Column: Nation hesitant to give up on Obama

October 3, 2012


— In baseball, a game without a clock, each player on a team that is behind by a bunch of runs is advised to “stay within yourself.” That baseball lingo means: Do not try to do too much. Instead, get ‘em on, get ‘em over, get ‘em in. There are no five-run home runs. Small, incremental gains matter because the game goes on until someone makes the 27th out. Until then, there is hope.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, presidential politics is, like football, a game with a clock, one with just five weeks of ticks remaining. In football, a team behind by lots of points late in the game must take gambles. Romney is behind — in the important swing states, with the national electorate regarding who would best handle the economy and health care, and in national measures of favorable voter perceptions. So on Wednesday night it might be risky for Romney not to take risks. But what can he do? He might add to his menu of policies by embracing, say, the idea of breaking up the largest banks, a sound policy that would subvert the caricature of him as rapacious capitalism embodied. But debates are not good venues for explaining ... well, anything, actually, but especially not new initiatives. And October is a time for summations to the jury, not new submissions of evidence. Worse, Romney and his advisers must be bewildered by this fact: In October 2011 they would have been serenely confident of victory if they had been told that 12 months later the following would be true.

That President Obama would be waist deep in muddy and contradictory descriptions and explanations of the terrorist (he now concedes) attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. That data just released for August 2012 showed that real disposable income had again declined. That Obama would actually celebrate the fact that for the first month since he took office there were more U.S. jobs than when he took office. That the most recent figures show a 13.2 percent decline in durable goods orders. That nearly 25 percent — the highest in three decades — of Americans between 25 and 55 are unemployed. That the second-quarter growth rate was adjusted down from an anemic 1.7 percent to the stall speed of 1.3 percent.

And regarding the Investor in Chief, that his Tesla Motors would be troubled. The California firm has received a $465 million loan from the world’s most incompetent venture capital fund, the U.S. Department of Energy — source of Solyndra’s $535 million — to make electric cars for the affluent. The Model S, unlike Tesla’s $109,000 Roadster, is supposed to sell for between $50,000 and $98,000 — after the $7,500 federal tax credit. But Tesla has just received a waiver on the terms of its DOE loan. Tesla joins California-based Fisker, another floundering would-be maker of high-end rides for rich people, which has received a $529 million DOE loan.

Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work.  

A significant date in the nation’s civil rights progress involved an African-American baseball player named Robinson, but not Jackie. The date was Oct. 3, 1974, when Frank Robinson, one the greatest players in history, was hired by the Cleveland Indians as the major leagues’ first black manager. But an even more important milestone of progress occurred June 19, 1977, when the Indians fired him. That was colorblind equality.

Managers get fired all the time. The fact that the Indians felt free to fire Robinson — who went on to have a distinguished career managing four other teams — showed that another racial barrier had fallen: Henceforth, African-Americans, too, could enjoy the God-given right to be scapegoats for impatient team owners or incompetent team executives.

Perhaps a pleasant paradox defines this political season: That Obama is African-American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up. Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake choosing him — seems especially reluctant not to give up on the first African-American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.

— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.    


atiopatioo 5 years, 4 months ago

You Americans hesitant to give up this line of thinking?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

atiopatioo 5 years, 4 months ago

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

fiddleback 5 years, 4 months ago

For starters, you're perpetuating a misattribution: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp This is some 10-yr.-old anecdote of dubious origin and zero correlation to current tax rates. Can you to match those numbers to anything??

Currently, we're basically arguing about the Bush tax cuts, and esp. a 3-4% increase for the top bracket.

So to use your analogy with an actual attempt at accuracy, we're talking about whether the top 3 payers should collectively contribute a few bucks more. Why? Because we have a structural deficit, meaning all payments add up to about $60, or $10 less than the beer actually costs. The bartender (fed. gov't) is charging too little and is gravely worried that he won't be able to stay in business.

Has this bartender been the most fiscally responsible business owner in how he spends? No. But along with reforming his spending habits, correcting how he charges and to whom (the structural deficit) is a critical aspect of how he will stay afloat.

fiddleback 5 years, 4 months ago

Not exactly a wallop of a retort...if the sides could reasonably negotiate for once, you could reform both taxing and spending ("grand bargain"). But if you really think the ship is going down regardless, I don't know why you're bothering with discourse about who's captain. Sounds like you just need a bunker where you can hunker...

fiddleback 5 years, 4 months ago

Either you believe in the potential for a compromise design to pay the tab, or you build the bunker. I opt for the former. And I'd be okay with the bottom half contributing to the tab if their other taxes could be comparably reduced. You haven't at all supported why a few dollars more from the richest would be so terrible. And again, you don't seem to believe in any meaningful reform happening, so this election ought to be a moot point for you.

fiddleback 5 years, 4 months ago

If your ideology favors a flat or "fair" tax, I'm not going to bother detailing how impractical and punitive towards the poor these proposals are. It's funny that you would scoff at the chances of a "grand bargain" only to suggest a tax system that has roughly the same likelihood as lunar colonies.

I don't care if the POTUS is a community organizer or a CEO, he/she needs to be a consummate deal-maker akin to Clinton or LBJ, in order for real reform to happen. Romney can't even convince people to trust him, let alone like him. So in the meantime I'll settle for seeing at least some of the tax cuts expire, not for envy or any other motive but just as a step towards correcting the structural deficit.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

If they don't want to pay their own way tell them to hit the road. They are economic terrorists.

Upper middle class and middle class taxpayers cannot afford these tax dollar moochers.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago


Repubs fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all WOULD keep them out of control for decades….. we would hope.

Keep in mind a prospering america can overcome repub fear mongering... it must.

What is the repub party afraid? Why do they ALWAYS say no?

What do Repubs fear?

--- Fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all americans

--- Fear Jobs Jobs Jobs for americans

--- Fear New USA industry thus new wealth for america

--- Fear new cleaner energy sources because it would create so many new jobs and reduce rates across the board

--- Fear Medicare Single Payer Insurance = huge tax dollar savings to government,public schools,small business and all of us in general. Single Payer Medicare is the answer. http://www.healthcare-now.org/

--- Fear Clean Collar Industries which produce jobs that cannot be outsourced

--- Fear educated Americans because WE ask questions

--- Fear losing of tax incentives/tax breaks for the wealthy that actually create tax increases for entire spectrum of the middleclass

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

Wednesday October 3

Third Party Candidates to Join in Real Time on Democracy Now!’s Live Coverage of First Pres.

As President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney square off in the first presidential debate in Denver on October 3, Democracy Now! will broadcast live from Denver with a special expanded presidential debate from 8:30 to 11:30 p.m. ET.

We will air the debate, pausing after questions to include equal time responses from two presidential contenders who were shut out of the official debate: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.


Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

How do the affluent operate?

Neither WOMEN nor Republicans nor Democrats nor the Upper Middle Class/Middle class can afford the Republican/RINO Party

Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007? Trillions of $$$$.

Let's talk about entitlements that have literally destroyed jobs,economies and retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.

DC republicans have been successful at wrecking our economy big time twice in the past thirty years. Because of the pattern I am convinced it is their economic policy established under the direction of Reagan/Bush.

Bush/Cheney accomplished a remarkable achievement by destroying the world economy which of course makes it difficult for the USA to bounce back quickly. The question becomes how in the world did they sucker financial institutions worldwide into buying bundles upon bundles upon bundles of bad USA home loans worth trillions of dollars in bad debt?

What an incredible and criminally insane economic policy? I don't believe the entire world can afford the economically reckless republican party that was born in 1980.

Let's talk about entitlements that literally destroyed jobs,economies,retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.

--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

--- This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007?

The fewer republicans the more our properties will become worth and the more likely USA jobs will be reinvigorated.

notaubermime 5 years, 4 months ago

"Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work."

Yes, benign like the incompetency of the Republican candidate. Obama is leading because Romney is damaging himself at a rate which exceeds that of Obama's failures. This year's election is like trying to pick the best replacement referee.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

Best replacement referee. A good analogy.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 4 months ago

Headline should read "MSM reluctant to give up on Obama".

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Certainly you mean Fox News in your definition of main stream, yes?

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 4 months ago

I live in the "Deep South" where, quite literally, there is a Baptist church every other block and your social status is just as defined by your answer to, "Where do you go to church?", as much as anything else. Hilarity ensued in my home when it became apparent Romney was the nominee. Why? These people were faced with two choices; vote for a black man or a Mormon. Now that the clearing of the head explosions and the cleaning of the brain matter is well under way it's starting to become apparent they would rather have the black man. Ironic, no?

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

It was probably from the primary and was referring to Santorum.

jonas_opines 5 years, 4 months ago

It has very little to do with Obama, or the liberal media, or anything else that the Party of Personal Responsibility seems to want to blame for this situation, since obviously the Party of Personal Responsibility could never take the blame themselves.

They started with a faulty premise, that "anybody would be better than the president". Which of course is one of their articles of faith that they deeply believe. They then had a shipful of fools, less people than visible allegorical representations of the many flaws and contradictions in their party ideology, that one by one were championed then abandoned. They settled, then, on a middle of the road, flip-flopping stiff, that few can relate to and few perceive as being able to relate to them, and they chose him, not really for what he could add to the office, but because he was perceived as having the best chance of winning the game. Because, it seems, your team winning is the only thing that matters. In the end, we're left with a candidate who is supposed to be better than the president, but is almost indistinguishable from him on most everything but tax cuts for the "job creators". Which, it seems, is the defining line between Real-American Capitalism, and Godless Pinko Commie Socialism (tm).

I suppose they should be thankful that the economy is still poor, because without that one thing Romney would be down by double-digit margins, I suspect.

notaubermime 5 years, 4 months ago

This whole post was well done, but your opening sentence was gold.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 4 months ago

A US ambassador was murdered by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. Despite prior intelligence,, the consulate at Benghazi was unsecured. The Mope made some remarks and jetted off to Vegas for a fundraiser later that day. Any other President would have been savaged in the press and it would still be front page news.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 4 months ago

Kinda like GWB was savaged in the news for having prior intelligence of 9/11? Not.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

Actually, I've had several conversations with one of our resident progressives who insists that Bush had or should have had enough information about 9/11, but he was too preoccupied with tax cuts to pay attention. Was Obama too preoccupied with his reelection? I don't believe either is true, but you will get arguments from the radicals on both sides.

jonas_opines 5 years, 4 months ago

If you can't trust internet armchair intelligence experts, who can you trust?

Maddy Griffin 5 years, 4 months ago

Whatever. If you guys could give the village idiot 8 years to make this mess, I can give my guy 8 years to clean it up.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

How about a compromise. We give your guy another 4 years, but if he can't fix it by then we all swear on a stack of Bibles never to vote for a Democrat or Republican again. We all take our vote to the third party candidate that best represents our views. Agreed?

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

And, if they don't fix things either?

Also, we'd need to give Obama the time, but also a Congress that works with him, not against him.

I'll say this - if Obama and the D had 8 years of unobstructed time in order to pursue their goals, then I'd judge the results and lay all of the responsibility at their feet.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

"And if they don't fix things either"? - If, by "they" you are referring to my third party candidates, then they will need a time period equal to the combined Democrat/Republican tenures to fix it. Wasn't that Gram's point? Give 'em a couple of centuries and if they can't fix it, we throw them out as well. :-)

Congress is an equal partner to the President. It was never intended that they be the lesser partner, rubber stamping whatever the President wanted. No more than any President is obligated to implement every policy Congress passes. It was never intended that "his" (the President) policies are the dominant and "their" (Congress') policies be subservient. Congress is no more, or no less obligated to work with the President than the President is obligated to work with Congress. That they have been unable to work together is an indictment on both, or neither, in equal proportions.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

But, your comment about the president not "fixing it" assumes the president has much more power than he does, without a Congress willing to work with him.

It can certainly do what it likes, but you can't blame the president if Congress blocks his every move.

And, I'm not at all sure that's true that the blame lies equally, if one or the other is committed to obstruction and defeat of the "other side", that's not an equal blame situation.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

This whole "other side" mentality that infests Washington is the single biggest problem in the U.S. Not the economy, not terrorism, not global warming. This whole Democrat vs. Republican, Republican vs. Democrat, us vs. them BS. That said, blaming one or the other is like a chicken and egg debate.

If you start from the premise that the President is correct, or if you come from the premise that the President is entitled to implement his agenda, or if you come from the premise that the President had a mandate from the people, then yes, this particular Congress was obstructionist. But if you come from the premise that both were equally correct, equally entitled, equal mandates, then Congress had every right to implement their policies as did the President. And if they conflicted with each other, that may in fact be nothing more than a reflection of a deeply divided people who elected them all.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

I tend to generally agree with that.

You're the one who said "Give him another 4 years, and if he doesn't fix it by then", not me.

I can only give people credit or blame for their actions, and if Congress is obstructing any actions by the president, then they're the ones who get the blame for lack of action in my book.

We are deeply divided - so blaming the president makes no sense at all to me.

By the way, the filibuster rule gives the minority party the ability to block action by the majority party - it's not exactly an "equal, entitled" anything.

Let's say you and I are negotiating, and we're some distance apart - if I agree to come towards you by 50-60 percent, and you refuse to budge, and the negotiations fall apart, is it really an equal blame situation? I'd say no - you're not even negotiating at all, so more blame goes on your shoulders than mine.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

Again, you're coming from the premise that the President is trying to do something and Congress is obstructing him. Congress has an equal mandate to do whatever they are doing. Perhaps their mandate is to do nothing and it's the President trying to obstruct them in their attempt to fulfill that mandate.

That all may sound silly. But if you ask Congressional leaders that question they will indeed tell you that their mandate is equal to that of the President. If you look at the Constitution, it will say the two are equal. Maybe it's we the people who have expectations different than what is mandated by law.

That said, I happen to agree that the argument is somewhat silly. But where I differ from you is my belief that the obstructionism of Congress should have been offset by the leadership of the President. Congress has failed to compromise and the President has failed to lead. Both have failed the American people. Neither compromise nor leadership are mandated by law but both are expected by the people.

But to your hypothetical. Suppose I am selling a car and you are wanting to buy the car. I may say $10,000/firm, suggesting no negotiating will be forthcoming. Even if I don't and I set the price at $10,000, just because you counteroffer at $0 does not mean a fair compromise is $5,000. Even if you start at $5,000, that doesn't mean a fair compromise is $7,500. I may have a bottom line figure in my mind of $9,000 so unless your first offer is at least $8,000, a compromise just might not happen. In that scenario, would you fault me the seller for every failure when your initial offer was less than $8,000?

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

You're the one blaming the president if he doesn't fix things.

I'm just pointing out that he doesn't have that much power, and that Congress has more power, in our system, to enact legislation, or not.

So I can't possibly blame Obama for what Congress does or doesn't do.

You can't "lead" if people are determined to obstruct, it's simply not possible.

If you're not negotiating, then it's your fault if the negotiations break down, because you're not actually negotiating. Seems pretty clear to me. If we negotiate a bit, and can't arrive at an acceptable compromise, then we're both part of the situation.

Let's use your figures - if your nominal price is $10K, and I offer $5K, and you say $10K, that's not negotiating. You can say $9.5K, and see what happens next - that's negotiating. Or you can say $9K is as low as I can go, and see what happens - that's negotiating. But simply holding to your original price isn't participating in the process at all.

From my perspective, that's pretty analogous to what R have been doing in Congress - they simply stick to their guns - "no tax increases", and refuse to negotiate or compromise, preferring instead to try to defeat the president and D. Meanwhile, D have offered a number of compromises, including ideas that were originally R, indicating an interest in negotiation and compromise.

So, to blame the two sides equally seems off to me.

When spending cuts and increased tax revenues are the solution suggested by nonpartisan economists, and all of the R nominees say they wouldn't accept a 10/1 ratio of cuts to increases, that's a big problem.

Romney said it last night in the debates - no tax increases, period.

D don't like spending cuts, but they're willing to entertain them, if combined with increased tax revenue.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

Depends on what you see as a viable third party. If seeking a libertarian, that could be like a Republican, but on steroids. Green Party? No.

Sadly, Democrats are the third party now, since they certainly aren't truly liberals in control of the party.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 4 months ago

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate. And he's actually going to get more votes than you would believe, if my friends are any indication.

Mike Ford 5 years, 4 months ago

hesitency has to deal with knowing that romney is pushing the same policy mess that I hated when I was fifteen and will not support when I'm forty two.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Laughable comment, supported by zero facts. Marxist? Only someone who has no idea what Marxist means would claim President Obama is one. Turned his back on God? So you are can see into President Obama's soul? That's a neat trick. Quick - what's next week lottery number going to be, since you have superhuman powers? Damage to the country? Go ahead: try to support that claim with facts, not deluded fantasies. I'll wait to see if you can.

PS: there are no monsters under your bed, either. It's all in your head.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

And that, my child, is why everything you post is so, so ignorant. You act as though the crash of 2008 never happened. It's okay, dear little boy, there there, the monsters under your bed are not real.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work."

Yeah, like the fact that after the last four years Romney was the best the RNC could come up with????!!!!! Has to be the biggest political joke, to our collective detriment, of the year, hands down.

KEITHMILES05 5 years, 4 months ago

Why in the world should ANYBODY vote for Romeny when he refuses to give specifics of his broad proposals? Even his VP dude who is an expert at "numbers" says it would take way too long to be specific on the "tax cuts."

This just goes to show they think the electorate is stupid and will buy their cries of despair.

If you can't explain it then I don't want you.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

trolling and race-baiting. How very Christian of you.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Certainly you can Google. Here's a web site to read: http://www.barackobama.com/economy

It's up to you to educate yourself out of your own terror fears.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

The reason that Romney is losing is because the truth is winning.

No one could have predicted that in the midst of the "Information Revolution" that we would have such a struggle sifting through propaganda and political rhetoric to get at the truth.

It is however a familiar struggle. Those that have want to keep down those that don't. The Republican Party has degenerated into a Party that advocates an ideology of greed.

They have managed to fool enough people that the election is still in doubt as they have managed to lock down a Congress that is the most hated in American history.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

"He might add to his menu of policies by embracing, say, the idea of breaking up the largest banks, a sound policy that would subvert the caricature of him as rapacious capitalism embodied."

But he could never do this because the "caricature" is no caricature at all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

Don't sell George short-- his ideas verge on the crackpot regularly, but he generally does command a wide vocabulary in expressing them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

Umm, I was quoting directly from George's column (that's why I used quotation marks which, fyi, look like this-- "......")

And believe it or not, I didn't need to look up a single word in that quote, which was apparently not the case for you.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

Gee, so sorry to see you are depressed.

By the way, the red states voting for Romney have lower education levels than blue states. Those are your people. Those with higher education will be voting overwhelmingly for Obama.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 4 months ago

Poor baby. Just to let you know, statistically red states have an over all lower level of education and use up more "welfare" resources than blue states. I would suggest you Google that.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 4 months ago

The Republicans like to talk about leadership but their most recent example of leadership was Bush/Cheney who were not only incompetent but a literal rubber stamp for every Republican spending and tax cut bill that crossed their desks.

Leadership would have been, at the very least, asking the very well off to give a little more to support the war effort at least while we sent our children into a foreign desert to bleed and die for a war that everyone today believes never should have happened.

That kind of leadership never appeared during the Bush administration. The Republicans in Congress were silent as well. They could have spoken up and they did not. When they finally did speak it was to block all of the Obama administration's efforts to save the country from economic disaster.

These modern Republicans have demonstrated that they cannot lead. When asked to sacrifice they cannot. When asked to go in front of their constituents and ask them to give a little more to help the nation they cannot. They are programmed to take and take and take some more.

Their candidates were lunatics and the most normal guy that finally won their primary is a train wreck. He hides his money in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss bank accounts. He uses tax shelters that are designed for the very wealthy and loopholes hidden in the minutiae of complex tax code so that folks like Romney don't have to pay like the rest of us. His previous employer, the state of Massachusetts, has him getting blown out in the Presidential election.

Romney is the consummate politician as liar. He will say whatever you want to hear as long as you just vote for him. The Republicans have correctly determined that their only hope is to avoid the details and attack Obama. Attack, attack, attack until they can confuse people enough to vote for their guy. Their rubber stamp for everything they want to take away from you and I and give to themselves.

gravitykills 5 years, 4 months ago

"The Democrats and Media have correctly determined that their only hope is to avoid the details and attack Romney. Attack, attack, attack until they can confuse people enough to vote for their guy."

There... I fixed that for ya!

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

It is clear the whole "black" thing Obama has going really bothers you. How truly sad.

Ira Rott 5 years, 4 months ago

Romney is just the second coming of John Kerry, a bland, most "electable" candidate from the primary field, running on "he's not the incumbent" instead of what he will actually do to fix things. The strategy didn't work in 2004 (sadly) which is why I was so surprised that the GOP decided to do the same thing. Liberals were sure in the run up to the election but then couldn't believe that the horrible GWB was re-elected over a semi-competent replacement. Similarly Conservatives are going into denial (questioning the validity of polls, etc.), and can't believe that the electorate would re-elect the horrible Barak Obama over a semi-competent replacement. It's part of the reason BO steamrolled John McCain in 2008, people were voting for him, not voting against McCain.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Wrong. Your assertion is without any factual basis. It's just your class prejudice coming through.

Prove that your assertion is correct. All I need to show that its wrong is that I myself prefer Obama over Romney, and I work and invest. QED.

Try harder. Really. To actually think.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.