There appears to be a limit as to how much abuse the economy can take from the Obama administration. He’s vilified coal and the utilities, shut down drilling in the Gulf for a year, gone after the oil and gas industry, thrust Obamacare on small and large business, attacked the general aviation industry, taken over student loans, leaned on the banks and threatened the small business entrepreneur. Today’s grim employment numbers suggest we may have hit the wall.
Some would say that’s a feature not a bug for Obama.
This is why I didn’t like the spectacle of Republicans eating their own this early out. All of the candidates, whether we like them or not, will be able to focus on Obama’s failures from different angles. In the end, the candidate who gets the nod will profit from this. There are probably many voters who would tune out criticism from a Tea Party candidate, but who could be shaken out of their lethargy by Romney. Right now it is important to keep that generic Republican looking better that The Won. This also makes it harder from the MSM to destroy any one candidate.
I’m beginning to think the democrat strategy is to not back off on destroying the economy until mid 2012. Then they plan to back off a notch to give us headlines like “100 percent increase in monthly jobs” and”consumer confidence at three year high” heading into the election. Never mind that a 100% increase of awful is still dismal.
the lesser of two evils is acceptable. a proven administrator, reined by a conservative congress, looks like heaven from here today.
Ed you are correct. For all his faults, Mitt Romney looks like George Washington himself next to Barak Obama.
1. Back when he declined to run for a second term as MA governor, I crossed Romney off my Presidential list.
Having learned that he got Whitey Bulger’s power broker brother William removed as head of the UMass system, I believe I owe Mitt–not that he’s ideal–another look.
2. I don’t like the smell of religious bigotry that emanates from some of his opponents.
Probably better than flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop…
Steve has hit the nail. It’s WAAAYY too early to handicap this horse race. What happens between July1 and Oct 31, 2012 will be infinitely more influential with the general voter than what is happening now. Not too early for the Republican horse race, but your average voter only starts paying attention in the presidential election somewhere after Labor Day.
And yes, I think the Dems are planning to “pull out” the economy sometime in the summer of 2012.
physicsguy concludes:
“I think the Dems are planning to ‘pull out’ the economy sometime in the summer of 2012.”
Do they have -1- the know-how (economic expertise) and -2- the power (ability plus wherewithal) to pull it off?
Romney is a douche. If he wins the nomination (unlikely, and hopefully not) I will vote for him in the general. I sincerely hope he’s not the guy. At this point I’m really hoping Perry will jump in, especially after standing up to the UN and the Obama administration on the recent execution of a rapist and murderer. I think he’s the guy I’ll work for and contribute money to.
Under any but the most extreme conditions (Hoover/1932), it is difficult to dislodge a sitting President.
Ford/1976 and Carter/1980 went into election season holding bad hands. Arguably each could have won had he played his bad cards without mistakes. Ditto for Bush/1992 had he found a way to placate Perot, who’d described Bill Clinton as unfit for a corporate role above middle management.
The prospects for defeating Obama are real, but IMHO the caution of SteveH and physicsguy is well taken.
The President hasn’t fixed anything.
That’s the wrong argument!
Good Americans don’t rely on a President. That whole argument will rebound against a good President who will necessarily encounter hard times in order to set the game back in order. Plus, if one uses this argument, it is a tacit acceptance that the President should or can do things like create jobs or improve the economy. Enough of this supersizing of the President and centralizing power.
The truth, which a humble candidate should espouse, is that the best President should know their limit to do evil exceeds their limit to do good. Execute the laws of the United States and provide for our defense. And keep the Mao balls off the Christmas trees. That’s it.
That’s what’s wrong with Romney. Too much Hoover and not enough Coolidge. He’s better than Obama, of course, but shares the same fatal deception of his own importance to the game.
gs, I firmly believe that the ONLY reason Bill Clinton won a second term was that we elected Bob Dole as our nominee. Bob Dole was the worst possible candidate of that whole field, and possibly the worst possible presidential candidate of all time. I think Obama is REAL beatable, but if we don’t choose our nominee wisely, we will be saddled with another four years, and a destroyed health care system. Since we all know that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, and Romney has failed to renounce it, it makes it extremely hard for him to argue against Obamacare in the general election. I hope we choose much more wisely than Romney.
The VodkaPundit has a list of economic statistics posted that should scare the stoutest of souls. Every Republican presidential hopeful needs to use this list as opening remarks for every speech given. They need to be repeated so often that no literate person can ignore them.
“”Do they have -1- the know-how (economic expertise) and -2- the power (ability plus wherewithal) to pull it off?””
M J R
All they have to do is make a few reasonable moves and stop pitching class warfare. This economy is terrible because of the endless punitive nature of democrat words that are putting too much risk in any movement toward growth in private sector America.
IOW, the economy will recover when democrats stifle the anti business (which is anti job) rhetoric and act like grownups.
It’s doubtful Romney can beat Obama’s fundraising capacity and he’ll need every cent to combat the Democrat and liberal media machine. Even with money you need presence and a compelling message and I don’t know how well he’ll withstand the Palinization he’ll inevitably get once nominated. I’m not thinking only of the religious bigotry he’ll receive but the oppo research the Dums will invent to smear him and his family. I’m don’t think he knows what he’s getting into.
Steve H, “All they have to do is make a few reasonable moves and stop pitching class warfare. This economy is terrible because of the endless punitive nature of democrat words that are putting too much risk in any movement toward growth in private sector America.”
I agree that Obama’s anti-business stance has destroyed confidence especially in the small business sector. The tax increases they are looking to enact are on small business owners for the most part. It is my observation from talking with a number of small business owners that it will take more than a change in rhetoric. They are very distrustful of Obama now. That trust cannot be easily won back. It would take solid action and pro-business policies. That can’t be done in six months.
Fire? Really? There’s no fire in these statements.
Plus, Romney got it wrong. There is no indifference. Obama loves to inflict pain. He laughs. He mocks. He scoffs while he fills the government trough. There is no indifference here.
That’s Romney fire! Snort.
Read Stanly Kurtz for a little fire. The truth is fire and by all means the truth is not that Obama is indifferent. Was Alinsky indifferent. Now that was a man of hate. Of passion. Obama may show indifference because he cannot reveal his true emotions or the glee the success his plan to “transform” America has brought him. Or his soaking of the American taxpayer to fund his vacations, his political campaigning, his slavish toadying to world dictators, and his slurping slurpees and gulping food at the local deli that’s not really so local but really is since, hey–he’s got the jet!
Indifferent? Obama’s having the time of his life. Michelle too.
Here’s some fire: Obama is a fraudulent incompetent President who seeks America’s downfall and the only reason he hasn’t been impeached for the crime he is, is that the whole thing is too much to be comprehended by your average democrat whose main source of information comes from an equally corrupt and incompetent source.
Let’s hear Romney say something like that.
Fire? I call it milk toast.
Here’s something you can do to wipe that smile off Obama’s face. Sign a petition. It’s not exactly as quick or effective as a punch in the nose, but, you will feel better.
Amen, Curtis @6:45, Amen.
Here’s a better thing to do: find a local Tea Party that fits your mindset (they’re not all alike) and GET ON BOARD.
Curtis offers:
“Here’s some fire: Obama is a fraudulent incompetent President who seeks America’s downfall [etc.] . . .”
Hey, this is fun. Here’s a reader comment from some piece I read yesterday (I think). Does mine top yours? It picks up in the midst of a sentence:
” . . . with all the government-induced economic devastation brought on by our Kenyan Keynesian and his sputniki in the Congress . . .”
I ^love^ “Kenyan Keynesian”.
Anyway, nominations are open . . . [chuckle] . . .
Curtis: methinks you missed the pun in the word “fire.”
There is probably some unfairness here to Neo because the term “fire” is, most likely, an allusion to Romney’s statement, “If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment.” So I use Neo’s characterization as a jump off point and not sarcastically.
For M J R: The thing about bringing good fire is to avoid name calling and slogans. I think I saw a Jackie Mason youtube which I didn’t watch but would probably be very good. “Kenyan Keynesian” is superb. Mark Steyn comes to mind. I would like to see what a motivated Herbert Selby Jr. could do with the subject. Blister on blister. Ann Coulter of course. Andrew McCarthy. And this form AT:
No. I was composing my last riff so I hadn’t read your last post.
Remember that one headline you did, the alliteration masterpiece?
I know and enjoy your word selections.
Tom @ July 8th, 2011 at 5:32 pm,
1. I looked over the 1996 GOP contenders and there was no one there who enthused me. (In my neverever-to-be-repeated flirtation with the Libertarian Party, I voted for Harry Browne.)
2. All I said was that Mitt deserves my reconsideration–he’s been off my list since 2006–, not that he’s my guy. Point taken, of course, about Romneycare/Obamacare.
3. If I had to decide right this minute, I’d go with Gary Johnson.
“3. If I had to decide right this minute, I’d go with Gary Johnson.”
I like GJ. He did a good job as governor in a blue state. He would be an ideal president from my perspective as I am a (lower case) libertarian if circumstances were different. However, this is no ordinary election coming up and GJ lacks the charisma needed to gain traction in the primaries.
1) My feelings about Romney are known, but I’d vote for him if he were the nominee. I think nonetheless that it would be a tragedy if he were the nominee. Whoever mentioned Bob Dole has the right idea – Romney polls well and has the bland, inoffensive, “let’s make a deal” appeal that Dole did. Which is exactly why he polls well, apart from name recognition.
2) In terms of electoral math Romney (and anyone else) would need key places – Ohio, of course, Indiana, and my home state of Florida. But it’s worse than that.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and we should recognize the difficulty. Obama got 365 EV’s in 2008. If we grant conservatively that Obama holds PA, NV, IA, NM, CO, and NC, he wins, with 280. That means he wins if he holds those states, even granting that he loses not only Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, and New Hampshire, but also Wisconisn. On that picture, he could lose NV and NM and still win (with 270). Or he could lose one of either IA or CO.
Thus, it is impossible to overstate how important PA is (21 EVs). NC is almost as important (15 EVs). But we have to be conservative in our estimates right now, precisely to see the essential. From my sense of things – and it only my sense – CO and NM are gone. They’re both blue states at the Presidential level. IA and NV are slightly more swingy, but we should assume the worst.
I think, contrariwise, that any Republican will probably get OH, FL, IN, and NH.
In sum: the key states should be NC (15 EVs), PA (21), WI (10), and VA (13). If Obama were not the President, NC would probably easily swing back to red, but the black and urban vote is going to be huge, once again, so it’s a close call. VA has shown good “back to red” trends, so we should feel better about it.
Now, as I said, on this math if we get OH, FL, IN, VA, and NH, we lose. We also still lose if we swing WI. We win if we swing NC and PA. Those two states are thus more important than WI.
Can Romney win NC? Well, I don’t think his problems there will be more severe than any other Republican, so it’s a wash.
At Hotair they have an interesting report on Pennsylvania, but I just can’t get hopeful about it. Pennsylvania breaks conservative hearts every four years, consistently. Romney seems to poll well there, for now anyway. The bottom line is that I’ve been quite (though not totally) conservative in my electoral math, and on that reading PA is essential. It means that even on less conservative scenarios, if Obama loses PA, it’s over.
“What would PA want in order to turn red?” should matter a lot to us, thus. It shouldn’t be everything, but we should listen to them attentively. Who can excite the waffly Democrats there to go “Reagan Democrat”? Who polls best in the aggregate, once name recognition is taken into account? Maybe it is Romney, but we shouldn’t assume it is just because early polling suggests he can tie Obama. For what it’s worth, I have my doubts.
3) Here’s some reasons why. The inability of Romney to “stick it” to Obama on Obamacare is lethal. His inability to speak authoritatively about budgetary matters – meaning: he always sounds like he’s speaking in focus group tested sound bites, not from a place of real knowledge – is corrosive (again, like Bob Dole). His inability to sound sincere is also poisonous, completely neutering the most effective weapon any Republican would have against Obama, namely, Obama’s think skin and off-putting testiness. If Romney goes Grape Nuts on Obama instead of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, because he wants to be Mr. Focus Group, then Obama will not reveal his own distasteful flaws for all to see, because he will not be needled. Bet on smug, dismissive, “you’re one to talk!” retorts that will turn Romney’s equivocating responses into white noise for the audience.
Moreover, I want to see Romney pushed, hard, on Romneycare, and I want see him defend himself convincingly in a debate. I doubt he can do it. And if he can’t do it against, say, Michelle Bachmann, then he damn sure couldn’t do it against Obama. We underestimate all of these question-marks at our peril. I hope I’m just biased, that I’m exaggerating the problems with Romney, but I haven’t been able to “spin” Romney into a winner in my own mind, even with my best attempts at casuistry.
Maybe someone else can make the case?
Ah, I should have said “We win if we swing NC or PA,” not “and.” On my conservative math, we don’t need both, just one.
And I should have said: “…even on the more conservative scenarios, if Obama loses PA, it’s over,” not “even on less conservative scenarios” (which is obvious).
Shouldn’t write big confusing analyses without proof-reading. My bad.
kolnai,
With all respect, I think you are over analyzing the ECV. I agree that Colorado is going to remain dimly blue. Same goes for PA and possibly WI. IA will go red by a slim margin, as will Ohio and Virginia. FL is red by a better margin than Bush vs Gore. NC will depend upon who is the republican candidate. Cain can win the south by a 5-10% margin. He can win the flyover midwest (except Illinois) by 2-3%.
“Moreover, I want to see Romney pushed, hard, on Romneycare, and I want see him defend himself convincingly in a debate. I doubt he can do it. And if he can’t do it against, say, Michelle Bachmann, then he damn sure couldn’t do it against Obama. We underestimate all of these question-marks at our peril. I hope I’m just biased,… ”
You are not biased, Romney is a weak candidate although he will be the favorite of the RNC establishment and the media (along with Hunt). We don’t need nor should we want such a candidate.
I’m for Palin/Perry, but honestly, we have the most exciting, different and interesting set of candidates – the most principled, and most dedicated to this country, that we have seen in a long time.
This is a long way from the days of Bob Dole, where it was “whose turn in line”… these are candidates who have the fire in the belly, many who buck the establishment: We have a gay rights guy, two women, two Mormons, a black guy, and a guy who quotes rock musicians on the legislative floor. We have various assortments of elected officials and private businessmen…
They’re all dedicated to one thing – stopping the downfall of this country, reversing the spiral into debt, fixing what Barack Obama has broken – and despite what public employees (unions) have been led to believe, they are the ones who are dedicated to SAVING those people’s jobs – as demonstrated in Wisconsin…. They are running to save this nation from financial armageddon.
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Thad McCotter – all declared… then there’s those who have yet to decide, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, maybe Chris Christie… up and coming: Allen West, Marco Rubio… what’s not to like!!?
And every SINGLE one of them would be a vast improvement over the disaster in the White House.
Kolnai,
Your analysis of needed EV wins illustrates what we need to do now: shake the faith of previous Obama supporters. The best candidate in the world would have problems unseating Obama if the voters go to the booth half asleep. That’s why we should appreciate any candidate who can wake them up. Romney certainly has credibilty problems among conservatives, and rightly so, but he does have the ability to make some big-bucks donors from the business world think twice about Obama’s judgement. The broader the criticism of Obama, be it from RINOs or NRA supporters, the more likely voters will take their fingers out of their ears. That has to be our immediate goal. My advice is to support Bachmann and Perry if they are your favorites, but don’t do it in a way that invalidates Romney’s criticisms of Obama. A conservative candidate will need Romney’s endorsement and support among businessmen. His moderate positions may help deflect the rube image of conservatives spread by the left.
I am not saying we should support Romney as a candidate, but we should say that his positions on the economy are serious and worthy of thought.
“Shake the faith of previous Obama supporters.”
I absolutely ^hate^ to have to write this, but . . .
then what? — by which I mean, much of their faith is already shaken. Will they be willing to spring for Romney? Maybe. Will they be willing to spring for Bachmann? Capital-N No.
[ Note — I am madly in love with Michele Bachmann. ]
My bottom line: are the mainstreamers correct at least in this instance, to wit, that the Repubs need to go centrist in order to attract the middle and so capture the prize? The future of the republic is all that’s at stake [and I do not believe that is hyperbole, not after what Presdient Obama and his ilk have already done and are salivating at continuing to do].
It galls me to write and even think that, but the logic may be compelling that conclusion. We have a leftie incumbent who is adored by and protected by the mainstream, from whom the not-so-involved get their information. How do we pry them away from their fallen Messiah? Not by being in their face, Palin- or Gingrich-or Christie- style.
Phooey. I don’t want to go on any further — too distasteful. I ^detest^ Romney, but he may really be the best shot at reclaiming the republic.
MJR,
We can hope that many of the disillusioned will stay home on election day. I don’t have a favorite yet, but I think we stand a much better chance if we try to haul all the candidates into the campaign against Obama. Our candidate should pick the strongest points from each of his/her former challengers and then prioritize them. I want someone who can take a team of rivals and turn them into a team that supports a strong well-argued conservative platform.
Who is Romney? He’s got JD and MBA degrees from Harvard; made a large fortune as CEO of Bain, a private equity firm, when lots of similar folks surfed the same big equity wave (i.e. was in right place at right time); is given credit for turning the Utah Olympics into an alleged non-loser of money; has had only one elected office; gave Mass. RomneyCare; refused to run for re-election.
His assets: He looks Presidential; he’s well-networked in the big-money crowd; Bill Gates and Warren Buffet probably take his calls.
What’s he got for us? What are his guiding principles? Who knows?
If he is the nominated anti-Obama, of course we’ll vote for him, as we did McCain. But I fear, yea know, Mitt as POTUS is another can-kick down the road. Do you see him opposing a lift in Federal borrowing ceiling? Defunding the EPA or Education? What about foreign policy?
A dozen of us locals met with Mitt’s brother and his campaign manager a year ago. They were slumming, checking the roots, and were startled-startled- to hear the vehemence of our concerns.
The nation cannot afford Mitt as POTUS.
If Romney is the nominee, I will vote Libertarian.
Oh, and I didn’t vote for McCain in 2008. I voted (and volunteered) for Palin. Happily and enthusiastically.
I’ll vote for whoever has the best chance of unseating Obama and any democrat. First things first.
SteveH:
Yes, I understand, but the way I see it, as long as we make it clear that we will vote for anyone with an R after their name, then that’s exactly what we will keep getting. Just a choice of ruling class elites. We have the choice of voting for the D or the R, but that’s all.
At this point, I’m inclined to vote against anyone with an Ivy League degree. Just because.
expat –
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. But you know how it is when you passionately dislike someone – it’s not easy to stay your tongue. However, in the general Romney has a big advantage for me that he doesn’t have right now: I dislike Obama even more than him, raised to several exponents.
Parker –
Me, overanalyze? Surely you jest 😉
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
There appears to be a limit as to how much abuse the economy can take from the Obama administration. He’s vilified coal and the utilities, shut down drilling in the Gulf for a year, gone after the oil and gas industry, thrust Obamacare on small and large business, attacked the general aviation industry, taken over student loans, leaned on the banks and threatened the small business entrepreneur. Today’s grim employment numbers suggest we may have hit the wall.
Some would say that’s a feature not a bug for Obama.
This is why I didn’t like the spectacle of Republicans eating their own this early out. All of the candidates, whether we like them or not, will be able to focus on Obama’s failures from different angles. In the end, the candidate who gets the nod will profit from this. There are probably many voters who would tune out criticism from a Tea Party candidate, but who could be shaken out of their lethargy by Romney. Right now it is important to keep that generic Republican looking better that The Won. This also makes it harder from the MSM to destroy any one candidate.
I’m beginning to think the democrat strategy is to not back off on destroying the economy until mid 2012. Then they plan to back off a notch to give us headlines like “100 percent increase in monthly jobs” and”consumer confidence at three year high” heading into the election. Never mind that a 100% increase of awful is still dismal.
the lesser of two evils is acceptable. a proven administrator, reined by a conservative congress, looks like heaven from here today.
Ed you are correct. For all his faults, Mitt Romney looks like George Washington himself next to Barak Obama.
1. Back when he declined to run for a second term as MA governor, I crossed Romney off my Presidential list.
Having learned that he got Whitey Bulger’s power broker brother William removed as head of the UMass system, I believe I owe Mitt–not that he’s ideal–another look.
2. I don’t like the smell of religious bigotry that emanates from some of his opponents.
Flip/Flop, Flip/Flop, Flip/Flop…Sound familiar anyone?
Tom Says:
Flip/Flop, Flip/Flop, Flip/Flop…Sound familiar anyone?
Probably better than flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop…
Steve has hit the nail. It’s WAAAYY too early to handicap this horse race. What happens between July1 and Oct 31, 2012 will be infinitely more influential with the general voter than what is happening now. Not too early for the Republican horse race, but your average voter only starts paying attention in the presidential election somewhere after Labor Day.
And yes, I think the Dems are planning to “pull out” the economy sometime in the summer of 2012.
physicsguy concludes:
“I think the Dems are planning to ‘pull out’ the economy sometime in the summer of 2012.”
Do they have -1- the know-how (economic expertise) and -2- the power (ability plus wherewithal) to pull it off?
Romney is a douche. If he wins the nomination (unlikely, and hopefully not) I will vote for him in the general. I sincerely hope he’s not the guy. At this point I’m really hoping Perry will jump in, especially after standing up to the UN and the Obama administration on the recent execution of a rapist and murderer. I think he’s the guy I’ll work for and contribute money to.
Under any but the most extreme conditions (Hoover/1932), it is difficult to dislodge a sitting President.
Ford/1976 and Carter/1980 went into election season holding bad hands. Arguably each could have won had he played his bad cards without mistakes. Ditto for Bush/1992 had he found a way to placate Perot, who’d described Bill Clinton as unfit for a corporate role above middle management.
The prospects for defeating Obama are real, but IMHO the caution of SteveH and physicsguy is well taken.
The President hasn’t fixed anything.
That’s the wrong argument!
Good Americans don’t rely on a President. That whole argument will rebound against a good President who will necessarily encounter hard times in order to set the game back in order. Plus, if one uses this argument, it is a tacit acceptance that the President should or can do things like create jobs or improve the economy. Enough of this supersizing of the President and centralizing power.
The truth, which a humble candidate should espouse, is that the best President should know their limit to do evil exceeds their limit to do good. Execute the laws of the United States and provide for our defense. And keep the Mao balls off the Christmas trees. That’s it.
That’s what’s wrong with Romney. Too much Hoover and not enough Coolidge. He’s better than Obama, of course, but shares the same fatal deception of his own importance to the game.
gs, I firmly believe that the ONLY reason Bill Clinton won a second term was that we elected Bob Dole as our nominee. Bob Dole was the worst possible candidate of that whole field, and possibly the worst possible presidential candidate of all time. I think Obama is REAL beatable, but if we don’t choose our nominee wisely, we will be saddled with another four years, and a destroyed health care system. Since we all know that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, and Romney has failed to renounce it, it makes it extremely hard for him to argue against Obamacare in the general election. I hope we choose much more wisely than Romney.
The VodkaPundit has a list of economic statistics posted that should scare the stoutest of souls. Every Republican presidential hopeful needs to use this list as opening remarks for every speech given. They need to be repeated so often that no literate person can ignore them.
“”Do they have -1- the know-how (economic expertise) and -2- the power (ability plus wherewithal) to pull it off?””
M J R
All they have to do is make a few reasonable moves and stop pitching class warfare. This economy is terrible because of the endless punitive nature of democrat words that are putting too much risk in any movement toward growth in private sector America.
IOW, the economy will recover when democrats stifle the anti business (which is anti job) rhetoric and act like grownups.
It’s doubtful Romney can beat Obama’s fundraising capacity and he’ll need every cent to combat the Democrat and liberal media machine. Even with money you need presence and a compelling message and I don’t know how well he’ll withstand the Palinization he’ll inevitably get once nominated. I’m not thinking only of the religious bigotry he’ll receive but the oppo research the Dums will invent to smear him and his family. I’m don’t think he knows what he’s getting into.
Steve H, “All they have to do is make a few reasonable moves and stop pitching class warfare. This economy is terrible because of the endless punitive nature of democrat words that are putting too much risk in any movement toward growth in private sector America.”
I agree that Obama’s anti-business stance has destroyed confidence especially in the small business sector. The tax increases they are looking to enact are on small business owners for the most part. It is my observation from talking with a number of small business owners that it will take more than a change in rhetoric. They are very distrustful of Obama now. That trust cannot be easily won back. It would take solid action and pro-business policies. That can’t be done in six months.
Fire? Really? There’s no fire in these statements.
Plus, Romney got it wrong. There is no indifference. Obama loves to inflict pain. He laughs. He mocks. He scoffs while he fills the government trough. There is no indifference here.
That’s Romney fire! Snort.
Read Stanly Kurtz for a little fire. The truth is fire and by all means the truth is not that Obama is indifferent. Was Alinsky indifferent. Now that was a man of hate. Of passion. Obama may show indifference because he cannot reveal his true emotions or the glee the success his plan to “transform” America has brought him. Or his soaking of the American taxpayer to fund his vacations, his political campaigning, his slavish toadying to world dictators, and his slurping slurpees and gulping food at the local deli that’s not really so local but really is since, hey–he’s got the jet!
Indifferent? Obama’s having the time of his life. Michelle too.
Here’s some fire: Obama is a fraudulent incompetent President who seeks America’s downfall and the only reason he hasn’t been impeached for the crime he is, is that the whole thing is too much to be comprehended by your average democrat whose main source of information comes from an equally corrupt and incompetent source.
Let’s hear Romney say something like that.
Fire? I call it milk toast.
Here’s something you can do to wipe that smile off Obama’s face. Sign a petition. It’s not exactly as quick or effective as a punch in the nose, but, you will feel better.
http://pages.townhall.com/campaign/th-cut-government-spending-petition
“Too much Hoover and not enough Coolidge.”
A perfect description. 🙂
Amen, Curtis @6:45, Amen.
Here’s a better thing to do: find a local Tea Party that fits your mindset (they’re not all alike) and GET ON BOARD.
Curtis offers:
“Here’s some fire: Obama is a fraudulent incompetent President who seeks America’s downfall [etc.] . . .”
Hey, this is fun. Here’s a reader comment from some piece I read yesterday (I think). Does mine top yours? It picks up in the midst of a sentence:
” . . . with all the government-induced economic devastation brought on by our Kenyan Keynesian and his sputniki in the Congress . . .”
I ^love^ “Kenyan Keynesian”.
Anyway, nominations are open . . . [chuckle] . . .
Curtis: methinks you missed the pun in the word “fire.”
There is probably some unfairness here to Neo because the term “fire” is, most likely, an allusion to Romney’s statement, “If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment.” So I use Neo’s characterization as a jump off point and not sarcastically.
For M J R: The thing about bringing good fire is to avoid name calling and slogans. I think I saw a Jackie Mason youtube which I didn’t watch but would probably be very good. “Kenyan Keynesian” is superb. Mark Steyn comes to mind. I would like to see what a motivated Herbert Selby Jr. could do with the subject. Blister on blister. Ann Coulter of course. Andrew McCarthy. And this form AT:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_mendacity_of_barack_obama.html
No. I was composing my last riff so I hadn’t read your last post.
Remember that one headline you did, the alliteration masterpiece?
I know and enjoy your word selections.
Tom @ July 8th, 2011 at 5:32 pm,
1. I looked over the 1996 GOP contenders and there was no one there who enthused me. (In my neverever-to-be-repeated flirtation with the Libertarian Party, I voted for Harry Browne.)
2. All I said was that Mitt deserves my reconsideration–he’s been off my list since 2006–, not that he’s my guy. Point taken, of course, about Romneycare/Obamacare.
3. If I had to decide right this minute, I’d go with Gary Johnson.
“3. If I had to decide right this minute, I’d go with Gary Johnson.”
I like GJ. He did a good job as governor in a blue state. He would be an ideal president from my perspective as I am a (lower case) libertarian if circumstances were different. However, this is no ordinary election coming up and GJ lacks the charisma needed to gain traction in the primaries.
1) My feelings about Romney are known, but I’d vote for him if he were the nominee. I think nonetheless that it would be a tragedy if he were the nominee. Whoever mentioned Bob Dole has the right idea – Romney polls well and has the bland, inoffensive, “let’s make a deal” appeal that Dole did. Which is exactly why he polls well, apart from name recognition.
2) In terms of electoral math Romney (and anyone else) would need key places – Ohio, of course, Indiana, and my home state of Florida. But it’s worse than that.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and we should recognize the difficulty. Obama got 365 EV’s in 2008. If we grant conservatively that Obama holds PA, NV, IA, NM, CO, and NC, he wins, with 280. That means he wins if he holds those states, even granting that he loses not only Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, and New Hampshire, but also Wisconisn. On that picture, he could lose NV and NM and still win (with 270). Or he could lose one of either IA or CO.
Thus, it is impossible to overstate how important PA is (21 EVs). NC is almost as important (15 EVs). But we have to be conservative in our estimates right now, precisely to see the essential. From my sense of things – and it only my sense – CO and NM are gone. They’re both blue states at the Presidential level. IA and NV are slightly more swingy, but we should assume the worst.
I think, contrariwise, that any Republican will probably get OH, FL, IN, and NH.
In sum: the key states should be NC (15 EVs), PA (21), WI (10), and VA (13). If Obama were not the President, NC would probably easily swing back to red, but the black and urban vote is going to be huge, once again, so it’s a close call. VA has shown good “back to red” trends, so we should feel better about it.
Now, as I said, on this math if we get OH, FL, IN, VA, and NH, we lose. We also still lose if we swing WI. We win if we swing NC and PA. Those two states are thus more important than WI.
Can Romney win NC? Well, I don’t think his problems there will be more severe than any other Republican, so it’s a wash.
At Hotair they have an interesting report on Pennsylvania, but I just can’t get hopeful about it. Pennsylvania breaks conservative hearts every four years, consistently. Romney seems to poll well there, for now anyway. The bottom line is that I’ve been quite (though not totally) conservative in my electoral math, and on that reading PA is essential. It means that even on less conservative scenarios, if Obama loses PA, it’s over.
“What would PA want in order to turn red?” should matter a lot to us, thus. It shouldn’t be everything, but we should listen to them attentively. Who can excite the waffly Democrats there to go “Reagan Democrat”? Who polls best in the aggregate, once name recognition is taken into account? Maybe it is Romney, but we shouldn’t assume it is just because early polling suggests he can tie Obama. For what it’s worth, I have my doubts.
3) Here’s some reasons why. The inability of Romney to “stick it” to Obama on Obamacare is lethal. His inability to speak authoritatively about budgetary matters – meaning: he always sounds like he’s speaking in focus group tested sound bites, not from a place of real knowledge – is corrosive (again, like Bob Dole). His inability to sound sincere is also poisonous, completely neutering the most effective weapon any Republican would have against Obama, namely, Obama’s think skin and off-putting testiness. If Romney goes Grape Nuts on Obama instead of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, because he wants to be Mr. Focus Group, then Obama will not reveal his own distasteful flaws for all to see, because he will not be needled. Bet on smug, dismissive, “you’re one to talk!” retorts that will turn Romney’s equivocating responses into white noise for the audience.
Moreover, I want to see Romney pushed, hard, on Romneycare, and I want see him defend himself convincingly in a debate. I doubt he can do it. And if he can’t do it against, say, Michelle Bachmann, then he damn sure couldn’t do it against Obama. We underestimate all of these question-marks at our peril. I hope I’m just biased, that I’m exaggerating the problems with Romney, but I haven’t been able to “spin” Romney into a winner in my own mind, even with my best attempts at casuistry.
Maybe someone else can make the case?
Ah, I should have said “We win if we swing NC or PA,” not “and.” On my conservative math, we don’t need both, just one.
And I should have said: “…even on the more conservative scenarios, if Obama loses PA, it’s over,” not “even on less conservative scenarios” (which is obvious).
Shouldn’t write big confusing analyses without proof-reading. My bad.
kolnai,
With all respect, I think you are over analyzing the ECV. I agree that Colorado is going to remain dimly blue. Same goes for PA and possibly WI. IA will go red by a slim margin, as will Ohio and Virginia. FL is red by a better margin than Bush vs Gore. NC will depend upon who is the republican candidate. Cain can win the south by a 5-10% margin. He can win the flyover midwest (except Illinois) by 2-3%.
“Moreover, I want to see Romney pushed, hard, on Romneycare, and I want see him defend himself convincingly in a debate. I doubt he can do it. And if he can’t do it against, say, Michelle Bachmann, then he damn sure couldn’t do it against Obama. We underestimate all of these question-marks at our peril. I hope I’m just biased,… ”
You are not biased, Romney is a weak candidate although he will be the favorite of the RNC establishment and the media (along with Hunt). We don’t need nor should we want such a candidate.
I’m for Palin/Perry, but honestly, we have the most exciting, different and interesting set of candidates – the most principled, and most dedicated to this country, that we have seen in a long time.
This is a long way from the days of Bob Dole, where it was “whose turn in line”… these are candidates who have the fire in the belly, many who buck the establishment: We have a gay rights guy, two women, two Mormons, a black guy, and a guy who quotes rock musicians on the legislative floor. We have various assortments of elected officials and private businessmen…
They’re all dedicated to one thing – stopping the downfall of this country, reversing the spiral into debt, fixing what Barack Obama has broken – and despite what public employees (unions) have been led to believe, they are the ones who are dedicated to SAVING those people’s jobs – as demonstrated in Wisconsin…. They are running to save this nation from financial armageddon.
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Thad McCotter – all declared… then there’s those who have yet to decide, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, maybe Chris Christie… up and coming: Allen West, Marco Rubio… what’s not to like!!?
And every SINGLE one of them would be a vast improvement over the disaster in the White House.
Kolnai,
Your analysis of needed EV wins illustrates what we need to do now: shake the faith of previous Obama supporters. The best candidate in the world would have problems unseating Obama if the voters go to the booth half asleep. That’s why we should appreciate any candidate who can wake them up. Romney certainly has credibilty problems among conservatives, and rightly so, but he does have the ability to make some big-bucks donors from the business world think twice about Obama’s judgement. The broader the criticism of Obama, be it from RINOs or NRA supporters, the more likely voters will take their fingers out of their ears. That has to be our immediate goal. My advice is to support Bachmann and Perry if they are your favorites, but don’t do it in a way that invalidates Romney’s criticisms of Obama. A conservative candidate will need Romney’s endorsement and support among businessmen. His moderate positions may help deflect the rube image of conservatives spread by the left.
I am not saying we should support Romney as a candidate, but we should say that his positions on the economy are serious and worthy of thought.
“Shake the faith of previous Obama supporters.”
I absolutely ^hate^ to have to write this, but . . .
then what? — by which I mean, much of their faith is already shaken. Will they be willing to spring for Romney? Maybe. Will they be willing to spring for Bachmann? Capital-N No.
[ Note — I am madly in love with Michele Bachmann. ]
My bottom line: are the mainstreamers correct at least in this instance, to wit, that the Repubs need to go centrist in order to attract the middle and so capture the prize? The future of the republic is all that’s at stake [and I do not believe that is hyperbole, not after what Presdient Obama and his ilk have already done and are salivating at continuing to do].
It galls me to write and even think that, but the logic may be compelling that conclusion. We have a leftie incumbent who is adored by and protected by the mainstream, from whom the not-so-involved get their information. How do we pry them away from their fallen Messiah? Not by being in their face, Palin- or Gingrich-or Christie- style.
Phooey. I don’t want to go on any further — too distasteful. I ^detest^ Romney, but he may really be the best shot at reclaiming the republic.
MJR,
We can hope that many of the disillusioned will stay home on election day. I don’t have a favorite yet, but I think we stand a much better chance if we try to haul all the candidates into the campaign against Obama. Our candidate should pick the strongest points from each of his/her former challengers and then prioritize them. I want someone who can take a team of rivals and turn them into a team that supports a strong well-argued conservative platform.
Who is Romney? He’s got JD and MBA degrees from Harvard; made a large fortune as CEO of Bain, a private equity firm, when lots of similar folks surfed the same big equity wave (i.e. was in right place at right time); is given credit for turning the Utah Olympics into an alleged non-loser of money; has had only one elected office; gave Mass. RomneyCare; refused to run for re-election.
His assets: He looks Presidential; he’s well-networked in the big-money crowd; Bill Gates and Warren Buffet probably take his calls.
What’s he got for us? What are his guiding principles? Who knows?
If he is the nominated anti-Obama, of course we’ll vote for him, as we did McCain. But I fear, yea know, Mitt as POTUS is another can-kick down the road. Do you see him opposing a lift in Federal borrowing ceiling? Defunding the EPA or Education? What about foreign policy?
A dozen of us locals met with Mitt’s brother and his campaign manager a year ago. They were slumming, checking the roots, and were startled-startled- to hear the vehemence of our concerns.
The nation cannot afford Mitt as POTUS.
If Romney is the nominee, I will vote Libertarian.
Oh, and I didn’t vote for McCain in 2008. I voted (and volunteered) for Palin. Happily and enthusiastically.
I’ll vote for whoever has the best chance of unseating Obama and any democrat. First things first.
SteveH:
Yes, I understand, but the way I see it, as long as we make it clear that we will vote for anyone with an R after their name, then that’s exactly what we will keep getting. Just a choice of ruling class elites. We have the choice of voting for the D or the R, but that’s all.
At this point, I’m inclined to vote against anyone with an Ivy League degree. Just because.
expat –
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. But you know how it is when you passionately dislike someone – it’s not easy to stay your tongue. However, in the general Romney has a big advantage for me that he doesn’t have right now: I dislike Obama even more than him, raised to several exponents.
Parker –
Me, overanalyze? Surely you jest 😉