CBS: The Bain attacks aren’t damaging Romney

posted at 10:01 am on May 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s campaign had planned all the way back to September to attack Mitt Romney for his wealth.  The “Buffett Rule” and constant references to income inequality were more than just a dogwhistle for Occupiers to launch their protests last fall.  It was a strategy to shape the battlefield for a political attack that Team O rolled out explicitly at the beginning of last week.  After that much of a windup, the pitch had to be a blazing fastball over the plate … right?

According to CBS News, wrong:

President Obama is losing ground in the latest polls to Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who’s pushing back against Democrats criticizing his business experience.

As the president has stepped up his attacks on Romney and his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, Romney has indicated, during this crucial period to define himself to the electorate, he is not going to take the attacks lying down.

“He just doesn’t have a clue what to do to get this economy going. I do,” Romney asserted in an interview with Mark Halperin, of Time magazine.

Romney responded aggressively Wednesday to the Obama campaign’s attack on his work as CEO of Bain Capital and questions about his qualifications to be president.

In the Time interview, Romney turned the tables, almost scoffing at Mr. Obama’s qualifications when he ran for president in 2008.

“Right now,” Romney told Halperin, “we have an economy in trouble, and someone who’s spent their career in the economy is more suited to help fix the economy than someone who’s spent his life in politics and as a community organizer.”

Instead of demonizing Romney, the attack has exposed the ineptitude of the Obama campaign. First, it’s clear that they don’t understand private equity at all, nor do they understand exactly what happened at GS Industries.  Lanny Davis, who once defended Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial, blasts Obama’s campaign in The Hill today and writes that Cory Booker got it right:

The ad featured several of them blaming Romney and Bain for the lost jobs, but it omitted several facts, such as:

Mitt Romney had left Bain Capital two years before bankruptcy had been declared.

The head of Bain at the time of the GS bankruptcy decision is now a major Obama fundraiser.

Bain invested another $100 million in plant modernization and four years later the company reportedly had reached more than $1 billion in revenues.

After the company went bankrupt in 2001, the president of the plant’s union didn’t blame Bain but rather, cheap foreign imports. “We can’t compete against the steel imports that are being sold under cost,” he said.

It’s difficult to argue, even if you are a partisan Obama supporter, as I am, that this ad is not at least somewhat misleading.

As I write in my column for The Fiscal Times today (a column written before CBS News’ judgment of the attack), I note the bumbling that has characterized this attack for more than a week.  First Team O launches the Bain demonization ad on the very same day as an Obama fundraiser hosted by the chief of Blackstone, another private-equity firm.  Instead of coordinating with their surrogates, the campaign leaves them in the dark — and a half-dozen or so blast the campaign for demagoguing private equity.  Finally, Joe Biden steps in and says that private-equity management is no experience for the Presidency, fully stepping into their own trap:

Thus did the Obama campaign yet again set a trap for its opponent – and fall into it themselves.  First, the Obama campaign has spent more than a week arguing about the relevance of Romney’s track record at Bain.  If it was so irrelevant, why have they spent the last week talking about almost nothing else?  Obama himself insisted that the Bain attacks were “not a distraction,” but “what this campaign is going to be about.”

Worse for the Obama campaign, though, this brings to the forefront the question of experience and qualifications all over again.  Perhaps one can argue that running a government isn’t the same as running a private-equity firm, but then again, Mitt Romney ran a government, too, as governor of Massachusetts for one four-year term.  In both careers, Romney balanced budgets and set priorities.  In the private sector, he had decades of practical experience in economics, job creation, and business growth, experience he put to use in Massachusetts, with arguable results.

In contrast, what experience did Obama have?  He worked as a legislator during the entirety of his political career.  Obama never ran a business and therefore had no practical economic experience at all.  His first executive and economics position came as President of the United States, and as a result we have fewer jobs in the US than when Obama started, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 2008, the prevailing Bush fatigue and the financial crisis made qualifications seem less important, but the political environment is very different in 2012.  The last thing Biden and Obama want is a debate on qualifications.

Remember, this was the big strategy for the Obama campaign — to cast Romney as a “vampire capitalist” and frighten people into voting for Obama.  Instead, it’s just another reminder of the incompetence of the Obama administration on economics, and now on political strategy.  This has been a laughable flop, and unless they have a Plan B, this campaign is about to run aground in an embarrassing fashion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That was leading up to my point. Single payer healthcare is rationed – it has to be by necessity and the ‘postcode lottery’ is indicative of it, but I don’t see Libfree mentioning that.

EnglishRogue on May 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

She doesn’t need to mention it. Government run healthcare here will magically provide for everyone because we would do it better. All you need to do is look at the great track record of success for existing government programs to see just how well it would be run.

Just think how cool it would be if Solyndra had been involved in providing your healthcare needs.

Bishop on May 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Have to admit that I was wrong about Romney not having the stones to hit back at O. He’s been very refreshing in his campaign so far.

Bitter Clinger on May 24, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Appreciate your candor. People were mistaken from the beginning that Romney was another John McCain.

McCain didn’t want to be president; McCain wanted to be NOMINATED for president and was content to unilaterally disarm.

Romney, by contrast, is determined to be ELECTED president. This guy has the fire in his belly.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I guess it’s time to break out the dog stories.

Purple Fury on May 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

What’s a progressive voter to do…

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Cuba beckons. I hear they have the finest health care in the world. At least that’s what progressives say. My advice is to believe your fellow travelers and emigrate. Win win for everybody!

MNHawk on May 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Here’s what the GOP should be pointing out:

If a business succeeds, Obama and the liberals demonize it as greedy and then try to impose crippling taxes on it.

If a business fails—like GS Industries—-well, they demonize that business, too! All those layoffs….as if they should have been avoided.

Success is bad. Failure is bad. You just can’t with these liberals!

No wonder no one is starting new businesses in this economy!

jeanneb on May 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Hillary would be smart to abandon Obama in the summer….
Bill Clinton will drift away from Obama and leave it at that….
Then the Clinton’s will spend the next few years plotting their
revenge against America….
Problem is – Most of America is tired of the Clinton’s – their time has passed, just as Obama’s has…

redguy on May 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

That’s a problem for the Clinton’s (and ultimately, the Dems) to face. We need not worry. :)

Myron Falwell on May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Obama is facing a much more hostile media this time and taking on capital means taking on the people who write the paychecks for media pundits on all three big networks. We’re simply not allowed to have a conversation about corporatism in this country. Obama should instead start talking about wages, cost of living, the fact that private healthcare is offering less and less coverage for higher and higher premiums (oh wait that could’ve been solved if he’d gone all in for single payer, but he chickened out). Obama has run a remarkably centrist economic administration so tacking to the left now is disingenuous. What’s a progressive voter to do…

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Oof…double-face-palm. Um….hasn’t the whole last three years been a discussion about corporatism? No? What was OWS and the glowing media coverage all about?

Higher premiums, oh, my, oh, my. But Obamacare was going to bring them down, and now you admit what it is really about, single-payer care.

oldroy on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

This is absurd.

Spending is out of control. Government is massive. Republicans and Democrats have both moved far to the left.

Again, I don’t think you understand what the terms “right” and “left” mean. A right wing government can still spend a lot of money. Entitlement and defense spending represent the vast majority of our spending and debt over the last 30 years. Both are built into our system and neither side has been willing to engage them. Indeed cutting defense spending has been framed as “leftwing.” If the pure question of dollars spent and debt accrued defines the different between left and right, than there’s no way to describe any American President since the Great Depression as right, including Ronald Reagan. Tax cuts also represent a key part of right wing ideology and they have been a central part of economic policy but for two small tax increases under Bush 1 and Clinton for decades now. Including the Bush tax cuts which elected not to use surplus funds to fill holes within entitlement commitments while also increasing spending on defense. Increased defense spending, plus tax cuts = right wing, and yet it also increased debt.

Democrats moves to the right have been even more dramatic. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon all advocated federal income tax rates that would get your drummed out of a Democratic primary in 2008 as a left wing radical. The Democrats abandoned federal welfare and Obama signed into law a bunch of cuts to anti-poverty programs in the debt ceiling deal and did so with a smile. Sorry dude, you can listen to all the rhetoric you want, but on a substantive basis. When looking at actual policy, the country has moved to the right.

Please, using actual policy, please point to the ways the nation has moved economically to the left since Reagan.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Genius, experts, savvy, isn’t that what Team Obama and O himself supposed to be? The mastermind David Axelrod?? It’s a little differnt this time around for this bunch of laughable fools, their stupidity and reliance on the media is glaring, the act falling apart.

arand on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

When Hillary bails this summer, she should scratch the side of her head with a prominently displayed middle finger while giving her exit speech.

Vengence is best served cold.

filetandrelease on May 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

In fact, I think that shell shocked look you see on their faces these days is a result of them figuring that Obama would win a second term in a landslide and planned accordingly. In short, this campaigning stuff wasn’t supposed to be this hard!

Happy Nomad on May 24, 2012 at 10:27 AM

They were convinced by their own MSM and Wall Street handmaidens that the economy would be much stronger by now than it is.

Reminder to everyone: don’t spend ten cents on anything non-essential to your life between now and late October. Delay or forego all purchases.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

What’s a progressive voter to do…

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

For starters, keep trying to explain how this president made a failed attempt to “fundamentally transform America”, and then found out that being a President requires more that around the clock campaigning. Then, show us how this President has UNITED the country in a common cause of achieving prosperity and a path towards putting this nation back to work. Instead, Americans have had to endure the most divisive President in decades, promoting class envy, attacking legal achievement, (and profits), by private businesses, while almost reveling in breaking down the private sector companies that employ a majority of Americans. Three and a half years later, all this President has achieved is the progressive’s feeble attempt to nationalize/federalize health care that will provide neither better care or affordable cost.

What is a progressive to do? Realize that this nation is still a center-right nation that rejects the socialist policies of a larger Central Federal Government that has yet to grasp the concept of spending only within its means. Realize that a NATIONAL FEDERAL BUDGET is required/demanded for all American citizens to view how this nation plans to reduce the debts and deficits that will certainly bring this nation to its economic ruin.

What is a progressive to do? Admit that a terrible mistake was made in 2008 by electing one of the most inexperienced Presidents in U.S. history, and stop these insane attacks on the private sector—that are barely holding on to prevent this country from financial Armageddon. The clock is ticking.

Rovin on May 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

it’s just another reminder of the incompetence of the Obama administration on economics, and now on political strategy.

Popcorn sales – going through the roof.

Tim_CA on May 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

t’s almost as if you think that Granny is the only person that spends money in the economy. It’s almost as if you think that the people who had the money prior to Granny wouldn’t have spent it if they hadn’t been forced to give it to the government so that the government could give half of it to Granny (and use the other half to pay for its employees and infrastructure).

Why do liberals hate economics?

blink on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Are you that slow? “Granny” isn’t just one person, she represents a huge segment of the population who are or should be retiring right about now. Indeed, without their retirement it will remain extremely difficult for younger people to find jobs. I might also add that the real people at fault for having to potentially raise taxes to fund pension programs are politicians who blatantly put off funding pension programs even though they were required to by law. But we can’t go back in time and smack them upside the head for that now can we. The difference of course between cutting Granny off and taxing to fund Granny is that senior citizens as a whole are more likely to spend throughout the economy than the smaller number of consumers who accumulate massive wealth. Just in terms of feasability, how much can those folks actually spend? Indeed, they have increasingly saved rather than spend. The same with major banks. They took our tax money in a bailout and have proceeded to not invest in the economy again (why did we bail them out? oh right, they own government, our “socialist” government or something).

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Dodd-Frank written by two men who have been suckling at Wall Street’s teat for who knows how many years was such an effective piece of legislation that JP Morgan just exposed itself to a massive loss as a result of reckless speculation. There were a host of critiques from the left when Dodd Frank passed and they have started to come to pass. You are correct, Obama foolishly alienated Wall Street rhetorically while doing nothing to reign in Wall Street substantively. Not very bright.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Little wonder JP Morgan navigated the loophole perfectly; they practically wrote the it themselves:

http://fiscalwars.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/costs/

Dimon has been the preferred token CEO of the left for a while now.

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Reminder to everyone: don’t spend ten cents on anything non-essential to your life between now and late October. Delay or forego all purchases.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Well now we know whose image is next to the dictionary definition of “spite.”

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

i, for one, have never suggested that conservatives want to throw Granny off a cliff.

“For one” is the appropriate qualifier for this, since the people who have money and are putting attack ads on TV are suggesting exactly that, and to be honest, it is in some cases LESS vicious than some of the other analogies that are being made (rape seems to spring to their minds with discomforting frequency).

However, what I’ve never understood about conservative opposition to funding pension and retirement programs is that Granny spends money in the economy.

Everybody “spends money in the economy”. Does that expenditure, on its face, create a requirement that the government provide that person with financial means?

You cut granny off in favor of keeping taxes lower for the wealthy

This is the kind of false choice that is the principal cause of your self-admitted inability to understand. For starters, the American economy and the tax system that feeds parasitically from its lifeblood are neither of them a zero-sum game, whereby adjusting a RATE of taxation correlates directly with an increase or decrease in revenue. In fact, revenues have frequently gone UP in the wake of rate reductions, in capital gains as well as traditional income. Obama effectively conceded this point to Charlie Gibson four years ago when his only response was that his view of taxation is derived from notions of “fairness”.

Secondly, even if, miraculously, changing the rate at which you appropriate money from other people was somehow an “expense” with a calculated “cost”, the government to date has shown little apprehension about spending billions – and now trillions-with-a-t – of dollars more than they take in revenues on an ANNUAL basis. Therefore there is no logical basis for them to say that because money (ostensibly) is “spent” in one area precludes them from spending any particular amount of dollars in another area.

Aren’t jobs created and sustained by consumption?

No, jobs are created and sustained by creating a product or service in response to a demand. Demand does not create jobs, it only gives a particular direction for what kind of jobs will still be around six months later.

When Granny gets cut off from her pension fund, then Granny’s income concentrates in those few industries that sustain her, healthcare, food, residence.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Then maybe Granny should not be indoctrinated over the course of her life that the government will provide comfortable financial needs during a period of her life that she has known for FIFTY YEARS would be a period of no income from labor, and therefore has no personal obligation to put even a couple dollars under a mattress in preparation for this wholly predictable phase of her life. Maybe the government should not have spent a generation colluding with the banks to put people into a house – ANY house – regardless of the financial risk they would impose on the buyer, and damn the consequences.

The very notion of someone being “cut off” is derived entirely from some insane idea that a person has a RIGHT to have the government collect money and give it to them for no other reason than they have managed not to die by now. If they want to “promote the general welfare”, then they should clear the way for people to get as rich as they f-ing want, incentivize efforts to educate people on how to GET money and subsequently to KEEP it, and when they’re old and gray, they’ll have everything they need withOUT spending their twilight years in a state of perpetual dependency. Instead they subsidize endless borrowing and living outside our means in order to prop up their benefactors and create a dependent voter base who relies on them for their very survival.

I don’t see what’s so free about that.

The Heritage Foundatin wasn’t writing law, they were proposing a solution who knows how it would’ve manifested were it to have been seriously taken up and drafted.

So now you are DISassociating the Heritage proposal from the Republican party, immediately after stating the health care law (by which you apparently only mean: the individual mandate) was a Republican idea?

But double “oh please” on the idea that GOP isn’t for big beauracratic boards making a host of decisions on spending and effeciency.

And now you take it one step FURTHER by saying that Obama co-opted a Republican idea even though it WASN’T part of the Heritage proposal, by virtue of the fact that, well, you say so.

You don’t actually expect us to believe that the GOP is against state boards making funding decisions, do you?

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Certain parts of the GOP may or may not be for that. But you know without being told that minimal federal governance is a central tenet of conservative philosophy. You are conflating “Republican” with “conservative” in order to make Obama sound more moderate than he really is, by appealing to the aspects of the GOP that have compromised their position on de-centralized power in order to… whatever, to “get things done”, or to secure contracts for their state/district, or to do as the Democrats do: secure votes through perpetuating dependency. That is, at best, a middle way between statist Dems and statist Republicans, NOT between progressivism and conservatism.

The Schaef on May 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Of course they have a Plan B. They always have a Plan B:

Lie. Lie like motherf*****s.

Jim Treacher on May 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Well now we know whose image is next to the dictionary definition of “spite.”

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

This is a page from the RATS own playbook, which started with Bush 41 throughout all of 1992.

Unless I am mistaken, other than taxes, we still have a constitutional right to not spend our own money.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Again, I don’t think you understand what the terms “right” and “left” mean. A right wing government can still spend a lot of money.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

No one has ever spent as much money as 0. The 0 Economy™ has no solution to pay it back.

Bmore on May 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I am pleasently surprised that the Bain Capital attacks on Romney are having little impact so far. Make no doubt about it that Obama and liberals thought that Bain Capital issue would be the main weapon they were going to use against Romney. If this does not work tean it is over for them and Obama is going to be defeated.

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Makes you think … it wouldda been so much easier to have had a positive and productive record to run on …

stukinIL4now on May 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Time for a little blame bush and the race card

cmsinaz on May 24, 2012 at 10:33 AM

“A little dab’ll do ya”.

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Are you that slow? “Granny” isn’t just one person, she represents a huge segment of the population who are or should be retiring right about now. Indeed, without their retirement it will remain extremely difficult for younger people to find jobs. I might also add that the real people at fault for having to potentially raise taxes to fund pension programs are politicians who blatantly put off funding pension programs even though they were required to by law. But we can’t go back in time and smack them upside the head for that now can we. The difference of course between cutting Granny off and taxing to fund Granny is that senior citizens as a whole are more likely to spend throughout the economy than the smaller number of consumers who accumulate massive wealth. Just in terms of feasability, how much can those folks actually spend? Indeed, they have increasingly saved rather than spend. The same with major banks. They took our tax money in a bailout and have proceeded to not invest in the economy again (why did we bail them out? oh right, they own government, our “socialist” government or something).

You seem to have the same view of the rich as most liberals do. I bet you picture some guy with a pignosed face wearing a top hat sitting on a pile of money just so he can say he-she has it…right?
Most sucessful people want every dime they have to be working for them in one way or another in investments etc. In a funny way you are right. This economic climate that Obama has created does give reason to pull money away from investment.

pageram on May 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Reminder to everyone: don’t spend ten cents on anything non-essential to your life between now and late October. Delay or forego all purchases.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I have to quibble with this notion. While I don’t want Obama to be re-elected, I don’t want real people getting harmed any further by this sick economy with ideas such as holding back on economic activity.

Bitter Clinger on May 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Ah yes, the Bain Capital attacks. We are at the point now in this horror movie where the helpless teenager is cornered in the kitchen by her stalker and is reduced to throwing fruits and vegetables at him. With 5 months of blame and deflection waiting on us, this is bound to turn into an instant comedy classic by November. Getcha popcorn ready!!

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM

On Tuesday, USA Today published a Love Letter from filmmaker Ken Burns to O’bama on Page 1.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/05/24/pbs-obama-usa-today-puts-obama-gushy-essay-ken-burns-front-page

Del Dolemonte on May 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

In the article, Ken Burns said:

“Just before our documentary film series on the history of our national parks was first broadcast on PBS in the fall of 2009, I had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to share scenes from the film with President Obama in a small screening room at the White House. It was a great honor.” He had to confess his wife and kids were “blurred into the background” as he shared his work with this special president

Yeah, he’s special all right, but not in the way that he’s thinking….

UltimateBob on May 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

When Hillary bails this summer, she should scratch the side of her head with a prominently displayed middle finger while giving her exit speech.

Vengence is best served cold.

filetandrelease on May 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Slick like. Seriously, I don’t expect the Clintons to raise a pinky in defense of little Bammie. They owe him nothing good.

slickwillie2001 on May 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Little wonder JP Morgan navigated the loophole perfectly; they practically wrote the it themselves:

http://fiscalwars.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/costs/

Dimon has been the preferred token CEO of the left for a while now.

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I have came to the conclusion that when liberal politicians write a law concerning fiscal issues they do it as follow:
Page 1: Red meat to the stupid base i.e. 90% of their voters
Page 2 and beyond: All types of exemptions that render page 1 meaningless because they know that no law can defeat the SYSTEM that our country was based upon
The base would only know about page 1 and they keep voting for the liberal politicians.

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Of course they have a Plan B. They always have a Plan B:

Lie. Lie like motherf*****s.

Jim Treacher on May 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

They’ve been doing that since the dawn of time. Or at least the Wilson administration. Take your pick.

Myron Falwell on May 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I think it’s important to remember that Obama has never run an effective campaign against a real opponent. In his senate race Jack Ryan was ahead until his private divorce papers were mysteriously leaked to the media. And in 2008 McCain just went through the motions. I really doubt that Romney has any significant dirt that the Obama campaign is holding in reserve and he has already showed that he is playing to win. Could be a rough 6 months for the Obama campaign.

tdmaher3 on May 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

libfree:

It’d be easier to pay for Granny’s healthcare if progressives didn’t praise and expandthe abortion so many of the littlest guys (and gals, 50% of the time) who would be young and healthy payers into the risk pool.

Why do you hate the little guy?

BKennedy on May 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

In the article, Ken Burns said:

“Just before our documentary film series on the history of our national parks was first broadcast on PBS in the fall of 2009, I had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to share scenes from the film with President Obama in a small screening room at the White House. It was a great honor.” He had to confess his wife and kids were “blurred into the background” as he shared his work with this special president

Yeah, he’s special all right, but not in the way that he’s thinking….

UltimateBob on May 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Before he drank the Kool Aid, Burns used to be a decent filmmaker.

Del Dolemonte on May 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Don’t businesses shut down when they no longer have a consumer base? When Granny gets cut off from her pension fund, then Granny’s income concentrates in those few industries that sustain her, healthcare, food, residence.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

In case you haven’t noticed, under Barry O’s circus show, everyone’s income is concentrated in the few industries that sustain them: healthcare, food, residence. Wake up and smell the coffee, man!

PalinLover on May 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Stout

Heh :)

cmsinaz on May 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

One thing I’ll say for Libfreeordie, she’s not one of those trolls who just tosses out a stupid comment and then disappears. She actually sticks around and tries to defend her positions.

For that, she deserves at least a little respect.

UltimateBob on May 24, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Entitlement and defense spending represent the vast majority of our spending and debt over the last 30 years.
libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

You get partial credit for admitting entiltlement spending is the majority or our budget (if a budget actually existed). Fail on adding Defense to it. Defense spending is only about 24% of the federal budget for 2012. Entitlements cover most of the rest.

Pop quiz – of those 2 spending categories, which one is specifically identified as a power and responsibility of the federal government?
Here’s a clue – that means the federal government shouldn’t be spending ANYTHING on the other one.

dentarthurdent on May 24, 2012 at 11:32 AM

CBS: The Bain attacks aren’t damaging Romney…(like we hoped they would).

southsideironworks on May 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Little wonder JP Morgan navigated the loophole perfectly; they practically wrote the it themselves:

http://fiscalwars.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/costs/

Dimon has been the preferred token CEO of the left for a while now.

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I have came to the conclusion that when liberal politicians write a law concerning fiscal issues they do it as follow:
Page 1: Red meat to the stupid base i.e. 90% of their voters
Page 2 and beyond: All types of exemptions that render page 1 meaningless because they know that no law can defeat the SYSTEM that our country was based upon
The base would only know about page 1 and they keep voting for the liberal politicians.

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

You just hit the nail on the head. The tax code is nothing but a political document designed so politicians can demonize their sponsors in public and then turn around and show the sponsor where the loophole is – all without advertising it to the drones who vote for them.

Did you know, for instance, that the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 – supposedly written to keep homeowners in their homes – actually subsidizes commercial property owners?

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

In contrast, what experience did Obama have? He worked as a legislator during the entirety of his political career.

“Worked as a legislator”? Ed, you are very generous toward Dear Leader.

Doughboy on May 24, 2012 at 10:15 AM

More than generous, more like BS. He can’t be honestly called a ‘legislator’ if he didn’t write a single piece of ‘legislation’.

slickwillie2001 on May 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Tax cuts also represent a key part of right wing ideology and they have been a central part of economic policy but for two small tax increases under Bush 1 and Clinton for decades now. Including the Bush tax cuts which elected not to use surplus funds to fill holes within entitlement commitments while also increasing spending on defense. Increased defense spending, plus tax cuts = right wing, and yet it also increased debt.

Democrats moves to the right have been even more dramatic.

Yeah, ‘cuz like everyone knows that ‘real’ right-wing governments support prescription drug plans, centralised education (NCLB), lightbulb bans, TARP, airline bailouts, auto bailouts, etc.

*eyeroll*

Resist We Much on May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Romney chose not to use the law degree but went into business instead, and was wildly successful at it. Obama pretended to teach and practice law for a little while and then went into politics where he did nothing of distinction. There’s a world of difference there.

Also, it is really damn hard to get a dual degree from Harvard and Romney was at the top of his class. I know a couple of people who have done it and they were both brilliant. We still don’t know if Obama even took a test or wrote a paper at Harvard Law.

rockmom on May 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’ve not seen evidence that little Bammie wrote SATs or LSATs either. Perhaps his foreign student status was a dodge to get around testing.

We learned this week also that because of housing problems, the academic standards for transfers into Columbia were historically low in little Bammie’s years.

Or maybe he went the Ted Kennedy route and just had someone else write his tests for him…

slickwillie2001 on May 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Fall back to the play that’s never failed Obama yet: the race card.

We already saw a preview of it this week, when they (anonymously, of course) blamed racism for the results in the Democratic primaries in places like Kentucky and Arkansas and WV.

AZCoyote on May 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

There is no way the RACE CARD is going to work in these elections. The vast majority of voters are sick and tired of the RACE CARD.

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The difference of course between cutting Granny off and taxing to fund Granny is that senior citizens as a whole are more likely to spend throughout the economy than the smaller number of consumers who accumulate massive wealth. Just in terms of feasability, how much can those folks actually spend? Indeed, they have increasingly saved rather than spend. The same with major banks. They took our tax money in a bailout and have proceeded to not invest in the economy again (why did we bail them out? oh right, they own government, our “socialist” government or something).

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Of course – the usual libtard red herring that wealthy people don’t spend money and the money they save does nothing. My college student son recently said the same thing after a class with a flaming lib professor, in telling me about his rich roommate whose parents have huge money invested in a company so they don’t spend much.
1. If wealthy people don’t spend – how do they get all those multiple mansions, high-end cars, limos, boats, private planes, electronics, personal services (landscape maintenance, cooks, nannies, maids, limo drivers, etc), vacation resort condos, etc?
2. When the wealthy save or invest money, what happens with it? Hint – where do you think the money comes from for companies to expand and hire people, and for banks to give loans to other people for things like mortgages, cars, college, home remodeling?

With 5 minutes of this kind of conversation, my son saw the light and realized how stupid and biased his professor was. Are you smart enough to get it?

dentarthurdent on May 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM

No one has ever spent as much money as 0. The 0 Economy™ has no solution to pay it back.

Bmore on May 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Yep. I updated the numbers today:
.
.
Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23

Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64

An increase of: $4,901,104,747,205.59
.
.
Debt 05.22.12: $15,721,218,607,447.09

Debt 01.20.09: $10,626,877,048,913.08

An increase of: $5,094,341,558,534.01
.
.
Bush in office 2,921 days. He deficit spent per day: $1,677,885,911.40

Obama in office 1,218 days (through 05.22.12). He deficit spends per day: $4,182,546.435.59
.
.
Public debt on 01.20.09: $6,307,310,739,681.66

Public debt on 05.22.12: $10,950,290,226,363.39
.
.
Obama has increased the nation’s debt held by the public by $4,642,979,486,681.73 in 1,218 days.

Obama has increased the debt held by the public by 72.97% – SEVENTY-THREE POINT SIXTY-ONE PERCENT – in 1,218 days.
.
.
The $5,094,341,558,534.01 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 41 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the Federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.
.
.
Total Debt = $15,721,218,607,447.09

Total GDP = $15,180,900,000,000.00

Debt-to-GDP = 103.56%

Resist We Much on May 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Did you know, for instance, that the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 – supposedly written to keep homeowners in their homes – actually subsidizes commercial property owners?

stout77 on May 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

No, I did not know that…Thanks for the info…

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

she’s not one of those trolls who just tosses out a stupid comment and then disappears.

UltimateBob on May 24, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Actually, she always tosses out stupid comments.

Sometimes she disappears and sometimes she attempts to defend her stupid comments.

Actually, he admited to being a guy on another thread.

pageram on May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM

In contrast, what experience did Obama have? He worked voted present as a legislator during the entirety of his political career.

FIFY

The Schaef on May 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM

In 2008, if you asked a Liberal what Obama’s qualifications were to be President, the media approved response was “He ran a great campaign…you racist!”.

Well this time he’s running a horrible campaign.

OxyCon on May 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Obama could have had an easier time of it if he had accepted Simpson-Bowles. Instead, in his narcissistic huff, he doubled-down and said we needed to spend more money on another round of stimulus (throwing more money at government and private sector unions). Epic miscalculation!

Bob in VA on May 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM

CBS: The Bain attacks aren’t damaging Romney…(like we hoped they would).

southsideironworks on May 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Shades of Dennis Green, anyone? :D

Myron Falwell on May 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM

We have rationing now, just in a different form.

libfreeordie on May 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM

And, speaking of someone “not knowing the meaning of words”…libfree jumps right in to prove his own point.

Solaratov on May 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Resist We Much on May 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Truly epic and staggering.

Bmore on May 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yeah, but I heard that Romney once said “darn” while he was in high school. And years later he hit his dog on the snout with a rolled up newspaper when it wet the rug. When this gets out it will be explosive.

paul1149 on May 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Plan B: Ann Romney’s horses cost her husband so much!

RNC rebuttal–Michelle Obama’s vacations cost the taxpayers….

vityas on May 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I think every thing the O team brings up will work in Romney’s favor.

The polar contrast of these two candidates is so extreme.

esnap on May 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

The “Buffett Rule” and constant references to income inequality were more than just a dogwhistle for Occupiers to launch their protests last fall.

But now we know why Obama, the Democrats and the MSM all supported OWS and dragged their feet on reporting or denouncing their violence, bigotry, and public health issues, don’t we?

Socratease on May 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The moronic Child at the Helm stood at NATO, as the supposed head of the world, and yacked it up about Bain.

The fool diminished himself, the presidency and the land.

The world laughs at him and at the country.

Congratulations tiny guy.

Schadenfreude on May 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Bmore on May 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yep. You can always find them on the right side of my blog. I usually wait until the first of the month to update the numbers, but because of the current and ridiculous “Obama is a fiscal hawk” meme, I updated them this morning.

Resist We Much on May 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Romney, by contrast, is determined to be ELECTED president. This guy has the fire in his belly.

matthew8787 on May 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

This is one of the most appreciated surprises of the race. Romney WANTS to be President. He’s willing to fight, claw, defend, attack et al. in order to achieve his goal.

I’m thrilled (and happily surprised) to see Romney sending rounds downrange, as it were, already.

Fire for effect.

Washington Nearsider on May 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Bain Capital held my dog down and cut off its hair.

nico on May 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Sean Hannity last night was mentioning that one of the firms Bain Capital invested in was a tiny office-supplies company with a single store in Massachusetts called…Staples.

They went bankrupt in…oh, wait a minute, they’ve got over 2,000 stores nationwide, and how many thousands of employees?

If Obama wants to criticize Romney on his time at Bain Capital, Romney needs to play up his participation in clear jobs-creating success stories like Staples.

Steve Z on May 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

“Right now,” Romney told Halperin, “we have an economy in trouble, and someone who’s spent their career in the economy is more suited to help fix the economy than someone who’s spent his life in politics and as a community organizer.”

That’s quite a difference from “Um-er-well-uhhh-can’t-say-I-know-much-about-the-economy-it’s-never-really-been-my-strong-suit” McCain.

Burke on May 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Maybe the boy wonder ought to try running on HIS Record….

Oh that’s right… his record sucks… lol.. To Bad…

RockyJ. on May 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Fall back to the play that’s never failed Obama yet: the race card.

We already saw a preview of it this week, when they (anonymously, of course) blamed racism for the results in the Democratic primaries in places like Kentucky and Arkansas and WV.

AZCoyote on May 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

There is no way the RACE CARD is going to work in these elections. The vast majority of voters are sick and tired of the RACE CARD.

mnjg on May 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

He will have to play the card, he’s got nothing else. But won’t it be delicious if he gets the same kind of blowback from his own party for it that bashing Bain has caused?

Democrat office-seekers have to win more than a minority to gain office (except in those very special court-ordered affirmative action districts), and the party clearly has its eyes open to the sheer destructiveness of the Obama campaign so far. They know he’s losing the blue collar and white male vote, which they still need to win in their own districts.

If he brings down the Party with him, they all lose. If they decide that Obama IS bringing down the Party with his racial divisiveness, they’ll distance themselves from it. As they’re doing already, from his Bain bashing. Someone put it well in another thread. There’s a Democrat civil war coming.

de rigueur on May 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Obama is an a talking (telepromted) head. I doubt he calls the shots. He’s in it for the jet and the parties.

StevC on May 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Steve Z on May 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Absolutely.
I missed Staples, but as I’ve pointed to several times on various threads, Bain also lists in their portfolio – Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba’s Italian Grill, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Baskin Robbins, Dunkin Donuts, Clear Channel Communications, and many many more.

dentarthurdent on May 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The bottom line is that the Obama campaign did not count on the mainstream media doing any sort of factchecking, and even if they did, certainly not reporting on it. This is the craziest election I have seen in my lifetime on both sides.

lea on May 24, 2012 at 1:53 PM

In 2008, if you asked a Liberal what Obama’s qualifications were to be President, the media approved response was “He ran a great campaign…you racist!”.

Well this time he’s running a horrible campaign.

OxyCon on May 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM

+1000

rockmom on May 24, 2012 at 2:04 PM

This has been a laughable flop, and unless they have a Plan B, this campaign is about to run aground in an embarrassing fashion.

SQUIRREL!

They don’t have a plan B. They have been through what five attempts at a plan A? They will keep trying plan A expecting a different result.

Einstein, if memory serves, defined this behavior.

Eventually Obama or Jarrett will determine that certain people in the campaign are “unhelpful” and that Obama / Jarrett can run things better themselves.

I need to invest in popcorn.

Of the other dems, the sane ones will either jump into the water at the last minute, since the lifeboats are already moving away, or give up the ghost. More will quit.

The loonie toon moonbats will gladly go down with the ship and will refuse to believe it sank as they are drowning.

dogsoldier on May 24, 2012 at 2:30 PM

We’ve got a long way to go until November, but for this moment, right now, I’m feeling good. Just the memory of during the primary of all the Obama-leaked stories in the MSM about how Obama’s re-election was a “slam dunk” & how much Obama wanted Romney to be the nominee because he was the easiest one to beat. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA — I told people over & over again that was nothing but a panicked haka to try to get the GOP primary voters to go with Newt or Santorum, the two who would have been much easier to demonize in the eyes of the general pubic than Romney is. Romney’s “unexcitement” is exactly why Obama can’t demonize him now. It’s like asking people to have a visceral reaction to vanilla ice cream.

And, of course, there is the Obama camp arrogance. These kool-aid drunken morons actually believe Obama was elected because of Obama when, in fact, a cardboard cut out with a (D) after it’s name would have won in 2008. The pretense that Obama ran some great, perfect campaign is an MSM generated fairy tale. Obama didn’t even win the Dem. primary – at the convention he was only had 60 delegates more than Hillary (and that’s counting the 4 delegates the DNC took away from her, plus those they awarded to him that represented the “undecided” votes in MI where Obama wasn’t on the ballot at their May 2008 meeting). It was the super delegates who put him over the top (and that was with the MSM in his corner every step of the way). Even still, he had to spend almost a billion dollars between the primary & the GE (I read one report he outspent McCain 5 to 1). The incompetence of the Obama campaign is showing despite the MSM still carrying his water because not only has the Bush fatigue worn off, people have seen the pig in the poke the MSM sold them.

As one commenter wrote here a few weeks back:

In 2008 Obama had to spend almost a billion dollars to win because we didn’t know who he was.
In 2012 Obama will have to spend almost a billion dollars to win because we know exactly who he is.

Dark Star on May 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Democrats: Fired Up! Ready To Go! Vote Uncommitted 2012!

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/05/democrats-fired-up-ready-to-go-vote.html

Resist We Much on May 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2