The Foot Flew To The Mouth of Its Own Accord
I think over debate history, especially if Obama wins, the words “Please Proceed” and “Check the Transcript”, are going to take on the status of “You’re no Jack Kennedy.” Of course, as has become grindingly clear, the Republicans have nonetheless tried to blame everybody else but Romney for walking into Obama’s rhetorical trap. Candy Crowley didn’t do the governor in on that point, the Governor was already wrong.
Another of Romney's gaffes, the Binders Full Of Women (source of some truly funny memes), illustrates why this continues to be a problem for Romney and other Republicans: Republicans repeatedly attempt the Orwellian exercise of turning errors, failures, and gaffes into successes, words of wisdom and vindicated acts that were misunderstood.
Some folks are actually trying to turn this against Obama, with empty binders and such. Never mind the President's plan is posted on his website with greater detail than Romney ever dared post his plans. And never mind that this binder turns out to be another example of Mitt Romney pushing mythology at the expense of the truth.
If we elect Romney, we'll be electing him more based on boasts and bragging than facts. His company was and is as good at destroying jobs as creating them, with the Sensata scandal telling us that the outsourcing still continues
Yes, it's Bain Capital that owns a majority share in Sensata, not Romney personally. But let's take off the naive, rose-colored glasses and get something straight: what Bain is doing with the company is not this sudden turn towards evil that somehow just started after Romney left, nor is uncharacteristic for the industry. He's not an enthusiastic job creator who would just fling jobs to the masses willy-nilly, if he could. No, he's part of a culture that over the last few decades has sacrificed jobs first and foremost to the profitability of the companies. He's part of a culture that took over vulnerable companies, stripped jobs out of them, sent jobs overseas, and often bankrupted companies with unjustifiable issuing of debt.
You want an example? Try Clear Channel. Bain's approach to the media giant has left it so over-burdened with debt, that many expect the company to simply collapse in the coming years.
According to Clear Channel's most recent quarterly statement, Bain Capital and Thomas Lee signed an MSA with Clear Channel through 2018 to "management and financial advisory services at a rate not greater than $15 million per year, plus reimbursable expenses." For the first quarter of 2012, those fees totaled $4 million.
Clear Channel's liabilities exceed the value of its assets by $7.8 billion. Simply put, Clear Channel has a negative net worth of nearly $8 billion. And that is thanks mostly to its $20.3 billion in debt -- about $15 billion of which was taken on to Clear Channel's balance sheet to finance its acquisition by Bain and Lee.
This is what you get with Romney's company, not just now, but long ago as well. You'll get a lot of runaround about dates, mostly to avoid some politically inconvenient events, but when you boil down the facts, Romney's business experience was profiting off of troubled companies whether they recover or not.
What happened Tuesday is inevitable, as far as leaders like Romney are concerned. For all the Teleprompter cracks made by Right Wingers, there was no such device necessary for Obama to win the last debate. They underestimated their opponent. Why? Because they believe their own lies, their own propaganda.
Romney and others have been pushing the idea that Obama was an idiot propped up by speechwriters for so long, that they underestimated the man. They've been attacking him on all kinds of policies, pushing all kinds of BS for so long that they don't even have a solid grasp of the facts anymore. Any party that would let its conventional wisdom become contaminated with the paranoid psychosis of Glenn Beck is just asking for this kind of gap in knowledge and understanding.
And its not a gap without consequence.
I've spent eight years on this site so far, and my first few years were filled with entries that described America's descent into dangerous, misguided policies. We neglected one war and started another on faulty information that the neconservatives pushed. We let the middle class crash and burn to fund our growth, and were surprised when the boom times ended and the markets crashed. We ignored obvious warning signs of trouble in the Derivatives market repeatedly, let banks and businesses have the same kind of freedom that once let them bankrupt the economy during the Depression years, and oddly enough it came back to bite us on the backside.
People have noticed that their government is out of touch with reality. They've noticed its failure to act. They might reserve judgment, hoping things get better, or worse yet, they might cynically conclude that it won't get better, and trying to do things differently won't fix things. Republicans may have succeeded during the past few years in convincing people to just give up hope.
But the sparks remain, and they should FEAR that. Fear it like nothing else. Why? Because there is so much fuel there for the wildfire to burn with. In getting in the way of Obama's hope and change, they've hardly done away with the demand for change, and if their Tea Partiers or mainstream leaders don't satisfy the practical needs those appetites represent, the hunger will not go away.
And as long as that's true, the person who does come along who looks like they can take advantage of that situation to bring change will be unstoppable, especially if they do what George W. Bush did, and make America's position worse before he leaves office. The failure to maintain contact with reality, both on a political and policy level, is leaving the conservative movement in very real danger of destruction as a major political force, and has left it so for some time. Don't confuse the Tea Party with some kind of solution to that, it's only a deepening of the disconnect in the name of fooling people discontented with everybody's performance, and the Tea Party's performance hasn't made political heroes of them.
People don't need another opportunist exploiting our nation's weakness and misfortune to try and land his agenda in power. What it needs are the necessities of basic, good government, good defense, good economics taken care of. It needs people who are responsible, it needs people who can step beyond the illusions and the epistemological shortfalls of partisan ideology to search out the truth for themselves.
Our nation's government needs to answer to the needs of the people, not to the needs of the club for growth, the petroleum industry, the American Enterprise Institute, or any small group of well-heeled, well-connected activists who can't stomach sharing this Republic with anybody else.
Until Republicans can recognize that facts and ideas outside of their party need to be followed on, that reality can't be entirely be encompassed within the imagination of one small set of people, that the interests of people in this country aren't necessarily synonymous with the interests of their donors, they will not be a worthy party to lead, and clueless candidates like Mitt Romney will not be the last buffoons we see coming out of their ranks.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2012 1:08 PM
More blind loyalty bullshit from Stevie. If he ever posts something with the least little bit of objectivity inluded,I might drop dead.
What is your vision of objectivity. Ignoring details like this?
In an interview on Thursday, Obama said he didn’t think the film was what caused the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the death of the ambassador.
“My suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start,” he told reporters.
Dateline on the article was September 13th.
You want objectivity, you got it. I often rely on objective facts to back my opinions.
Where are yours? I think you really lack them, which is why you start with an insult. I think you just want to call me into question, and you have no intent of letting your argument depend on real facts.
Stephen, you rail against Republicans and Romney and praise Democrats and obama. That’s OK, you subscribe to their political philosophy of bigger government and less individual responsibility.
In just a few weeks we will hear from all Americans who bother to vote. It looks to me as though the voters will reject your politics. Then, we will see if Romney can match deeds with words. Actually, I am excited to see a change in leadership and have some measured confidence that Romney will help America recover faster, and in more long lasting ways, than another obama administration could achieve.
Romney surged in the Gallup poll today to +7% with 52% to 45% versus Obama. That’s good news for Romney. We have Romney only +2 in Rasmussen though over just the last few days. Hopefully that means Gallup is an outlier for now and will move more in line with other polls as more post-debate days make in into their rolling time frame. We don’t have any crosstabs for this tracking poll though, sadly. I’d love to see which groups moved toward Romney in that time span for Gallup.
I don’t read all of your posts anymore, kid. I got almost through the first paragraph before I went to “comments”. I would have nodded off if I tried to read all of it. Look up “ideologue”.
John Johnson: Look up “ideologue”.
Look up “troll”.
Almost through the first paragraph? Here, have a medal for the wounds that must incurred.
Romney calls himself a job creator, so I ask, was he or his business primarily concerned with being that, or even very good at doing that?
Given the weak job market, it makes sense that the attacks have focussed on layoffs. But the real problem with leveraged-buyout firms isn’t their impact on jobs, which studies suggest isn’t that substantial one way or the other. A 2008 study of companies bought by private-equity firms found that their job growth was only about one per cent slower than at similar, public companies; there was more job destruction but also more job creation. And, while private-equity firms are not great employers in terms of wage growth, there’s not much evidence that they’re significantly worse than the rest of corporate America, which has been treating workers more stingily for about three decades.
The real reason that we should be concerned about private equity’s expanding power lies in the way these firms have become increasingly adept at using financial gimmicks to line their pockets, deriving enormous wealth not from management or investing skills but, rather, from the way the U.S. tax system works. Indeed, for an industry that’s often held up as an exemplar of free-market capitalism, private equity is surprisingly dependent on government subsidies for its profits. Financial engineering has always been central to leveraged buyouts. In a typical deal, a private-equity firm buys a company, using some of its own money and some borrowed money. It then tries to improve the performance of the acquired company, with an eye toward cashing out by selling it or taking it public. The key to this strategy is debt: the model encourages firms to borrow as much as possible, since, just as with a mortgage, the less money you put down, the bigger your potential return on investment. The rewards can be extraordinary: when Romney was at Bain, it supposedly earned eighty-eight per cent a year for its investors. But piles of debt also increase the risk that companies will go bust.
Clear Channel above is an example of that. It’s almost like somebody having to get their organs harvested on the black market to pay for a heart transplant. Not exactly the healthiest way to run a business.
If the logic, simply put, is Romney will run America like Bain Capital runs its businesses, then objectively speaking, its a lousy deal, and we’ve had this deal before. Debt financed tax cuts to people at Romney’s level, including that carried interest and capital gains cut he sneaked into the debate, and for the rest of us, eventually, a greater share of the tax burden, as people like Romney insist we take responsibility for a debt largely taken on to allow them to become richer.
There are two ways to run a business: you can screw others and exploit them as long as you can, or you can build a productive enterprise that benefits others for the value of the money it gets in return.
Romney runs his business the first way. We should not expect him to run America differently than he runs his own business.
Now you can dismiss this as not objective, but really, if that is your argument, take a hike. We’re not entirely objective here, but since this is a political site, its not exactly a problem to have a point of view. The question is, how well can you defend yours?
We’ll see how things turn out. Romney expected to win with that crack about the Rose Garden Speech. You’re assuming he’s going to win now. We’re not resting on our Laurels here. You are not going to get this election handed to you on a platter, if you get it handed to you at all.
Here is Fox’s Megyn Kelly bringing us the latest defense of Romney’s Libya fail:
Declaring something an act of terror does not necessarily mean you are declaring it a terror attack. Any act that’s gonna kill our ambassador in this fashion could be described as an act of terror. That’s not necessarily the same as declaring it a terrorist attack. And it seems like the White House narrative is now going to be that the president was meaning to and did declare this a terrorist act.
Of course Romney was right in the debate and Obama was wrong! Act of terror is not declaring it a terror attack. See? You won’t see this valuable reporting on any lame stream medias…
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but actual political discussion goes on here about the topics of the day. We have fun with it. You could too if you tried harder.
Republicans can say Obama wasn’t calling the attack on the consulate a terrorist attack when they decide to admit that Bush shouldn’t have called the War against al-Qaeda the War on Terror.
Mr. Daugherty, we never expected to win this election easily. Unlike obama, Romney had a very tough primary battle that lasted longer than most do. It gave him a lot of current debating experience with some very tough competitors. And, that is part of the reason that Romney has done so well debating obama. Obama did indeed have the nomination handed to him on a platter and, I believe, felt that all he needed to do to win was show up.
He got his head handed to him in the first debate and was barely able to hold his own in the second debate despite the help of the moderator. The third debate may just be obama’s most difficult of the three as he will have to defend his foreign policy which is dismal for the most part.
With obama falling in the polls, and especially among his coalitions this close to the election, looks very bad for him. In some past elections the talking heads spoke about “momentum”…the “Big MO”. Romney has it, obama doesn’t.
For a sitting president to be below 50% in the polling at this time is the kiss of death for him. I see the election as being for “change” rather than against obama. Many voters like obama, but they are so disappointed by his failure to positively affect their lives that they will not vote for him again this time around.
I expect some really dirty tricks by the obama camp in the next few weeks but I don’t believe they have anything on Romney that will matter…or stick. Whatever they may try could very well backfire as have such things in past elections. But, desperate people do desperate things.
Romney, with his vast public and business experience will run hard and not give obama any slack. If obama is to win he will have to do something drastic and dangerous.
It wasn’t what Obama said. It was what he sent Rice and others out to say in the following days.
I think the greater problem is not what Obama etc said. The problem is one for all of us. Clearly Al Qaeda is still alive and very dangerous. They can mount an attack against our interests. And the Middle East is by no means peaceful. We have to be careful that because the threat mostly out of the new, it is out of mind. This is the same wishful thinking we suffered in the time leading up to 9/11.
We should pay less attention to the partisan aspects of this and more to the real dangers still posed by real enemies of the United States.
Stephen…here’s a for instance. I don’t want to do your research for you so I’m not going to look it up, but I believe Romney divested himself of all ownership in Bain Capital years ago, and that Clear Channel was acquired since then. If this truly is the case, what is all your harping about?
Let’s talk about polls; looks like Obama is getting his butt whipped. Evidently Obama’s lies at the debate is not giving him any bounce, LOL.
Obama’s lost FL, VA, and NC…he’s moving out.
He is said to have dropped his attack adds, in favor of shoring up his base. OH YES, the mysterious base…he has run out of free stuff to get them to the polls.
Remember, it was your’s truely, a few weeks back, who said the polls were skewed and the truth would come out in the las few weeks. The truth is coming out and the Bamster’s peeps must be in full panic mode. He’s gonna get whipped like a red headed step child.
I have a question that the liberals have failed to answer; will a Romney slam dunk victory mean the TP conservatives have the agenda???
“A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It’s the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
“The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it,” Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner…
Susquehanna’s automated poll of 1,376 likely voters was taken between Oct. 11 and 13, before the second presidential debate Tuesday that many saw as a comeback for Obama since his Oct. 3 showdown with Romney.
Lee said Romney has made significant gains in the all-important suburbs of Philadelphia, a ring of counties that helped push Obama to victory in 2008.
“Republicans haven’t been able to do that in 20 years,” Lee said. “Romney has made some major inroads.”
Lee said Romney also gained ground in western Pennsylvania, where socially conservative, blue-collar Democrats have turned their backs on Obama.
I guess, when the voters learn of the results of Obama’s great debate, they will shift back to Obama….hahaha.
“Barack Obama has pension investments that include Chinese firms, and “investments through a Caymans trust.”
“Romney told Obama: “You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Caymans trust.”
It’s an accurate set of statements when you consider investments made by managers of the Illinois pension fund in which Obama has an account.
As we noted in reviewing previous claims about Romney’s investments in China, the investments involved are indirect and — as far as anybody has said — made without the knowledge of the account holder.
With that clarification, we rate Romney’s statement Mostly True.”
OK, I read the entire thread. It is pure, unadulterated pap.
You know nothing about the Bain Capital’s of the world. You have no idea how they work. You obviously have some animosity toward capitalism and the inherent failure factor in a capitalistic society. Every business is not successful. Employees are often the innocent casualties of a poorly managed business, one that is being merged with another, or one that loses its customer base through no fault of their own. Many are going to whine about it and blame the boogie man who came and shut them down and sold off assets because the company was dead and they just didn’t know it. It is survival of the fittest. You can find these poor souls everywhere who will point their finger, yell profanities, and tell us how good things were when they just turned out the lights and handed us a pink slip.
If you don’t mind my asking…what type of work experience do you have? This might help explain where you are coming from.
You’re desperate, aren’t you?
The fact-checkers often miss the forest for the trees, and the forest of this particular tree is that while Obama and Romney both do not currently control the respective source of their investment income, Romney is the founder, and former sole owner of Bain Capital!
You can’t say the same of the state pension fund.
Yes, Obama has investments there, but he wasn’t the guy who set the tone, made the decisions for how this fund would be run, nor was he ever a participant in the trading culture that influenced those decisions.
Romney was. And this is your argument for why he should be President: he ran a business, set its tone, made it successful, and that is supposedly why he should run the country at a critical time in its economic recovery.
So, I think it’s perfectly fair to ask how did Romney run Bain, and how do companies like Romney’s generally operate? If the answer is, that they tend to buy up weak companies, do the efficiency expert thing with them (which means laying off people, cutting budgets, all kinds of things that are not helpful to a struggling economy), and then dump it if its not profitable enough… Well, that might be good reason not to elect Romney.
As for Pennsylvania, don’t hold your breath for that one. First, every other poll shows Obama ahead. Second, the poll came before the last debate. If you win Pennsylvania, fine, but its so unlikely that Nate Silver has the state colored Deep Blue with a 91% certainty.
As for Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia? We’ll see how things shake out. You’re riding high on Romney’s return to being a serious competitor, but Since Obama’s had his night, and Romney’s had his stumbles (which must be somewhat serious since people like you are whining about eveything but Romney’s boneheaded mistake), it will be interesting to see how and in what direction the polls shake.
Are you saying Romney owns no capital in Bain Capital?
Please Proceed, Governor.
As far as we know, Obama has never taken an active role in managing the assets of the pension fund. He suggested during the debate that he doesn’t pay much attention to it.
Romney’s retirement account, on the other hand, includes investments worth up to $30 million in a company he used to run. Those investments are actively managed for his and his wife’s personal financial benefit. And while Romney claims he has no control over the blind trust that manages his retirement account, it is hard to see how those investments would differ much if he were in charge.
There’s even mention of those funds in his tax returns.
Logically speaking, if Bain assets weren’t on Romney’s books, do you think Romney would have any trouble with simply disclosing all this tax returns? It is precisely those assets that make Romney’s tax returns of such interest.
In fact, that is how the heck Romney managed to accumulate the millions that are in his famously oversized IRA, by sticking something akin to company stock in his retirement account.
The word I hear is that this is a local outfit, perhaps with some distant relationship to al-Qaeda, but not a hardcore offshoot.
John Johnson, lets get real simple since your an old guy and a conservative. Clear channel has debt because Bain has used CC’s ability to borrow to buy and control the company. They load it with debt and then people like you claim the company is dying due to whatever BS you remember Rush and his ilk telling you. Bain and other vultures like Bain have not contributed anything as you would claim. Your “survival of the fittest” version of capitalism is not what built this country. Yet this is what you are voting for and defending. While name calling Stephen, you shmuck.
On the other hand companies that contribute to the country by developing products and services, well different story. Your sad defense of Romney and Bain and their style of predatory capitalism is why conservatives are corporate communist not conservatives in the real sense.
What do any of us really know about this? Those who really know don’t say and those who say don’t know. We saw a well organized attack. Whether they are closely or loosely organized by Al Qaeda, they demonstrated the ability to carry out the attack and catch us.
The guys who carried out 9/11 were not numerous and their technique was primitive. I think we need to be careful not to become complacent. The world is not safer than it was. Even if we ignore the bad guys, they won’t ignore us.
The view of the U.S. is worse in many Muslim countries than it was ten years ago. Check the Pew research. It is not as bad; it is often worse. The Russians have “reset” in ways even less cooperative.
Obama’s outreach didn’t work any better than Bush’s. This is not Obama’s fault, just as it was not Bush’s. It is the “fault” of circumstances and of the bad guys.
I think the fundamental danger is that people like you really believed that just being nicer - or just talking nicer - would change the facts on the ground. It doesn’t.
Always attempting to disqualify. Did you read through the source on what’s happened with Clear Channel? That’s not uncommon.
In fact, it’s becoming quite common, and Bain Capital has done it a number of times.
But in recent years, the industry frequently looked for an easy way out. Try this on for size: Buy a company for $200 million, putting $100 million down and borrowing $100 million. Once you gain control of the company, have it issue $200 million in debt and then use the proceeds to pay a dividend to the new owners — i.e., you. Boom: a 100 percent return, $100 million in profits. But it has nothing to do with the company’s performance. This is known in the trade as a “dividend recapitalization.” Bain Capital did it several times, and so has every other private equity firm. The problem? Well, if the underlying business sours, or if market or economic trends turn down, companies may find they can’t service the new debt and wind up filing for bankruptcy. And that causes all sorts of problems for lenders, employees, suppliers and the government. Besides, this isn’t really capitalism or investing. It’s just borrowing money and calling it income. Private-equity-backed companies that do dividend recapitalizations and then go bust are no different than homeowners who take home equity lines of credit on their already mortgaged homes, treat it as income, spend it elsewhere, and then walk away from the mortgage.
Let me tell you what my background is in: Radio TV Film, basically. But for that degree, I also add a lot of studying into cognitive sciences, information sciences, and a lot of other fields that have something to do with how people think, communicate, and pass on meaning.
I’m also somebody who has kept up with financial news since I was a kid, so though I am not a business professional, I can understand the basics of accounting, corporate enterprises, and a lot of the underlying laws and requirements. I know how our system works much better than many of your fellow voters do.
And you know what I see? What I see is a system where a lot of the profit is being made on paper, but not out of real productivity. It’s not altogether profitable or productive for a company to issue a lot of debt just to pay the investors of the parent company a big dividend. But it is profitable for the Parent company, especially if it took on a lot of debt in order to buy the company in question.
Now this debt doesn’t typically get used to upgrade equipment, expand operations, do research and development or other productive things, no, it goes to making sure that this private equity firm itself is fine, even as a burden has been laid on the subsidiary’s shoulders. It serves to make the company even more unstable in the event of economic dysfunction.
Is this really what our system is supposed to reward? It’s economic parasitism, not productive corporate policy.
But you understand everything, right? The system always works, nobody cheats, nobody lies, the virtuous profit, while the wicked go bankrupt.
I know too much about the real world economy to buy that BS. You should know better, too.
News Flash…don’t totally disagree with you. I will continue to hammer on you, however, when you want to paint Romney into the stinky side of the world of venture capitalism. This is about the same as tying O to Rev. Wright, the crooks, and revolutionaries he was close to in Chicago, is it not?
Republicans have tried in vain to prove Obama as bombastic as bombastic, as angry, and as divisive in his language as his pastor. He’s not. But Romney? There are dozens of instances of him indulging in the stinky side of private equity. Hell, his IRA is a straight example. But what you could also point to is how he got the government to bail out the Bain Company that once was Bain Capital’s corporate parent.
Before I go to bed, let me point something out: however much you talk about Reverend Wright, it doesn’t make Romney’s behavior any more acceptable.
Stephen, you really are a dumbass. Nobody cares about Bain except you and a handfull of socialist liberals on WB. It’s a dead issue.
I’m having a real problem understand which of the polls that liberals believe. They quote some polls, when they show Obama in the lead, and the condemn other polls, when they show Romney in the lead. Adam Ducker is a poll expert who Obama’s leading; but doesn’t really pay any attention to them when Romney is leading.
Rasmussen has consistently shown a very tight race and sometimes showing Romney ahead, and even though Rasmussen has the best record of poll results over the years; both D and AD have attacked Rasmussen as a conservative hack poll. But if you will notice, Rasmussen has not changed much, but the rest of the polls showing Obama with huge leads a month ago, are now showing numbers almost identical with Rasmussen.
What conclusion can we come too; well, we come to the conclusion SD ad AD have no concept of what they are alking about. In fact, Stephen is so detached from reality, he’s still using the same Obama talking points that Obama has moved on from.
Here’s a neat little poll called the Intrade Prediction Market. Even though it still shows Obama in the electorial lead, it changes each day. One thing we find interesting is that it shows Romney with VA, NC, and FL. SD made this statement:
“As for Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia? We’ll see how things shake out. You’re riding high on Romney’s return to being a serious competitor, but Since Obama’s had his night, and Romney’s had his stumbles (which must be somewhat serious since people like you are whining about eveything but Romney’s boneheaded mistake), it will be interesting to see how and in what direction the polls shake.”
I linked to this Suffolk University poll a week or two ago:
“David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Research Center, says his polling organization will no longer take anymore presidential polls in the states of North Carolina, Virginia and Florida.
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states,” Paleologos announced on FOX News’ “O’Reilly Factor” on Tuesday.”
The results from AD and SD; this is a inaccurate poll, and don’t mean anything; but it appears they knew what they were talking about.
The most recent Gallup poll has Romney with a 7 point lead on Obama; I wonder what kind of excuse the poll expert liberal team of SD and AD will have to say.
Yes, each day brings worse news for team Obama and the libs can’t figure out what is happening. These next 3 weeks will be great; and I will continue to ride SD and AD about their losing messiah. Life is good.
Oh, by the way, the Senate is now in strong play to go to the Republicans.
Does anyone know if Obama got a bounce in the polls from the 2nd debate? Or are we still talking about bounces?
Stephen, you are eaten up with it. Romney’s IRA??? Bain being saved by Fed money? Wow! You heard first here folks. Can’t believe that young Mr. Daugherty is the first to break this news, but Chris Matthews and Larry O’Donnell are sure to be yelling it repeatedly here shortly.
Something illegal here, kid? Something a CPA would not automatically take advantage of? Anything a person managing investments would not do to earn a higher return? Have indictments been handed down? Where’s the beef, Stephen? It appears to me that you are really scratching and clawing at this stage of the game. It’s kinda sad to see.
Mr. Ducker, please reach out to this young man and offer up some pertinent counseling if you truly care about him. Mention objectivity and better connecting the dots. Also throw in the “less is better” journalistic theory.
JJ, you have to remember, Stephen Daugherty and Adam Ducker are watching the collapse of liberalism in America. As the hours go by, we are seeing the unraveling of Obama’s presidency. They will say and do anything to defend Obama. He has a failed presidency and the American people see this; but SD and DA are in complete denial. If Obama opens his mouth, he is lying; his foreign policy is in shambles; is energy policies are in shambles; the economy and employment are in shambles; and what does Obama, SD, and DA do…they argue over the definition of words.
Gallup has Romney up 7 points over Obama. Romney has crossed the magical 50% line.
Stephen and Adam have done their best to parse words and defend Obama’s lies to the American people about the American’s killed in Libya. Obama has thrown the State Dept and the CIA under the bus to cover his own ass. But as usual, the truth always comes out:
“WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.”
If we still depended on the big three MSM channels, we would know nothing; but cable news and the Internet have allowed Americans to see the big picture. This is why the lies of the left and in this case I am referring to the lying polls showing Obama as in the lead over the months, would never have been known if it weren’t for cable news and the Internet, which allows us access to this:
“A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.”
If Bain was a dead issue, Romney would feel free to release all the tax returns. Has he? No. It’s not a dead issue, then.
You only tend to site Rasmussen, and that’s bad practice when it comes to polling, because there’s always somebody who screwed things up, and your polling firm has a particularly pronounced bias towards conservatives. That’s why you use it. Of course you term it being unbiased because you measure bias from the distance a poll has towards your opinion, rather than something more objective like results.
Gallup is an outlier at this point. All the other polls are doing much better. The tracking poll has a multi-day sample, so Obama’s return to form hasn’t been priced in, nor Romney’s missteps (which are serious enough that your people are scrambling to rewrite history, parsing the way you hit Bill Clinton for parsing).
It’s also got a likely voter screen on it. You want an idea of how profound that likely voter screen is? As of today, at this hour, the President trails Romney by only a single point. That’s a six point swing, with the President at 50% approval, to boot. And guess what? The tracking numbers are off of a seven day rolling average. So, given what they’re releasing to day, that’s seven days from either Thursday or even Wednesday. Let’s be kind to you and say Thursday. That means there are four days before the day of the debate, the day of the debate, and then two days after.
Also, Gallup sometimes screws things up a bit, when it separates from the pack. That’s what Statistician Nate Silver says, and he backs it up by citing numbers that have the Republicans winning 2010 by 15, when they only did so by 7. There are others, and they’re notable:
In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.
That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.
The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.
In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.
In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.
Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.
In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.
Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.
Polls are like herbivores. When one strays from the herd, it usually means that its done something wrong.
We’ll see. But what you’re saying isn’t intimidating me, anymore than I probably scare you. We both price our respective politics into our attitudes towards each other. I know what you are, and what you’re trying to do, and because I know that, all your Rush Limbaugh inspired rage doesn’t do the damage to my spirits you hope it does.
Oh, as for the middle link concerning Libya, the question you fail to ask is, could that man have been wrong? You like to think of intelligence the way you think of arguing on the internet. Go find a source, put full faith in it, and make a snap statement about it.
But in the real world, even the CIA’s officers can be wrong at times, so mature, professional people go back, and look through the evidence. It’s a moot point, though, and here’s why: President Obama never characterized it as simple mob violence, and the question he posed was never whether or not the attack was a terrorist attack. The only question is whether there was a protest involved.
If our gold standard here is Obama recognizing a terrorist attack when he sees one, then a day, two days after that he’s saying that in public, so you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s secondary whether or not people in the Administration said there was a protest. That’s just fog of war. Reality doesn’t fit into the nice confines of single sourced assertions.
It’s your sort of flying off the handle that got us into the Iraq war, that had us chasing terrorists, and ultimately creating terrorists where they weren’t.
I think people understand that in situations like that in Libya, first impressions are very often wrong.
You want short and sweet? It is mathematically impossible for Romney to have accumulated what’s in his retirement account simply by depositing regular earnings. To get under the contribution limit, he had to be doing something odd. There are a few theories on what he did, but most involve some kind of manuever with Bain stock or Bain funds.
Is it legal? Most likely, yes. So are a lot of “creative” business practices, including some of those that helped wreck the economy.
It’s not the most helpful standard for conservatives. Conservatives claim that people will self-police, that you won’t see social forces within Wall Street encouraging such behavior. The market, you claim, will gentle the tendency we all know of, for people to cheat the system.
If your only response to somebody exploiting the system in a dishonest way for gain is “is it legal?” Then you’ve already conceded the other argument, which is whether people would consider doing something like that right. Rather than say, raiding the pension fund and forcing the government to pay for the shortfall is an entirely appropriate behavior (an argument you would lose, obviously), you simply say, “It’s not illegal.” Hoping people buy legality as the gold moral standard.
Your reversion to arguments of legality means you can’t argue for it on socially acceptable behavior grounds, because if you could, you would.
I think the quote at the end of my link says it about right, since you’re asking for it with your CPA question:
One thing is clear. While most Americans have the ability to open an IRA, very few have the opportunity to engage in the sort of scrupulous tax planning Romney has shown.
“Romney is an aggressive tax planner,” said Wilkins.”He’s not just collecting his paycheck and dividends from Bain, he’s planning his affairs in the most tax advantageous [way possible].”
Still, Wilkins added, “I used to be a C.P.A. in private practice. It was not unusual for someone to roll over a $3 million IRA. But $20 or $100 million? It’s unfathomable.”
“Unfathomable”. An accountant is saying that its this extraordinary.
Why don’t we admit that you’re having to do a whole lot of backflips around the evidence to keep up your support for Romney, and that you’re the last person who needs to be lecturing me on objectivity. True, I have a point of view, but I also like to be right on an objective level.
Good good comments in this thread.
Stephen: “Gallup is an outlier at this point. All the other polls are doing much better.”
It’s important to point out suggesting the results of a poll is an outlier is different than suggesting that poll is skewed or somehow manipulated. Statisticians talk of data outliers, conservatives talk about fudged numbers and manipulation. Their unstoppable ability to tear down anything scientific and replace it with total horse crap both makes me want to laugh and cry all at the same time.
Rasmussen has the race tied. So does another poll today. The rest show Obama head. RCP averages it all back down to only +0.3 for Romney right now. If you take out Gallup as an outlier the president leads by +0.7. All of this is with likely voters. I expect Gallup to decline over the next few days and for President Obama to be ahead again, for however short that may live.
Unfortunately for both sides this looks to me be much more like 2000 and 2004 than 2008. I keep watching PA, OH, and FL to see what’s happening there. The president leads PA and OH and is on the rise in both still. The president trails FL but is closing the gap. If the election were held today it would be impossible to say who would win but I would bet on President Obama.
You’re looney. You pull stuff off the Internet and declare it fact. “Mathematically possible”? Some CPA said…???? Who do you think you are? Mike Wallace? I hate to bust your bubble, but you’re not. If all your revelations had any merit, every talking head on MSNBC would be spitting it out…but they’re not, Stephen, are they? What does this tell you?
My guess is it will not register with you because you are so eaten up with Obama you can’t make yourself see things objectively. It makes you look foolish.
I loved the Repub party. My wife was in charge of Reagan campaign charters. My son, as a Texas Rangers batboy, used to sit in front of George W. and fetch him gum and sunflower seeds, I never voted for a Dem for major office in my life. In 2007, I began taking an objective look at those who govern. I did not like what I saw. I am an active participant in helping my district state senator get re-elected. She is a Dem. I voted for a Dem for governor last time around. I am objective, Stephen. You are not.
Of course I’m citing just RCP. Nate Silver gives the president a 70% chance of winning based on both national and state polling.
Adam, on the polling I remeber back in 2008 all of the Monday morning quarterbacking after Obama won the election. It was said that there was no “Bradley Effect” in his election but someone looked at it later and determined that Obama’s campaign significantly increased the black turnout in a year when fewer base Republicans voted for McCain. The independents went about as expected and the result was a comfortable win for Obama. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens this year and whether the polling guys adjusted their formulas correctly.
I doubt that the black vote will reach the highs it did in 2008. This is no longer a historical election and the President’s popularity reflects less than enthusiastic support. But Romney has the exact same problem that McCain did in that the he is not the ideal candidate for the GOP base. It could be a case where both base turnouts are light and the middle really will decide the outcome.
So all of this figures in to how accurate the polling data is today. My guess is none of them have it right but at least one of them will luck into the right answer.
I agree, George. It seems like enthusiasm is cutting both ways for the candidates with a slight advantage to Romney.
A better candidate with the kind of 2010 enthusiasm really would have been positioned to destroy Obama like Reagan did Carter. That’s certainly what they are still hoping will happen somehow, magically. Instead we’re getting almost the exact opposite of Bush versus Kerry.
Democrats hated Bush and Republicans loved him. The president’s popularity was in decline and his policies in question. Along comes Kerry, probably the one candidate none of us wanted to win but somehow did anyway. We still thought Kerry would walk all over Bush but we know now it was too close and Bush pulled it out. It looks a whole lot like that can happen again in 17 days.
Stephen Daugherty, my eyes glaze over when I read your posts. It’s kind of like what my dog hears when I talk to him.
Bain blah, blah blah, blah, blah…Rasmussen, blah, blah, bias, blah…Gallup, blah, blah, screws things, blah, bah…Nate Silver, blah, blah…polls, blah, blah, herbivores, blah….Rush Limbaugh, blah, blah, rage, blah…Libya, blah, blah, CIA, blah, blah…Obama, blah, blah, messiah, blah, blah.
Thanks Stephanie, but come up with something original that’s not an Obama talking point. I would like to know what you are really thinking, but you would never tell us because you are so busy trying to spread BS.
But Frank my dog makes way more sense then you do. Get some help for your anger issues.
Can you believe this was in The Washington Post? Perhaps we have been too hard on the liberal press, or perhaps the liberal press has finally figure out what is happening to America:
“August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”) ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichÃ©s, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.”
Mr. Ducker…good comparison. Unfortunately, there was no Reagan in the Repub line-up. I believe that Romney will immediately move toward the middle once elected and go to work on both sides of the isle to get things moving. Neocons will not be happy. This is my prediction.
I have no problem with Romney working with the other side, as long as he shuts down Obamacare, opens the production of fossil fuel, cuts government spending, shuts down the EPA, increases school vouchers, and does away with about half of the federal employees.
“A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.
The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.
“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.
According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 213 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”
Bingo, Frank. Afraid some Pentagon $ are going to have to go, too. There’s lots of waste in the defense department. Austerity measures will have to be implemented if we want to right the ship.
Look, what you seem to want, and it’s a rather naive thing, is for me to suddenly stop advocating for what I advocate in. That’s not happening. I’ve got my reasons, chief among them being the divorce of the GOP from reality. To me, it’s not objective to be even-handed or bipartisan, but rather to depend upon facts for the basis of your arguments and actions. Those who simply divide the difference or take a position without checking to see what’s true are the ones who lack objectivity. They’ve put a subjective philosophy ahead of the real world.
And in my view, Objectivity is something we can only approach. It’s not perfectly achieveable. A constant seeking after fact and explanation, a reliance on real world data to at least form the starting point of a decision are what I view as the gateways to more objective thought.
As for the revelations, I’m pretty sure there was a lot of attention paid to it, but I have my doubts you were paying attention to them at that point. Romney’s taxes and finances where big news on several occasions. If you’re truly objective, go and look it up. Check the transcript, so to speak, rather than making Romney’s mistake and simply assuming a fact.
Nobody here is completely objective, but the greater extent of that objectivity is invested in those who listen to other people, not the folks who are too dismissive of other people to even verify the information. I mean, what reason do you have to disbelieve what is at the end of those links other than your ideology?
Yeah, I notice what’s missing is any real argument in return. I provide evidence of what Bain’s doing, you ignore it. Gallup’s inaccuracies, on multiple occasions? Ignored. So on so forth. What are you hear for? To discuss politics, or throw rocks at liberals?
You guys seem to think that simply insulting us is good enough to win the argument! You seem to think it’s a barely evolved schoolyard shouting match.
Politics is uglier today, and it seems like it’s taking policy, and the state of this country with it. This is what has to happen for you people to keep your power, even as your leaders exhaust their solutions to problems, and fearful of losing power, obstruct everybody else from doing something different.
You can trash us, but does that make the GOP look like the better choice? No, it distracts people for a while, until your policies can remind people why they wre abandoned.
As for your last post? I feel so sorry for you, if he wins the election. You put your trust in a snake-oil salesman, a person who will be severely conservative when you’re in the room, and severely moderate when the folks from the center are there instead. You just want so badly to win that you don’t even care what kind of a conman you put your faith in.
Republicans have to have their revenge for the humiliation that Democrats gave them over Bush. Notice how each thing they accuse Obama of has a parallel. Bush was an idiot off script, then so much Obama be. Bush lost us two wars, so whatever policy Obama brings to the table must be a disaster, unravelling before our eyes.
So on an so forth.
But Obama isn’t an idiot. In fact, in some ways, Obama is better than Clinton, including in the fact that he actually got more liberal policies passed, despite Republicans filibustering everything in sight. Republicans engage in this dual track of fantasy, where Obama is an all powerful enemy of all that is good, cunningly hiding the truth about his real intentions, and at the same time, he’s a pathetic elitist wimp who can’t do anything right.
The truth is, Republicans can’t stand the fact that they keep on pulling the jokers out of the deck while we got this Ace in our hand, which we’re playing for all he’s worth.
You want to know why I chose to follow Obama as a leader? It’s pretty simple: this is guy is truly charismatic, truly intelligent, and seems like the kind of guy who can both engage Liberal and Democrats in general, like Gore and Kerry didn’t, yet at the same time change the way politics flows in the country. You don’t have anybody as powerful as that. You just have a fast talking, egotistical bully who not even his own constituents fully trust. I mean, how long would it take, if Obama is defeated, for the Right to turn on this man? He’ll break their hearts, break his promises, probably complete the job Bush did on your party. And why is this possible? Because the GOP is more obsessed with permanently defeating Democrats than remaining true to reality, or even to itself. Republicans have sold their soul trying to get perpetual control they don’t have the real power to get as reasonable men and women.
Daugherty made this comment and it kind of stuck out, “But Obama isn’t an idiot”.
I just watched a special on Fox News by Bret Baier entitled “Death and Deceit in Benghazi”. It was a great investigative report. I would suggest searching it online and watching it. There can be no doubt; this whole thing was a lie and then a series of cover ups. Dana Perino (former WH Secretary for Bush) was interviewed in the special. She made the statement that perhaps the biggest mistake of the Obama organization, was when he ignored the murders and headed off to Vegas for a campaign event. She said Obama had the chance to stay in DC and he would have looked presidential.
You know, we all face choices in life. We all come to that crossroad and have to make a decision that may well affect the rest of our life. This was Obama’s crossroad; rather than stay in DC and call this a terrorist act that killed Americans, he chose to go on a campaign trip, he chose to blame the attack on a video which no one saw, and he sent his surrogates out to pass this message along. Hillary Clinton has ruined any political ambitions when she took the blame for the purpose of covering Obama rear end.
This Obama cover up is the strangest thing I have ever seen. Was Obama’s lie the result of trying to cover the resurgence of Al Qaida? Was it because he has been campaigning on the death of Bin Laden and that he had Al Qaida on the run? This is what Obama has been saying at his campaign stops and all of a sudden the “Al Qaida on the run” has been removed from his speech.
Obama is going to have to face Romney in debate #3 and the subject will be foreign policy. Romney has Obama on this one; Obama’s greatest weakness is that he cannot defend his record. He has no plan to run on for the next 4 years and no record to run on for the past 4 years. The CIA has refused to be thrown under the bus like Hillary and has come out saying the administration knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. The Obama administration was involved up to their eyeballs in the Fast and Furious fiasco; but the stalling of releasing documents has saved him. In fact, the Obama administration has faced one screw up after another and has managed to slip out of it. But as much as the MSM has tried to get Obama re-elected; there comes a time when even the MSM has to face the facts. Obama is losing and even the MSM is starting to question his actions.
My final thought is; is Obama aware of what he is doing, does he actually believe he’s the smartest man on earth and above indictment, or has he surrounded himself with complete idiots who believe they are above the law. The article linked to by TomT in the WAPO is a good example of the liberal press coming to their senses. Laying aside all political partisanship, I find Obama’s presidency to be the strangest thing I have ever seen. Not only has he done nothing worthwhile, he has also destroyed the political careers of many in Congress. The 2010 elections cost many Democrats their jobs as a result of Obamacare, and the election in 3 weeks will cost the Democrats the Senate and continued loss of the House. These politicians got caught up in the excitement of a man who thought himself to be Jesus Christ. And like many other self anointed gods, he will be brought down. There are absolutely no polls showing Obama in a surge. All are showing Romney as taking the lead.
Is Obama an idiot? I don’t know, but I do think he expected the American voters to be idiots, or he is surrounded by idiots.
“You want to know why I chose to follow Obama as a leader? It’s pretty simple: this is guy is truly charismatic, truly intelligent, and seems like the kind of guy who can both engage Liberal and Democrats in general, like Gore and Kerry didn’t, yet at the same time change the way politics flows in the country. You don’t have anybody as powerful as that. You just have a fast talking, egotistical bully who not even his own constituents fully trust. I mean, how long would it take, if Obama is defeated, for the Right to turn on this man? He’ll break their hearts, break his promises, probably complete the job Bush did on your party. And why is this possible? Because the GOP is more obsessed with permanently defeating Democrats than remaining true to reality, or even to itself. Republicans have sold their soul trying to get perpetual control they don’t have the real power to get as reasonable men and women.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2012 10:19 PM
Stephen, these comments are embarrassing. If I believed this crap, I don’t think I would post it on the Internet. Tell me Stephen, in as few words as possible, do you really think the American people are going to re-elect Obama? Your real answer and not a plethora of BS.
Bless your heart, you just don’t get it.
In your mind you are breaking damning news about Romney, when in fact you are just repeating unsubstantiated b.s. like all the Kennedy assassination theorists do. You keep trying to turn fiction into fact. Stop it. You look foolish.
Billinflorida: “These politicians got caught up in the excitement of a man who thought himself to be Jesus Christ.”
Just like any good secret Muslim does, right? This is as absurd as it gets. You’d prefer us to nominate the Al Gore’s and the John Kerry’s of the Democratic party so that we don’t get all excited about our guy the way we do with President Obama. It bothers you that you hate him so much but the American public in general still kind of likes the guy. You can call him names and you can call us names for supporting him but you can’t wish away the fact that Obama is beating Romney still.
“There are absolutely no polls showing Obama in a surge. All are showing Romney as taking the lead.”
Another conservative poll hater that suddenly likes polls again as soon as they show your guy on top? But have you seen the polls today? You’re going to hate them. You’re going to have to find ways to ignore them and pretend they’re false, skewed again.
I heard yesterday that the liberal MSM was now taking their news headlines from liberal blog sites. Is this one of those stories?
I love the way the dumbass liberals’ jump all over a “BIG” case of voter fraud. But don’t let the facts get in the way. Why do you suppose Obama is losing? Because of crap like this; the American people are smart enough to figure this out. But DA liberals like Adrienne suck up the “evidence” on blog sites and run with it. This is the story from US News and World Report; of course, you have to read through the first couple of line of BS to get to the truth:
“But a source close to the case against Small says the young field worker missed the deadline to return eight voter forms, and then, panicking, appears to have thrown those eight forms in the trash.
According to the source, Small would have gotten fired for missing that deadline.
While Harrisonburg swung slightly Democratic in the 2008 election, Small’s job was to follow up with voters who were potential Republicans. In all likelihood, the forms he allegedly threw in the dumpster would have belonged to Republican voters.”
OH NO!!! Don’t tell me, the voter registration forms were Republicans and his job was to follow up on Republican voters. Was this little fact found on the blog site…NO.
“All eight voters have now been correctly registered, according to the source.
Small has now been fired from his job working with the Republican Party of Virginia. According to a statement from state party chairman Pat Mullins, Small’s actions were a “direct contradiction” to his training and instructions.
Although Small’s relationship was with the state party, the Republican National Committee has also faced questions about the alleged voter fraud because Small’s LinkedIn account lists his job as “grassroots field director” for the RNC.
RNC communications director Sean Spicer tells Whispers that title is “incorrect.” He likens Spicer’s exaggerated title to a freelance journalist writing for a smaller newspaper, but describing their role as a staffer at a larger paper.”
Oh NO!!! Don’t tell me that he wasn’t who the blog site says he was.
“Spicer also responded to questions about Small’s previous work at Strategic Allied Consulting, an Arizona firm fired by the Republican party in early October after fraudulent registration forms were discovered. Small has worked all along for a staffing company called PinPoint, says Spicer, and it was through Pinpoint that he delivered services to Strategic Allied Consulting, and later the Republican Party of Virginia.
“We have zero tolerance” for voter fraud, he says.”
By the way, this young man was 23 years old and not 31 as first stated in the blog. So we are not looking at a Republican operative who has been working for “Koch” industries for the past 15 years. It turns out, he’s just a stupid kid. Oh yes, this is a BIG story Adrienne; just like the rest of your normal liberal BS. Grab this ball and run with it. I’m sure, when the American people hear it; they will swing back to supporting Obama.
A.D. Here’s a rhyme that comes to mind:
Humpy Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men,
Could not put Humpty together again.
I suggest that you and the other blindly loyal apologists for Barak line up some professional help for early November. It is dangerous to go through deep despair alone.
I assure you that President Obama losing will be far less depressing to liberals than President Obama winning will be to conservatives. Who will you blame first if Obama wins?
If Obama wins I blame the triumph of style over substance and the triumph of hope over experience.
Republicans have sold their soul trying to get perpetual control they don’t have the real power to get as reasonable men and women.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2012 10:19 PM
This sentence, after pages of Mr. Daugherty’s “self-diagnosis”, sums up his belief. His psychoanalysis of himself is faulty as he can’t admit that he loves government to spend other peoples money on him. He can’t admit to himself that he loves it when the liberal tail wags the dog despite it being a minority position.
Then, unable to understand himself, and his own motivations, he transfers his “self-evident” brilliant theories to others. Understandably, his Autism (characteristic of a triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior) aggravates his political writings.
His writings remind me of our younger son who also has Autism. When our son is speaking to us he simply doesn’t recognize and respond to the feedback we give him with verbal hints and by body language. He can only respond to direct verbal command.
For example, when our son talks about a recent movie he has seen it’s not enough to merely sum up the story line, he must relive the entire movie. Unless directly told that he is boring us, he can’t detect the subtle hints we may give him verbally or by our body language.
When Mr. Daugherty wishes to make a political point he must give the entire narrative of how he comes to his conclusions and why they can be the only correct conclusion. Feedback doesn’t affect him or ever alter his beliefs. He simply can not understand being incorrect, or why anyone would ever disagree.
Please understand Mr. Daugherty, I do sympathize with you and know how difficult life has been, and is, for you in coping with this malady. You are no doubt a very good person who wishes to do good for others. I write this in the hopes that others will view you with understanding rather than hostility.
I always find it humorous to hear middle class republicans rail on about the size of govt and how there lives would be so much better without it. It is so funny because their whole life, and probably their parents lives, were affected in a positive way by the fed. govt.
The one thing that allows middle class people to even live a modest life and live in a nice suburban home is the 30 year fix loan. Right now tens of millions of middle class citizens are able to save for college, pay for groceries and live in a nice/modest house simply because they are paying a low interest rate over a period of 30 years.
For those republicans who think the free market is the best solution to everything answer me one question. Do you think private lenders are going to continue the 30 year fixed loan if the government does not guarantee it?
Now of course during the Bush presidency when regulation was an after thought, lenders clearly took advantage of a system that for many years helped middle and lower income Americans. They simply qualified everybody in order to make as much money as they could and left the taxpayer on the hook.
But what lender in their right mind is going to lend anyone making under $250,000 a loan for 30 freakin years at a low interest rate? Answer: None, because the risk wouldn’t be worth it, and it’s going to take 30 years to get paid back. Anything can happen to a borrower over the course of 30 years. Without the government, lenders are only going to lend to people who make a lot more money than you, can either pay it back in a much shorter amount of time, or who can make a much larger down payment than you are able to.
So to all my republican middle class friends who complain about Fannie and Freddie and the role of government in your lives remember this: You probably wouldn’t even be in the house you call home right now if it wasn’t for the federal government covering your ass. So stop saying that your tired of the free handouts and the moochers who are destroying this country. The reality is, you are one of them.
We made it through the last four years, didn’t we? We’ve grown tough and can handle it if we have to. Not sure Obama can handle another win. He is lazy now; might be asleep at the wheel during another term
Stephen, are you autistic? I have been very critical, and offer my apology to you even if you are not. I truly prefer making friends to creating enemies. Let’s part ways just stating that we choose to disagree.
“T”, why do you feel that your one example (low cost, government backed mortgages) justifies the huge government welfare programs we are supporting and the $16 trillion in debt we now have accumulated?
I recall the first new car loan that I got from a bank, without a cosigner, when I was age 21 in 1961. I had saved my money and paid down one-third, had a good job, had good credit, and financed it for three years which was the maximum payout period at that time. Back then I traded cars nearly every three years and always had clear title to my trade-in.
Today, seven year auto financing, with nothing down, is not unusual. New car buyers under this type of financing are “up-side-down” for over five years. Fewer cars can be purchased by these kinds of buyers than by those who have a larger down payment and shorter repayment terms.
Home mortgages in the 60’s were also of shorter duration and with larger down payments than what we saw a few short years ago in the housing boom. And, as a result, we see today millions of homeowners who are “up-side-down” in their home ownership.
Incentives to buy now, pay less down, and for more extended terms, will always result in slower sales at some point in the future unless the growth of the population is high to bring on new buyers and borrowers.
Huge government welfare benefits have floated the boats of many recipients who could have, and did not, work to live. And, today, we have seen that there is an end to such largess by government. We have debt we simply can’t repay over the short term. Our debt and continued deficit spending means that we, and our children, will be paying back for many decades what we squandered in the last few years.
I agree with you 100%. I’m not talking about welfare recipients though. I’m talking about your average middle class homeowner who thinks he got a home loan because he is perfectly qualified and works harder than others.
I just find it funny that these people who vote republican and yell about the fed government are people who wouldn’t even be living in their current home because the favorable financing would have never been available to them without the backing of the federal govt. Again these are people who work for a living and include tens of millions of people. Your average middle class household.
I have noticed “T” that we all “yell” at the fed government from time to time. Shouldn’t we all agree that so much deficit spending is bad for the country?
John Johnson, and the rest of the “conservative” trash talking, garbage tossing and just plain lying trolls….. It is just freakin’ hilarious to sit here and watch you falling farther and farther into the panic mode descending on all of you at this time.
None of us know how the election will come out, and that is, in no way, thanks to all of those who have been trying to skew the outcome for some weeks now. It is such a pitiful and pathetic thing to watch, knowing that your efforts are fueled by your sheer panic, having to sit and watch the very strong possibility of your ill-prepared and shoddily capable choice not seeing success. You’re shrieking like piggies caught in a trap, and making up lies and creating bullshit excuses like crazy. You can’t dig up enough true information and details to stimulate people, so you just keep on lying and throwing incorrect crap around. I’m sure that since you are all such strong biblical followers and are so maddened by lies and untruths, this faith and belief will keep you safely on the path to the true (“god-like”) qualities you so aspire to achieve.
This years’ group of contemptuous crap-slingers will, no doubt, go down in Watchblog fame…….as some of the most pitiful and pathetic we’ve seen in quite some time. Remember to voice your thanks for that achievement when you attend your individual worship places tomorrow……..
If you think deficit spending is bad, then how can you support Mitt Romney? What do you think he did at Bain Capital?
Bain would take over struggling companies and borrow/lend money to help them see if they could regain their footing. Otherwise known as deficit spending. He was ah huge believer in it. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t.
“What do you think he did at Bain Capital?” I think he ran a firm that was profitable. A firm cannot run a deficit, not for very long at least.
There is a big difference between government and business in that respect. When Bain helped rebuilt or support firms like Clear Channel, Domino’s Pizza, Burger King, Sealy Corporation, Dunkin’ Donuts, Gymboree, Toys R Us, RJR Nabisco, Michael’s Craft Store, Burlington Coat Factory or Staples, they made money. Since nothing lasts forever, some of these would subsequently have troubles and even go out of business.
But when critics complain about Bain, it is a lot like criticizing a doctor who takes very hard cases because some patients don’t recover and even those who do eventually get sick sometime again.
I guess you didn’t read the link for the report on Clear Channel. That company’s so loaded up with debt, folks are expecting the company to either restructure its debt payments (including a 15 billion dollar one!), or else default.
This is not unusual. Yeah, Sealy, you remember that item in your list!
And what about Gymboree?
You seem to believe that these companies just come in and buy them outright, but what those three companies show are companies that somehow come under control of Bain, and Bain basically makes them issue most of the cost for Bain purchasing the company by having the company issue debt.
You talk about him being a doctor, well he very well could be, if we’re talking about the kind of doctor that George Washington had. Debt doesn’t exactly help businesses, and as the Sealy case tells us, Bain doesn’t necessarily make the wisest business choices, as far as the company’s concerned. They’re not interested in the health of the company as a first priority. That’s what the previously described debt-driven dividends are about.
They’re not dependent on the performance of their companies. Instead, they’re relying on the corporate ability to raise debt, not even paying full price for the company, and then often times making their profits off of endebting, rather than actually helping the company.
The critics complain because it seems like the Private Equity firms are more like opportunistic parasites than good Samaritans these days. Bain’s subsidiaries don’t have to profit for Bain to make a profit off of them, and that is what seems to be wrong. Bain, if its management or risk analysis fails, ought to feel a degree of pain from that. But it doesn’t.
If I could boil it down, It’d say this: the Problem is, the failures of the top, the elite, no longer seem to bring those people crashing down. Instead, it hits people like you and I, and they get to continue this mismanagement, making yet more bad decisions.
The point, the spirit of a country like ours is that people who lead us well should be rewarded, and those who lead us poorly should not. Now, I know where you will take this argument, but it seems to me that you have the argument upside down, policy-wise. Your party seems apt to reward those screwing up, help them, rather than confronting them about their mistakes.
It’s a strange coverup, because it isn’t one. What precisely has been covered up? That it was a deliberate attack? Not at all. The President called it such the first day. He told an Israeli newspaper the next day that he thought it was a deliberate attack.
Additionally, reports from the CIA had plenty of people milling about, not necessarily participating in the attack, so what’s clear in retrospect, that these represented parts of a militia, not protestors, wasn’t clear then.
As for the campaign stop? How many attacks just as bad as this occured during the 2004 campaign season? Did it cause Bush to have to suspend his campaign?
What this amounts to is conservative media stupidity, carrying water for a candidate.
Worse yet is the Conservative congressional stupidity, releasing hundreds of pages of sensitive documents in an attempt to smear Obama. They forgot to protect the names of quite a few CIA assets, Libyans who took risks to work with us. But I guess if it gets Romney elected, that’s alright!
By the way, there is no coverup. Watergate was a coverup, was Nixon paying off people who committed a felony on his behalf. This is a mixed message at worst.
Yes, I think it’s likely they’ll re-elect Obama.
Romney’s problem is that taking positions is like using the region coding on your DVD player. There’s only so many times you can change before people stick you with a position. People are recognizing that Romney can’t be trusted. Hopefully enough will do so that we don’t have to suffer through learning this as an object lesson.
Where’s your evidence, your counterarguments? All you basically say is that I’m wrong, or insult me for having the temerity to write somewhat like a journalist, or anything like a Democrat.
After all the hell you rained down on ACORN and other leftward organizations over the voter registration irregularities, you’re expecting everybody to treat this case with kid gloves? What hypocrisy. Don’t jump to conclusions? Like the whole Republican Party did with ACORN?
Perhaps Democrats made too much of it, but this is in response to a party that destroyed a major community organizing non-profit over similar irregularities and questions. What have you done to earn the benefit of the doubt?
You know, my experience of life is not a constant ordeal. It seems very normal to me, for the most part. I didn’t diagnose myself. I’ve been diagnosed three different times by different professionals. It’s a mild diagnosis, though that hasn’t always meant mild consequences.
It’s a bit patronizing for you to assume why I think the way I do. I want the government to do for our country what it’s supposed to do: improve the nation’s fortunes. I don’t have this rigid political belief either in the government doing everything, or in the government doing nothing. I think of it as a matter of practical judgment where the consequences of decisions ought to be paid attention to so changes can be made when they’re needed.
I do tend to try and give people the pathway I took to a decision, to a belief, because I think that’s what’s fair when it comes to trying to persuade people. And yes, if I believe something, I don’t necessarily have a lot of alternatives in mind. What is, is. I don’t want to pushed into believing something else by somebody insulting me or trying to pull some social trick on me. Of course experience has taught me that alternatives are possible, but my opinion is that people should return the favor of explaining their pathway. I would like them to really know their stuff better than me before I concede.
Also, you should know that anytime somebody makes a claim that I find somewhat dubious, I tend to google it, because the last thing I want to do is concede a position or believe a report, when so often the Reports on the right turn out to be faulty. I don’t like to be manipulated, and if I don’t trust you, there’s a big hill of evidence you have to climb. It’s basic psychological self-defense for a person who can’t always tell when people are BSing him. And it really doesn’t help if the opponent is hostile, because if you throw a lot of emotion my way, it takes a lot of time for me to bleed it off.
I could very easily have been a stubborn Republican instead of a stubborn Democrat. The problem is, the GOP started to behave little different than the people I hated in school, and worse yet began denying outright things I knew were true from a lifetime of study. I also happened to be easygoing about social issues, so the hard right turn never sat well with me.
The further irony of the last ten years is that I was still on the conservative end of being a Democrat. What pushed me further is a combination of policy failure, and a political failure to deal with mistakes, and to be as bipartisan as Democrats were in the minority. I still am willing to see my leaders negotiate, but nowadays I don’t expect the cooperation or the practicality from the right that I once did.
When the GOP gets friendlier, more centrist, less hostile to the sciences, when it abandons a culture war I was never on the right side of for their tastes, I’ll be more sympathetic. For the time being, I would say that there’s more value in Democrats being hardcore competitors, becaus otherwise we’re just going to get run over.
More than a decade after Romney worked on these things, I would be surprised if all of them continued in such good financial health. All things come to an end. That is something your people seem not to understand. Keeping a firm solvent for more than a decade is a success.
Romney did an excellent job at Bain. The fact that every firm he helped save is not still profitable ten or twenty year later does not change that.
Only God could guarantee such a result and he doesn’t organize his schedule around our venal needs.
You keep on repeating that same platitude, without recognizing that it’s not exactly helpful for a company that’s in trouble to take on a huge amount of debt, and its not exactly healthy for our economy or our fiscal bottom line to be encouraging private equity firms to profit off of crippling companies in this manner. Yes, bad things happen to companies all the time, but the real question is, did Bain make it worse than it would otherwise be?
Bain made money when the firms did well. They took on firms in trouble, so naturally some stayed in trouble. Others did well even decades later. Bain generally made things better. There are no cases where Bain took a healthy company and crippled it. They worked with crippled firms, some of which they cured.
It is very hard to pick winners. At least Romney took the risk. We know that Obama pissed away a half a billion dollars of OUR money in Solydra and got nothing at all. Obama’s strategy was much like Bain’s.
The difference between our points of view is that I prefer that private firms and people risk their money, while you want to shovel our money out the door. Romney had the courage and smarts to risk his money. Obama just takes ours and gives it away to his cronies. I prefer the Romney approach.
Bain, and other private equity firms these days, does perfectly fine when its businesses go under.
By the way, what was the going success rate under Bain? Because you criticize the President for Programs that picked companies for federal aid for a few percentage of those companies failing, and yet you are likely to reward Romney for a much lesser success rate. Is there just simply a double standard here you can’t help but apply, since this is government we’re talking about?
Regardless of whether Romney was right or wrong, it wasn’t Candy Crowley’s place to fact-check a candidate during the middle of the debate. That was Obama’s job. And she did it in a highly partisan manner. I read that she interrupted Romney 22 times during that second debate, but only interrupted Obama 9 times. You can see how she repeatedly interrupted Romney when he went over, not allowing him to finish was he was saying, but when Obama went over, she told him he was over the time limit and then allowed him to finish his statement. She was blatantly biased.
problemThe past H&M and many luxury brand cooperation series of products by consumers almost all crazy chase after hold in both hands, from selling this before the customer’s night queue, sales website paralyzed it is not difficult to see that. But these consumers crazy enthusiasm from most of the luxury of cooperation with H&M brand and not its own.
how are u, love your site!