - We make good money today mostly because Chrissy works and gets paid well. She didn’t seem to have suffered too much from this woman thing you talk about, but she/we do suffer mightily from the “marriage penalty” which is a kind of war on marriages. My daughter doesn’t make much. You probably make more. She chose to take a lower paying job so that she could pursue her hobbies. She teaches belly dancing, which pays not too well.

Re the Kos link - I explained that it was simple minded. Any and all charts that use the day presidents take office to make economic comparisons are simple minded. If you accept that kind of data, you will have to count Obama a failure, since unemployment will be worse at the end of his term than it was at the start and the budget deficit will be much bigger. If you don’t believe this, then you understand that the Kos statistics are rubbish, even if you don’t admit it.

Re insurance - most employer provided insurance has similar levels. In fact, if they have a family option there would be no way to made a gender distinction, since most families would have people of both genders.

On the market, women paid more than men for some forms of health insurance, but less for life insurance. In both cases, it was based on actuarial tables, but I don’t expect that you believe in actuary tables.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 8:36 PM
Comment #341652
Re the Kos link - I explained that it was simple minded. Any and all charts that use the day presidents take office to make economic comparisons are simple minded.

But, he didn’t just do that — He gave a lot of information there. I think you know this, too. You just can’t refute what he said, so you’ve decided to call it simple minded and smear it only because it was posted in Kos.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 8:43 PM
Comment #341654

Adrienne

All his information is based on the fallacious idea that you can simply divide history into four year chunks. There are lots of numbers but they all sit on this foundation.

If an argument is based on false premises it doesn’t matter what comes after. If it is correct, it is based only on random chance. This is a simple (not simplistic) principle.

Beyond that, the fool’s use of the word “communist” to describe Truman (who is widely admired in conservative circles for his strong stance against communism) and others is hyperbole. It is not meant to inform, but rather to whip up the pinheads whose ignorance of history he can count on.

I know you understand that we fought a really big war 1941-5 that left much of the world in ruins. In 1945 the U.S. accounted for a full half of total world GDP. For the next generation, we had massive world rebuilding. This postwar system worked until the late 1960s, when we had a breakdown of the Bretton Woods system. In the early 1970s, the price of oil went up by 4x in one year, ending a generation of cheap energy. In the 1970s we also had what appeared to be a Soviet expansion, but then in 1989, the wall came down and Soviet power collapsed. Suddenly we were faced with an unexpected “safe” time. It didn’t last. on 9/11/2001 we were faced with the largest attack (in terms of death) ever on American soil. We reacted. All this time, we have been experiencing great changes in the world economy, with the unprecedented rise of China, as well as other developing countries. And this just scratches the surface.

Yet your daily Kos dummy thinks all that matters is domestic policy in four year chunks, that switches like clockwork on the day a new president takes office. Now with all this in mind, you really don’t understand why I called this clown simplistic?

I am getting a little sick of batting down these half educated fools. They really are not worthy of the effort. It would take years to educate them and then it probably would not take.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #341657

Oh what a big pile of nonsense, Jack. But thanks for playing!

PS. to dbs, I’m completely done trying to argue with people who call progressives “marxist revolutionaries.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 9:15 PM
Comment #341659

Adrienne

You really don’t understand history or are you just sticking with your side on politics?

I used to think you were just being political, but maybe not if you think that three generations of history is nonsense.

So I cannot use statistics, which you won’t believe or understand, to make points. I cannot use the experience of history, which you consider non-sense. You didn’t believe things I told you that I saw with my own eyes in Iraq. My attempts to point to science have no effect and you are immune to the usual rules of logic. How do you come up with ideas? Is it really all just how you feel about it?

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 9:32 PM
Comment #341662

You’re questioning MY ability to be logical?
You support a party run by multi-millionaires who only rip off the American people while endlessly promoting tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and a “trickle-down theory” of economics that has been utterly and thoroughly discredited as complete nonsense — as it continues to make rich people ever richer, middle class people poor, and poor people destitute and homeless. You support a party whose “religion” stands against affordable health care, against birth control, against abortions (except for Karen Santorum), against public assistance for women and children, and against equal pay for women.

But my logic is flawed. It is to laugh.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2012 9:56 PM
Comment #341665

Adrienne

I present simple logic in sentences that you use. I present you logical contradictions in the sources you mention.

You want to go with the general proposition that all GOP women are stupid or rich or question how anybody can support conservative politics. This is okay. But I easily knock down your logic in supporting most of your ideas.

In the course of our discussions, you have abandoned logic, often calling it names, given up statistics (even ones you have provided) called history nonsense and ignored experience.

You hold as an article of faith that conservatism is wrong. It seems to be a type of religion for you. But it clearly is not based on logic, statistics, history or experience, since you have rejected such things.

Posted by: C&J at April 14, 2012 10:09 PM
Comment #341669

Adrienne, I will apologize for the chuckles I’ve enjoyed at your expense, but on the other hand, the sparring between you and jack has been memorable. I’m sure that you have figured out long before now, that one doesn’t win with jack, you just give up in frustration…… or you end up losing control and letting loose with what you really think……LOL
Hang in there…!

Posted by: jane doe at April 15, 2012 12:45 AM
Comment #341670

jane

Believe me when I tell you that the frustration is not only on your side. I have come to understand that I have to explain thing many times and not let loose with what I really think.

I think of it as my duty to bring light into the benighted precincts of the left.

In fairness to you all, I think that we come at things from different directions. I really don’t care about equality of results. In fact, I think it would be a bad thing. I accept and celebrate both equal opportunity and unequal outcomes. You guys seem to value equality in general. If you start from these different direction, you come up with different conclusions.

I also have a lot of practical experience with trying to work with diversity of people and resources. This experience colors my responses. I have seen small differences in behaviors result in really big differences in results. I don’t think most people understand this mechanism and so believe there is something hidden going on.

The world is actually much more transparent than most people think, but it is also more complicated. I don’t think you guys take that into account. You are much more likely to look for particular agency or people doing things that cause trouble or benefits. I understand that we are looking at complex systems, where people cannot understand the full consequences of their actions. This is why I have less confidence in government planning. It is impossible for anybody to aggregate enough information to make decisions that are both detailed and good on a large scale.

I understand that you are Adrienne will just say that this is bullsh*t and there is probably nothing I can do to explain it to you. But it is good practice for me to try.

Posted by: C&J at April 15, 2012 7:49 AM
Comment #341671

adrienne

“PS. to dbs, I’m completely done trying to argue with people who call progressives “marxist revolutionaries.””

What I said was that the tactic of pitting one group against another such as with class warfare was a common tactic of marxists revolutionaries. Funny how you choose to use that as a reason to avoid my questions, or the fact that this so called inequality in pay for women is mostly made up by the left to divide one group from another. like the demonization of the rich, it is the old divide and conquer tactic.

The fact you look to be offended as a way to avoid a real conversation is interesting. The fact that you use the same offensive tactics that you claim to hate so much when describing conservatives is even more interesting.

Posted by: dbs at April 15, 2012 8:55 AM
Comment #341673

jane I have to disagree with you. When Adrienne makes a valid point she does in fact “win”. Because C&J refuses to acknowledge the point doesn’t make them a “winner” nor Adrienne a “loser”. In fact when someone has to use evasive means and methods to continue to work around the discussion by default they lose points,IMHO. We all do it from time to time, C&J just seems to have an exclusive on these manipulations because they make use of these manipulations so often. Those reading these manipulations of the language often see through them and realize the reasons for them and… well it is just so Orwellian isn’t it.


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Posted by: j2t2 at April 15, 2012 9:36 AM
Comment #341715

dbs,

Show me where in the new law it says I can purchase a policy that just covers emergencies. To the best of my knowlege gov’t mandates of minimum coverage have eliminated those policies from the marketplace.

There is a way to have health insurance just for emergencies. Just don’t buy insurance and pay the modest penalty/fine instead. When you do get sick you can buy insurance if you want, and you won’t be discriminated against for having a preexisting condition.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 15, 2012 1:04 PM
Comment #341716


Dbs, divisions and clashes of class were occuring long before Marx was born. Christianity has been active in class causes as well. The Progressive Era was primarily a Christian driven response to the excesses of wealth.

I love the way C&J goes on about equality of results as if there was at least one person in the world who actually believed and promoted it.

His historical analysis is given from primarily a foreign policy perspective and doesn’t account for the many domestic improvements brought on by the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, the Womens Movement, the Environmental Movement, etc., not one of which advocates equality of results. These ideas are now free flowing around the world.

You would be hard pressed to find a greater advocate of Darwin than C&J.

Adrienne, treat C&J’s refusal to respond as a concession to the point of fact. If he can’t refute it he will ignore it.

Posted by: jlw at April 15, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #341717

Poor Obama; every time he tries to create class warfare, it backfires on him. The latest is the Hillary Rosen affair: She was sent out as an Obama operative to attack Ann Romney and public sentiment is against the move. At first Jay Carney denies her existence, then after finding out she was a WH visitor 35 times and visited the POTUS at least 6 times, then out comes the administration trying smooth things out by asking Rosen to apologize. At first she refused and then she relented by giving a half-assed apology; to which Michelle my Belle says, “stay at home mothers work too”; to which the WH throws Rosen under the bus.

Round two: Bill Maher shows his true hateful colors by continuing to make this a story that will never go away:

“Bill Maher, the Gift that Keeps On Giving

The Obama White House desperately wants the Ann Romney fiasco to go away, and long ago tried to throw Hilary Rosen under the bus. If the administration’s allies have any sense, they will pretend the whole thing never happened. But who ever said Bill Maher had any sense? Afflicted by a sort of left-wing Tourette’s Syndrome, he can’t help himself. So, thanks, Bill, for helping to keep Obama’s self-inflicted wound bleeding:”

“But what [Hilary Rosen] meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work.”… Bill Maher

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/04/14/bill_maher_ann_romney_has_never_gotten_her_a_out_of_the_house_to_work

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/bill-maher-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving.php

Which adds weight to the comments by Adrienne and others on WB that can’t help themselves. Their hatred toward conservative women outweighs their sense of self preservation.

Listen people, your messiah wants this to just all go away and you guys on the left won’t let it.

Repeat after me, “stay at home mothers are workers too”.

I was watching a news show last night and a liberal woman was asked about Rosen’s remarks and she imediatly condemned them….BUT…..and that is a BIG BUTT…..she could also understand what Rone was trying to say. Serious, this is what she said… Which leads me to, if you condemn what she says and then you agree with what she said…where do you stand? Why, you stand with the original goal of Obama to attack married stay at home mothers.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 15, 2012 2:13 PM
Comment #341718

Since the left believes all conservative republicans come from the same mold, and are all subject to the same Rush Limbaugh comments; then we must conclude that ALL liberals are of the same mindset as Bill Maher and Hillary Rosen. I believe in the future I will assume all liberal democrats are of the same mentality as the most evil, hateful, leftwing ideology.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 15, 2012 2:23 PM
Comment #341719


The World Of Equal Opportunity:

“His pedigree, elite schooling, easy confidence and connections left those who knew him in no doubt he would pursue a business career and amass a fortune.”

Sounds like this could be Romney, but it is Bo Guagua, a member of the Chinese Communist Party royalty.

Reuters: After Harvard, future is uncertain for Bo’s son.

Posted by: jlw at April 15, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #341722

Warped

“Just don’t buy insurance and pay the modest penalty/fine instead. When you do get sick you can buy insurance if you want, and you won’t be discriminated against for having a preexisting condition.”

Without the gov’t involved this wouldn’t be necessary, and makes little sense. Allowing people to purchase the level of insurance they want and need would greatly reduce the cost. Why should a single young male be forced to purchase a policy that covers gynecological exams?


You used to be able to actually buy cheap insurance that covered only catastrophic illness, and hospitalization. I know I had one those policies when I was @ 19, or 20.

Posted by: dbs at April 15, 2012 2:55 PM
Comment #341723

jlw

I couldn’t respond because the site went down. However, I have cast enough pearls in this particular debate. You guys don’t accept statistics, history, logic or analogy. Since I don’t share your liberal faith, it is hard to continue with this.

Re New Deal etc.

I wrote and tried to explain nuance. I think many of the things of the New Deal were good and useful for the time they were enacted. What I think happened is that we overreached in the 1960s and 1970s. That is when liberalism went off the tracks. I wrote a whole post about that.

Re equality of results - that is what affirmative action became in the 1970s, as I also explained.

I am in favor of extending opportunity, but I don’t expect it will produce the same results as long as cultures and behaviors are different. If you agree, we have no troubles. But then quit talking about how particular groups are not doing as well as others as though it is obvious that they should.

Posted by: C&J at April 15, 2012 3:25 PM
Comment #341778

SecretServiceGate: Jay Carney said it wouldn’t be appropriate for Obama to comment on the ongoing investigation of Secret Service Agent’s use of prostitutes in Columbia…yeah… since when was Obama concerned about ongoing investigations?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/14/carney_not_appropriate_for_obama_to_comment_on_ongoing_secret_service_investigation.html

Posted by: Frank at April 16, 2012 12:24 AM
Comment #341801

“Allowing people to purchase the level of insurance they want and need would greatly reduce the cost.”

You are correct for the young, single and healthy but not for the older, those married with families and the sick. For the later groups, it would vastly increase the cost of insurance.

Spreading the risk across age and health factors makes sense due to our inherent human nature. We will not stay young and healthy forever. We will not avoid catastrophic illness. Its just a matter of time.

This reality is actually not lost on those that have proposed “across state line” proposals. They fully recognize that it will allow insurance companies to avoid community rating requirements resulting in cheap insurance for the young and very costly insurance for the older and sicker. Consequently, every proposal for such insurance recognizes the need for state subsidized “high risk” pools to provide for those priced out of the private insurance market. Good for the insurance companies, not so good for the older, sicker and the states.

Posted by: Rich at April 16, 2012 7:36 AM
Comment #341804

BillinFlorida: “I believe in the future I will assume all liberal democrats are of the same mentality as the most evil, hateful, leftwing ideology.”

You say that as if it’s something new you’re going to try. You’re decades late to that party. There’s a reason so many Americans support and cannot live without social democratic policies but yet can’t bring themselves to claim to be a liberal.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 16, 2012 9:54 AM
Comment #341811

j2t2:

it is just so Orwellian isn’t it.

Absolutely. But: “If there is hope…it lies in the proles”
Proles on the left, who can see through all the BS! :^)

jlw:

Adrienne, treat C&J’s refusal to respond as a concession to the point of fact. If he can’t refute it he will ignore it.

I agree. Thanks.
And, here’s something else that Jack will need to ignore:

Politifact:
Mitt’s 92% again debunked — in fact, women’s job losses due to Republicans.

Quote:

Bruce Bartlett, a former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said much of the decline for women was in the public sector.

“To the extent there have been excessive job losses among women, a lot of it has to do with the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in state and local government employment,” Bartlett said. “The decline … has been especially pronounced in this recession as opposed to other recessions.”

This chart from the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-backed group, bears that out. In earlier recessions, public-sector jobs began increasing again as the economy stabilized. After the most recent recession, they have continued to disappear. Again, these are jobs heavily held by women.

Bartlett added that many of those government jobs were eliminated in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures.

This story in the Atlantic cited a study by the liberal Roosevelt Institute finding that the 11 states that went Republican in 2010 accounted for 40.5 percent of all state and local government job losses.

Adam:

There’s a reason so many Americans support and cannot live without social democratic policies but yet can’t bring themselves to claim to be a liberal.

Adam, have you heard about how some reporters overheard Mitt privately revealing part of his agenda for the country at a recent GOP fundraiser? It’s very clear that the reason he’s been so vague about his plans is because what he wants to do is designed to further hurt the already struggling poor and middle class.

From the link:

—slashing the Department of Education — one of two agencies Romney told his donors he’d like to hack away at — would mean some combination of raising the price of student loans, cutting back on scholarships or Pell grants and increasing state or local taxes.

Romney’s accidentally revealed plans remind me of what another 1% Republican once said:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 4:39 PM
Comment #341812

I would love to see the Department of Education and the EPA get axed. They are both a scourge on the country.

Posted by: TomT at April 16, 2012 5:05 PM
Comment #341813

I wonder how long it will take the women attacking machine from the left to go after the up and coming conservative star, Katie Pavlich?

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/16/katie-pavlich-exposes-fast-and-furious-barack-obamas-bloodiest-scandal-and-the-shameless-cover-up/#comments

Posted by: TomT at April 16, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #341814
Repeat after me, “stay at home mothers are workers too”.

Repeat after me: Stay at home mothers are not really “working” when in fact they have nannies, governesses, chauffeurs and cooks and maids to do everything for them. And, supervising other people as they do things for you and your family cannot honestly be considered “work,” either.

Oh, but poor, poor Ann Romney — even her own husband thinks that working outside the home is the only way for women who are mothers can have “dignity.”

Btw, interesting fact: If Ann Romney does become the FLOTUS, she’ll the very first who was born during the 20th century who has never held down a job in her life.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
Comment #341815

I love the little snippets of information the left puts out. This was part of Adam Ducker’s article entitled “Game Off” and it was posted just 6 days ago. Every lefty on WB argued that Romney was done and Obama was for sure going to win because it was in the polls. I personally argued that Obama was running against at least 3 Republicans and I also said that if it is between Obama and Romney, the numbers would be different. This is just one comment by AD:

“BillinFlorida: “I do not belive any of the numbers, and I certainly don’t believe Romney is in trouble with women.”

What about a Fox poll? Would you believe that? This recent Fox Poll asks “19. If the presidential election were held today how would you vote …”

Just 49% said Obama, but 37% said Romney. A 12 point gap like that will doom Romney. The gender gap is real no matter how many polls you ignore.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 10, 2012 8:23 PM

Guess what Adam Ducker, the numbers are changing; here is the latest from Gallup:

“April 16, 2012
Romney, Obama in Tight Race as Gallup Daily Tracking Begins
Romney voters slightly more certain they will vote
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ — Mitt Romney is supported by 47% of national registered voters and Barack Obama by 45% in the inaugural Gallup Daily tracking results from April 11-15.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/Romney-Obama-Tight-Race-Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Begins.aspx

This puts Obama down 5 points and Romney up 10 points in the past 6 days. Is this an example of things to come???

I figure the latest claims, by socialist liberals on WB, of more women polling for Obama will also go down the tubes. But I will be here to remind the socialists of their errors.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 16, 2012 5:46 PM
Comment #341816

Spilled Details Reveal Romney’s Tax Promises As A Mirage

This puts Obama down 5 points and Romney up 10 points in the past 6 days. Is this an example of things to come???

Or is this???

CNN Poll: Obama Leads Romney By 9

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #341817
more women polling for Obama will also go down the tubes.

Or increase as the case may be.
From my link above:

Obama lea[d]s among independent voters by 5 points, and is the beneficiary of a large gender gap, besting Romney among women by 16 points.
“By a two-to-one margin, the women surveyed saw President Obama as more in touch with the problems facing American women today.”
Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #341818

billinflorida,
Well, good luck with that. Here is the latest poll, and it’s consistent with the previous ones:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/cnn-poll-gender-gap-and-likeability-keep-obama-over-romney/?hpt=hp_t1

Romney is getting walloped, especially among women. Among the entire electorate, it’s a 9% margin; among women, 16%. Did you really think women, blacks, gays, and latinos would miraculously embrace Romney? Did you really imagine the GOP could wage a War on Women, oppose virtually every piece of legislation ever presented that might favor blacks, demand an amendment to the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, and treat latinos so badly, and somehow expect they’d vote Republican? Really?

Part of the problem is that the Romney campaign imagines Ann Romney is popular. She’s not, not in the way the GOP wants. She seems likeable as a person. She has undergone some big health challenges, which elicits sympathy from most of us. But she was born wealthy, married wealthy, bore children at a young age, and never worked a job for a day in her life. That’s not a recipe for popularity among women. Especially when her husband participates in a War on Women, as Romney’s senior advisor repeated this Sunday, assuring everyone Romney would do away with Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: phx8 at April 16, 2012 6:04 PM
Comment #341820

Adrienne; when the name Hillary Rosen was first mentioned, many liberals on WB said they had never even heard of her. Even the WH tried to deny her and make fun of the issue. As stated earlier, the WH would like this to all go away; but the left being who they are, cannot let it rest. Hillary Rosen gave a half assed apology, but continued to attack Ann Romney on Twitter. The left are who they are; it’s for this reason Bill Maher and even you cannot let the attacks rest. Just keep it up; I love it. A non-story has become a major political issue for Obama and you idiots on the left won’t back down on your attacks. It’s amazing that you have no problem with stay at home black women who have a house full of kids, no husband, and drawing a welfare check; but you really have a problem with white, conservative women who choose to stay at home and raise their kids. You love to link to the liberal blog sites as evidence; but let me link you to an article showing what is really at stake for Obama:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/vicious_shot_hits_all_moms_where_hnchEpB2URFyPMWb6RcHGK

By the way Adrienne, you defend the comments of Hillary Rosen attacking the Romney’s for being rich; perhaps you don’t know about the elite life of riches in which Hillary Rosen grew up.


Re/Adrienne’s and phx’s CNN poll; So who should we believe, Gallup (reputable and non-partisan) or CNN (supporter of Obama)? The poll sounds fishy to me; Obama can’t get approval numbers above 45% and yet CNN gives him 52% over Romney. You guys are gullable. Between quoting socialist polls and linking to left wing blog sites, you are losing all credibility.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 16, 2012 6:23 PM
Comment #341822
Between quoting socialist polls and linking to left wing blog sites, you are losing all credibility.

What an hilarious and idiotic thing to say! You’re in the BLUE COLUMN! For this reason, it is YOU who has no credibility! But hey, here’s an idea: WB has a Red Column. Problem solved! Hahahaha!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 6:53 PM
Comment #341824

GOP has just struck down the Buffet Rule.
They prefer tax rates where 1%er’s like Mitt Romney only pay 13.9 percent.

And yet, I think Joshua Green might be right when he says:
Striking Down the Buffett Rule Will Make It More Powerful

The GOP simply couldn’t be making it more clear to the people of this nation which side of the class war they come down on — and it obviously didn’t even matter to them that a large majority of Americans have been supporting the passage of this legislation.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 8:05 PM
Comment #341826

“Between quoting socialist polls and linking to left wing blog sites, you are losing all credibility.

What an hilarious and idiotic thing to say! You’re in the BLUE COLUMN! For this reason, it is YOU who has no credibility! But hey, here’s an idea: WB has a Red Column. Problem solved! Hahahaha!”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 6:53 PM

Adrienne, so I have to accept your proof of arguments from left wing blog sites simply because I’m in the blue column. And since you have told me, my place is the red column, does that mean you will stay in the blue column and not comment in the red? And does that also mean you will accept our facts as proof in the red column? For some reason, I believe you are full of it.

Re/the Buffet Rule; technically it failed the cloture vote to move it to debate and final vote. So the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 never really came up for a vote.

Here is a link that will allow you to better understand a cloture vote. Because the next thigyou are going to say is that a filibuster is unconstitutional:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

This was written by Robert Byrd “D” of WV.


In any case it was nothing more than a political move and the American people are pretty stupid to not be able to see through it; plus the fact, it would do nothing for the economy. Simply more class warfare.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 16, 2012 9:09 PM
Comment #341833
Adrienne, so I have to accept your proof of arguments from left wing blog sites simply because I’m in the blue column.

Don’t mistake me for someone who cares what YOU think is acceptable, Bif, because I don’t.

Simply more class warfare.

Yes, striking down the Buffet Rule IS class warfare. Once again it is the GOP waging war on the American people on behalf of the 1%. And don’t think middle class people who are paying a higher rate in taxes aren’t noticing this, because they definitely are.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 9:37 PM
Comment #341838

Adrienne

I do intend to ignore future posts on this because you just cannot understand what you read and don’t seem to have a clue about statistics.


As I mentioned in the first post, the numbers were technically true but unfair. This is because they chose a particular time period. I then explained that many of your arguments were based on similar fallacies.

So you link to an article that says that the numbers are accurate but unfair because of the chosen time period.

You are arguing with yourself and still losing.

Please stop linking and try thinking.

Posted by: C&J at April 16, 2012 10:02 PM
Comment #341840

phx8:

Did you really think women, blacks, gays, and latinos would miraculously embrace Romney? Did you really imagine the GOP could wage a War on Women, oppose virtually every piece of legislation ever presented that might favor blacks, demand an amendment to the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, and treat latinos so badly, and somehow expect they’d vote Republican? Really?

Breaking News on the GOP Anti-Gay Front:
Mitt Romney Secretly Gave Race-Wedging NOM $10,000 In 2008

This could lead to some trouble for Romney because of the disclosure laws we have in California, and this hefty donation came just before Prop 8 (or as we call it here in Cali, Prop HATE) was voted on.
Now wondering if this revelation will anger and alienate a large number of the Log Cabin Republicans, the way it surely will amongst all the other Gay folks…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 10:05 PM
Comment #341841

Yes Jack,
Just ignore whatever I put up — it’ll simply be easier since you can’t refute what I’ve said here. I understand how people on the right are always more interested in perceptions rather than realities, and how so many of you resort to rhetorical manipulations, followed by snotty, petulant remarks every time one of us confronts you with the hard facts.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 10:20 PM
Comment #341845

Adrienne

I can easily refute it, but you cannot understand it. Sorry. Can you understand that I wrote the the numbers were technically accurate but unfair. You countered with a site that told me that the numbers were accurate but unfair? Maybe you can understand that is a confirmation, not a refutation.

This is the hard fact. I don’t really try to make fun of you, but the facts tend to cause that to happen.

Posted by: C&J at April 16, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #341859
I can easily refute it

No, you simply can’t refute what was in the Kos link I put up earlier, because those are the facts. Democrats always do far better managing the economy than the GOP does. Period.

Moreover, there’s actually a reason for this. The reason we always see recessions come on when the GOP takes the reins of power is because Repubicans LIKE creating economic hard times, and aren’t at all interested in creating prosperity for the majority of Americans. All their economic policies are geared specifically toward only benefiting and furthering the interests of the wealthy 1%. That means engineering recessions and stagnancy and slow growth; and that is exactly what the GOP always delivers to this nation. Recessions are how rich people become even richer, but it always comes at the suffering and expense of the vast majority. Whenever we have deflation the wealth of the 1% becomes worth far more and they incur less risk, too. And, the easiest way to ensure that there will be deflation is to create a crisis in the job market — so that’s what we always get. Plutocrats have no conscience about this, and they honestly do not care that this forces so many Americans into crappy, low wage slavery and widespread misery.

Can you understand that I wrote the the numbers were technically accurate but unfair.

Unfair is far too kind a word. Politifact rated Romney’s claims: ‘Mostly False’ — and that is what they are. They are also a baseless smear, since it was Republican policies that have caused so many people to lose their jobs.

I don’t really try to make fun of you, but the facts tend to cause that to happen.

Transparent BS.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2012 11:46 PM
Comment #341879

Adrienne

Let’s use simple logic of your own statements.

You agree that the 92% of job loss by women since Obama took office is unfair. Why? Because we cannot simply start counting the day Obama took office. The same goes for the economy in general. Obama “inherited” a problem.

This must mean that you understand at least on some level the economy does not break neatly into four year chunks. You understand that even if there is a net loss of jobs during the Obama time, it is not all his fault. With me so far.

The Kos piece seeks to divide economies into neat four year chunks, w/o taking into account major world events.

Perhaps you have heard the saying “Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” If you appreciate the irony of this statement, you can probably understand the irony of not taking into account big changes such as wars, changes in energy markets, rise of new powers, decline of others etc, when figuring changes in U.S. economy.

So if you reject the idea that Obama is entirely or mostly responsible for the last 3 1/2 years results, i.e. higher unemployment, continued job loss, you also need to accept that many other factors influenced economies in previous times too and that breaking up into 4 year chunks makes no real sense, especially since fiscal years start in October, not in January when presidents are sworn in.

Therefore, the Kos piece being based on four year chunks and not accounting for major outside influences, is incorrect in its premises. If something is incorrect in its basic premises, it will be wrong in its conclusions, barring the operations of some random chance event.

Now, I understand that you will want to call this BS and bring in other links. But think clearly now. Are their points of logic you cannot accept in what I wrote above?

Reread your own link using your logic and not your emotions. Did your link say that the actual number was wrong? Did it go on to explain that it was wrong in actual substance because you cannot (as we said above) divide neatly into four year chunks?

Beyond this, I may have missed it, but where did the Polifact say “since it was Republican policies that have caused so many people to lose their jobs.”

So you really don’t need to believe a word I say. I ask you to believe the words YOU say. Just put them in logical order and you may understand.

… or you can just say everything is BS and talk about plutocrats.

Posted by: C&J at April 17, 2012 12:17 AM
Comment #341907
The Kos piece seeks to divide economies into neat four year chunks, w/o taking into account major world events.

Perhaps you have heard the saying “Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” If you appreciate the irony of this statement, you can probably understand the irony of not taking into account big changes such as wars, changes in energy markets, rise of new powers, decline of others etc, when figuring changes in U.S. economy.

Oh — what Heavy Irony! All along the hard times that the GOP left behind really never had anything to do with their policies, or the way in which things were being managed! It’s just that “Major World Events” always managed to conspire against them. Throughout the entire Twentieth Century and the beginning of this one the GOP were simply Incredibly Unlucky in their particular time chunks!
And, due to such colossally Terrible Luck, all the GOP was ever able to leave behind for Democrats was higher unemployment, and recession, and poor GDP growth!

Sure, and of course this also means that Democrats have just been Extraordinarily Lucky when it comes to world events and that’s how they’ve always managed to bring down employment, and end recessions, and have good GDP growth too, right? These amazing strokes of Luck had nothing much to do with policies or better management at all!

In fact, with the streaks of bad luck the GOP has been having for such a l-o-n-g time, it’s enough to make an American voter suspicious and filled with dread at the very thought of electing Republicans!

Are their points of logic you cannot accept in what I wrote above?

Yes, there are — because despite wars and many other factors (some good and some bad) Republican presidents and Democratic presidents operate very differently and have always adopted opposing policies while in power. And as the entire Twentieth Century and the beginning of the Twenty First Century has shown, Republican’s policies have only managed to work for the wealthy and have been very bad for average Americans. While the Democratic ones have been good in a very widespread and overall sense for every single economic strata of our society.

I ask you to believe the words YOU say. Just put them in logical order and you may understand.

And how about you just take your illogic and put it where the sun never shines, mmmkay?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2012 1:56 AM
Comment #341925

Adrienne

Sorry - you just don’t know the difference between sources and polemic. You want to argue points that are not in evidence. The Kos piece is … in a word stupid. He is not up to my level of education and understanding. It is the kind of thing that a sophomore would write and not get a good grade if he/she had a good professor.


I did not simply dismiss it. I showed you several times why it was bases on fallacies and misinterpretations. You cannot understand. The idea has to do with outside events AND with arbitrary time periods.

One more try. Thing just don’t change that fast. The corporate restructuring of the 1980s helped create the prosperity of the 1990s. The spending of the 1970s, helped create the stagflation of the 1970s. The much higher price of oil after 1972 helped slow the economy for ten years. The breakdown of Bretton woods had repercussions up until today. Presidential decisions make big difference, but not immediately and not always in ways they want. Beyond that, the GOP and Dems have not been consistent. Kennedy and Reagan were tax cutters. Bush and Obama have grown government. Truman was the biggest communist fighter in our history. Nixon put on price controls. Get the point?

I am not partisan. I believe in principles, which means that I think it was a good thing when Kennedy cut taxes. Doesn’t matter that he was Democratic. I admire Truman for his fight against the communists. I don’t check his party card. I think that Jimmy Carter’s deregulation of transportation was great. Don’t care that he is a Democrat. I have praised Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. I supported him when he said the ear of big government was over. You on the other hand, cannot seem to not support any Democrats or give any credit to Republicans. Your black and white world is not one I see.

You understand this time lat thing when it comes to Obama. You understand that the high unemployment that he will leave at the end of his first term is indeed not entirely his doing. You cannot seem to apply it more generally. I have no more pearls to caste.

Perhaps we can talk on other areas where we are both more prepared.

Posted by: C&J at April 17, 2012 6:34 AM
Comment #341926

BillinFlorida: “The poll sounds fishy to me; Obama can’t get approval numbers above 45% and yet CNN gives him 52% over Romney. You guys are gullible.”

How long before you throw Gallup on the trash heap for being a “socialist poll” that shows Obama with a lead again? It could happen any day. Gallup could come up with a poll showing Romney way behind against women and then what? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how much you like Gallup once it provides you bad news.

“Between quoting socialist polls and linking to left wing blog sites, you are losing all credibility.”

Says the guy quoting Powerline and Town Hall? That’s rich.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 17, 2012 9:15 AM
Comment #341928

AD, the Powerline article linked to Townhall and both presented a video of Bill Maher’s ignorant comments. Other than showing the video and commenting on Bill Maher’s ability to not let the Rosen thing go away, which Obama wants, there is nothing else stated. On the other hand, Adrienne links only to left wing blog sites to back up her outrageous statements with their facts and figures. So your claim is apples and oranges. To better understand what is going on, might I suggest you read C&J’s comment to Adrienne.

“How long before you throw Gallup on the trash heap for being a “socialist poll” that shows Obama with a lead again?”

I believe my point has always been; polls come and go, and you can’t base an argument on a single poll. That being said, I noticed you offer no explanation for the dramatic swing in polls over a 6 day period. Instead of telling me what I might believe about Gallup polls, why don’t you explain Obama’s sudden drop in the this poll. If you go to RCP polls, you will be able to see which polls are legitimate and which ones are more radical.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 17, 2012 10:04 AM
Comment #341934

Billinflorida:

“If you go to RCP polls, you will be able to see which polls are legitimate and which ones are more radical.”

Tell the truth now. Legitimate to you is simply one showing liberals losing which supports your world view. If a liberal is winning the poll is radical and socialist and a lie. You’ve shown this side of yourself over and over now.

“That being said, I noticed you offer no explanation for the dramatic swing in polls over a 6 day period.”

What explanation is needed? When have I ever said polls would not change or Obama would lead forever? I’m not sure why you get so combative about polls one day and then cite them the very next day because they finally show you something positive for Romney.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 17, 2012 1:55 PM
Comment #341935

Jack:

Sorry - you just don’t know the difference between sources and polemic.

I’m sorry too — that you simply can’t bring yourself to discuss this more honestly.

You want to argue points that are not in evidence.

And all you’ve show an ability to do is give piles of excuses for the Republican’s track record, provide no evidence whatsoever to refute what I’ve given you, display an embarrassing tendency to inflate your own supposed high intelligence, and showcase lots of your usual sneering and sarcasm.

The Kos piece is … in a word stupid.

No it isn’t. You’re just obviously unwilling to deal with the hard facts that are being laid bare there. And the reason you can’t is because then you might have to acknowledge that your party has always been run by and for the 1%. Therefore, anyone who tries to look at the Republican track record in real, solid terms must be labeled stupid — because everyone is just supposed to buy the empty propaganda about how much better the nation does under the leadership of GOP and their (criminal, bogus) trickle down economic theory where endless tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations mean prosperity and jobs for all.

The problem is, that’s not what happens under the GOP. Instead what the GOP has given this nation is the Great Depression, and the Great Recession we’re in now, and numerous other downturns. Every single one of which has benefited the wealthy and hurt average Americans.

In fact, the Republican Party won the last election by talking “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,” but when they got in, all they wanted was to extended the Bush Tax Cuts (with Obama’s cooperation for two years, unfortunately. He wanted to end those tax cuts knowing full well that the 1% would once again have incentive to create jobs). But no, the “tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-equals-job-creators” got their way — and where are those promised jobs for average Americans??? Once again they are nowhere to be found — but that doesn’t mean the GOP won’t use the fact that unemployment is still too high as a big stick to beat Obama with!

He is not up to my level of education and understanding. It is the kind of thing that a sophomore would write and not get a good grade if he/she had a good professor.

LOL! Whatever that guy’s level of education happens to be, he’s a total genius compared to you — because it’s really obvious you cannot face any of the facts about what your party has done/is doing to the middle class and the poor in America. Nor is there any justification for the insanely enormous wealth gap that grows ever larger between the rich 1% and everyone else — overwhelmingly due to the economic calculations of the Republican Party.

I did not simply dismiss it. I showed you several times why it was bases on fallacies and misinterpretations. You cannot understand.

Oh believe me, I understand perfectly what the problem is: too much truth, that hits too close to home, and exposes your party for who they really represent whenever they hold power.

The corporate restructuring of the 1980s helped create the prosperity of the 1990s.

The wealth gap has grown, the middle class has been shrinking, and wages have stagnated ever since Reagan’s Corporate Revolution. The prosperity we saw during the 90’s had a lot to do with two things in particular: the internet, and Clinton raising taxes on the wealthy.

Now, I’m done trading insults with you over this Jack — no matter what you’ll return to deliver.

However, for any folks on the left who have been reading this thread, here’s a good graph and a couple of links you might find very interesting:

Top Marginal Income, Corporate Tax Rates: 1916-2010
Personal Income, Capital Gains, Corporate Tax Rates

David Cay Johnson: 9 Things The Rich Don’t Want You To Know About Taxes

Matt Lykken:Why is the Tax on Work so Much Higher Than the Tax on Speculation?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #341938

AD, I am not combative about anything. I don’t care what poll you believe. You can quote and believe the Mickey Mouse poll from Disneyland if you want.

When I say you can see which polls are legitimate on RPC, I am referring to polls that are similar and then 1 or 2 polls that are completely out of sync. Let’s look at the most recent Obama vs. Romney polls at RPC; there is a 9 point difference between Gallup and CNN/Opinion Research.

“What explanation is needed? When have I ever said polls would not change or Obama would lead forever? I’m not sure why you get so combative about polls one day and then cite them the very next day because they finally show you something positive for Romney.”

It doesn’t matter whether you believe the polls will change or not; you as well as many other liberals live by the day to day polls. Your post on “Another Jobs Report, Another Month Without Economic Doom”,
Posted by Adam Ducker on April 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM, was based on a one month report that has changed since your post. The job creation is going down and the economy appears to be going, once again, in the wrong direction. But you based your whole post on one economic report.

I show a change in the polls, simply to prove that daily polls don’t mean a thing. Up one day and down the next; in fact, my statement in the last post was, “I believe my point has always been; polls come and go, and you can’t base an argument on a single poll.” So please tell me how you can get that I am trying to “show something positive for Romney” out of my statement?

“In fact, the Republican Party won the last election by talking “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,”

Sorry Adrienne, it was obamacare that lost the election for the Democrats in 2010. But before you start quoting all the liberal talking points about why the Dems lost, I might point you to Barney Frank’s recent comments:

“We paid a terrible price for healthcare,” the retiring Massachusetts represntative added. “I would not have pushed it as hard.”

Frank said that when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old Massachusetts Senate seat in 2010, he even suggested turning the clock back on the Democrats legislative agenda.

“I would have started with financial reform but certainly not healthcare,” he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barney-frank-obama-obamacare/2012/04/16/id/436067

What do you suppose Frank meant when he said the democrats paid a terrible price for obamacare.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 17, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #341944

adrienne

“The prosperity we saw during the 90’s had a lot to do with two things in particular: the internet, and Clinton raising taxes on the wealthy.”

It actually had more to do with a republican congress preventing him and the democrats in congress from bleeding to death the goose that layed the golden egg.

Posted by: dbs at April 17, 2012 8:11 PM
Comment #341946

What really worries me about Romney and the Republicans is their effect on the economy; in particular, their effect upon the stock market.

It’s not an idle concern. My economic well-being is tied to the performance of the markets, completely and totally dependent upon it. My situation is unusual and not something many people are likely to reproduce. It involves a large amount of insider stock, an IPO, vesting and waiting periods, margin, and AMT. You can see what I mean. This isn’t an abstract thing for me. There’s no political controversy involved; just cold hard numbers.

The negative effects conservative Republicans have had upon the markets in the past is indisputable. There’s no debate. It’s a matter of numbers.

Keep capital gains low and rates on the highest brackets low, and that will benefit me.

There’s just one thing: tank the markets with an unsound approach to economics, and it will destroy me. The low tax brackets won’t help at all.

So my question for Republicans is simple: if Romney wins, what are you going to do differently from the Bush administration? From everything I’ve heard, it sounds like the GOP plan is identical to the one from 2001 - 2009. That plan didn’t work. It’s a matter of fact, beyond dispute. So what will be different this time?

I don’t want to hear a bunch of partisan baloney about freedom or liberty or the 99% or the 1% or cutting government or whatever. I’m working on becoming part of the 1%, and I’m close. Another year or two like the previous one, and I will be there. The Obama bull market has been amazing for me. I never dreamed things would turn out this way. There are so many ironies, it’s hard to know where to start. But it is what it is. So if you win in November, you conservative Republicans, what will you do differently from the Bush years in order to maintain the healthy markets we have seen for the past three years?

Cause I have to say. When it comes to the economy, everything I have heard from Romney and Republicans scares me- threats to shut down the government, threats to not raise the debt ceiling- that’s really scary stuff.

Well?

Posted by: phx8 at April 17, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #341952

DBS states-“It actually had more to do with a republican congress preventing him and the democrats in congress from bleeding to death the goose that layed the golden egg.”

That republican congress also almost prevented Clinton and the democrats from passing the Family Medical Leave Act which helps many middle class families when a child is born or there is an emergency in the family. See how the republicans voted on that one. It isn’t pretty. The republican war on middle class families and women has a long history.

Posted by: Tom at April 17, 2012 8:44 PM
Comment #341953

“So my question for Republicans is simple: if Romney wins, what are you going to do differently from the Bush administration? From everything I’ve heard, it sounds like the GOP plan is identical to the one from 2001 - 2009. That plan didn’t work. It’s a matter of fact, beyond dispute. So what will be different this time?…

Cause I have to say. When it comes to the economy, everything I have heard from Romney and Republicans scares me- threats to shut down the government, threats to not raise the debt ceiling- that’s really scary stuff.” phx8

I don’t think I would worry, these are just the latest Obama/Democrat talking points. I have heard nothing of a government shutdown. I have also heard the left cry we were fighting two unfunded wars from 2001-2009, so we can take that ot of the equation. Obama has fixed th banking and housig market, so we can take that out too.

So you have been doing great in the market? Company stocks can increase by two means: increased production or cutting costs. Right now companies are showing an increase due to cuting costs. The problem with cuting costs is that it is only a temporary gain. Sooner or later it takes production to make money, hense stock market goes up. The increase in the stock market at this point is deceptive because it’s not do to increased production. Hense, companies holding on to their reserves.

Obama wants to increase capital gains taxes, how will that help you? Obama has no idea how business works and has done nothing to create positive growh in the market. Romney, on the other hand is well famiiar with how the market works.

Hope this has hlped you phx8.

Posted by: Steven at April 17, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #341955

“It actually had more to do with a republican congress preventing him and the democrats in congress from bleeding to death the goose that layed the golden egg.”

dbs,

Well, if that were true, then what happened when the Republicans gained control of both the executive and the legislature in the 2000s? I know, it was all Bush’s fault. He just wasn’t a true conservative.

Posted by: Rich at April 17, 2012 9:05 PM
Comment #341958

“Romney, on the other hand is well familiar with how the market works.”

Yes, he sure is:

In 1992, Mitt Romney was running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper Co. (Ampad) for $5 million.

Over the next several years Romney’s firm bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romney’s firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in “management fees.” In all, Romney and his investors reaped more than $100 million dollars from the deal.

I will agree that he knows how the market works. Firing middle class people who are trying to support their families and then hiring them back at half the wages/benefits is a classic market move. Great future for the middle class worker under a President Romney.

Posted by: Tom at April 17, 2012 9:16 PM
Comment #341959

Steven,
Thank you for a reasoned reply.

It’s true, the Iraq War has been removed from the equation (for the most part), and it is only a matter of time before Afghanistan winds down too. So that’s very good. There has been a lot of saber-rattling re Iran, but unless Romney wins and brings back the Neocons, it’s hard to see why the US would initiate hostilities.

The housing market has been fixed? Well, ok. At one point, I thought my house would play a significant part of my retirement. (I’m 55). Now, it won’t. I’m above water, but not enough to make much of a difference. From what I can see, the housing market will recover very, very slowly, and it will still be years before real estate can be described as healthy. Let’s say, 2018. There was one move Obama could have made by Executive Order that would have made a big difference in preventing so many foreclosures, but he didn’t. Romney seems to have no plan re the housing market. So I think we can safely disregard that part of the equation too.

Not nearly enough has been done about banking. Not even close. But even if nothing is done, it should be years before they can clobber the world’s economy again.

What am I doing in the market? Like I said, it’s an odd situation, and not something anyone can really reproduce. The company is a retailer, ULTA. It has no debt. It has been growing at a phenomenal rate by opening new stores around the country, and there’s no effective competition within its niche. The company is not even close to finishing expansion. I’m violating about a dozen bedrock rules of investing by having all my eggs in just one basket, just one stock, and then margining a growth stock to boot. For part of that time, I couldn’t help it. All I could do was watch. And then… anyway, it was a huge risk, and so far, the risk has paid off in a spectacular fashion. That can easily change. Kids, don’t try this at home.

The problem with the Bush administration economic agenda was that it rewarded wealth capture, in the form of low taxes and low capital gains, instead of job creation. It rewarded companies for outsourcing, or at the very least, turned a blind eye, at the same time it depressed wages in a variety of ways- low minimum wage, opposition to unions, allowing big box corporations to crush small businesses by using cheap foreign labor and importing…

That agenda does not work for the economy as a whole. Obama did get that part right. The key to growth is a blossoming from below, a growing middle class, not trickle down from the top. As long as we’re a consumer economy, that will quite naturally be the case.

Romney is familiar with how the economy works. But when it comes to economics, what does he believe? Does he have a different take than the Bush people of the previous administration?

Posted by: phx8 at April 17, 2012 9:18 PM
Comment #341963

Tom, perhaps you have some facts on what you say about Romney and Bain Capital? I have heard this before but I believe Romney’s involvement was proven false. Don’t remember for sure, but perhaps you could provide some facts?

Phx8, I hope you do well with your investments; it is risky to put everything in one basket, especially at 55 years old.

Lower capital gains allow investors to have much more incentive and capital to reinvest. Companies will always graduate toward the least cost to produce a product. Going non-union, outsourcing, or even hiring the least expensive labor is part of our global economy. Things are different now than they were when America practiced isolationism. As the economy gets better more people are hired and wages will go up. I remember a few years ago, when the economy was good, that McDonalds had to offer higher wages to get employees, due to the shortage of help.

Regarding Romney, I have much more faith in him than I did Bush. I believe the real problem is our growing national debt. The interest alone that we pay each day is staggering. I believe America is living on her good name and sooner or later, “the chickens are going to come home to roost” as someone famous has said. I don’t believe President Obama has chosen well, when he picked his cabinet. He could have done much better.

Posted by: Steven at April 17, 2012 10:21 PM
Comment #341983

Steven,
Why do you think the growing national debt is the real problem?

I know a lot of people think that, but I disagree. Here is a short article that puts the debt into perspective:

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.html

We could double the debt and still be all right in the long run. I’m not saying that’s a good idea, but if you look at the net interest paid as a percentage of the overall budget, you can see the situation is still controllable.

Two other areas tell us the debt is not a primary problem. First, interest rates remain low. If debt were a real problem, rates would rise.

Another recent event supports my point. After the debt ceiling crisis, S&P lowered the rating on US debt. This spooked investors around the world, and sparked a flight to quality. They fled to US debt.

As for Romney- if he wins, he says he wants to improve the economy, and cut the deficit and address the debt, by cutting government spending. I’m at least willling to hear him out on that part of the equation. Spending cuts hurt. What will be the consequences? It’s at least worth a national discussion. Romney wants to increase defense spending. That makes no sense. Romney also wants to decrease taxes. And that makes no sense at all. Even though I would directly benefit, I still have to think that makes no sense. Addressing the deficit requires both increasing taxes and lowing spending. When it comes to government, a healthy economy is a two part equation, both spending and taxing. Otherwise, addressing only one side of the equation sounds too much like the Bush agenda, and that failed miserably.

Posted by: phx8 at April 17, 2012 11:33 PM
Comment #342042

BillinFlorida:

“Let’s look at the most recent Obama vs. Romney polls at RPC; there is a 9 point difference between Gallup and CNN/Opinion Research.”

Polls use different sample sizes, sample groups, and weighting. Just because it differs from where you basically think it should be is not evidence of anything wrong. This is why I like the RCP average but of course you don’t always get the same poll questions so you can’t average everything as well as you can job approval and head to head matchups. You can’t average for instance Romney’s support from women because you don’t get a bunch of polls for that question. But you do get a few here in there to indicate it’s a problem for Romney despite what you think.

“But you based your whole post on one economic report.”

The subject of my post is the economic report itself so I fail to see how that is a problem. It’s a pretty important economic report though, don’t you agree?

“So please tell me how you can get that I am trying to ‘show something positive for Romney’ out of my statement?”

Like it or not polls are one of the best ways to measure public opinion. You clearly live in a world where you think CNN or another “socialist” group would rig a poll. You don’t stop to ask of what value a rigged poll would be to anyone.

It’s like the conservatives on WB that parrot right wing lies about the economy as if the numbers are being rigged. What good are rigged numbers? The public isn’t stupid. It knows when it’s feeling pain or not. It’s not going to feel better despite hardship because BLS has systematically erased people from the job pool simply so the U-3 unemployment rate goes down.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 18, 2012 1:46 PM
Comment #342043

Adam,
RCP is a good resource, but a word of caution as we approach November. One polling company in particular, Rasmussen, will attempt to influence races on the state level by conducting multiple polls intended to push a positive perception of Republican candidates.

A good way to evaluate pollsters is to compare their results to actual election results. Most pollsters are pretty good for the simple reason that, if they do a poor job, they become discredited and irrelevant. Their information might encourage partisans, but it’s useless as an actual poll. One of the worst track records belongs to Rasmussen. By the criteria of matching polling to outcome, one of the best organizations is the liberal Daily Kos poll, PPP.

But then, reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by: phx8 at April 18, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #342044

Adam

“The sad thing is that if this were 25 years ago the GOP might love to have Romney but these days the party craves blood”

Do you think this opinion is because the GOP and country have moved too far to the left, or do you blame FOX News and radio hosts?

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2012 2:33 PM
Comment #342046

Bad news for Mitt:

Lawsuit: Former Bain execs fired employees for not being Mormon

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2012 4:37 PM
Comment #342047

Whoa. You’d think the Romney’s would be a lot more careful about things like this on the campaign trail after the cruel mistreatment of their own dog!

Birthday Fundraiser For Ann Romney Hosted By Man Who Once Barbecued A Dog

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2012 5:24 PM
Comment #342048

kctim:

Do you think this opinion is because the GOP and country have moved too far to the left,

LOL! This cracked me up!

or do you blame FOX News and radio hosts?

Saw a couple of funny bumper stickers recently. One said: When Brain Eating Aliens Attack Earth, Fox News Fans Will Be Safe! And another said: Fox News Channel: The First Thing A Cult Does Is Claim Everyone Else Is Lying To You.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2012 5:32 PM
Comment #342049

Man, I love those Bay area bumper stickers…..!!!!!

Posted by: jane doe at April 18, 2012 5:40 PM
Comment #342050

Rasmussen: “One polling company in particular, Rasmussen, will attempt to influence races on the state level by conducting multiple polls intended to push a positive perception of Republican candidates.”

Rasmussen indeed has been seen to perform terribly. They also are the most secret with their methodology and their crosstabs so while folks can speculate on why they are wrong we have no idea other than their selection methods favor Republicans. I still cannot call intentional bias there because I don’t get how a flawed poll is useful to anyone.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 18, 2012 5:43 PM
Comment #342051

Adrienne, you are on the far-left of the Democratic Party, I already know you blame brainwashing for everybody not thinking and believing as you say.
Adam however seems to be more moderate and logical, so I was just seeing what his opinion on the matter was and if maybe he had heard of any polls on it.

Just trying to keep in the spirit of his OP here and stay on track.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #342052

kctim:

Adrienne, you are on the far-left of the Democratic Party

I’ve never claimed to be anything else. And in fact, I am very proud to be a Progressive — but guess you have a problem with this? That’s too bad.

I already know you blame brainwashing for everybody not thinking and believing as you say.

Yes. It’s very clear that Fox “News” is Propaganda which has brainwashed people into believing extremist rightwing lies. And, Fox has admitted in a court of law that lying is what they do. In 2003 in a Florida Court of Appeals case Fox News asserted that there is no rule against distorting and falsifying news stories in the United States because there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie and deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. And Fox’s attorneys did not even dispute the claim that they had pressured a reporter to broadcast a false story — they simply claimed that it was their right to do so.

Adam however seems to be more moderate and logical

All people have the capacity to think logically — no matter what their political stripe happens to be.

Just trying to keep in the spirit of his OP here and stay on track.

Well, you were the one who to bring up Fox…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2012 6:37 PM
Comment #342095

Very agree with your point of view. I come from China, have the best green products reducing weight. Fruit series. All of the body harmless. If you want to learn more about, please click our websiteBest Diet Pills

Posted by: Best Diet Pills at April 19, 2012 3:41 AM
Comment #342132

Kctim: “Do you think this opinion is because the GOP and country have moved too far to the left, or do you blame FOX News and radio hosts?”

I don’t think I blame any of that. The GOP (and Democrats at the same time because of it) has been undergoing a change for a century really, right? This may be the party of Lincoln but it’s certainly not the ideology. The modern GOP doesn’t even much mirror Reagan anymore though they love to invoke his name. Reagan was just the first wave of what you have now.

I don’t think talk radio or Fox is to blame completely but I do think they have profited greatly from the change. Outrage is big business. The Internet has allowed the left to spread outrage the same way that only right wing talk radio could for decades. I think technology in general has changed the GOP. The same shifts that started in our culture around the OJ Simpson trial and then the Clinton scandal and the shutdown of government in the 90’s can still be seen growing today. We don’t want reasonable dialog and smart policy. We want to see our opposition smashed like it’s a hockey match. But I could be wrong…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at April 19, 2012 8:37 AM
Comment #342155

Adam,

The ‘not the party of Lincoln’ thing going around is interesting. Government was not as big or intrusive during his days, so I am curious as to why you guys believe he would be advocating for even more than what we have today?

It is very obvious that the country has been moving further and further left over the decades and now, thanks to technology, people are more aware and are saying enough is enough. Others are saying more, more.
We have finally reached the breaking point and it’s only going to get worse.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment #342157

Adrienne,

I have stated many many times that I have no problem on a personal level with somebody being a liberal, progressive or anything else. Even though they force policy that disregards individual rights, I don’t take it to the personal level that some do. I actually have quite a few friends who I don’t agree with politically.

“Yes. It’s very clear that Fox “News” is Propaganda which has brainwashed people into believing extremist rightwing lies.”

I know I am going way out on a limb here, but let me guess: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS or anybody else like that is not propaganda? LOL.

You should do what I do, always check out what you hear no matter who you hear it from.

“Well, you were the one who to bring up Fox…”

Because FOX and Rush are the far-lefts two most favorite boogeymen to use when they claim all who dare disagree with them have been brainwashed.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2012 12:09 PM
Comment #342159

kctim,
You know, it’s an interesting topic. First, you’d have to define what you mean by moving ‘left’ or ‘right.’

Some general observations…

Some of the oldest known graffiti comes from an Egyptian period. The tagger complains about how the young generation has no morals and is going to hell in a handbasket. It illustrates a point. Change is constant. Even morals change. Concepts of love, marriage, and hospitality are very different today from both Biblican and Medieval times.

Change happens for a lot of reasons: philosophy, war, technology, economics; there’s even a good case for geographical determinism.

In the case of the US, the country is very different today from the Civil War, and even more different from Revolutionary times.

Most of the change we’ve seen in the past few decades seems to be driven by technology. Take the example of music. Innovation in entertainment and openness to change is driven today by the young, just as it was happening in ancient Egypt. Adapting technology to the music generally occurs in the more ‘liberal’ areas of music: alternative rock, elektronika, rap, and so on. ‘Liberal’ morals tend to be on display in this area of music. ‘Conservative’ music, such as country, swing, and older forms, almost never exhibits any kind of innovation or experimentation. It tends to be formulaic. Cliches usually revolve around pick-up trucks, beer, whiskey, a dog, hot girls, and so on. Since I like beer, dogs, and hot girls… heh. Anyway, we see the same thing in communications. It’s no coincidence so many conservatives depend on a relatively backward technology like AM radio for information, while so many liberals rely upon the internet.

Another change involves population. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the population of the US was very small. Today, it’s not. A libertarian take on government in 1776 might have been more feasible simply as a matter of population density. Today, viewing government as a ‘liberal’ arbiter of pubic commons is necessary. There are simply too many people for everyone to enjoy the freedoms of a Jeffersonian gentleman farmer. The freest social structure is a tribe of 30 or less. Unfortunately, that kind of libertarian freedom is no longer a viable option. Then again, the concept of freedom has changed, and even life among a tribe still involves many ‘socialist’ obligations between the group’s members.

So I’m not sure change means the same thing as moving from conservative to liberal, or right to left. Traditions, religions, and moral systems serve their purpose, and keeping things the same and maintaining the status quo is one definition of being conservative, or being on the right. But traditions, religions, and moral systems never last. They change too. All of those areas today would be virtually unrecognizable to a person from a thousand years ago, and even definitions of left and right would be alien to an American from 200 years ago.

Posted by: phx8 at April 19, 2012 12:28 PM
Comment #342160

correction: that graffiti came from an Egyptian pyramid…

Posted by: phx8 at April 19, 2012 12:31 PM
Comment #342163
I have stated many many times that I have no problem on a personal level with somebody being a liberal, progressive or anything else. Even though they force policy that disregards individual rights, I don’t take it to the personal level that some do.

Well, you were the one trying to make it personal, otherwise you wouldn’t have begun your reply by informing me that I’m on the “far left” and by claiming only “moderates” should be considered “logical.”
Do you ever see me addressing you in this way? No.

I know I am going way out on a limb here, but let me guess: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS or anybody else like that is not propaganda?

Well, as that bumper sticker said: the first thing a cult does is claim everyone else is lying to you. So, if you truly think that all the news coming from those stations is nothing more than left wing propaganda, you might want to ask yourself if you’ve become a full fledged member of the Fox Cult. Because it true that all Fox does is continually demonize every other station on television and denounces everything they say as “The Liberal Media” despite all evidence to the contrary.

Because FOX and Rush are the far-lefts two most favorite boogeymen to use when they claim all who dare disagree with them have been brainwashed.

The problem with Fox and Rush is not that they’re blatantly partisan. The problem is that they LIE, DEMONIZE, and INTENTIONALLY MISINFORM their viewers constantly.
And, as a result, the people who listen to them end up sounding like complete hate-filled ignoramuses whenever they attempt to debate political issues because they don’t know any actual facts. Indeed, it’s always very easy to tell when a person on the right gathers their information through reading (like the National Review or Weekly Standard for instance) as opposed to those who get all their “news” from listening to Fox and rightwing shock-jocks such as Limbaugh. Seriously, it really is like day vs. night.

Btw, in the news today we have one more thing to add to the GOP War on Women List: They’re now obstructing the Violence Against Women Act because they don’t want to cover abuse and domestic violence that occurs to Native Americans, LGBT Americans, and Immigrants

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #342166

Phx8

I think we have to use ‘more government’ or ‘less government’ in order to properly address the concerns of people on both sides.

I think everybody understands that change is constant, but our founding, history and culture from the very beginning has been that that change would have strict guidelines to follow.

I like your music example and believe it kind of justifies why so many people wish to follow those guidelines for change.
What you termed “conservative music” (I would have included Blues, Soul and Gospel myself) is appreciated by almost all. It is timeless.
Whereas “liberal music” is pretty much limited to groups. It is sporadic and quickly out of date.

I agree and disagree on your population statement. Of course our population and its needs could not be met with a 1790s government, but that in no way means that we can’t succeed if the society does not trump the individual. There is a balance and I wish we would have found it before we ended up where we now are.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2012 4:11 PM
Comment #342169
What you termed “conservative music” (I would have included Blues, Soul and Gospel myself) is appreciated by almost all. It is timeless. Whereas “liberal music” is pretty much limited to groups. It is sporadic and quickly out of date.

This is pretty ridiculous, Tim. Not only when it comes to music (face facts please: blues, soul and gospel is music that has grown directly out of the black experience — folks who we all know have always been overwhelmingly progressive), but when it comes to politics as well.
It would be complete nonsense for people to act as though there hasn’t been an incredibly long history of progressive politics in America! In fact, the struggle on the Left is as American as apple pie, and there’s been nothing sporadic or out of date about it — because it never, ever stops, and it’s still going strong.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #342177

In the example of music, technology has changed it. Using technological innovation, music usually associated with liberals & the left is at the forefront. Some of it comes and goes; in other cases, ‘rock and roll will never die.’ But even something like Beethoven’s 9th was radical in its day, because the 9th incorporated singing into musical piece.

To take another example, my family has an old Victrola with lead needles, and platters of music- and for the first years of the 1900’s, it was nothing but gospel music. At the time, that old Victola was cutting edge technology. It took a while for the music to catch up, but innovation eventually came to music, dragged along by new technologies… When television arrived, on Sunday mornings there would be nothing but gospel music similar to that of the early 1900’s, especially on Grand Ole Oprey. Slowly but surely, that changed too; country music became glitzy and formulaic; country became more lowbrow, with lots of cowboy hats and shiny baubles, and not even electrified instruments could conceal the lack of self-awareness and utter incomprehension of modern irony. The music was deeply conservative, and never caught up with the times, although certain elements of low culture are enjoyable and timeless in their own way… beer, dogs, horses, and sexual attraction never really go out of style.

Of course, it’s not always cut and dried. The Grateful Dead were certainly associated with the left, and Folk singers led the way in protesting Viet Nam and social injustices. Even Earl Flatt and Lester Scruggs came out in favor of such causes in the late 60’s. Yet despite these exceptions, country music remains closely associated with conservatism. It is no coincidence that music is most popular in rural areas, the South, and Rocky Mountain states.

kctim, it’s hard to see how the rights of the individual can be maintained against the sheer size of the American population, especially in urban areas. Take the issue of gun control. In a rural area, gun control makes little sense. Guns are needed for hunting. Home protection is up to the homeowner, since the nearest neighbor might be miles away. It’s a matter of asserting the rights of an individual, and at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it made sense (in addition to the need for standing militias to act as standing armies). But in an urban area, gun control becomes a necessity. Gun ownership results in mayhem and murder, and the rights of the society have to be asserted over the individual in order to prevent slaughter. The sheer size of an urban population, the close proximity, stresses people and leads to violence.

Posted by: phx8 at April 19, 2012 5:46 PM
Comment #342241

Adrienne
Please look at the context. His opinion is that “conservative” music “almost never exhibits any kind of innovation or experimentation. It tends to be formulaic.” Blues, Soul and Gospel music will always stand on their own. They are timeless. While there are innovation and experimentation with them, nothing that spawns from that will ever replace them.
That has nothing to do with the politics of who created it.

You can add a note here and there, but you can never replace the very essence of what makes them great. If you change them to much, they are no longer timeless and do not stand on their own.

I view the Constitution the same way.

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment #342242

Phx8

As I mentioned to Adrienne, it doesn’t matter who or what music is associated with, if it is great, it stands on its own.
If you were defining the music by who created it, then I totally misread and I disagree.

Platters, vinyl, CDs, MP3s, electric instruments, mixing equipment, it doesn’t matter, folks like BB, Muddy, Patsy, Hank and Marvin have and will continue to stand on their own.

“kctim, it’s hard to see how the rights of the individual can be maintained against the sheer size of the American population, especially in urban areas. Take the issue of gun control…”

The rights of all individuals should not be violated because those who choose to live in large urban areas are not responsible enough to have those rights. In fact, using the federal government to force folks in rural areas to live according to the fears and desires of those in urban areas is why the left has such a hard time connecting with us.

“But in an urban area, gun control becomes a necessity. Gun ownership results in mayhem and murder, and the rights of the society have to be asserted over the individual in order to prevent slaughter. The sheer size of an urban population, the close proximity, stresses people and leads to violence.”

Criminal use of guns is what results in mayhem and murder, not gun ownership. And all individuals would have to be criminals for there to be a justified use of the word slaughter. I don’t believe the majority of people are criminals.

Do you think the 2nd Amendment would be the major issue it is if urban societies weren’t trying to force us all to live as they do? It wouldn’t. People would just choose to live where their rights are not infringed on due to fear.

Like it or not, the urban society that liberals have created is a failure and to be quite honest, the rest of us don’t want or deserve the same thing to happen to us.

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2012 10:44 AM
Comment #342245


“but our founding, history and culture from the very beginning has been that that change would have strict guidelines to follow.”

That is one way that change occurs, but the fact is that change can meet with great resistance and the pursuit of change can be quite chaotic.

The Constitution was born out of such chaos, the Revolution. The King was very resistant to that change and had it not been for his greatest antagonist, the Revolution could have failed.

The Civil War was the most chaotic change event in our history. It was followed by another chaotic time of change, the Progressive Era. Then another chaotic event, the Civil Rights Movement.

Advantage will nearly always be resolutely resist to change.

Posted by: jlw at April 20, 2012 12:01 PM
Comment #342249

Oh I understand the point Phx8 was making about that with the music, JLW. And I am in no way saying change cannot or should not happen.
But I believe there are some things that are so perfect that too much change to them lessens the original to the point where it becomes something completely different.

Change can definitely be chaotic, but it is less chaotic if you make that change within the parameters of what made it great in the first place.

Take your revolution example:
Excessive taxation is associated with the Revolution that brought about the chaotic change that led to the founding of our nation. Guidlines were laid out to prevent that from happening to our new nation and we followed them for the longest time. Then we started interpreting those guidelines in order to change and now we are at a point where excessive taxation is a problem again.
We are going back to where we began and if we aren’t careful, chaotic change will be the result.

If you have Etta James, why want to change her into Nicky Minaj?

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #342251

Not excessive taxation, but taxation without representation.

Posted by: phx8 at April 20, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #342332

kctim,

We are at the lowest sustained rate of income taxation post WWII. That includes corporations whose share of tax revenue has steadily declined over the past few decades. However, there is one exception: payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. They have risen while individual and corporate income taxes have declined.

If you want to know why the “Tea Party” had traction, just look at the total taxation structure, including payroll taxes and you will understand that the middle class has seen an increasing burden of taxes, primarily due to SS and Medicare. That explains the paradox of the “Tea Party:” less taxes but don’t cut my Medicare or SS.

Posted by: rich at April 21, 2012 10:04 PM
Comment #342466

kctim:

Please look at the context. His opinion is that “conservative” music “almost never exhibits any kind of innovation or experimentation.
I agree with phx8. Conservatives by their very nature do not like innovation, experimentation or change of any kind. Conservatives in the modern sense, are always most interested in conserving the societal status quo.
Blues, Soul and Gospel music will always stand on their own. They are timeless. While there are innovation and experimentation with them, nothing that spawns from that will ever replace them. That has nothing to do with the politics of who created it.

You’re wrong. Music IS political.

Musicians of all races and colors are people who are by and large non-racist — and they are overwhelmingly progressive. That’s because they’ve usually been open to playing together since music is a creative, joyous, totally non-judgmental form of human language. A language that is perennially innovating and experimenting; even when the music can be placed under different genres.

Jazz/Swing/Bebop, Blues, Soul, and Gospel is music with Black Roots and is expressive of oppression and hard times — and these musical genres were for this reason rejected for many, many years by the American conservative establishment. Only when white people started emulating black musicians did conservative white people begin to accept each of these genres.
Performers such as Benny Goodman (the first to racially integrate a jazz band), Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton are good examples of the way that the music had to be made ‘white’ before it could be considered acceptable in a generalized sense to the status quo. Indeed, before Southern conservatives understood that Elvis was definitely white, his music had a difficult time getting played on the radio because it sounded far “too black” for the mainstream. And, after musicians like The Stones and Clapton made it big, finally a huge number of Black Blues greats finally began to get the attention they had long deserved.

That American conservatives fully accept all this music and now consider it to be American, and “timeless”, and “irreplaceable” was a difficult process that took a very long time — and took a whole lot of multi-racial progressive dedication toward integrating and building appreciation for, all kinds of American Artistic Expressions. And yes, this always has been and IS related to politics and political activism.

You can add a note here and there, but you can never replace the very essence of what makes them great. If you change them to much, they are no longer timeless and do not stand on their own.

Nonsense. No matter what the genre of music, there are enormous differences that can be heard. Duke Ellington does not sound like Count Basie does not sound like Benny Goodman does not sound like Chick Webb does not sound like Artie Shaw does not sound like Cab Calloway does not sound like Tommy Dorsey does not sound like Gene Krupa does not sound like Louis Jordan — yet all are Big Band Jazz.
Or the Blues — which kind do you prefer? Chicago Blues? Delta Blues? Texas-style, Louisiana-style, Kansas City-style, Memphis-style, St. Louis-style, West Coast-Style Blues? Swamp, Jump, Honky-Tonk, Boogie-Woogie Blues? Rhythum and Blues? Blues-Rock like Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn or Bonnie Raitt? Psychedelic Blues like Jimi Hendrix?
Variety and Progression and Expression is rampant even within specific genres — and that’s because just like life, music doesn’t stand still — and great musicians always bring their own unique personalities and thoughts and feelings to the music.

I view the Constitution the same way.

Yeah, I guess you do view the Constitution as a timeless relic that is never supposed to change. That’s because Conservatives like to hold up the Constitution as something that shouldn’t and can’t be interpreted in order to reflect upon our own modern lives and times.
Progressives don’t view the Constitution, or life in general that way. We don’t think for a moment that the founders intended that document to become such a fossilized, unchanging relic from times past.
In fact, people on the left think that’s an extraordinarily dangerous and regressive thing to do — and we’re sure that the founders would agree with our views on this, rather than with yours. After all, they ascribed to the Enlightenment, and were the Progressives of their own era.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 23, 2012 4:43 PM
Post a comment