Steve Klingaman

Steve Klingaman
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota,
Birthday
January 01
Title
Consultant/Writer
Bio
Steve Klingaman is a nonprofit development consultant and nonfiction writer specializing in personal finance and public policy. His music reviews can be found at minor7th.com.

Editor’s Pick
APRIL 19, 2012 8:31AM

Romney Goes Ugly Early

Rate: 23 Flag

Mitt-Romney 

Mitt Romney:  most himself when on the attack.

csmonitor.com 

Mitt Romney’s options, now that his pesky sideshow sidekicks are out of the way, include the opportunity to redefine himself, Etch-a-Sketch style, for general consumption.  Instead, in the days since their demise, he has continued only to offer his robo-style attacks on President Obama as “a failed president.”  As the Washington Post put it, “Romney has long attempted to paint Obama as a failed president whose policies have slowed the economic recovery while enlarging the government and building up deficits and debt.”

            While prospective voters have heard the sound of Romney’s voice for months now, they have virtually no idea what he actually stands for, except for his promise to shrink the federal government.  All they really know about him is what he stood for as Governor of Massachusetts, and that’s all so nineties, so lefty, now.

While much of the media coverage of Romney touches on his remarkable stiffness and his tin ear when it comes to self-characterization, the fact that he is an empty vessel is somewhat underreported.  With his history as a failed candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008, and his even more ancient history as a partner at Bain Capital, this guy’s expiration dates way past prime.  You know how they talk about how one’s job skills begin to deteriorate after as little as 24 months off the job, at least when you are a ninety-nine percenter? Romney’s been off the grid for years.

Of course it is impossible for him to talk about his one, major success as governor of Massachusetts—RomneyCare.  And that irrefutable bit of history makes him appear strangely disingenuous when he accuses Obama of being “a failed president” given that they share the same primary achievement in their respective tenures as leaders.

Is Obama a “failed president?”  No way; not when you measure him against a real failed president.  And we just happen to have one handy.  I’m thinking of two unfunded, ill-focused wars, one of which was totally based on bogus grounds.  I’m thinking of gargantuan tax giveaways to the rich.  I’m thinking of someone on whose watch—and due to the near-complete capture of government by his free-market cronies—the economy went into a catastrophic meltdown.  But then again, no Republican will utter his name.  Why?

If you look at Romney in comparison to George W. Bush, his ideas are more similar to our most recent failed president than all of his Republican challengers combined, (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich, because with Newt, you never really know.)

A number of pundits have predicted that this year’s campaign for president will be the nastiest of all time.  With all the Super Pacs in the mix that prediction would be hard to refute.  And then there’s Romney, ugly early, with only the “failed president” meme to hang his hat on.

Obama 2009-12 may go down in history as an inexperienced centrist president who initially did okay facing an economic meltdown, then got trounced by a gridlocked Congress fueled by fanatic conservatives.  That doesn’t make him a failed president. It just means the Republicans in Congress had only one goal for four years—to make him look like a failed president.  But the bailout and stimulus package were huge, necessary, and moderately effective.  The auto deal was brilliant.  And the Affordable Care Act was a far cry better than nothing. His handling of Wall Street, not so much.  His impetus for reform—mild, mild, mild.  His acceptance of Bush-era security protocols—well let’s not talk about that.  But we can bet Romney won’t either.

The truth about Obama from the point of view of the center-left is that he failed us in a variety of ways.  But.  He was no John McCain.  He was no John Boehner.  He was no Michelle Bachmann.  He was no Mitch McConnell. And he was no Mitt Romney.  That’s why he deserves another term.  Because he is better than the rest.  Sorry if that disappoints.

Mitt Romney has been underestimated on just one front.  He is an effective negative campaigner.  He’s a debater.  He’s got the tone, the hair, the pat put-downs; I expect him to land some punches in debates with Obama.  But after that, he’s in no man’s land, because, unlike Obama, he can’t win if he manifests as who he really is.  So instead we get disingenuous attacks—like the “war on women.”

The war on women meme is especially galling because the fact that many women have been thrown out of work during Obama’s presidency emanates from deep in actual Republican practice.  It takes more space than I have here to explain properly, but the short version goes like this:  Early in the meltdown job losses were especially prominent in male-dominated fields like home construction.  The Obama stimulus package contained significant support to states that kept large numbers of workers in fields with strong female numbers, fields like teaching and state government work, on the job, through the first year and a half of the recession.  Then came the Republican counteroffensive with its emphasis on deficits and the federal spigot to states was shut off just as states began to experience the greatest effects of budget shortfalls due to tax losses generated by the recession, compounded by historically low tax rates at state levels.  And the federal largesse was curtailed by its own deficit tax base caused not just by the recession, perhaps not even primarily by the recession, but by the near decade-long tax starvation caused by the Bush tax cuts.  That’s why women lost their jobs under Obama.

It was no war on women.  It was more a Republican war on working people.  Certainly it’s been a Republican war on the working poor, a condition that has put nearly unbearable pressures on single moms attempting to care for their children and hold down jobs.  What the right has offered—maybe not Romney personally, but his buds—is that those women should have thought about that before they had children.  That’s a war on women.

Certainly in the days to come Romney or his surrogates will lay the appalling GSA scandal at the president’s feet.  I wonder if we will forget that overall his term has been remarkably scandal free.  I wonder if we will forget that the yardstick, scandal-wise, must remain the Bush administration’s Oops No WMDs scandal—that mother of all scandals.  I think we should worry most about scandals that result in large wholesale death counts, but somehow, back in the aughts, it just wasn't relevant.  Perhaps we can compare how relevant this scandal will be in its ultimate effects.  Meanwhile, I would suggest a little more due diligence in office like the office of the comptroller  and  the OMB to perhaps review government party costs with a red pen in hand.

As for Romney, the real question is, who is he really? Where does he want to take us? Where does he really stand, platitudes and gratuitous attacks, aside?  And would he care to share with us one hard, real-world policy decision he would be prepared to make, such as, what, specifically, would he replace ObamaCare with?  I think many people on both sides of the divide would like to hear him answer that, for starters.

 UPDATE:

“Prominent party leaders, unsettled by the frequently combative tone of Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign, are pressing the presumptive Republican nominee to leaven his harsh criticism of President Obama with an optimistic conservative vision that can inspire the party faithful, appeal to swing voters and set out a governing agenda should he win in November,” according the article entitled “Republicans Urge Romney to Promote Positive Vision.” (4/25/12)  The group offering this advice includes such Romney stalwarts as Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, and Utah Governor Gary Herbert. Doesn’t it seem highly unlikely that they would go public with such a message if they thought that Romney was on the right track?

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I expect it will be a vicious campaign. The attack ads against Romney's Republican challengers were harsh even by that party's standards. He'll let his PACs do most of the dirty work. It should be a dispiriting several months. By the way, The Economist has an article covering similar ground.

http://www.economist.com/node/21552561
This article should be reprinted and distributed everywhere. It's important for people to remember what just happened to our Nation during W.. Republicans are counting on Short Attention Span Theatre, but that won't be so easy if they're reading Steve Klingaman articles. Great job. Rated.
Steve...I think that we must have a standard test for the presidency in order to determine failure. Perhaps we have given too much power to the executive branch...whose functions now extend way beyond what was ( I think) intended. Once I really got heated about such....now..I am pretty disgusted with the entire process. If the world ends in a nuclear conflagration it will be due to the powers under the radar. And we don't elect them.
None of us knows what is going on....we only know bits and pieces.
I say: Damn them all....Lets go out for dinner. I can spring for it.
Do you prefer seafood or beef? Oh, by the way, they will all be in Exeter NH during the next few months. All I have to do is go downtown and they'll be on the street corner. Hard to walk there.
Good post. But the Republicans will be tsk tsking "same old, same old, blaming Bush." And throwing out scary words like "socialist" and "death taxes" and people will go running. I'm worried, particularly because too many Democrats seem to be comfortable staying home or criticizing Obama.
As usual, you’ve written yet another far-fetched load of crap. Where to begin? Let me see, I suppose the best way to expose flawed arguments is to first point out factual mistakes by which those argument derive their foundation.

“decade-long tax starvation caused by the Bush tax cuts”

year tax receipts
1999 1,827,452
2000 2,025,191
2001 1,991,082
2002 1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,724
2011 2,303,466
2012 estimate 2,468,599

As you can plainly see, there has not been a decade-long tax starvation. On the contrary, tax receipts have remained relatively flat with the highest years on record being 2007 and 2008. Guess who was President during those years?
Romney is loathesome. Not in a ripe smelly way like the other Repub candidates, but in a dry rotted-out zombie kind of way.

I suppose it's too much to ask that candidates discuss real issues and do it honestly.

And presidents are pretty much at the mercy of congress. Unfortunately if Romney gets in, a lot of Repubs will get into Congress too...and the results will be disastrous.

What is gained by beating on the poor? Do they think, possibly rightly, that with modern technology there won't be a Russian revolution type thing work here?
I needed to read this. I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama. Here's hoping this gets the front page and lots of eyeballs.
Very unconvincing evidence to support your premise. What's "ugly" about pointing out the obvious fact that Obama's policies have failed? What's truly ugly is Obama's unrelenting attempts to pit Americans against each other in the pursuit of votes.

GSA, Fast and Furious, and Obama's secret deal with Putin are scandals. WMD was not a scandeal; it was a mistake shared by experts on all sides of the political spectrum. It's also, if I may point out, a bit stale, just as the Bush-bashing is. But if that's all you've got, have at it.
I always figured Obama for a centrist. Everything about what he said and even, given his thin political record, what he did telegraphed his position. So while I don't like everything he's done or not done, I knew what I was getting...a pragmatic yet cerebral guy. Romney, on the other hand, seems like a quick-change artist. How conservative is he? How beholden to special interests. What truly are HIS interests? I don't know. Most importantly, while both political parties irritate me, only one frightens me...
Couple of points:

"It was no war on women. It was more a Republican war on working people." Exactly. It's just that so many women happened to be employed in govt jobs -- teaching and clerical positions and mid-level govt positions. But if it were men in those jobs, R's would be just as adamant about getting rid of those jobs. It's also the case that govt employee unions are one of the last bastions of union strength -- and we now how R's despise unions -- even those R's who benefit from them.

As for Mitt, he shares so many aspects with W, I'm intending to write my own post exposing that connection. Where they differ is that Bush the Least had a "warm" personality, while Romney has none, at least not in public. Mitt may be one of the last people you'd want to have a beer with. And that and his religion will be the only reasons he doesn't win in November.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/42689/a-president-who-doesn-t-even-try
Steve, Steve, Steve. You're exposing your bias as a member of the reality-based community, here. Obama is only a centrist if you measure him against actual American history. You need to get beyond your liberal bias by measuring him against the metric of right wing orthodoxy, in which case Obama comes out as a Marxist-Leninist radical leftist.

Further, not only has Romney abandoned himself. He also showed the depth of his disloyalty when he threw the Massachusetts Republican Party under the bus while he chased after bigger game. Had he been like the two previous Republican governors -- Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci -- he would have turned over the Corner Office to his Lt. Governor (Kerry Healey) when he went looking for greener political pastures so as to give the new acting governor a head start to keep the Governor's office in Republican hands.

Instead, and even as he spent most of his last two years traveling outside the state, he refused to resign so as to give Healey a clear shot, thus tethering her to the untenable far right policies he came to embrace during his inexorablely slide to the right as he tried to secure the GOP nomination, making Healey's own election impossible.
I'm not suprised Romney jumped straight to the negative campaign. It's all he knows how to do: use big money to push a negative image of his opponent.
Our attention deficit society does not want to be educated regarding the Bush off the books wars, the deregulation of Wall Street that succeeded in creating the most unstable economy since the Depression, illegal use of torture, the facts that the U.S. has been losing ground to other developed nations, or any of that "old news". As Gordon would shrug, "Is that all you've got?" It's sad and it's scary. However, as the soundbite crowd opens their mouths like little birdies for more tidbits, there will be enough news about Romney's off shore accounts, "Romneycare", his begging for (and receiving) federal funds to "save" the Olympics that should keep those little birds busy tweeting.
r./
Furthermore, Steve Rosenfeld of Alternet, correctly highlights obama's failed record in preserving constitutional protections. A few of his comments, abridged:

"How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare
Obama has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration's worst policies."

"When Barack Obama took office, he was the civil liberties communities’ great hope. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, pledged to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and run a transparent and open government. But he has become a civil libertarian’s nightmare: a supposedly liberal president who instead has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies, lending bipartisan support for a more intrusive and authoritarian federal government."

"President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before a federal court or disclosing them. Obama has continued indefinite detentions at Gitmo, but also brought the policy ashore by signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of assisting terrorists, even citizens. That policy, codifying how the Bush treated Jose Padilla, a citizen who was arrested in a bomb plot after landing at a Chicago airport in 2002 and was transferred from civil to military custody, upends the 1878’s Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on domestic military deployment."

"How bad is it? Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, exclaimed in June 2010 that Obama “disgusted” him. Meanwhile, the most hawkish Bush administration officials have defended and praised Obama.

Last summer, liberal lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald tallied a list of Bush warrior endorsements. Jack Goldsmith, the former DOJ officials who approved the torture and domestic spying efforts, wrote in The New Republic in May 2009 that Obama actually was waging a more effective war on terror than Bush.

“The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expended some of it, and has narrowed only a bit,” Goldsmith wrote. “Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol and rhetoric.” Bush’s final CIA director, General Michael Hayden—whose confirmation Obama opposed as a senator—told CNN there was a “powerful continuity between the 43rd and 44th presidents.” And in early 2011 Vice-President Dick Cheney told NBC News, “He’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate.”

http://www.alternet.org/rights/155045/how_obama_became_a_civil_libertarian%27s_nightmare/

A significantly egregious record for a "constitutional scholar."
Romney has to go negative, as he represents the Republican economic plan, which has a scant 35-ish% support. He's also personally off-putting and terminally uncomfortable in his own plastic skin.
Obama has to go negative in the sense he has to confront Romney's negativity and run against the GOP in general. Obama is on the right side of the overall economic issue, but his newly found populism would work better if he had found it 3 years ago. He spent too much time agreeing with the GOP's newly discovered fiscal concern and so elevated the issue beyond what a majority sees as the real problem. His advantage is he can pivot away from that and Romney can't.

Neither gives much in the way of something to vote for, so it's an "against" election. However, more people vote against a candidate than for one in most any election year so it's not that unusual. Maybe the difference is sort of marginal, based on a % of for/against sentiment.

Fever...2000 and 2001 represent 360+ billion in surplus.
2002 and 03 represent 560 billion in deficit.
W Bush has the worst fed revenue growth record since Hoover, and every GW year is more debt. Where you see revenue rise in that list is simply the housing bubble revenues, still falling short of outlays and representing a great debt burden shifted to the public that can only properly be added to the Bush/GOP debt overall. Even at that, and given its massive destructive impact, the cost is almost incalculable and projects forward beyond the present.
In conclusion...you wasted a lot of space to shoot yourself in both feet.

baltimore....none of that will be an issue in this campaign.
excellent post, as always, steve. romney won't have answers for your questions or anyone else's. he's going to try to be all things to all voters, starting with the hard right folks and attempting to rope in the middle. those positions are, unfortunately for mitten, not reconcilable. but pointing out comments by the republicans that don't make sense is, for me, repetitive and boring, so i'll just yawn through the summer, vote for president obama as happily as i did the last time and expect things will implode for the crazed GOP. as some pundits have said, because mitten got the nod this time, the thuggish, miserable ultra-conservatives are going to insist that he lost (because he will lose) because he wasn't Conservative Enough. next time they'll nominate someone who is CE, who will lose because the US electorate doesn't want rabid from either the right or the left, and the republicans will reorg, much like the dems did after dukakis lost, which brought in the wonderfully centrist and brilliant bill clinton. extremism sometimes results in happy endings for the whole country. (sorry for the length - i just got going.)
You just did the same thing to Romney that you accused him of doing to Obama. Then, you did it to the rest of the retards who were running for president on the GOP side.

Obama is a failed president. He failed to restore the Constitution (and, continues to make executive decisions along these lines, with no assistance from your "gridlocked" Congress), and he compromised away nearly every one of his significant campaign promises.

The health care plan, which was supported by a majority of the public, that Obama proposed during his candidacy was exactly what this country needed. Then, after a little corporate dick sucking, we got Obamacare. It's shit, and I hope it gets repealed so that someone along the way can give the country the real health care plan it deserves.

As far as your "gridlocked" congress goes, leaders lead. "Pragmatic" corporatists sell out the people of the country for their own benefit. When they also happen to be the leader of the free world, they destroy civil rights as well.

Isn't it ironic that a black man, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died fighting for Civil Rights, and was quite possibly killed by his government doing so. Now, a black man, President Barack Obama is the 1st president to admit to openly assassinating an American Citizen, and in doing so, wiped out everything that Dr. King died for in the 1st place.

If that isn't fucking failure, I have no idea what is...other than this article, that is.
According to several studies (one of which was featured in last Sundays NY Times, it really depends on two things.
1. How the economy performs between now and November (and you have to assume that the Republicans will do whatever they can to make sure it sinks.)
2. How effective Obama will be in blaming it all on Bush.

Everything else is irrelavant.
If Romney doesn't have a clue that he can't sing - maybe he's in the dark about a lot of things. It'll all come out in the Wash! Maybe I was wrong (humorously) about getting EP's! R
Romney reminds me of the guys who headed the Omega fraternity in 'Animal House'. Should he get elected, I wonder if he'll pick Niedermeyer as his Secretary of Defense?
@ John Blumenthal

The Dems have set themselves up for the campaign by reminding the electorate - just in the last couple of days - of how the GOP is owned lock, stock and barrel by the corporate interests:

The GOP Senate killed a bill which would have removed subsidies to the oil companies. Something favored by something like 70% of the electorate.

The GOP Senate killed a bill which would adopt the Buffet rule, wherein people making a million or more a year could not pay less than an ordinary wage earning taxpayer. Favored by 60% of the electorate (Gallup)

This give not only Obama something to hammer away with but also all Democratic Senate candidates will be using these two issues as prime examples of a GOP out of touch with the electorate.
Hi Steve,
I really loved this piece you speak with confidence and understand how slimy politics can be, the one who will come up the winner, is actually in my eyes the one who likes to play with slime. Since there is a ample amount in many areas for people to play as equal partners, let the slime wars begin. Seldom do politcs and the reality of many Americans go hand in hand with why we are this way. Why can't we disengage and just relax and take a deep breathe and recite, why we are our own people? Why we have gotten our selves into some amazing and convulted arguments? But we have, are we no longer the people? or are our politics willing to accept "our" personal failures as part of some mystical package that states we need band aids and bandages of all sizes. One for the people that are fed up with most things, one for people that will turn to white collar crime, which is nothing new these days, one that will tout why the welfare mother who really needs the help, won't get it, because she needs to be taught a lesson. It is truly an amzing schematic design that most of the politicians I have listened to in recent, have not said 2 bits of anything, that my inner ear would perk up to. Coming to terms with Bush and the mid-east would be scarry at best, he had his show down at the okay corral. He had his amazing glib moments and some down and dirty moments in front of the press, apologzing for looking for weapons of mass destruction. But Bush did something about what was going on and terrorizing countless numbers of people. Those countries will take a long time to become part of a real political process, our real poltical process seems a bit chaotic, but it is also paradoxical and can be revised with many influences and discourses in our government. We can expect to survive the 99%, because even 1% means that people truly approve of how the country is being won and are willing to give it their all to prove one president can unite with many minds and many wills. Our Constituion is a highly worthy document, many of the times if we made some true effort to truly listen to what our fore fathers said, we would't be in this setting. We have over sized our imanitive fears with much of our technology and not nearly enough in the area of human arts, and allowing people to pick up their slack where ever it may be and start all over again. You only get a certain amount of time...although before the next president will be elected and you come away with a sense that the right man got the job. I know Obama has been dexterious and highly industrial in my eyes, he seems to not put down his work, he is competetive but seldom willing to use his senses to knock or make another fellow politician an example. I belive if the election were tomorrow, he would come in again and rightfully deserves to.
Please do not say that if we have Obama and '.....if that
disappoints ... ', as we are very likely lucky to have a president, who, before even beginning his actual term, had worked with Paulson and Bushe's people to hammer home a plan that may have saved us from a far worse outcome. No one will give him credit for this. But there it is -- and here we are, feeling our sea legs, breathing the air of a real recovery that should be savored.
As for this character Romnney -- my father would call such people , care-actors -- we are in for one wild ride. He was not even a decent governor. Very disturbing is his hyper kinetic thing, you know, when he becomes so afflicted with this attempt to be animated,that he does this Mussolini from the balcony, wild gesticulating, quite as though he is in one of those old news reel clips at real time x's 1.35 ... he 's smiling, waving like Newman on Seinfeld, when Jerry catches him in his apartment and has contracted a fierce bout of fleas ... But Romney appears nearly comfortable in this act. Kind of scary. In the end, he will make Obama look quite acceptable.
Obama had both houses of Congress and the support of most Americans when he came into office. He chose not to do shit other than support his corporatist overlords. You knew it was coming as soon as he announced his cabinet starting with Rahm Emmanuel. Whoever wins will have the same damn corporatist policies. At least with Romney, he will openly admit to screwing us.
Mr. Klingaman, I think you went overboard with your praise of Obama. However, you're right about the essential hollowness of Mitt Romney. If you'd stuck to that, these letters wouldn't be so divisive.

About the only reason a person would have to vote for Romney over Obama is their distaste at having a black man in the White House. Obama is no great beacon of liberal thought, but at least he has some known standards. Romney hasn't.

There isn't any recognizable humanity inside Romney. He can't even tell an adequate joke. And his past has shown enough cold-bloodedness and greed that he wouldn't be a positive choice for anyone. The only way Romney can win is through negative campaigning - in other words, the way he won against his Republican opponents, through loud and long screaming. His own ads, and those of his SuperPac buddies, will be some of the most ugly campaigning in history.
At least Mitt never ate a dog!
Flylooper,

I think you have done to many loops. How do you get the GOP Senate? The last I heard Harry Reid (D NV) ran the Senate so how again is it a GOP Senate?

Why don't you go ahead and blame the first couple years of the failed Obama administration on the "GOP Senate" when the fact is President Obama didn't need a single, not one, nada, none, zero Republican votes to do anything he wanted. His own party wouldn't even go along with this loser of a president.
Obama thinks we are tough. I'll show him tough when my buddy "Pitbull" Mitt bites him in the ass in November.
Highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. More debt accumulated in 3.5 years than in the entire history of the nation. Approval ratings higher for the Vietnam War than for Obama. $5 trillion deficit spending during first term - a record.

Hell of a job!
As I have said before, being reasonable with unreasonable people is not being reasonable -- it's insane. It's really a take on the whole idea of the definition of stupidity or insanity is:

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

These things fall into this category:
(Prohibition) The War on Drugs

The Patriot Act (the most unpatriotic bill to ever have been approved by Congress to date where its now "Patriotic" to:
Warrantlessly Wiretap
Aggressive Interrogation
Rendition
Hold without charges, access to counsel, knowledge of accusation, reporting the "capture" of a person and no ability to habeus corpus
Assassinate People without trial, charges or knowledge of intent to do so

Tax Breaks for the "Job Creators" (Simply putting more money into the accounts of the rich will not improve the economy, only demand for more workers will and that can only come from people who are buying more, because they feel more secure about their employment outlook)

and various others.

Like Robert Elisberg says in his article "Good news! Mitt never ate a dog," it's important to note that Romney is being compared favorably as an adult to a nine year old child's obedience to his stepfather. Scary. Then when you realize the incredible experiential gulf between a man already old enough to run for President putting his dog on the roof of his car versus a nine year old child being told, "Here, take a bite of this and see what you think," you have to wonder how could anyone view that favorably as a mature act compared to the kid's actions? (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting here, so no shooting, please.)

The reasonable thing to do in the face of this lack of reason is to stand firm, say no to them and from there on, demand they return to a sane world before engaging in any more debate.

Sadly, though Obama is a *better* choice than any one in the Republican Stables, he's not a much better choice, just a better choice.

I imagine it's going to get even worse before November -- a LOT worse. Maybe some good will come of it. Can you imagine what a pissed off and galvanized force Obama could be for the Democratic Party?

Our real issues in this country is we have way too many politicians and not a single real leader amongst them.

--r--
Jus when I thought I couldn't dislike Mitt more, I somehow find a way.

Unfortunately for Mitt the Gaffe Android, and his equally gaffe-prone wife, I've been reading the news this year. The GOP evidently hates women so much they don't even want our votes.

You can't insult women take away our rights and autonomy and then ask for our votes, GOP. And I hope on November 7, you find millions of reasons to regret having driven women out of the GOP into the Democratic and Independent Parties in droves.

I'll be voting for the President for all the same reasons I voted for him in 2008. He's also the most important and powerful ally for women's rights against the Tea Party, right now.

rated
I wonder how Democrats get people to vote against their own interests. It's fascinating how the founding party of the KKK, Civil Rights obstructionists, and Jim Crow laws gets so many votes?

How does a party which undermines American Labor get so much support? How does a party which mocks any woman who disagrees with their platforms get so many female votes?

Ignorance, stupidity, wishful thinking, or brainwashing?
"That doesn’t make him a failed president. It just means the Republicans in Congress had only one goal for four years—to make him look like a failed"

More than a bit reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, I’d say. He too had not only the Republicans, but his own scumbag Democrats crawling over one another like ants on a sidewalk Snickers to kill everything he attempted.

Oh wait! So does Obama.
Unfortunately for Libs, Obama's party controlled Congress for the first 2 years Obama was president.
Another reason to vote for Obama -- the Supreme Court nominations to come. That alone would be enough.
One Bird of Prey

One red bird alights on the back of the park bench in Central Park,
The smaller bird, a bit wary of its new neighbor, takes in the rich red plumage, ts shiny beak catching the afternoon sun.

The fuller bird turns, saying, "Will you be my friend?"

The quiet, underfed bird, rocked back some, 'Why?"

But the plump, bright bird, clacked proudly, "Tell you a secret, OK?"

The small bird gazed to his right, unsure, "Just say it."

"Here, you go fly over to that bench, distract the man feeding pop corn to the poor, dumb squirrels, see?"

"Me? "

"Yes, you. Easy, right? Split it fifty fifty."

"OK. Hungry -- two days now without eating."

"I'm off, then." The red bird took off, out
of sight for the moment.

The poor, hungry bird glanced to the bench with the man
feeding the squirrels, circling around before swooping down,
in his objective. Then, in a flurry of swollen commotion,
the man stands suddenly, the hungry smaller bird sweeps in -- but
the man now pulled back, standing there empty handed.
The red bird plucked the pop corn bag clean. Then,
in this sweeping exchange the man unintentionally knocked
the small hungry bird to the side walk.

Now, the red, plump bird was off with his score, winking at his
real partner, unseen before, the Callico cat darting away,
the unfed, trusting bird in its mouth. Just like that.

The dazed smaller bird now realizes what had happened --
he bought in, paid the price. Two birds:
one tricked, one fed, more than twenty times what either one
could possibly eat.

Later, the red bird found another unsuspecting bird on the
fountain -- but this one just took flight and was gone. The
well fed red bird knew, saying to himself, There are many
hungry birds who are not as smart as me. Many, even most,are not as smart and ready.

Like the dumb pigeon on the fountain.

==============================================
"WMD was not a scandeal (sic); it was a mistake shared by experts on all sides of the political spectrum. "

Anybody who had Google could have figured out that the three main pieces of evidence for the war were bogus. Why didn't you do your homework?

- The Niger letter was forged. That UN report proved it, just before the war broke out on Mar 19. Forged badly, like with scissors and a xerox machine. Therefore the Bush administration must have known it was forged, because they have such experts.

- Osama and Saddam were not conspiring. They hated each other. Osama wanted to take his militia to Kuwait after Saddam invaded. Go google it. Nobody believed that one anyway.

- The UN inspectors scoured the country for WMD and found nothing. Colin Powell made a big deal about handing over a list of sites that needed inspection, claiming the UN didn't search them. In fact the UN responded that it had searched almost all of the sites on that list, and went and inspected the few sites that were actually new.

After trashing the UN as incompetent, and insisting that there were WMD, there was no apology when it turned out to be true that there were no WMD. OOps my bad. Sorry about all the dead people.
Thank you, Os, I thought of responding and figured why bother! If anyone would bother to Google WMD scandal there are 1,290,000 hits. Your points speak directly to the issue.