The Romney File

[Billy T]

Nice graphs, Grumpy

Perhaps you will join my efforts to get the coming depression called: "GWB´s Depression" ? (See post 177 for why that name is correct.)

 

[quadraphonics]

If we really want to get madanth's goat, I'd suggest this recent poll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-campaign-economy-bush-idUSBRE85D0XI20120614

About 68 percent of the more than 1,000 adults surveyed nationwide said Bush, who left office in January 2009, deserves a "moderate amount" or a "great deal" of the blame for the U.S. economic woes​

He's obviously taking his pages from the GOP playbook, who are trying to run against Obama by blaming him for the economy. The fact that over two thirds of American adults aren't dumb enough to buy that should give them pause (supposing their weak-suck candidate that even they don't particularly like didn't already).

 

[joepistole]

Why does Romney want to run for president? The man seems to havve no core issue. He is on every side of almost every issue at one time or another, so why does he want to be POTUS? Is it a "rich kid beats daddy" deal like the George Junior presidency?

 

[madanthonywayne]

A press release from Mr. Romney regarding the Obama administrations comment regarding the recent jobs report and how we shouldn't read too much into a report from just one month......
Today, the Obama Administration told Americans “not to read too much into” monthly jobs reports.

As it turns out, they’ve been encouraging Americans to do that for years. But after 41 straight months of unemployment over 8%, you don’t have to read between the lines to see the truth. President Obama’s policies have failed to get America working again.

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)

http://obamaisntworking.com/press/broken-record-broken-promises/
Are we starting to see a pattern here?

 

[quadraphonics]

Are we starting to see a pattern here?

Yes. The pattern is that y'all - and the media - jump all over every jobs report as if it's the end of the world and will determine the destiny of the human race, and the administration has to keep reminding people to get a grip and try to maintain some perspective.

 

[joepistole]

Yes. The pattern is that y'all - and the media - jump all over every jobs report as if it's the end of the world and will determine the destiny of the human race, and the administration has to keep reminding people to get a grip and try to maintain some perspective.

Indeed! The US employment picture today is certainly light years better than it was in 2009 when President Obama was sworn into office. And here is the rub; Republicans want a repeat of the policies that created the fiasco that led to The Great Recession of 2007 - 2009.

 

[Tiassa]

Republican Elite vs. Rank-and-File

Republicans want a repeat of the policies that created the fiasco that led to The Great Recession of 2007 - 2009.

True as that may be for the Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney, I'm not certain the rank and file are in on the joke.

I know it's a curious divide between Republican elected officials and Republican voters, but I would suggest that some of the rhetoric you've been aiming at "Republicans" will backfire because of that divide.

And, yes, I know it's risky to point to people's ignorance lack of information, but, to wit, keep this in mind of a Pew Center poll conducted June 29-July 1:

Forty-five: The percent of Pew survey respondents who didn't know the actual result of NFIB v. Sebelius.​

Forty-five percent of the respondents to the Pew Center got the outcome wrong. What's more, this came on the heels of a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll conducted June 28-30:

Forty-one: Percent of KFF survey respondents who did not know the actual result of NFIB v. Sebelius[/i].​

And no, we need not blame this all on "Republican ignorance". Plenty of Democratic supporters got it wrong, too.

But the point is that it seems unrealistic to expect that Republican voters in general would necessarily be as aware of various political issues and the reality behind the talking points as you, me, or others who devote what is probably an unhealthy amount of effort to discussing politics in this community.

The result, then, is that the Republican rank and file are likely offended by such, well, offensive suggestions as wanting the nation to collapse. If the connection between this accusation and the actions of the Congressional Republicans, and Mitt Romney, is obvious to us, it is not necessarily so apparent to them.

Thus, have mercy on the rank and file. Remember that we, as supporters of the Democratic Party's efforts, have been cornered into defending a policy we never much liked from the outset. This is no small feat, and much of November's outcome will depend on whether or not we can make Republican voters—or, perhaps more precisely, those so-called "independent" and "swing" voters who are not simply Republicans in lambs' clothing—understand the implications of the Republican congressional and presidential campaigns.

Perhaps they will be insulted by the notion that they don't get it, but what don't they get? Our perspective? Well, shit, what's new, you know?

And, in truth, if we somehow hold the key to a better way, ought we not at least try to act like it? Leave the vice and hatred to Madanthonywayne and other irredeemable political charlatans. Republican voters need to understand that they've actually won this round, and the only reason they might disagree would be that they have accepted certain falsehoods.

They got what they have been after since 1993. And, certes, many are misinformed and willfully defrauded by their Republican political elite, but we're not going to be able to convince them that the greatest threat to their still-fragile victory is the slate of politicians they have been convinced to endorse.
_____________________

Notes:

Pew Research Center. "Division, Uncertainty over Court's Health Care Ruling". July 2, 2012. People-Press.org. July 6, 2012. http://www.people-press.org/2012/07/02/division-uncertainty-over-courts-health-care-ruling/

Benen, Steve. "Keeping up (or not) with the news". The Maddow Blog. July 3, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 6, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12547834-keeping-up-or-not-with-the-news

Kaiser Family Foundation. "Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Early Reaction to Supreme Court Decision on the ACA". June, 2012. KFF.org. July 6, 2012. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8329-C.PDF

 

[Tiassa]

Romney Supporter: Voters Just Don't Understand

Romney Supporter: Voters Just Don't Understand

"Even the most uninformed trolls here on Sciforums are probably much more up on current events than the average voter." —Madanthonywayne​

It is worth revisiting that statement from December of last year, which led to a semantic discussion of the difference between uninformed and stupid. But, in the present, it would seem that some Republicans might well be ready to travel down that general trail. Maeve Reston reported over the weekend for the Los Angeles Times on a Mitt Romney fundraiser in the Hamptons, at the home of David Koch:

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies—everybody who's got the right to vote—they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income—one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."​

The problem asserted here isn't specifically that voters are relying too much on campaign advertisements or sound bites, but, rather, that people don't understand how something like the American Jobs Act, which had the potential to put nearly two million people back to work—as well as preventing over a quarter-million layoffs—is hurting people. They do not understand, apparently, how Republican efforts to quash economic recovery are helping them.

That one donor is, simply, that one donor. Republicans would be well-advised to avoid picking up her particular argument in the general discourse, because any campaign advisor or analyst worth their job should be able to remind a candidate about the dangers of denigrating voters. Even if something is true, such as the role of voters in Washington state's "$30 car tab" debacle, politicians themselves ought to be very, very careful before pointing out to voters that, "Hey, this is what you wanted," or any similar argument that blames voters for their predicament. (In that case, people turned around and complained that billions of dollars of street repairs weren't happening; many of those who complained specifically cancelled, in their vote to eliminate the state's primary revenue resource, those street repairs. And no, they never did get the thirty-dollar tabs.)

Of course, Republicans might find themselves painted into a corner. Democratic supporters have watched with puzzlement and even cautious amusement in recent months as Mitt Romney's alleged surrogates—high-profile Republicans attempting to promote the presidential candidate's campaign message—have been less than enthusiastic. For instance, there is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner:

But at a June 30 fundraiser in Wheeling, W.Va., Speaker John Boehner offered a surprisingly frank assessment of the dynamic that surprised some in the audience.

Aside from Romney's "friends, relatives and fellow Mormons," Boehner said, most people will be motivated to vote for him in opposition to Obama.

The Ohio Republican made the remarks when an unidentified woman asked during a question-and-answer session: "Can you make me love Mitt Romney?"

"No," Boehner said. "Listen, we're just politicians. I wasn't elected to play God. The American people probably aren't going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I'll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.

"Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that's not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president's failed economic policies.

"Mitt Romney believes, just like we do, that if we're going to get the economy back, if we're going to put the American people back to work, we need to fix the tax code, we need to stop the regulatory juggernaut that's going on in Washington and we need to fix our economy. Solid guy, he's going to do a great job, even if you don't fall in love with him."

(Strong)​

It's a tough gamble. And if the argument is that Romney is relying on people voting against President Obama—as compared to voting for Mitt Romney—then suddenly the unnamed donor's frustration makes sense: people would vote against Barack Obama, but only if they were able to understand what is really happening.

The problem for Mitt Romney, of course, is that he keeps boxing himself in. If Romney points to unemployment, the president can respond that he cannot make the laws by himself, and Congressional Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act. And Obama can wonder aloud why the Romney campaign sent a memo to Florida Governor Rick Scott, demanding that he tone down his own re-election campaign rhetoric about how much the economy is improving. If Romney attacks the Affordable Care Act, President Obama can respond that the same plan is working well enough in Massachusetts—that is, the same plan that then Governor Romney shepherded and signed into law and even included in his official gubernatorial portrait.

And it is going to be a tough sell to explain how the idea of putting people back to work (AJA) and making healthcare available to them (ACA) hurts them. In those cases, the Republican reliance on sound bites without substance and dishonest campaign advertisements will come back to haunt them. I have generally asserted over time that the liberal political sales job is a more complex argument than the conservative one; and most years this is true, as Republicans have long relied on fear—"They're coming for your wallet! They're coming for your guns! They're coming for your children!"

But this year, if the Republicans decide to take up the argument that the problem is voter ignorance, they're going to have to explain how Barack Obama's policies and proposals hurt them, and how blocking the jobs bill or getting rid of the health care law will help them.
____________________

Notes:

Reston, Maeve. "Donors arrive at Hamptons fundraisers with advice for Mitt Romney". Los Angeles Times. July 8, 2012. LATimes.com. July 9, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

Strong, Jonathan. "John Boehner: Voters Need Not Love Mitt Romney". Roll Call. July 9, 2012. RollCall.com. July 9, 2012. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_1/John-Boehner-Voters-Need-Not-Love-Mitt-Romney-215934-1.html

 

[madanthonywayne]

"Even the most uninformed trolls here on Sciforums are probably much more up on current events than the average voter." —Madanthonywayne​

Romney Supporter: Voters Just Don't Understand

"Even the most uninformed trolls here on Sciforums are probably much more up on current events than the average voter." —Madanthonywayne​

It is worth revisiting that statement from December of last year, which led to a semantic discussion of the difference between uninformed and stupid. But, in the present, it would seem that some Republicans might well be ready to travel down that general trail....

See your own post (#187) for proof of my statement.

 

[Tiassa]

(Something, something, Burt Ward)

See your own post (#187) for proof of my statement.

I'm not certain it does prove your statement. There is a difference between the ignorance, stupidity, or apathy we perceive in voters. Certes, they are both unflattering perspectives on the "average" voter, but you seem to subscribe to a much tougher indictment.

However, even conceding your point for the sake of argument, how well do you think it would play with the "average" voter if the Romney message becomes, "You just don't understand"?

 

[joepistole]

What was Romney thinking? This morning he took his Tea Party nonsense before the NAACP this morning. They were having none of his Tea Party nonsense. He got his butt booed on multiple occassions - especially when he said he would repeal Obamacare.

 

[Grumpy]

joepistole

Romney? Thinking? Mittens doesn't do any of that, he gets all of his positions dictated to him by the handlers of the Rethuglican party. Every time Romney starts "thinking" he makes massive faux pas that expose just how much of a puppet to the Right Wing he really is and just how much he doesn't understand that he and his fellow Vulture Capitalists are the problem, not part of the solution.

Grumpy

 

[quadraphonics]

What was Romney thinking? This morning he took his Tea Party nonsense before the NAACP this morning. They were having none of his Tea Party nonsense. He got his butt booed on multiple occassions - especially when he said he would repeal Obamacare.

Bear in mind that the NAACP crowd he was addressing was not, in fact, the actual audience for his performance there.

To wit: do you think that news reports about Romney being booed by the NAACP help or hurt his electoral chances?

 

[joepistole]

Bear in mind that the NAACP crowd he was addressing was not, in fact, the actual audience for his performance there.

To wit: do you think that news reports about Romney being booed by the NAACP help or hurt his electoral chances?

Yep, that is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Bear in mind that the NAACP crowd he was addressing was not, in fact, the actual audience for his performance there.

To wit: do you think that news reports about Romney being booed by the NAACP help or hurt his electoral chances?

According to NRO, although Romney was booed when he mentioned his plan to repeal Obamacare, we also received some applause and even a standing ovation at the completion of his remarks.

I'm reminded of an old parody song from the eighties, Reagan Campaign Message to Minority Voters (which I can't believe I found on Youtube). It ends with Reagan saying he'll settle for just 2% of the minority vote.

The point is that Romney doesn't need to make much headway at all to beat expectations at the NAACP. Just showing up gains him some respect. Especially given that President Obama will not be due to a scheduling conflict.

 

[quadraphonics]

According to NRO, although Romney was booed when he mentioned his plan to repeal Obamacare, we also received some applause and even a standing ovation at the completion of his remarks.

Well, sure. The NAACP is a classy organization. They aren't going to invite someone to speak, and then not do the polite thing and give him an applause at the end. Doesn't mean anyone in the room will be voting for him.

The point is that Romney doesn't need to make much headway at all to beat expectations at the NAACP.

Nor does the question of whether he beats expectations at the NAACP have any real bearing on the outcome of the election.

Just showing up gains him some respect.

That's true considering that W repeatedly turned down similar offers to address the NAACP. But he's running against Obama, not W.

Especially given that President Obama will not be due to a scheduling conflict.

I don't see how that's either here or there.

 

[joepistole]

The applause Romney did receive was polite and far from rousing. I didn't see any standing ovations.

http://www.denverpost.com/healthcare/ci_21051683/video-romney-draws-boos-from-naacp-when-he

 

[spidergoat]

Romney had to bus in GOP friendly black people to the NAACP meeting.

Source

 

[joepistole]

Romney had to bus in GOP friendly black people to the NAACP meeting.

Source

That does not surprise me.

Romney also has a problem with his statements about his role at Bain Capital. He has claimed that he left Bain in 1999 and was therefore not responsible for the egregious actions of the firm after that date. But Security Exchange Commission filings and his previous public comments say otherwise.

So if we are to believe Romney, he submitted false filings with the SEC. That is a federal felony. If the SEC filings are correct, then Romney has lied to voters about his activities at Bain Capital. So which is it Willard? Are you a liar or a felon or both?

http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-bain-story-doesn-t-match-his-sec-filings

 

[joepistole]

Romney had to bus in GOP friendly black people to the NAACP meeting.

Source

Sure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ton-speech_n_1668867.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/07...flew-in-his-own-blacks-to-cheer-naacp-speech/