Why I Will Make Sure To Re-Elect The Marxist...By Mitt "No One Is Dumber Than Me" Romney!

[Selene]

This man is, carefully, following his father's political strategy of saying the most ignorant and self destructive statement possible at the given political moment.

What does this man believe? Does he have any core beliefs? He may be a great businessman and I totally respect that about him. He may be a great father, I think he is. He may be a wonderful loving husband, I think he is. He may be a very religious and charitable man, I think he is.

Will he make even an adequate President, possibly, maybe even probably. He will certainly do less intrusive actions. He will make a serious effort to cripple the Affordable Care Act. He will put some serious brakes on the regulatory train that is crippling our nation. He will reduce corporate taxes and make serious efforts to avert the fiscal cliff.

However, he will not get elected.

Frankly, he should be ahead of this clown in the White House by at least ten (10) points. Frankly, I think he is. However, with these types of suicidal, semantic slices, he may not be able to stop the bleeding.

He can still turn this around, This was not a staff problem, although he has plenty of those.

For example, read the following Wall Street Journal suggestions.

The Wall Street Journal

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Updated September 18, 2012, 8:09 p.m. ET

What Romney Might Have Said Draft remarks for the candidate on taxes, dependency and the 47%.

Mitt Romney has been taking a beating for his remarks, taped at a May fundraiser, that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama because they are "dependent" on government. We could pile on, but instead we can report that we've been leaked pages of draft remarks that Mr. Romney might have delivered on the same subject but curiously didn't.

Maybe he'll deliver them some time before Election Day:

Columnist Kim Strassel on how Mitt Romney can turn his leaked fund raising video to his advantage. Photo: Associated Press

"One tragedy of the Obama Presidency is how many more Americans have become dependent on the government. I know it's not their fault. Most want to be self-sufficient, to provide for their families, but they can't because there aren't enough jobs.

"That's why 46 million Americans are on food stamps now, compared to 30 million in 2008. That's why 10.6 million were on Social Security disability in 2011 compared to 9.3 million three years earlier. That's why 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, and the smallest share of the U.S. population is looking for work than at any time since 1981.

"This is a national scandal. Not because those fellow Americans are free-loaders, but because they aren't able to get a good job that pays enough to be self-sufficient and lets them fulfill their human potential.

"I want Americans to be less dependent on government not because it costs too much. We will always help Americans who need our help. I want Americans to be independent so they can realize the pride of accomplishment and the dignity of work and contribute their God-given talents to build a better country.

"I think the success of a Presidency should be measured by how many fewer people need food stamps, how many fewer need disability, not how many more people are added to the rolls. I don't want to take food stamps away from Americans in need. I want fewer Americans to need food stamps.

"Sometimes I wonder if President Obama shares that view. He and his economists keep saying that food stamps and unemployment benefits are a form of 'stimulus.' Well, we've sure had a lot of that kind of stimulus, and all we have to show for it are more people on food stamps and more people on welfare and more people looking for work. I think a real stimulus is a job, and I intend to help Americans create more of them.

"You've probably also heard some people;some even in my own party;divide Americans between 'makers' and 'takers.' As if half the country wants to live off the other half. I've never believed that. That's no different from the kind of divisive politics that the President practices when he pits the wealthy against everyone else.

"We want a society in which one person's success lifts everyone else. The job of government is to create the incentives and opportunity so everyone can become a maker. But too often government wants to take more from Americans so it can make more Americans dependent on government. That's when we lose our way, and too many Americans lose hope that they can work and prosper.

"It's the same with our broken tax policy. You may have heard some people say that about half the American people pay no income tax. That's true. But I know millions of those people do pay Social Security taxes, which are a tax on work. They're making their contribution to our government, and I don't want to;and will not raise their taxes.

"In fact, I want to reduce the tax on work by repealing ObamaCare, which will force employers to pay a tax if they don't offer health insurance. That means they'll hire fewer workers, as many companies are already doing.

"But I don't want to stop there. I also want to fix our tax code so everyone plays by the same rules, and that includes the richest and most powerful. You know, the President seems to say every day that 'millionaires and billionaires' should pay higher tax rates.

"But what he doesn't say is that if you raise tax rates, those millionaires and billionaires will hire lawyers and lobbyists to avoid those rates, to exploit loopholes and tax shelters, or to get special favors. Like Solyndra did. The government will get less revenue, and that means the middle class will end up paying more. The President won't tell you that either.

"Think about it. Do you have a lobbyist in Washington? Do you have a guy you can call to get you in to see the Treasury Secretary or the Senators in Gucci Gulch? Of course you don't. But the millionaires and billionaires do.

"That's why so many people in both parties support tax reform that lowers tax rates and pays for it by closing loopholes and helping the economy grow faster.

"That's what Ronald Reagan did with Democrats like Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in the 1980s. That's what Democrat Alice Rivlin and Republican Pete Domenici have proposed. And that's what the President's own deficit commission led by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles proposed.

"I don't agree with all of the details in these plans, but I do know they have the right general idea. We have the most complicated tax code with some of the highest tax rates in the world and yet it doesn't raise the revenue we need to fund the government.

"We need tax reform to spur faster growth and to make American workers more competitive. But we also need reform to make the tax code fairer, and less open to exploitation by the rich and powerful who have friends in Washington."

***

That's where the speech excerpts end. No doubt there's more, sitting in the PC of some young wordsmith in Boston who's working for Mr. Romney. Somebody should sneak it past Stuart Stevens. Surely a man as smart as the former CEO of Bain Capital can give a better speech on taxes and dependency than he delivered at that fundraiser. If he can't, he'll lose, and he'll deserve to.

[caroljane]

He spent yesterday in Texas and Utah...fundraising.

Good grief. How much money does the man need?

I actually do not think Romney would make a bad president. In fact a Romney government would probably be better for Canada's economy than 4 more years of Obama, so my rational self-interest should support him. But the awful awfulness of his going-through-the-wrong-motions campaigning is so excruciating to watch, I don't think I could stand watching four years of a going-through-the-wrong-motions presidency.

[Selene]

He spent yesterday in Texas and Utah...fundraising.

Good grief. How much money does the man need?

I actually do not think Romney would make a bad president. In fact a Romney government would probably be better for Canada's economy than 4 more years of Obama, so my rational self-interest should support him. But the awful awfulness of his going-through-the-wrong-motions campaigning is so excruciating to watch, I don't think I could stand watching four years of a going-through-the-wrong-motions presidency.

Carol:

Interesting that you do not mention O'bama's constant fund raising when he actually should be at the White House, or, being President.

How much money does he need?

Adam

[caroljane]

He spent yesterday in Texas and Utah...fundraising.

Good grief. How much money does the man need?

I actually do not think Romney would make a bad president. In fact a Romney government would probably be better for Canada's economy than 4 more years of Obama, so my rational self-interest should support him. But the awful awfulness of his going-through-the-wrong-motions campaigning is so excruciating to watch, I don't think I could stand watching four years of a going-through-the-wrong-motions presidency.

Carol:

Interesting that you do not mention O'bama's constant fund raising when he actually should be at the White House, or, being President.

How much money does he need?

Adam

Well Adam, your thread is about romney. I do not feel the need to mention Obama every time I comment on Mitt. As you say, I have no dog in this fight and not much interest in comparing/contrasting the candidates in every post. I did not know that O was fundraising instead of governing but I freely acknowledge he should not be doing that.

He probably needs more money than Mitt does as he has less personal wealth, I don't know if the Dems have a bigger war chest than the GOP or not.

[caroljane]

And I know that whatever Mitt says or does about anything, the Marxist does worse. I get it. If it will cheer you up, everytime I venture to comment on Romney I will add OW at the end, for Obama's Worse.

[Selene]

He spent yesterday in Texas and Utah...fundraising.

Good grief. How much money does the man need?

I actually do not think Romney would make a bad president. In fact a Romney government would probably be better for Canada's economy than 4 more years of Obama, so my rational self-interest should support him. But the awful awfulness of his going-through-the-wrong-motions campaigning is so excruciating to watch, I don't think I could stand watching four years of a going-through-the-wrong-motions presidency.

Carol:

Interesting that you do not mention O'bama's constant fund raising when he actually should be at the White House, or, being President.

How much money does he need?

Adam

Well Adam, your thread is about romney. I do not feel the need to mention Obama every time I comment on Mitt. As you say, I have no dog in this fight and not much interest in comparing/contrasting the candidates in every post. I did not know that O was fundraising instead of governing but I freely acknowledge he should not be doing that.

He probably needs more money than Mitt does as he has less personal wealth, I don't know if the Dems have a bigger war chest than the GOP or not.

Carol:

Just to fill you in, O'bama and his financial thugs claimed that they were going to raise one billion dollars [$1, 000, 000, 000] for this re-elect campaign.

They are sending out e-mails up to four (4) a day for $3.00, $5.00 and up contributions to the gigantic e-mail lists that they amassed from 2007 up to today.

Every month up until the last month, they were begging for more and more money because Romney's financial thugs were out raising them on a monthly basis.

All he does is fund raise. The day the ambassador was raped and killed, he flew to Nevada for a fundraiser.

Last night, he was in NY City at a 40-40 club run by JZ and Bionce [sp?]. That was a $40,000.00 dollar per plate event. He was also in town, taping for one of the late night comedy shows. Yet he refused excused himself from meeting with Bibi of Israel because of scheduling conflicts!!

The man is a bloodless, cold, angry man. He is only interested in power and his narcissistic stroking.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Under a two-party system, when one unelectable candidate goes up against another unelectable candidate one of them will win.

Let's hope we don't get a replay of Al versus Dubya 2000.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

A further thought: Mittens has always been a crappy candidate. Even on the one previous occasion that he won a general election (for Governor of Massachusetts).

Adding to his burden is the legacy media's complete abandonment of any pretense at nonpartisanship. (Not that he wasn't in a position to know what he would be up against when he decided to run.)

Hence, no one in the legacy media deplores Obama's decision to carry on with the fundraiser when an ambassador has just been murdered. Or his lack of speed in visiting the regions trashed by Hurricane Isaac (after all, he won't be carrying Louisiana or Mississippi). Or his evident preference for hanging out with Beyoncé over attending security briefings.

They're all too busy exclaiming over other media outlets exclaiming over other media outlets exclaiming over Romney's comments about the attacks on the embassies.

When they're not exclaiming over other media outlets exclaiming over other media outlets exclaiming over Romney's 47% remarks.

The legacy media further discredit themselves. The battle of the unelectables drags on...

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Under a two-party system, when one unelectable candidate goes up against another unelectable candidate one of them will win.

Let's hope we don't get a replay of Al versus Dubya 2000.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

The O'bama thugs are prepared to make it that way no matter what the results are. They have a bank of very aggressive "progressive" lawyers and teams to go into every state that they lose.

They are playing for keeps. Voter ID will be an automatic challenge wherever it is required. Voter suppression wherever it is not required in a state that they will lose.

Their game plan is to throw this entire election into the courts if they lose.

The question is, will he leave, or, get injunctions from favored federal judges with his partisan "Justice Department" leading the way in support of all these cases.

I am truly concerned about the fact that this nation will not be able to take this kind of rending.

The dynamic is being set up in the semantic his campaign is spewing.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I'm not too worried. This is an election against Obama and freeloading. It is not an election for a charismatic freedom-fighter.

I only see Obama winning in the end if he gets enough of the dumb vote, which is the group of people who have no clue about public issues. Someone did a poll recently (but I don't recall who did it since I caught it in passing on the news) where well over 30% of those polled didn't know who the Vice President was. Almost 70% had never heard of John Roberts. And so on.

Those are the people Obama is now targeting.

I heard he's even advertising in video games.

The problem is that the dumb vote is awfully hard to mobilize. You can get them in polls with cool advertising. But they are going to need a dumb reason (usually like free beer or whatever) to turn out. After all, when election time rolls around, there will be parties to go to or TV shows to watch or football or whatever that just can't be missed by these people to go vote.

As to the media intelligentsia, they have predicted the end of the Tea Party ever since the beginning of the Tea Party and all through every Tea Party victory. And they keep doing it. They don't grok the small government appeal. They are too blinded by the glitter of power.

They even said Ron Paul would have no say in this election, until he had a say.

I see no reason to believe anything they write when making opinions. And very little of what they write when presenting facts--at least I try to never take any story at face value without double and triple checking.

As to the general pessimism being reflected in the conservative media because of Romney's bland charisma, don't forget that this is a country that elected Calvin Coolidge as a backlash to Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.

(Actually, reelected, since he took over for a short time to finish out the term of the suddenly-deceased scandal-ridden Harding. But even with all the scandals and his lack of personality, the country elected him. I believe this was against Wilsonian Progressivism, not for Coolidge.)

Michael

[syrakusos]

Raising money for the campaign is the candidate's number one job. It is at fundraisers that he gives speeches. However, speaking is not his primary goal. The most important task for any candidate is raising money for the campaign. This is not cynicism, but reality, and in fact, a positive statement -- unless, of course, think that money is evil or the root of all evil or something like that...

A political campaign is an entereprise. In fact, it would be best to drop the word "campaign" (field of battle) entirely, except that it does, also point out that politics is historically warfare. Democracy just adds up the infantry on both sides and assumes equal weaponry and leadership and awards the victory to the larger army.

Better - perhaps not best, but better - would be a vote-per-share election as in a corporation shareholders' meeting.

Best perhaps would be Totat Autonomy where each person's own choices are in fact and in deed their own and do not affect anyone else, where all collected or aggregated actions are always the result of agreement of all parties.

But to the matter at hand, I wish that Mitt Romney this and that... and I wish that John D. Rockefeller had not been a devout Baptist, and that George Soros were not a New World Orderer, and that Bill Gates were an Objectivist, and that Apple had not sued Samsung, and that Robert Fulton had not applied for a monopoly charter, and that ,,,

[Selene]

Michael:

I tend to agree with you and I have been predicting a Romney victory for a while, taking into account his awful campaigning.

The problem is as I stated above. These folks are prepared to lose and go into the courts en mass to keep power. I am not sure what the response will be to federal judges issuing injunctions across the board with the support of the "Justice Department."

Adam

[syrakusos]

... I'm not too worried. This is an election against Obama and freeloading.... don't forget that this is a country that elected Calvin Coolidge as a backlash to Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.

You are dreaming. Your "analysis" is a fantasy divorced from the physical nature of objective reality.This country did not elect Calvin Coolidge. A different country in the same place but another time did that.

[syrakusos]

The problem is as I stated above. These folks are prepared to lose and go into the courts en mass to keep power. I am not sure what the response will be to federal judges issuing injunctions across the board with the support of the "Justice Department."

Well, only because President Obama does not have a brother who is governor of the pivotal province.

So success is not a mystery, just brush up on your history, and

borrow day by day.

Take the Empire that was Roman and you'll find it is at

home in all the starry Milky Way.

With a drive that's hyperspatial, through the parsecs you will

race, you'll find that plotting is a breeze,

With a tiny bit of cribbin' from the works of Edward Gibbon

and that Greek, Thycydides.

[Backlighting]

Lets not forget if the House swings to the democraps & the Senate stays the same, it won't really mean much if Mitt wins.

[syrakusos]

Lets not forget if the House swings to the democraps & the Senate stays the same, it won't really mean much if Mitt wins.

Nonsense. You people with your dreams of a One Party = Our Party State disappoint me. It is best for all when Congress and the President are of different parties.

[Selene]

Lets not forget if the House swings to the democraps & the Senate stays the same, it won't really mean much if Mitt wins.

Those two events cannot happen together.

[Robert Campbell]

As to the media intelligentsia, they have predicted the end of the Tea Party ever since the beginning of the Tea Party and all through every Tea Party victory. And they keep doing it. They don't grok the small government appeal. They are too blinded by the glitter of power.

They even said Ron Paul would have no say in this election, until he had a say.

Michael,

I realize that if the legacy media folks really believed that Romney was going to get stomped, they wouldn't keep exclaiming over other people's exclaiming over other people's exclaiming.

How much hyperventilation took place over Bob Dole's sayings and doings, back in 1996?

It's because they're stil afraid Romney might win that they're performing all their cartwheels.

Same with the Tea Party. It's not merely that they have no clue as it to its appeal. The one thing they're really sure of is that they don't want it to be a force in American politics. So they keep writing as though their fervent wish has already come true, in the hope that their repeated declarations will make it so.

Adam,

If the margin in a key state or states is really narrow this November, expect all hell to break loose.

But it has to be really narrow: Dubya versus Al in 2000, or Franken vs. Coleman in 2008. 537 votes in Florida was well within the actual margin of error for our less than high-precision, less than super-secure voting systems.

If one or the other is ahead by more than 1% statewide, that's a big margin in actual votes. Too big to give Eric Holder much to play with.

Speaking of AG Holder, it's now been revealed that his PR people gave direct instructions to Media Matters on how to make Fast and Furious look good and Darrell Issa look bad. Aren't our administration and our press wonderful?

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

I agree with #16. We had one-party rule during Johnson's glory days (63 - 65), the first six years of Bush and the first two years of Obama (among other periods). These were all bad for the future of the US.

[Selene]

Robert:

Yep. I have been following this story for quite awhile.

The Daily Caller FOIL requests discovered the e-mails after almost eight (8) months of delay by the "Department of Injustice."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/

These people will stop at nothing. Believe me they may be more dangerous if they lose.

Additionally, I do not think they will even care about the "closeness issue" to contest the election.

I believe that they have a deeper, more broad based way to challenge the entire system. Remember, they do not have to win long term.

They merely have to stop the transfer of power on January 20th 2013. Throw the country into turmoil and then...who knows.

Adam

sometimes it is not paranoia to see the potential for tyranny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So they keep writing as though their fervent wish has already come true, in the hope that their repeated declarations will make it so.

Robert,

You have given me a most wicked thought.

The practice you just described is pure Law of Attraction when done intentionally.

You make an image in your mind and treat it as if it were real, load it with emotion, then it becomes real. Or so LOA people believe.

I wonder...

Are some of media folks really doing what they're doing for that reason?

This would make a great talking point for those against Obama.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I'm not too worried. This is an election against Obama and freeloading.... don't forget that this is a country that elected Calvin Coolidge as a backlash to Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.

You are dreaming. Your "analysis" is a fantasy divorced from the physical nature of objective reality.This country did not elect Calvin Coolidge. A different country in the same place but another time did that.

Michael,

Nah...

I don't buy it.

OK, the country was different in some important aspects, but people are still people.

The idea that people change fundamentally (qua mankind) is the stuff of dreams divorced from reality. Unfortunately, we have a strong dose of that in O-Land.

The theory is that man is perfectible over time. All you have to do is keep molding him with stuff like philosophy (or, in the case of progressives, social engineering), the bad ones will eventually die off and the good ones will automatically ensure paradise on earth since they will be perfect (by some standard or other).

That has never worked as a fundament to structure morality and it never will. It can be used to convince large numbers of individuals to group and act crazy, though, so it can produce genocide and other forms of mass murder.

I will go this far. The kind of people who came to America did not port a victim mentality. Many were real victims who simply told their respective oppressors to go to hell as they struck out for new lands. You can keep your damn stuff and power games. I'm getting out of here.

And they kept going--over oceans, over dangerous lands, over mountains, hell, even to the moon. This adventurous anti-authoritarian character is an almost collective spirit that is part of our history and culture. When I look around me, I see clearly that it has not evaporated. (But when I look at the mainstream news, I start thinking it might have. )

I believe we are fundamentally the same people as in the time of Coolidge. (I mean "we" in this context as in the majority, not "we" as in species.)

More toys. More stuff. More health. More lifespan. More toxic effects from social engineering, maybe. But still people who don't like to be pushed around.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Lets not forget if the House swings to the democraps & the Senate stays the same, it won't really mean much if Mitt wins.

Nonsense. You people with your dreams of a One Party = Our Party State disappoint me. It is best for all when Congress and the President are of different parties.

How so? 2 diametrically opposed parties usually produce compromise. Would you oppose 1 party rule, based upon laizzez-faire capitalism?

[9thdoctor]

Lets not forget if the House swings to the democraps & the Senate stays the same, it won't really mean much if Mitt wins.

Nonsense. You people with your dreams of a One Party = Our Party State disappoint me. It is best for all when Congress and the President are of different parties.

How so? 2 diametrically opposed parties usually produce compromise. Would you oppose 1 party rule, based upon laizzez-faire capitalism?

Ideally the Republicans get majorities for the next two years, so Obamacare can be repealed.

[Brant Gaede]

... I'm not too worried. This is an election against Obama and freeloading.... don't forget that this is a country that elected Calvin Coolidge as a backlash to Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.

You are dreaming. Your "analysis" is a fantasy divorced from the physical nature of objective reality.This country did not elect Calvin Coolidge. A different country in the same place but another time did that.

You are saying you can't step into the same river twice.

--Brant