Romney in Woodside for fundraiser Woodside, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Drivers and cyclists may encounter delays of a few minutes Sunday afternoon, July 22, on Portola Road between Woodside and Mountain Home roads in Woodside, due to the visit of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 20, 2012, 10:27 AM
Posted by Floppy, a resident of the Woodside: Woodside Glens neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Its Portola Road today, Woodside road tomorrow and Canada road Sunday. This guy will flip flop on everything. Last time they campaigned up here, traffic came to a stop for an hour. Best to avoid the area completely.
Posted by Wdsd Res, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Ah yes, a small price to pay for the financially-challenged, practically impoverished, candidate to scrape and bow for a few meager pence...many of us know all too well what it's like to go into debt to pay for our horse(s).
Posted by Romney Supporter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Isn't it interesting that the authors of the last few comments didn't say a word when Obama visited the area on numerous fundraising trips,creating huge traffic problems. Shame on you. And Obama's visits were probably at tax payer expense.
Posted by George R, a resident of the Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Did Obama bring his dressage horse on his last trip?
Seriously, look at the Obama visit threads and tell us where the whiners on those threads are posting on this thread - It works both ways.
Of course a president's trips are funded. He's the President, ferchrissakes. Do you want your president flying coach? The President with the most personal threats against his life, in our lifetimes? (and that milestone was achieved in 2009, even before Ted Nugent got started!)
Posted by Mitt is the 1, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm
When his holiness, the Oblama, comes to town all must move over because of his awesomeness. Change is in the air and BO will soon be voted out. By the way can we compare BO's business record to Mitt? Oh that's right BO has never started or worked in a business; nothing to compare. Who cares what the tax returns say, BO is wealthy and Mitt is wealthy; move on. What has either done for me lately? BO has done NOTHING but add to my taxes. Mitt says he his going to reduce taxes. I vote to give Mitt a chance. BO had 3+ years and so far he created high unemployement, a weak economy and massive tax hikes. Time to move on and let him make $100k / speech at the next climate change, global peace, we all need to be better world citizens gas bag festival.
Posted by Lies and rhetoric debunked, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Mitt 1 - What a bunch of rhetoric and lies.
"By the way can we compare BO's business record to Mitt?" The stock market is up 50% with the President. Romney won't show us his tax returns, so loses by default - what are you hiding, Mitt?
Mitt wants to write tax policy but won't show his taxes? Talk about "awesomeness"!
As his wife said yesterday: we don't have to show YOU people
"massive tax hikes" Please list all the MASSIVE federal tax hikes. Federal taxes are at an almost all time low in our lifetimes. Even list one of BHO's MASSIVE tax hikes that is as painful as Reagan doubling the payroll tax on working Americans. One of Reagen's 11 tax hikes. I'll wait for your list of MASSIVE tax hikes.
Unemployment? Bush was bleeding jobs at 750,000 per month when he eft office - nice try blaming Obama for that.
Weak economy? Bush was at a NEGATIVE 8% GDP 'growth' when he left. At least now we are growing at a meager couple of percent. Needs to be far better - get the House GOP to pass the American Jobs Act!
release the tax returns Mitt, like your daddy - what are you hiding from American taxpayers?
Posted by Audrey, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm
It is funny, but no one every comments on Michele Obama's $500 tennis shoes that she wears to garden or pass out food at a homeless shelter..or what the times they take separate planes only to arrive within hours for each other....the vacations that Michele take with her entourage of friends at our expense....must be nice and not to mention all of the stupid investments President Obama has made in our behalf and last but not least...who serves Kobe Beef at a Superbowl Party....you guessed it the OBAMAS at our expense.
Posted by Fred Turlock, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Where does the 'massive' tax increase meme come from?
Don't people read?
"When it comes to income taxes, a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay 5.6 percent of its 2011 income in federal income taxes, according to new estimates from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Federal income taxes on middle-income families have fallen significantly in recent decades, and they have been lower under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama than at any time since the 1950s."
When have taxes been lower on high income Americans? That's just income, if we look at capital gains, we're paying an absurdly low rate compared to the 90's, when we had a great economy. Gov Romney paid 13% on $40 million in income. How can anyone in their right mind think that's too high for the great benefit of living in and being an American?
I seriously do not get that kind of talk. Is it really just rooted in hatred of the president?
"Americans paid the lowest tax rates in 30 years to the federal government in 2009, in part because of tax cuts President Obama sought to combat the Great Recession, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday. ...
Still, at the very moment anti-tax protesters were emerging as the most powerful force in American politics, handing Republicans landslide control of the U.S. House, the data show that people were sending the smallest portion of their income to the federal government since 1979."
Posted by Anne, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm
What's going on with college transcripts? How is that relevant to something as important as the transparency of presidential candidates always showing their tax returns?
We all know Romney has a couple degrees from Harvard and Obama was head of the Harvard law review. They're both incredibly smart and thoughtful men. They actually have a lot in common, great kids, successful spouses, articulate, friendly, etc..
Actually, they're both very moderate for their parties as well, but that probably will have both side shrieking - libs say Romney's a severe conservative, conservatives say Obama's a screaming socialist. Funny, ain't it?
Anyway, I digress; what's up with college records from 30 years ago? I missed the reference, is this like the birth certificate thing?
Posted by Susanna Maria, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Anne - the transcript thing is a Kenyan birth certificate socialist community organizer conspiracy thing. Don't ask, they can't explain it unless you have the secret Beck decoder ring. Seriously, I doubt any one of them even tries to factually compare the two, just preferring to stick to some sort of dog-whistle innuendo.
Somehow a college transcript is equal to Romney's father releasing 12 years of tax returns.
Posted by Hearts to Aurora, a member of the Encinal School community, on Jul 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Today has been woefully short of smiles. Try this...
"Mitt Romney says he doesn’t know where his financial records are because he doesn’t manage them. He would have said more but he had to go give a speech on why he's the perfect guy to manage the economy."
Posted by TERRY, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Why is Obama fundraising every other day instead of trying to fix the economy ? And yes, it does not matter what political affiliation you are....it is coming out of our own pockets. Politicians never connect with real people who make up the country....instead only the wealthy have the opportunity to attend events. Who has $35k to go to one of the Obama fundraisers. They only listen to the wealthy who can donate.
Posted by Menlo Observer, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2012 at 8:56 am
This election is not about Romney vs. Obama. This election is ALL about Obama vs. America. The exceptionalism that "We the People" have worked so hard for hangs in the balance. We have a president that wanted to "fundamentally change" America and bring transparency to the White House?
Obama is an abject failure and has brought our freedom to its knees. He has divided this country like no other and is nothing short of a dictator. Four more years of this and we will NOT recognize this country. The further degradation and humiliation of this country will rest on the heads of the left and we will ALL continue to suffer for it. It is Obama vs. America.
If you don't want America to follow the Western European Socialist model you will vote for Mitt Romney. Obama wants to destroy America. Romney wants to restore our Country to its former greatness.
The choice is clear. The Obama Road to Perdition or the Romney Road to the American Dream.
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2012 at 10:46 am
Congrats on the most rhetoric filled, fact free post yet! "This election is not about Romney vs. Obama." Uh, bad news for you, it is. You wish otherwise, because you guys on the right couldn't find a candidate you could actually vote for without holding your nose. So you have a lousy candidate he is showing the most arrogance ever in an American presidential election by not releasing his tax returns - no wonder you seek to redefine the election. How's that RomneyObamaCare working out?
Did you steal your whole post verbatim from a Romney speech?
My favorite: "Romney wants to restore our Country to its former greatness." What drivel. How so, and to what level of "former greatness"?
- Bush level greatness? Romney has a couple dozen former members of the Bush/Cheney team on board, along with Dick Cheney leading the way behind the scenes, Cheney fundraisers last week, etc..
- does Romney seek the Bush/Cheney greatness of 800,000 jobs lost in Dec 08 and 800,000 jobs lost in Jan 09? Wall Street collapsing and taking down the housing market and the stock market? Bush's TARP? Bush's doubling of the national debt?
- Clinton greatness? If Romney seeks America's former greatness, he must instead be referring to the 1990's and the economy of Bill Clinton - 23 million jobs created, a couple years of budget surplus, etc..
Except Romney has declared he will follow Bush/Cheney failed policies, not Clinton's proven success.
And Romney seeks to lower his own taxes, of course. From what to what, we don't know. As Mrs Romney said "We've given all YOU people need to know"
Mitt: release twelve years of taxes. Whatever you are hiding can't be that bad, is it? Is it worth losing an election for?
Once you hit late night, the genie is out of the bottle, from Conan:
"At a basketball game, the President and Michelle Obama got caught off-guard on a Kiss Cam.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was caught off-guard by the Show Us Your Tax Returns Cam."
Posted by Menlo Observer, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2012 at 6:47 pm
The Democrats are so desparate that they are still peddling that tired horse manure that Romney is following the Bush policies. Maybe it will sell in California but Obama is going to win California anyway. In other States that won't sell.
That is why Romney is ahead of Obama according to a CBS New York Times Poll.
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2012 at 9:12 am
Menlo Observer's logic on Romney hiring the Bush/Cheney team and following Bush/Cheney policies is the literate debate response: "still peddling that tired horse manure"
Whoa, podner, don't overwhelm us with factual evidence!
From the ultra conservative Washington Times: "Mr. Romney’s corps of advisers, in fact, is heavily salted with figures who surrounded the 43rd president as he watched over massive increases in federal spending, the creation of more government programs and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the nation-building efforts that followed." Web Link
From Klein at the Post: "Meanwhile, Romney’s campaign staff is thick with Bush administration veterans. Two of his economic advisers — N. Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard — served as chief economists for Bush. His policy director, Lanhee Chen, worked on health policy in the Bush White House."
Menlo Observer can only resort to ad hominem attacks like "horse manure"
As far as Men-Ob's cherry picking one of the few national polls that show Romney barely ahead, let's not worry about corporate media highlighting the national horserace. That's for headline readers.
Romney is losing the only races that matter - the composite swing state polls show Romney ahead in only 3 of 10 swing states. The Bain attacks and the tax return issue is killing Romney in the swing states.
It's way too early still, but if current polls hold, Romney loses as bad as McCain in the electoral college. Romney needs a gamechanger, after he releases his 12 years of taxes.
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2012 at 9:29 am
For Menlo Observer, who thinks Romney will be different from Bush/Cheney: from this morning's Chronicle via the NYT - more Bush/Cheney aides on the Romney team - this one takes the cake!!
Bush/Cheney team Michael Leavitt, held multiple positions from 2002 - 2009, then started consulting for states on how to implement ObamaCare
NOW A TOP ROMNEY AIDE
Which makes sense since Mikey just wanted to be with the AUTHOR of ObamaCare!
"Mr. Leavitt’s full-time job is running his consulting company, Leavitt Partners, which is based in Salt Lake City and has advised officials in Mississippi, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, among other states. He shows them how to set up health insurance exchanges and where low- and middle-income people and small businesses can buy subsidized private insurance from competing carriers. He has also helped states prepare for the influx of millions of low-income people into Medicaid."
"Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, said: “It is strange to see Mr. Leavitt, a former Republican governor and former secretary of health and human services, helping and encouraging states to carry out this law for which Republicans have so much antipathy. It deepens suspicion as to whether Romney is sufficiently committed to repealing the Obama health care law.” "
Romney's transition team leader has been pushing ObamaCare into the states.
Just another Bush/Cheney team member signed up with the Massachusetts Moderate.
Who doesn't mind supporting and making money from ObamaCare.
Posted by Donald, a resident of another community, on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I'm just glad I got through there on my bike before they closed the road. I wish I hadn't had to deal with the jerk who tried to cross the double-yellow line into oncoming bike traffic to try to pass me, though.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 6:09 am
Barack Obama has held more than 100 fundraisers in the past six months, yet his jobs council didn't meet once. You can see what really matters to Obama-- Not solving our economic woes but winning a second term and the economy can go to hell in the process. Obama does not care about the economy or jobs. He only cares about getting re-elected.
I also get a kick out of hypocrisy of Obama lambasting the 1%. Obama is in the Bay Area today for three fundraising events:
1) A "roundtable" for 25 deep-pocketed tech donors who will pay $38,500 each to participate,
2) A $38,500-per-person dinner for 60 at the Piedmont home of real estate executive Wayne Jordan and his wife, and
3) A $100 movie ticket at the Fox Theatre to see him attack Governor Romney while ignoring his abysmal record of performance.
Obama will collect a cool 3 Million 275 Thousand 500 dollars from his 1% buddies while collecting around $5,000 FROM THE 99%. You can see who matters most to Obama and that clearly is the 1%. You won't see any of the 99 percenters getting ambassadorships. Meanwhie his top fundraisers are getting plum assignments within his soon to be turned-out-of-office administration.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 7:42 am
The jobs Bill is holed up in the Senate. But wait a minute. How can that be? The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. How are the Democrats going to blame those iniquitous Republicans for that?
As it turns out Democrat Senators Bill Nelson of Nebraska, Jon Tester of Montana, and Jim Webb of Virginia are against the bill.
Now if you want to know why companies outsource jobs I can give you 3 reasons
1) Overburdensome Regulations sponsored and passed by Democrats,
2) The highest corporate income tax rate in the world, and
When Romney becomes President he will get a jobs bill passed that is equitable for all. Obama is too inflexible. His "My Way or the Highway" approach to governance is what has characterized his presidency as an ignominious fiasco.
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 9:01 am
Hank - a whole lotta rhetoric going on!
Blaming outsourcing of jobs on unions is ridiculous. According to fox news: "unions still represent just 6.9 percent of all workers at private companies, unchanged from 2010." Web Link
How can 6.9 percent on jobs being part of a union cause all the outsourcing that goes on, amazingly in so mnay non-union areas?!!?
That's a really dumb argument.
A dumber one? The "highest corporate income tax rate in the world" argument, which falls apart when one looks at the EFFECTIVE tax rate, with companies like GE and Exxon rountinely having years where they zero or near zero in taxes.
Really, really dumb arguments.
Regarding the Senate voting down Obama's JOBS Act - nope. Not if the GOP reverts back to their former mantra of a "straight up or down vote". In October of 2011, Obama's JOBS Act passed the Senate: "The vote in favor of advancing the bill on Tuesday was 50 to 49."
Let me guess. If the GOP takes over the senate, will we hear about a return to a "straight up or down vote"?
Thanks, Hank, for the rhetoric!
One notes the thread is about Romney's stop here in Woodside; Hank, how did you like the party?
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 9:46 am
It was a great party. But it will pale in comparison to the party the Romney Campaign will throw on the evening of November 6. I call it the Capitalism prevailing over Socialism Party.
I can already hear the shock and dismay of the Obama Campaign and the howls of disbelief by the NYT and Washington Post as they castigate the American Public for being so foolish to elect a President who believes in the greatness of our country
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 9:53 am
Hank - thanks for the update on Romney's party in Woodside.
As "Mitt Veep" asked above:
Did Romney mention how many years of tax returns his team has investigated for their VP choices?
We all know that Mitt gave McCain 23 years of tax returns - apparently with enough data in them to cause McCain to turn to a half term governor instead of Mitt (who complete a WHOLE TERM as governor of Massachusetts!)
Hank: do you agree with Anne Romney when she looked down on the American people and said: "We've given all YOU people need to know"
Posted by It won't matter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 9:59 am
All the yapping going on here fails to understand that this part of the country/state will have zero bearing on the election outcome. Unless you have had your head in some sort of hole for the last 3 1/2 years it's pretty clear that Obama will lose in a landslide.
Posted by Acres of greatness, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 10:13 am
"Unless you have had your head in some sort of hole for the last 3 1/2 years it's pretty clear that Obama will lose in a landslide. "
Yay! Another factless post full of rhetoric!
Composite swing state polls show Romney winning in only 3 of 10. That puts him way down in the required electoral votes. He'll get a bump with his VP pick (until he answers the tax return questions) and the convention. Obama also gets a convention bump. October surprise? Who knows. Lastly - Romney gets to turn on the big money once the convention is over, by rule. Really big money, that he can't spend until the official primary season is over and the general begins.
At best it's tied, with 3 months to go. If the swing states hold per the composites, Romney loses by 75-100 electoral votes.
Whose head is in some sort of hole???? One thing is clear, barring an October surprise, it will either be close or another McCain style victory. Obama will NOT lose in a landslide, certainly not like McCain did.
You should take YOUR head out of wherever it is, and read a newspaper.
I'm done here. Apparently reality need not be present to post.
Posted by Rupert the cell phone hacker, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 10:27 am
Acre, fox viewers don't read newspapers, even the foreighner Rupert Murdochs wall street journal, which used to have what could be called some of the best reporters in the country, even tho their editorial was obviously slanted. More so now, of course.
Romney will pick Portman or someone already vetted so he can claim he never needed his tax returns.
The VP pick is a political minefiled because of Mitt hiding his returns from Americans.
Posted by Janice, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I have been an independent for years...I have never understood why Democrats do not respect other opinions. I have close friends that are Democrat and Republican. I cannot reason with any of my Democrat friends, they are so angry and will never let me get a word in. Please respect everyone's freedom of speech. All you have to do to spread your message is go the polls and vote. The comments I have read are so angry. We are all Americans. I will stand behind whoever wins the election....people are homeless and without jobs. If you go to other parts of the country you will find families in distress and in very sad situation. We need change quickly. I hope our next president will take care of all of us, not just the poor and the rich...the middle class is hurting the most. We make too much money to qualify for any help and not enough money to not worry on how we are going to afford college expenses, PG&E, etc.
Posted by Lillyanna, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 12:55 pm
So much for Freedom of Speech and being respectful to your neighbors. During the Governor's Race, I had a Meg Whitman sign up in my yard. It only took 2 days for someone to come onto my property and tear it down.
I would never take down a Obama or Jerry Brown sign, nevertheless go into someone's yard. I respect opinions even if I do not agree with them.
Posted by Lori, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm
I am also an independent; after much deliberation, I put up a Brown sign and it was torn up. Awful disrespect.
"The comments I have read are so angry."
I agree, but as I read them, the most angry are the most rhetorical comments - the 'Obama is gonna lose because I say so' comments.
When someone posts facts, it just generates more rhetoric like: Obama is supported by Communists! What is that all about? It's absurd on the face of it! Childish name calling with no basis in reality! Don't you realize you chase away sane, knowledgeable voters with that kind of anger?
As pointed out earlier, Obama has supported the stock market growing by 50% since Bush, delivered 30 million new customers to private for profit insurance companies in the free market, raised the GDP from a negative under Bush to a positive, created 4 million private sector jobs in the last 2 and a half years, has half a million fewer public sector workers, etc..
Why the vitriol for a man who has at least STARTED to dig us out from the Bush*Cheney depression?
Why would anyone want Romney to take us back to Bush*Cheney policies?
And why won't he release his tax returns like every other nominee?
Posted by Funniest statement I have read today!, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm
"As pointed out earlier, Obama has supported the stock market growing by 50% since Bush, delivered 30 million new customers to private for profit insurance companies in the free market, raised the GDP from a negative under Bush to a positive, created 4 million private sector jobs in the last 2 and a half years, has half a million fewer public sector workers"
What flavor Kool Aid have you been drinking? I especially like the 30 million new customers part....have not heard that spin yet.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of another community, on Jul 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Lillyanna and Lori - I'm right there with you re having signs. It's respecting someone's opinion AND property - not trespassing to destroy property on private property. I don't recall this being an issue in my younger years, but it seems this erosion of civility has unfortunately has become too common.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm
"Funniest statement I have read today!"
Actually, when someone denies a claim and can't be bothered to address it, or do a little basic research, that makes a rather "funny" post, at least to me. Why are posters so proud of their ignorance?
Let me help out those who are search impaired:
1. "delivered 30 million new customers to private for profit insurance companies in the free market" ObamaCare, aka RomneyCare, aka RomneyObamaCare, aka the Affordable Care Act, delivers coverage to at least 30 million Americans that would otherwise not be covered, mostly through private insurance companies. The number is generally pegged at 30 million, though it may be higher upon implementation, certainly it will be higher as the population grows. Some of those will be too poor to afford coverage, thus may receive subsidies or in fact qualify for Medicaid.
2. "the stock market growing by 50% since Bush" - File this one under "Duh" or even "SUPER DUH" - try reading the business section once a year.
It's actually up around SIXTY percent.
At Obama’s inauguration, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 7,949. Web Link
Looks like Dow dropped about a hundred today to close at 12721.46. This is basic fact checking folks.
In January this year, the Obama stock market was up 60 percent since inauguration: "Increase in the Dow Jones Industrial average during the first three years of President Barack Obama's term, up 4,771 points to Friday's close of 12,720 as his fourth year begins." Web Link
The Dow sunk 1% in Bush's first term; the Dow sank 24% during Bush's 2nd term; it increased 55% and 111% under Clinton's two terms. You will never hear that from Fox, of course.
3. "raised the GDP from a negative under Bush to a positive" Again: "duh"
Bush GDP in his last quarter in office was a loss of almost 4%: "GDP declined by an annualized -0.5% in the third quarter and -3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008"
The worst of Bush was yet to come: "Q1 2009 GDP: -6.7%" As we know, Obama took office in late Jan 09, but his policies did not retroactively take effect to Jan 1 09, of course. Q1 2009 is on Bush.
Currently, our last couple years have all been positive GDP growth; not strong enough, of course but certainly positive. Web Link
4. "created 4 million private sector jobs in the last 2 and a half years" Again, duh. Don't y'all read the papers?
"Obama is referring to the increase in private-sector jobs from February 2010 to May 2012. He uses February 2010 as the starting point, because that was the low point for private employment at 106,773,000 jobs. It’s been going up ever since. Right now, it’s at 111,040,000 — an increase of 4,267,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics." Web Link
That statistic is virtually a "slamdunk". Recall that Bush was shedding jobs at the end of his term - consecutive months of job losses exceeding 700,000 jobs lost per month. Folks, c'mon, it really wasn't that long ago.
5. "has half a million fewer public sector workers" - okay, this one is rather in-artfully phrased, but also true.
"Labor Department statistics say that government employment has decreased by 608,000 since February 2009"
Also "But during the past year, while the private sector has added 1.6 million jobs, state and local governments have shed at least 142,000 positions, according to the Labor Department. Those losses are in addition to 200,000 public-sector jobs lost in 2010 and more than 500,000 since the start of the recession. [The New York Times, 11/28/11]"
So let's recap:
"As pointed out earlier, Obama has supported the stock market growing by 50% since Bush - TRUE, delivered 30 million new customers to private for profit insurance companies in the free market - TRUE, raised the GDP from a negative under Bush to a positive - TRUE, created 4 million private sector jobs in the last 2 and a half years - TRUE, has half a million fewer public sector workers - TRUE"
The poster asks: "What flavor Kool Aid have you been drinking?"
Apparently Lori has been drinking the KoolAid of Google or any other decent search engine - and finding facts instead of the fact-less ridicule of the poster "Funniest statement".
Well done, Lori, five of five true.
Poster "Funniest statement"? You should be ashamed.
Posted by Get real, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Any facts on unemployment or welfare rolls you want provide to back up these great economic numbers you feel we all seem to be benefiting from? I just want to know when we can start celebrating the dear leaders accomplishments.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm
"Get real" Sorry, I don't understand your tone.
Bush had a collapsing economy (see the GDP numbers above) TARP, Wall Street collapsing, doubled our debt after being handed surpluses, etc..
Now we are adding jobs (albeit too slowly) and increasing the size of the economy (again - too slowly.)
Who deserves your anger? The man who helped cause this mess (Bush) or the duly elected President who is trying to dig us out of the Bush recession? Take into account that Obama is working on this essentially on his own. John Boehner was appointed Speaker in 2010 promising action to create jobs.
"Likely new House Speaker John Boehner: 3 GOP priorities -- create jobs, cut spending, reform Congress"
Boehner has led 32 votes to repeal ObamaCare, dozens on abortion, but has yet to pass any legislation to create jobs or help the economy recover.
Seems to me your anger is at the wrong guy. But you rather vent at Obama, so enjoy. He can take your anger, even when facts show it is misplaced.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2012 at 6:43 am
Obama is obscuring the fact of his miserable performance by playing the old and tired Blame Bush game.
NEWSFLASH LIBERALS: BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. I REPEAT BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
OBAMA HAS HAD OVER 3 1/2 YEARS TO FIX THE ECONOMY AND HE HAS ONLY MADE IT MUCH WORSE!
Our national debt is 15 Trillion 906 Billion Dollars and counting.
When Obama took office the national debt was 10 Trillion 626 Billion. When Bush took office the national debt was 5 Trillion 727 Billion. The national debt has increased 5 Trillion 280 Billion dollars. Under Bush the debt ceiling increased 4 Trillion 899 Billion dollars.
Obama has been in office 1,281 days. Obama is creating 4 Billion 122 Million dollars of new debt daily. Bush created 1 Billion 677 Billion dollars of new debt per day. So Obama is creating, on a daily basis, 2.46 times more debt than Bush. This is unsustainable.
Obama, using the Western European Socialist playbook, is pushing the United States into losing its status as the leader of the free world. But of course, that is what Obama wants. As Clinton loathed the military, Obama loathes the United States. He himself said that he is a citizen of the world. If that is what he wants I am OK with it. But he shouldn't be running the country. He should be the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That is where his real talent lies.
Posted by sound bites, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2012 at 9:39 am
Garbage. Utter garbage. Tax and spend? Sound bite code words, red meat for uncritical thinkers.
Name three republican presidents that had LOWER TAX RATES than Obama in our lifetime. Go ahead.
How about naming one? What gop president has had lower rates? Please name him and the rates.
Bush 1? Nope
Bush 2? Nope
Clinton balanced the budget twice. Bush doubled the debt.
Want a balanced budget?
Eliminate the Bush tax cuts and the DoD/homeland security increased spending.
And Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D.
Viola' - a balanced budget.
Clinton tax rates and spending.
Until you support eliminating the unfunded Bush cuts and programs- just give it a rest. You're nothing but a hypocrite unless you support Clinton rates, because it was Bush that destroyed a balanced budget.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2012 at 10:22 am
Since Romney is hiring the Bush/Cheney team and vowing to continue the Bush/Cheney policies, then it is certainly valid to look at the mess that Bush/Cheney created for our country. Romney just wants to do the same thing.
"sound sites" - great post about the phony "tax and spend" label that the republicans are always attempting to affix. It makes as much sense as their "Obama is weak on foreign policy" label.
Just ask bin Ladin about that one.
It's been said before: if the Democrats are the party of tax and spend, then the Republicans are the party of BORROW and spend - Reagan tripled the debt, Bush II double the debt, destroyed the Clinton surplus, etc...
Posted by Meg Riley, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Even as an independent, I also find quite odd the Republican Party isn't insisting on transparency when it comes to tax returns. They seemed to hound the Democrat Party on birth certificates for some time now.
Perhaps it is time to ask Hank and others the defining question of our time - Mr. Lawrence, do you believe the president is an American?
I am starting to believe that the way a person answers that question supersedes all else. If they doubt the legitimacy of Obama, then something as obvious as a decade of tax returns simply doesn't matter. An opinion I never in a million years would have thought I would hold only a few short years ago.
Posted by GOLLY, a resident of another community, on Jul 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Bush thought the Swiss only made cheese way back then and he was too busy getting us into a war to protect us from WMD's. He was a great decider and big time spender for Americans and is beloved by many right in this Peninsula.
He made America what it is today. Millions agree with me.
But Obama is right about one thing. A lot of somebody elses will make something else happen. And that is making Obama a one term president. And I am going to help make that happen. Just not in California.
Obama is actually worse than Jimmy Carter who was formerly the worst president this country has ever had.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 9:24 am
Hank - nice try; what about the sentences before and after the one you took out of context?
" There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. [Emphasis added]
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 9:29 am
So Romney takes a single line about the community building roads and bridges for businesses and makes a negative ad.
Using a self made man who supposedly built his business on his own: Gilchrist Metal
(wait for it)
Gilchrist had huge government support, and not just the roads and bridges, police and fire, the court system, etc..
"The New Hampshire Union Leader’s John DiStato today reports that in 1999 the business in question, Gilchrist Metal, “received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority ‘to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment’…” In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal “received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008…”
The businessman, Jack Gilchrist, also acknowledged that in the 1980s the company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling “somewhere south of” $500,000, and matching funds from the federally-funded New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center."
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 9:35 am
The Romney campign continued all week highlight businesses that were built by John Glats, without any community or government support (again, they have police and fire, the courts, roads and bridges, etc..)
Yesterday's "they built it" press conference included these (government supported) companies:
Government support 1: The A.D. Morgan Corporation employs 50 people and has annual revenues of about $80 million, according to its website. The company lists more than 130 projects and developments. Impressive, no doubt. But the list is nearly all government projects. [...]
"We're not going to have an opportunity in the private sector, they have a tendency to use lump sum, low bid," Smith said, explaining how government bids work. "So by virtue of what it is that we do, we go to the client base that purchases construction services that way."
Government support 2: " As for Ramos, his company's Facebook page describes Value Enterprise Solutions as "providing value added service/education to businesses, local government, federal government, Department of Defense, and industry contract organizations." [...]"
Again, I ask: Who researches this stuff for Romney?
Romney uses the SINGLE WORST examples he can find.
Posted by Barclay's Bank - LIBOR, a resident of the Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
The Built It Ourselves canard is silly. Obama's responce: "Those ads taking my words about small business out of context - they’re flat out wrong. Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hard-working people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs, and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message because I believe we’re all in this together."
I want to know why Governor Romney is raising money overseas. He's holding a fundraiser in London.
What are the reporting requirements for taking foreign money?
Romney's covering it with his insulting the Prime Minister, covering it with his MI6 gaffe, covering it with his prancing horse. The real news is he is taking foreign money.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Hank: Barclays Bank LIBOR brings up a good question - what is the GOP policy on foreign money for Mitt? Do they prefer it be funneled through hidden SuperPAC's such as Karl Rove's 501c4, Crossroads GPS, a so-called 'social welfare' organization?
Or is it legal for Mitt to take money from the scandal plagued London bankers?
Seems pretty ugly either way. Not very patriotic.
Does he plan on hiding it like he hides the nastier part of his tax returns?
The tax returns follow Mitt today, all the way to London: "I just don't wanna give 'em more material than is required."
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 8:23 pm
You can remain in denial but the bottom line is:
1. Obama will win California, and
2. Romney will win the Electoral College
You can caterwaul all you want but on November 6 the majority of the voters will see Obama for what is is and that is a glib, inexperienced amateur who can talk a good game but can never deliver the goods.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 26, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Hank Lawrence = Troll
No interest in an actual conversation, just wants to stir things up. No point in engaging with him as he isn't interested in a constructive conversation or exchange of ideas. He just wants to parrot the RNC talking points over and over and over again. When challenged with facts he just deflects and throws out another talking point. It's pointless in engaging with him as he isn't interested nor will he consider any other point of view besides his own. DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 8:52 am
Menlo Voter is in denial. Every one of those statements are completely true. Obama is in deeply over his head and he does not know what to do. There are those Kool Aid drinkers along with the liberal press who have romanticized the notion of Eastern European Socialism. Boy are they gullible!
The libeeral press is currently held in low regard. Remember, the New York Times was the Newspaper that reported Union troop movements during the battle of Bull Run. President Lincoln contemplated charging the New York Times with sedition.
Newsweek reported in a preconvention poll that Walter Mondale was 18 points ahead of Ronald Reagan. CBS reported the results of the Florida 2000 presidential election while the polls in about one fourth of the state were still open.
It is not going to be pretty for the Democrats, at the national level, this time around.
Perhaps after the election is over Obama can move to California and run for Governor. If he did and got elected he would make Jerry Brown look like a veritable genius.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 9:27 am
Hank: what about the Republican Party being $800,000 in the red and laying off workers?
re: your rhetoric... everyone knows that those numbers are primarily caused by the Bush Recession:
- GDP was shrinking at 8% a quarter when Obama took over, it is now growing at (a too slow) 2-3%. Web Link
Look at the chat on GDP by quarter and note the final Bush numbers.
- Employment: Bush left office with consecutive months that had job losses of 800,000 per month. Since turning it around, Obama has had 27 months of private sector job growth, creating 4 million private sector jobs over that period. Not exactly Clintonian number (23 million jobs) but a turnaround from the Bush disaster, and without any help from republicans in Congress.
Web Link look at the chart, again note the bush disaster and how we've slowly moved forward
We all know Hnak's response - "this isn't about Bush!"
Yes, it IS about Bush in two ways:
- it is Bush's recession, the charts linked above show that clearly
- Romney seeks to repeat the Bush/Cheney polices. When asked what he would do different, on Tuesday's interview with Brian Williams, Romney couldn't answer the question, instead he rambled on about job training.
Romney's team is a bunch of Bush/Cheney retreads, including Romney's transition chief (may God forbid!) that has spent the last couple years implementing Obamacare at the state level!
Funny, ain't it? if the Tea Party was real, they'd be in open revolt about Romney.
Hank: keep slinging rhetoric and falsehoods, while your Republican Party keeps running from creditors and firing party workers!
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 10:53 am
Liberals just don't get it. Bush is not running for president. I repeat Bush is not running for president.
Now Obama was elected to fix the economy. What has he done? He has FUBAR'd it big time. He has run up the biggest deficits in the history of our country. He has engaged in Crony Capitalism by backing loser companies such as Solyndra on our dime. He has also deliberately sabotaged our energy development making the U.S. more dependent of foreign sources of oil.
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said in a statement “We have abundant energy resources off Louisiana’s coast, but this administration has virtually shut down our offshore industry and instead is using Americans’ tax dollars to support drilling off the coast of Brazil. It’s ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg them to produce more oil.”
Obama is a loser. Your inept attempts to follow the DNC guidelines about making the contest Obama against Bush just won't fly. Obama is an abject failure and there is nothing he can do to recover in time. It is too late for Obama. The democrats wouldn't be in this situation if Hillary got the nomination. But the behind the scenes skullduggery for the super delegates tipped the scales in favor of Obama. And now you are going to lose the White House. It serves you right.
Posted by republican bankruptcy, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 11:05 am
"Liberals just don't get it. Bush is not running for president."
Fact Impairment totally predicted hank's post.
"Liberals just don't get it. Bush is not running for president. I repeat Bush is not running for president."
Fact Impairment already explained: "Yes, it IS about Bush in two ways:
- it is Bush's recession, the charts linked above show that clearly
- Romney seeks to repeat the Bush/Cheney polices. When asked what he would do different, on Tuesday's interview with Brian Williams, Romney couldn't answer the question"
The Romney foreign policy team (wow, they must just be loving watching Mitt screw up in the UK) is 3/4 Bush-Cheney alums. Bush-Cheney was such a foreign policy highlight! 2 of our longest wars and no WMD found.
Of course, Bush-Cheney killed Bin Ladan, right?
Good choice, Romney. Pick the worst team ever and double down.
Hank, speaking of deflecting to Hillary, wouldn't the gop be in better shape if you had a nominee you actually liked?
Someone who wasn't deathly afraid to release 12 years of taxes, a tradition started by his very own father.
Fact Impairment, thanks for pointing out the fiscal IRRESPONSIBILITY of the Californian republican party.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 11:30 am
Fortunately,the rest of the country is far more sensible than the extreme liberals of the Bay Area. Romney has it all over Obama. In their hearts and minds they know it. It is just so difficult for them to face the fact that their socialist hero is about to take a drubbing. But after 4 years of Obama taking a wrecking ball to the economy America has just had enough of him and is ready to go with a man with proven capabilities. Obama tried. He just wasn't up to the task. Now, Romney will take over from Obama in January and begin the arduous task of rebuilding our country. It can't happen soon enough.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Ah yes. Carl Lewis. The man who attempted to run for the New Jersey Senate as a Democrat but was removed from the ballot because he didn't meet the residency requirements. And while Carl Lewis was the quintessential athelete, how many Olympics did he run? Oh it was zero. So he is quite the expert on organizing and running the Olympics.
Its too bad the Brits got their knickers in a twist because Romney pointed out flaws in their security. But the Brits should be proud of Romney because he honors the UK's greatest statesman Winston Churchill -- the very same man Barack Obama disrespected.
Posted by Bottom line.., a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 27, 2012 at 11:45 pm
I'm the middle vote that both parties covet. I voted for Obama in 2008, and there is ZERO CHANCE that I will vote for him in 2012 regardless of the opposing candidate. I don't think I am alone. It's safe to say that Obama is toast.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 8:46 am
"The reality is that the Great Recession ended three long years ago. In this Less Than Great Recovery, the economy shows promise for one good quarter then slows back down. This is the third straight year of sputtering recovery. Growth of 4.1% in the fourth quarter declined to 2% in the first and now 1.5% in the second.
The most recent comparable recession occurred in 1981-1982. The Reagan expansion exploded with a 9.3% quarter and kept up a robust pace for years. By the 12th quarter of expansion, growth popped up to 6.4.%. At this stage of the Reagan expansion, overall GDP was 18.5% higher versus 6.7% for the Obama recovery, according to Congress's Joint Economic Committee.
The challenge for Mitt Romney and the Republicans is to explain how we got to this pass — going back to the mistakes of the Bush years — why Mr. Obama's policies failed, and why their ideas can restore a prosperity that we once took for granted."
Like the above poster, I too voted for Mr. Obama four years ago... but not this time. No, my vote won't count much here in very blue California. And I don't think Mr. Obama "is toast"... at least not yet. This will probably be a very close election and we will all be up very late on election night waiting for final results from Ohio or some other swing state.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 9:40 am
It would also be nice to hear what the current President plans to do to try to reduce unemployment in the private sector.
Take your shots at him, but at least Mr. Romney produced a 59 point plan and the Republican Congress has proposed and passed several budgets. You may not like them, but at least they proposed something.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 10:20 am
President Obama is asking the House to vote on the American Jobs Act Web Link
Read it. it's mostly ideas that have been supported by Republicans at one time or another. Nothing bold enough to create real growth and jobs, but Obama can't get the House to even support these simple ideas they once supported in the past. Hypocrites.
Then READ Romney's 59 point "plan" Web Link Tax cuts for millionaires and businesses, raising DOD spending 2 trillion, blah, blah, blah all of which will cause the deficit to SOAR.
All rhetoric, no numbers.
Ryan's budget would kill growth and prolong the recession, besides giving tax cuts to billionaires and ending medicare as we know it. Even Romney has said that the Ryan plan will cause a depression:
"If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course."
So which Mitt flip flop do you believe? The Keynesian "cutting spending reduces growth" that he said in May, or some other story of his?
Do you believe Romney's rhetoric? Or something he plainly states?
Or does he have a secret agenda that he hides with his multiple positions?
How did Libertarians and the Tea Party ever let this guy get nominated? The theory they got sold was that Mitt could win. Part of the plan was a successful foreign policy trip starting with our good friends in the UK.
Even Rupert Murdoch's UK paper, the Sun, called him:
Mitt the Twit
Is it possible to have buyer's remorse BEFORE the convention?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 1:25 pm
No, I haven't read the jobs bill - and no one else has either. Not a member of Congress and not even the President. No one reads these things.
That said, I do recall the last THREE jobs bills when I was promised a ton of "shovel ready" jobs. I even recall then Speaker Pelosi stridently wagging her finger in the face of cameras proclaiming that these jobs - building bridges and highways and repairing our infrastructure - were ready to go. I also recall President Obama laughing about how those jobs weren't as shove-ready as they thought. They misled us, then wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and our aging infrastructure remained largely untouched.
Jobs bill? Fool me once...
If they would spend a little less time imposing new regulations and taxes on industry, perhaps we could muster a bit of growth.
Posted by Between a Rock and a Hard Place, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I am a registered Democrat who is centrist by nature. Both Political Parties regularly dissapoint me and sometimes disgust me. The Republicans have backwards social attitudes and the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. So in each Presidential election I have the dubious honor of voting for the candidate who offends me the least.
I voted for President Obama last time because he gave me hope for a better America. He inherited a mess from President Bush so it was quite understandable that it would take some time for President Obama to get our country back on track. Unfortunately, rather than ameliorate the economic situation he only exacerbated it and he did so convincingly.
President Obama is a truly nice man with honorable intentions but he simply does not know how to get the job done. And as much as I like him I believe that Governor Romney is more centrist, more experienced, and offers a better plan for economic recovery. Just because I am a Democrat does not mean I will automatically vote Democratic. I lean towards Democrats but at the end of the day I have to vote for the better candidate and I believe that in this election cycle Governor Romney is the best choice.
It is unfortunate that Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination the last time around. I believe had she won the nomination she would have been elected president and would have easily breezed to a re-election victory. She is an extraordinarily bright and accomplished woman who could have really given us a better country.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
'No, I haven't read the jobs bill'
There ya go! A couple pages of mostly republican ideas, that will likely get implemented the moment Romney takes office. After all, if Mitt wins, job creation and getting Republicans in the house to help him immediately start growing the economy would be a requirement for a 2nd Romney term.
Why read the Jobs bill when you can use Fox talking point hogwash --
'If they would spend a little less time imposing new regulations and taxes on industry, perhaps we could muster a bit of growth'
* regulations: "Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush" Web Link President Barack Obama’s “tsunami” of new government regulations looks more like a summer swell.
Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News."
Pogo may not like rules on businesses. Perhaps he prefers the unregulated Wall Street of 2008. Dodd Frank is far from perfect, but someone has to try and contain Goldman, Citi and the rest. Romney will repeal Dodd Frank without any legislation to protect the American economy. That's suicidal.
* taxes on industry: GE and Exxon have had *very* profitable years where they haven't paid any significant income taxes; should we give them money?
Well, we do, Exxon gets part of the billions in oil subsidies paid to the most profitable industry in the history of the world.
Why bother reading anything when you can spew Fox rhetoric?
Pogo, you used to be more persuasive. More thoughtful. More interested in conservative solutions for a balanced budget. One of us has changed; I don't see many posts of yours like that anymore.
'tis a pity....
Tax cuts for corporations in time of such great deficit???
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Rock and hard place - "Democrats are fiscally irresponsible"
Beg your pardon? How many republicans have balanced a budget?
How many republicans have left a surplus?
Fiscal responsibility means returning to the Clinton economy, creating 23 million new jobs and a return to Clinton spending levels and Clinton tax rates.
Clinton spending levels + Clinton tax rates = balanced budget.
Romney will never go there. The poster above points out he wants another five trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, plus more tax cuts for corporations. Someone's insane to even consider those while pretending to be "fiscally responsible".
Posted by world leaders watching, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm
What world leaders will trust Romney after this?
First he talks about MI6 publicly, follows it with a speech about the right wing lie aboutt the Churchill bust, insults the host country for the Olympics in a vain attempt to make himself look better, and on and on...
Reminds of the story from the book GAme Change, where Romney walks into the room with all the candidates preparing to do their business before the debate, with all of them ripping Mitt because they uniformly thought he was a phony. Silence ensued.
That was 2008. They liked him less this time around.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Rock and a Hard Place - you could have taken those words right out of my mouth. Perfectly said.
Al - Web Link No, there are no new taxes or regulations on business. This one involves hundreds of good paying new jobs in the United States that won't happen due to a new tax. (Of course, you'll blame the company... but this is one of the most successful, US-based companies in history). This past week alone, I watched two early stage companies shut down in the Bay Area (one in Mountain View, one in Redwood City) and both said it was due to an unpredictable regulation from Washington, DC. Between the two, they employed about 100 people who are now looking for work. The impact of taxes and regulation on businesses is REAL.
And Al, I'm not here to impress or convince you. As I said, we're in California. It matters not how we vote. Except for our campaign contributions, we are completely ignored.
Again, Rock and a Hard Place captured it perfectly.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm
No one has ever liked Mitt Romney politically. Great guy if he's your bishop. Great guy if he's making money for you.
But you will NEVER hear Republicans say they actually like the guy. It's evidence that they will sleep with anyone who will help them win back the executive. Anyone. Even the ultimate flipflopper, the author of ObamaCare. it's also evidence that they had a flawed field of candidates - they couldn't find anyone better than this?
"world leader" was referring to this:
"Game Change": "The candidates lined up at the urinals, Giuliani next to McCain next to Huckabee, the rest all in a row. The debate was soon to start, so they were taking care of business — and laughing merrily at the one guy who wasn't there. Poking fun at him, mocking him, agreeing about how much they disliked him. Then Willard Mitt Romney walked into the bathroom and overheard them, bringing on a crashing silence."
If Romney loses, the recriminations among the factions of the Republican party will be incredible - the corporatist's, the 17 billionaires, the libertarians, the tea party, the fundamentalists, etc...
If Romney loses and on Obama's coattails the Dems retain 50 seats in the Senate and pick up 20+ seats?
Dancing with someone you don't love and don't respect? That's one thing. Having him as your nominee?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Funny how Obama supporters keep talking about "buyer's remorse" and "not to late to change" when discussing Romney. I don't hear any Republicans saying they are unhappy with their candidate.
So why is this race a statistical dead heat (by nearly every major poll) with just 100 days to go? That's actually not too bad for Romney, a guy who was pretty wounded in the primaries and very prone to gaffes. But that dead heat may be an omen for this incumbent who won a massive victory four years ago, claims to have turned around the economy, is winding up our ill conceived wars, saved General Motors, got Osama, and was able to pass his most important legislation.
With a resume like that, why is this even close? Then again, maybe "fear" is the real reason you want Republicans to replace Romney.
Posted by Fact impairment explained, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Pogo: you just said California doesn't matter, now you claim that the national popular vote matters?
Look at the swing states. 'Acres' above listed the ten states. It's not that close in the swing states. Romney is ahead in 3 of 10 composite swing state polls. Obviously, others are close. Lots of room for an October Surprise, but with the announcement from the Euro guy this week, Europe may be off the table as a game changer prior to the election.
We Ask America, a republican pollster (literally), has Obama up 7+ in Ohio. That's virtually the game.
Ohio and any other big swing state (Penn, Fla) or Ohio and any two medium size swing states (VA, etc..) seals it for Obama.
Electorally, Obama is up a fair amount with 100 days to go. California, Texas and the national numbers don't mean much. Odd as it is to see the nationals so close, the swings have already moved. That's why the GOP is trying to restrict voting, purge Dems, etc..
Go back about 100 days: "Why would we put someone up who is uniquely - pick any other Republican in the country – he is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama." Rick Santorum
"I don't hear any Republicans saying they are unhappy with their candidate." Read between the lines. Santorum endorses by email. Bush endorses behind an elevator door. John Boehner says he's only loved by a few close friends and the Mo community. There's a list of endorsers who are about as tepid as can be.
Wait about 110 days. Then the knives come out, if Mitt doesn't pull it out.
Think about all the love that Republicans show John McCain these days. As bad as McCain gets treated now,it will look like Valentines Day compared to the bloodbath after Mitt loses.
The chickenhearted like Christie, Thune, Daniels, Rubio, Bush, etc.. will start their 2016 runs being the anti-mitt. The grassroots will hold a grudge because those guys were too scared to run against Obama a year ago, and the party was stuck with losers like Mitt, Newt, Santorum, Herman Cain, MICHELLE BACHMAN, Rick "3 things" Perry and Ron Paul.
oh, and Mitt's Veep - Tim Pawlenty. Wonder how many years of tax returns mitt will ask TPaw to pony up?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm
As they say in sports, that's why we play the game.
My point is that it's incredibly close. RealClearPolitics.com has it Obama up by 1.5% on the popular vote and a virtual toss up in the electoral college. With the power of the incumbency, everything that he's accomplished (?) and Romney's propensity for gaffes, that's not a particularly positive sign for Mr. Obama.
And there are still three more months of job numbers to come. I'm betting Mr. Obama's team has every finger crossed.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm
I've voted for the Libertarian candidate the last two or three presidential elections. I am sick to death of both the republicans and the democrats. They're opposite sides of the same coin. NEITHER party has the best interests of this country or the citizens of this country in mind. They have their own self interest at heart. We are all the worst for it.
Posted by Cheney returns, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2012 at 11:01 am
"I've never understood people who invoke President Bush's record when I criticize President Obama"
- much criticism of Obama has been misplaced: high unemployment is Bush's fault, not Obama (other than he should have forced Republicans into far greater job creation strategies which they have fought tooth and nail) Bush left Obama with consecutive jobs losses of almost a million jobs per month and negative growth. Obama has turned that around with over 2 years of monthly private sector job growth - but to blame Obama for the high unemployed is wither overly simplistic, naive or disingenuous.
- the alternative to President Obama is Mitt (BushCheneyII) Romney: Romney's policies are basically BushCheney on steroids - more unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest, more tax cuts for corporations, more Homeland Security spending, all leading to far greater deficit spending and much greater debt.
That's why they are linked:
- the beginning of Obama's term was a fight to dig out from BushCheney
- the election is a chance to prevent the return of BushCheney policies promised by Romney ('Reagan taught us deficits don't matter' - D Cheney)
Posted by Greg Fox, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2012 at 11:58 am
Exhibit A? For what, proving that Romney is hiring Bush team members and declaring to implement the same Bush policies that got our great country into this mess? Sounds like exhibits A thru Z. Romney is repeating Bush. Direct application. The Brits get it, even on the superficial non-policy level. Romney has made so many gaffes that the Daily Mail’s political editor asks
Posted by Pine View, a resident of the Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm
'Cheney returns' made reasonable sense - Romney was asked this week about what he will do differently than Bush; he blathered on about a nondescript 5 point "plan" and never told us what he would do differently.
Seem like 'Exhibit A' is a complement. The far fringe will never consider facts, they will only come back with rhetoric.
Try this: Pogo, what will Romney do differently than George W Bush and Dick Cheney?
Posted by Fence sitter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Greg Fox fails to recognize that plenty of Democrats have a role in the mess we are in as well. Please look up Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for starters. The issue at hand is if Obama's current policies have made things better or worse.
If you ask most folks who struggle to find work to make mortgages and put food on the table the answer will likely be "worse".
As for all incumbants, the logical rule of thumb is "when in doubt, throw them out!
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2012 at 6:09 am
Even James Carville sees the handwriting on the wall.
He is rather pessimistic about the Democrats chances in November. In a recent e-mail to his followers he stated:
"I wish I had good news for you... I want to tell you that President Obama has a second term in the bag...If we don't fight back, it'll be over long before November."
With 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8% and with Obama creating debt at nearly 2.5 times the rate of George Bush voters are realizing that Obama just can't get it done. He has plunged this country into a Keynesian Coma. His Western European Socialism paradigm has just not panned out. He bet that Socialism is more robust than Capitalism and of course it isn't even though many Democrats wish it were.
The Government is not a creator of wealth. It is a consumer of wealth. The private sector creates wealth. But Obama with his strident socialism is doing everything he can to make sure that no wealth is created at all. He is truly an unmitigated disaster. And the people of our great country are not going to stand by a let this inept dilettante destroy this country any longer.
Posted by Need 3rd Party, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2012 at 10:04 am
I haven't written a check to a Republican since 2008. Once the whole Sarah Palin thing came about, the Party changed dramatically, nationally. Not assigning blame to Palin, it just seems that was the high water mark, a time of great change.
Locally we're a mess. Nationally, my money doesn't matter anymore (only millions count, apparently.) Of course, my vote doesn't matter in this blue state, so I don't know if I'll vote until I see the propositions. I would highly consider a third party.
Posted by Calc Atkins, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2012 at 11:07 am
Thank heavens I see some of these posts bemoaning the direction of my Grand Old Party - I thought it was just me. I agree with 3rd party that it was inescapable to not see the change in 2008. To not work with the president of the United States in growing the economy further is indefensible. President Reagan and O'niel were partisans but got together to work for the good of the country. I haven't seen my party move an iota in the last 4 years. Indefensible. I can't support the lunacy anymore.
Posted by Romney culture gaffe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Romney goes to Israel and insults the Palestinians - what a great diplomat in chief!
Says the occupied economy of the Palestinians isn't as economically strong as the Israelis - duh - they're under occupation; then gets the actual numbers horribly wrong in his actual quote. Romney doesn't care about reality.
Says the the Arab culture is bad with money and the Israeli's are good with money. What a double backhand slap!
"Mitt Romney offended Palestinian leaders on Monday by suggesting that cultural differences explain why the Israelis are so much more economically successful than Palestinians, thrusting himself again into a volatile issue while on his high-profile overseas trip." NY Times
Romney: "As you come here and you see the GDP [gross domestic product] per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," he said.
"Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said." Web Link
Response: "Palestinian leaders reacted to Romney's remarks with dismay, marking the second time in less than a week that the presumptive presidential nominee for the U.S. Republican Party has angered a nation on a trip meant to highlight his foreign policy gravitas.
"It is a racist statement, and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation," Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press.
"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people. He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."
Other Palestinian figures accused Romney of jeopardizing the stalled peace process..."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Why are people who are against Obama "haters?"
If you don't like people who hunt or eat meat or wear fur or don't believe in abortion, are YOU a hater? If you want to see irrational hate, read some of the comments about Mitt Romney, who is as close to a boy scout as any politician in recent history. A rich one, yes, but since when was being rich illegal or immoral?
What ever happened to just disagreeing without ratcheting up the rhetoric? I don't hate our President at all. But I do disagree with his economic policies.
And judging by recent polls about how he has handled the economy, I'm part of an increasingly large majority.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm
I hate to break the news too you but Israel promotes the US foreign policy interests and the Palestinians have done nothing but unleash terror on Israel. Israel wants peace the Palestinians do not.
Also Israel overwhelming wants Romney to be president. Obama can never make up his mind. First Jerusalem is the Capital then it is not. It is worse with regar to the Obama foreign policy towards Egypt. Even Hilary Clinton ridicules Obama behind his back for having such a flaccid foreign policy.
First Obama stands behind Murbarek
Then he doesn't
Then Mubark can stay for the meantime
And then he can't
Obama has vacillated so much that he has absolutely no credibility with our allies in the Middle East. If our Allies fear that Obama will throw them under the bus just like hid did to Mubarek how can the US gain trust in the middle east under Obama?
I for one, would hate to see the U.S. lose its presence at Al Dhafra. That would open the door for Iran to pursue nuclear agression against Israel.
Actions speak louder than words. And our allies in the Middle East have far more trust in Romney than the dithering Obama.
Posted by Well said POGO, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Anyone who disagrees with the left is either evil, bigoted, racist, homophobe...etc...etc...etc. They can't fully debate the issues so they try and defame and destroy. Right out of Goebbels playbook, including the violence seen in OWS.
They can't debate on a National level, especially when you see the current state of the economy, which is abysmal.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 3:04 pm
At the risk of thread-jacking, a very recent example of vilification is the entire Chick-Fil-A controversy.
While I am pro-same sex marriage and do not like Chick-Fil-A, the vilification of Mr. Cathy for his personal beliefs was breathtaking. Remember, the beliefs expressed by Mr. Cathy were identical to those of the NAACP, Mr. Obama (until a few weeks ago...), Ms. Clinton, and even the Catholic church.
I don't recall a single protest against these people for holding the identical political position as Mr. Cathy.
Posted by Facts, not rhetoric and ad hominen Godwin attacks, a resident of the Atherton: West of Alameda neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 3:06 pm
The poster referenced once as a hater wrote, in part: "Actually the markets plunged 6000 points from the moment Obama won until a little after he took office. But you keep cherry picking dates while living in a Hope and Change fantasy land."
Looks to me like the "Hater" reference was to the above ridiculous claim/rhetoric.
Anyone want to defend this lie: "Actually the markets plunged 6000 points from the moment Obama won until a little after he took office."
If you don't like the word "hater", tell us fact-driven folks what we should call the liars who mix anti-Obama rhetoric with their lies?
Then there's the category of the absurd, unsubstantiated claims: "Also Israel overwhelming wants Romney to be president."
What would you prefer we label trash like Hank's? Wishful thinking? A hater? A fool?
Just because "well said pogo" wants relevant facts - "A Gallup poll finds Jewish registered voters supporting the president by 68 percent to 25 for Romney."
Maybe I should try name calling, like "WSPogo" does: "They can't fully debate the issues so they try and defame and destroy. Right out of Goebbels playbook, including the violence seen in OWS."
- congrats, you win the Godwin for this thread, you excellent debater!!
"Well said Pogo" expressed his opinion about one side debating without facts, yet he/she did not back up any claim with facts.
Posted by mad hatter not hater, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm
POGO, I don't know about other people, but I have tongue firmly in cheek when I use the term "haters" when referring to people who relentlessly and often unreasonably slam Obama. It's a reference to the strategy orchestrated a decade ago by the right wing to dismiss anyone who challenged George W Bush's policies. Just call them haters. Over and over and over again. Never address the criticisms. Just "haters haters haters." It was so silly and obvious that I found it amusing, and now use it in jest.
Posted by Pogo poaching, a resident of another community, on Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Pogo: the Fact explained post that contained (the reasonably witty) "How do you tell when an Obama hater is lying..."
DID contain facts!
He refuted the 'haters' spurious claim, with MULTIPLE LINKS.
I was with you on some of it, but now you are just reaching. Asa recent poster asked, do you want to defend the stupid claim the guy made? "Anyone want to defend this lie: "Actually the markets plunged 6000 points from the moment Obama won until a little after he took office." "
Posted by just the facts, maam..., a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2012 at 4:34 pm
race? who brought race into it?
personally, I don't dismiss anti-Obama posts provided they are coherent and either discuss or allude to well known facts. It's the rhetoric filled ones that are laughable, like...
This one about the president who took the stock market from =~8,000 to 13,000, while creating 4 million new private sector jobs: "Obama with his strident socialism is doing everything he can to make sure that no wealth is created at all. He is truly an unmitigated disaster. ... let this inept dilettante destroy this country any longer. "
Posted by Swing States Speak, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2012 at 10:23 am
Why are conservatives buying a car without looking under the hood?
Conservatives have until Tampa to demand Romney's tax returns; after that, nothing but buyers remorse when the 'stuff' hits the fan.
You KNOW Obama has the dirt on Mitt's tax returns and is holding it until after the conventions, when it will be too late for the GOP to do anything.
Sticking with a candidate who has been sliding lower since the tax returns became an issue is political malpractice.
How bad is Mitt sliding in the swing states? Look at "Quinnipiac/CBS/NYTimes: President Barack Obama hits the magic 50 percent mark against Gov. Mitt Romney among likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, with wide support for his plan to hike federal income taxes on upper-income voters, according to a Quinnipiac University/ CBS News/New York Times Swing State Poll released today.
This is the first measure of likely voters in these swing states and cannot be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters. Matching Obama against Romney in each of these key states - no one has won the White House since 1960 without taking at least two of them - shows:
° Florida: Obama edges Romney 51- 45 percent;
° Ohio: Obama over Romney by a slim 50 - 44 percent;
Posted by CBS/NYT Times poll?, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 12:34 pm
LOL....yes those pollsters were dead on in Wisconsin on the recall as well right? The MSM/Pravda is a Democrat party tool. Every candidate against the Dem machine is at a huge disadvantage already with the dishonest liberal media. Despite that disadvantage the GOP still has made gains and Nov will likely make them look like fools again.
Yes, keep following Mitt around for sound bites to exploit while Rome burns.
Posted by schadenfreude, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Yup, keep denying the polls. Cite an an example and apply it across the spectrum. Obfuscate by citing the national dailies (Gallup and Rasmussen) without looking at the swings that will decide. Or just look at the House of Ras polls. Everything is fine.
Nothing to look at here.
Everything is fine in Romneyland. Had a great trip to England to highlight his wonderful Olympic experience. No one on the right cares about his tax returns. The slippage that started in the swing states about 6 weeks ago is just the librul media and the demoCRAT party and is all just a conspiracy to get YOU.
At least some of you freely admit that Romney is going to institute Bush policies. I give a nod for honesty (obviously, I do not seek a return to CheneyBush.) The deniers are living in a fantasy world.
I think @swingstatesspeaks is on to something; if Obama is holding onto something about the tax returns until after the convention, a secret Romney hopes to hide from Republicans until he's nominated, aren't a lot of tea partiers going to feel pretty foolish getting sucker punched by a moderate supported by the Republican establishment -- again?!? I love the line -- Why are conservatives buying a car without looking under the hood?
Senator Santorum warned you -- Why would we put someone up who is uniquely - pick any other Republican in the country – he is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.
I have no idea how it will turn out. One side is going to experience some schadenfreude while the other goes through a great deal of handwringing.
Lotsa luck. Don't know how it really looks in the swing states other than the few polls available.
I'd rather be up in the polls than down -- down and with a potential, self inflicted tax return Sword of Damocles hanging over my nominee.
Bluster on, my good friends, but don't say you didn't know what you got yourself into... you might want to check under that hood before it's too late.
Posted by poll watcher, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 1:38 pm
schadenfreude, nice post. Those blubbering about the national polls being within the margin are missing the point, entirely.
Yes, this a lefty site, but it's a composite set of polls Web Link
Y'all better think twice about your predictions of a Romney victory unless you have something new. All the usual blather (Obama's a socialist, economy sucks - with because of Bush or becuase of Obama, Mitt's a serial flipflopper, Obama's a Muslim) is already baked into the cake. Only two things will change these numbers:
--- news, real news, like Obama's sleeping with someone other than Michelle, or much worse job numbers in the next two months (worse than they are) or Romney's tax returns come out and they're really bad, or an October surprise
--- the only other game changer would be one side to MASSIVELY outspend (and probably distort) against the other
Predict any of the above you want, or dartboard it. Either way, this cake is baked without something new.
The composites as of today: Romney takes AZ, Missouri, NC. Obama takes the rest by varying degrees, including substantial margins in Ohio and Penn.
Object all you want, I'd like to hear rational analysis over the usual rhetoric, but bring it either way.
But if it doesn't change, this is a blowout by McCainesque proportions.
Schad is wrong above - it is too late to pick Christie. Enjoy the ride.
Posted by bake a cake, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Shade & poll watcher
You should open a new thread - those are good posts. I like the polls cited and links (yes, in more ways than one.) Interesting spin on what you see going forward. Funny prodding of the conservatives in the "you should grab Hillary" fashion -- shows how absurd that meme was!
Is everything already "baked into" those polls? What news would have enough impact to shake the 48/45 partisans and the 7% independent/indecisives inbetween? Intriguing to watch unfold. Good stuff, Maynard.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm
So I see that Mr. Romney got an endorsement from Lech Walesa, the famous Polish political activist and TRADE-UNION ORGANIZER. In GOP parlance, a "union thug." The Tea Party and Scott Walker will not be pleased.
Posted by Maddow Beck, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2012 at 9:57 am
"schadenfruede" posts: "Obfuscate by citing the national dailies (Gallup and Rasmussen) without looking at the swings that will decide. Or just look at the House of Ras polls. Everything is fine."
Followed by Hank citing Rasmussen.
Yes, Hank, some find you entirely predictable. "House of Ras"? that's funny. Also more funny - that Hank entirely ignored what he can't explain, the movement documented in the swing states. Not a peep from dear old Hank. Hank -- tell us why you think the swing states are listing left, please. Hank falls perfectly into the two sides that won't even read anything posted from the "other, dark side". I tell my liberal friends to listen to Beck on 960 or the two bozos on 910 during their morning commute - better than coffee to wake/rile a lib up! They need to know what the other side is saying. I tell my conservative friends to listen to Maddow, who's awfully thoughtful at times, or ugh, Ed Shultz (that's a tough listen, I admit); again, so they know what the other side is talking about.
I am a registered R. Frankly, I can't imagine voting for Romney until he releases a decade of tax returns. I consider his hiding them a very big deal -- if Obama was hiding his, it would be the lede on every conservative broadcast for the rest of the year, and years beyond that. I'll probably vote for Emken because of the R, not that it makes a difference. I'll vote against Prop 32 because I value free speech. The others? haven't even looked.
And I'll keep reading Hanks entries, though they seem more bitter than before.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Ray Gaster, the owner of Gaster Lumber and Hardware in Savannah, Georgia took umbrage to Obama's arrogant remark
"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
So Mr. Gaster set up a banner in front of his hardware store that says
"I built this business without gov't help"
"Obama can kiss my a**"
"I'm Ray Gaster & I approve this message"
Apparently he is getting a lot of support. Some of the messages on his web site:
1. Thank you for serving America as a Veteran and Savannah as a devoted business owner. Open a store in Missouri and we will shop there!!
2. I applaud you for being the Patriot that you are; and I fully support your courage, honor, and dedication to the American Dream. You are truly a man with integrity! God Bless You!
3. Way to go!! I love the sign, and good for you to stick up for your business...I wish you were in New York!
4. He stands for American values. Gaster Lumber represents what America stands for. Obama stole that speech in the first place. Then he slapped every American business person in the face by saying they "didn't build that". God bless you for having the character to call out the president on a bad comment.
5. Dear Mr. Gaster, Please run for office. I will vote for you. We all will vote for you. You are a true American Patriot! Everyone take notice of this man! We all need to be exactly like him. Great job Mr. G!
6. Great Job, Sir. All of us who built businesses from the ground up knew this President had no clue, after we heard him say this. Business people are "certain" that they built their business, and knew "not" to take help from others. You "knew" you lived or died by the decisions you had to make.Those decisions had to be yours, especially if you made the wrong one.
7. Gaster you have America's sign of approval.
8. Mr. Gaster, thank you for having the courage to say what we've all been thinking. Obama's comments about small business were an insult to all of us who work hard to feed our families and keep our businesses going. I searched you out online hoping I could buy something, anything, from your store's website. That didn't work out so, for now, I am expressing my appreciation with this note. However, next time I'm in Savannah, I will definitely be doing business at your store!
9. Mr Gaster keep up the good work.I know you worked very hard to build your business.Tell OBAMA he will be fired come Nov 2012!!!!!!!!!!
10. Mr. Gaster, congratulations on your sign to Obama! That took guts and all America should be proud of you. I built my engineering company by myself IN SPITE of what the government did (and took from me all the while). You are a great American!! Yours truly, Dwight Reagan, Rochelle, Texas.
You get the picture. Obama is toast! But libs take satisfaction in Obama winning California. You can use that to ease the pain of the electoral college repudiation of Obama when it votes in Governor Romney as the next President of the United States.
Posted by Hanks falsehood and context problem, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm
hank, why the copy and paste, ever try just posting links to other sites as recommended by the terms and conditions?
hank proves again he can only do half-hearted, out of context attacks, and not respond to the questions raised, such as -- why is Romney getting killed in the swing states and how does hank think he can win without them?
the whole Obama quote that hank and Romney take out of context, was about “this unbelievable American system that we have”, summarized by “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Why does Hank hate America so much?
Obama, July 13: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Great speech on the America we ALL BUILT, me, you, your daddy and mine!
Posted by swingie state, a member of the Oak Knoll School community, on Aug 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Republicans have given up in PA and Michigan. They are off the lists for the GOP to compete in; despite all the bluster they are now Dem states for 2012 unless something changes.
Even Karl (tb) Rove isn't buying ads in those states anymore, as of a week ago. Dems are ceding New Mex and Missouri. MO swung to Obama in 08 but he can't hold it.
So read the tea leaves.
Without any reasonable chance in PA, Obama's small lead in FLA and larger one in Ohio have to be freaking out Karl. Rove's spent a FORTUNE in Ohio trying to undo the damage Kasich's done there; Rove's spent $4 million on OH against Sherrod, with more against Obama.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Today's Rasmussen Polls shows Romney ahead of Obama 46% to 44%.
I for one, will be glad when Obama is turned out of office on November 6. Obama's socialist redistribution of wealth scheme has not been well received by the American Public.
With Obama's rapacious demands for our hard earned money so he can just piss it away on frivilous causes and his desire to strip away our freedoms so we can only do what the Government will allow us to do is Unamerican and will be repudiated by the majority of voters come November 6. But Obama really doesn't like America. After all he is a man of the world.
Posted by Mac Mateo, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2012 at 10:26 am
Hank: thanks, but I already have. I'm hard on the President-1 side, though I think the over/under will be Obama by 30. Yeah, I would have been more far to give the points, but as they say, "there's one born every minute" so I made it flat instead of giveng 30 votes.
If you're interested in a wager, why not bet Mitt $10,000 that the only way he competes for the next 3 months is to be transparent and honest with America....
and release 12 years of tax returns.
Hey, Rick, ummmm, I mean Mitt, wanna bet ten grand on it? Such a man of the people!
Hank - would you explain, in your role as a Republican official, why the CA Republican party is declaring bankruptcy, owes vendors and is firing workers?
"On Tuesday, Mr. Obama was helped in the forecast by a report showing an increase in personal income — one of the economic variables that the forecast model uses, and a reasonably good predictor of voter preferences in past elections. On Wednesday, he polled strongly in a number of swing states. And on Friday, Mr. Obama got a respectable — although by no means wonderful — employment report, which estimated that 163,000 jobs were created in July.
The forecast model uses the jobs number directly in its forecast. It also incorporates the S&P 500 index, which was up sharply on Friday — partly on the jobs news and partly because investors were in a better mood about the situation in Europe.
Mr. Obama’s probability of winning the Electoral College increased slightly on the economic news, to 71.1 percent from 70.2 percent. Mr. Obama’s lead in the popular vote is quite narrow: the forecast projects him to win 50.7 percent of the vote, against 48.3 percent for Mitt Romney."
As others have posted above, and here I paraphrase the cantankerous Mr Carville, "it's the swing states, stupid"
Romney will outspend Obama from here on in (see the front page of today's WSJ) but that is money being spent on an unlikable candidate who, as a former Olympic CEO can't even visit the Olympics and leave with a positive story.
Hank - keep your Rasmussen poll. Hug it like a warm blanket on a foggy morning in Sharon Heights. Ras makes you feel warm and protected when the cruel world says otherwise.
With 3 months to go, I like Obama's numbers. Not a done deal by any means, but I rather be up 50 votes at 538blog, than down 50 votes. Now that the media is paying attention, the narrative of a razot thin race lessens, making it harder for the candidate with the higher unfavorables to catch up. Sample:
"The head-to-head polls have largely remained static in that time. But in looking at the numbers nationally and in the battleground states, the consistency of Obama’s lead is striking. More than two dozen national polls have been conducted since the beginning of June. Obama has led in the overwhelming number of them.
Polls in the most contested states show a similar pattern. In three of the most important — Ohio, Florida and Virginia — there have been roughly three dozen polls total since April, about the time that Romney’s GOP rivals were exiting the nomination race. In Ohio and Virginia, Obama has led in all but a few. In Florida, Romney has done better, but overall, Obama has led about twice as often.
Those polls are not definitive predictors of the November outcome, by any means." Web Link
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Interesting point made on today's Face the Nation. Mr. Obama has outspent Mr. Romney by a 5 to 1 ratio (8 to 1, in some cases) in swing state advertising. And before you jump on all of that "outside spending," that ratio INCLUDES outside SuperPAC spending - at least according to the reporter on Bob Schieffer's program.
Romney has just stated to purchase ad space in those key swing states and he is predicted (with SuperPACs) to outspend Obama by the time it's all over. Actually, the Obama campaign will outspend the Romney campaign - SuperPACs will change that balance.
With all that spending, the current President is barely up in swing states. Perhaps Obama supporters who should consider changing candidates. I kinda like Romney's chances with 3 months to go...
Posted by John Holt, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 9:48 am
The Obama campaign made a strategic decision to spend in the swing states early to inform voters about Bain style vulture capitalism (see Newt and Perry's remarks about Bain's job outsourcing, etc..) and to help inform voters before Romney's ad blitz started. Seems like a valid choice.
Pogo -- that said, I don't believe your 5/1 or 8/1 ad advantage is correct including outside spending groups - please prove it with a link if you stick with your assertion.
To say the swing states are close is not a credible statement. Romney's campaign has said they will win Pennsylvania, thus far it appears PA can be removed from discussion as a swing state, it's going for Obama. Obama holds a significant lead in Ohio and a smaller lead in Florida. Other, smaller swing states reflect the same leads for Obama, as has been highlighted by entries above.
Of the swing states that Obama had a reasonable chance to get again, only NC (and MO or MS, I get confused, not sure which w/o looking it up this morning) is looking not winnable for Obama. The other swing states are remarkably leaning to various degrees for Obama.
To say the "President is barely up in swing states" is rhetoric bordering on fantasy. To quote a line from above -- "Obama's lead in two of the "big 3 swings" is equal to or greater than the MOE & the undecideds combined."
Posted by 26 billionaires, a resident of the Menlo Park: Fair Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I, too, doubt the 5 to 1 figure including outside group spending in swing states. Obama's campaign spent $70 million total in June, Romney's spent $75 million in July - both by the campaigns and not including outside spending.
I do agree that Obama has been more effective in setting the narrative in swing states.
On the donation side, Obama continues to raise more from small donors as he has always, Romney and his PACs depend inordinately on the "26 billionaires".
"So far this year, 26 billionaires have donated more than $61 million to super PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And, that’s only what has been publically disclosed.
· This $61 million does not include about $100 million that Sheldon Adelson has said that he is willing to spend to defeat President Obama; or the $400 million that the Koch brothers have pledged to spend during the 2012 election season.
· These 26 billionaires have a combined net worth of $146 billion, which is more than the bottom 42.5 percent of American households (equal to nearly 50 million families in the United States)."
BOB SCHIEFFER: So is this a problem for Romney, Jan?
JAN CRAWFORD: I don't think so. I mean he's been out-- outspent hugely in these battleground states because he doesn't have the kind of money right now that the Obama campaign has. HE'S BEEN OUTSPENT FIVE TO ONE, EIGHT TO ONE [EMPHASIS ADDED] in some of the battleground states. He can't start tapping into the vast amounts he raised until the convention goes under way because of the campaign finance rules so they believe--
BOB SCHIEFFER: --no question that these negative ads that the Obama people ran against him are-- are working to some extent.
JAN CRAWFORD: Starting to have an impact, but they believe if you look at the numbers, the race is static. IT'S STILL IN A DEAD HEAT TO HEAD TO HEAD [EMPHASIS ADDED]. So it's not that bad, because they're going to roll out starting with the convention a lot more of these kind of positive ads about Romney, his background, his biography, and they have got the convention where they think things are really going to kick off and then they can tap into all the money you've been talking about.
Jan Crawford is the political correspondent (and Chief Legal Correspondent) for CBS News.
No, I don't lie and I do show my sources - POGO
And Romney just out "fundraised" Obama again... Web Link- Obama continues to spend more than he has, which is not particularly newsworthy.
Posted by 26 billionaires, a resident of the Menlo Park: Fair Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Pogo - thanks for the transcript. I do not see justification for the 5-1 figure on any site, and given that Ms Crawford is misinformed on another claim, i still have some doubt about the 5-1 claim.
Your emphasis added on the head to head is basically noise, as you were referring to swing states, not head to head.
Your cute dig at Obama spending more than he has is untrue; Obama's campaign is funded and paying it's bills, paying it's vendors and adding staff, which is more than can be said about Hank Lawrence and his Californian republican/bankrupt party.
I dispute Ms Crawford's assertion that Obama's lead in the swing states is "A SLIGHT EDGE [EMPHASIS ADDED]".
Links above show otherwise.
That said, I'm sure you disagree with my opinions here. I, however, DO [EMPHASIS ADDED] applaud your putting the transcript and links up.
To reiterate the composite swing state leads by Obama from last week - "Obama's lead in two of the "big 3 swings" is equal to or greater than the MOE & the undecideds combined." That is not an insubstantial fact.
A slightly oversampled poll: "Obama's leads in the three states — Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida — are significant because they fall outside the poll's margin of error. And he reaches the 50-percent mark in all three states. In Florida, Obama leads 51 to 45 percent. In Ohio, it's 50 percent to 44 percent. And in Pennsylvania, it's a gigantic 53 to 42 percent lead.
Women are driving Obama to the highs. He has incredible leads of at least 20 points among women in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, and he tops Romney among women in Florida by 7 points. The poll slightly oversamples Democrats in Florida and Ohio. Whereas about 3 percent more Democrats voted in the 2008 election than Republicans in both states, the Quinnipiac poll sampled 8 percent more Democrats than Republicans in Ohio and 9 percent more Democrats in Florida. An important note: No president or candidate has gone on to win the White House without at least two of these three states." Web Link
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Well, as usual, when I point you to the references, you dispute them, despite the fact that this came from CBS (not FOX) News. Obama has definitely outspent Romney in the swing states - which are close, just outside the MOE in two states, within in the other seven states - mainly because Romney can't start his big spends due to McCain-Feingold. But you probably knew that.
Or you deflect, as in discussing Hank's Republican party. About as clear a case of deflection as I've seen in quite some time.
And the Obama campaign is most definitely spending WAY more than they are taking in. You can see it for yourself at the New York Times... and this time you can google it for yourself.
If you chose to dispute the New York Times information, please take it up with them.
the top 4 swing states = 75 of last 100 Electoral Votes
Ohio - 18 Obama
NC - 15 Romney
VA - 13 Obama
Florida - 29 Obama
Remaining 25 votes, the 'minor' swing states
Colorado (9) Obama +3
Iowa (6) Obama +1.3
Nevada (6) Obama +5.3
New Hampshire (4) Obama +3
That's as it stands today:
Core states: Obama 247 - Romney 191
Big 4 swing: Obama 60 - Romney 15
Minor swing: Obama 23 - Romney 0
Total, as RCP composite polls show
Obama 330, Romney 206 vs Obama 365, McCain 173
Interesting. Romney's path to 270 requires all 4 big swing states plus a minor swing state 191+75 = 266
What game changers are left, that are NOT ALREADY FACTORED into the polls?
Romney: Convention? VP? probably not a gamechanger. Jobs reports? Two left, but with last weeks +160,000 number, who knows. Europe crisis hitting the fan? was a bigger concern earlier, now looks not as likely. Money. Money is Gov Romney's biggest advantage
Obama: Conventions cancel each other out. Debates? Would seem that Obama would outperform, but given expectations, will that make any difference? Tax returns? That seems the obvious game changer, one assumes that will be hit pretty hard.
Barring an October surprise of unknown origin, the two biggest gamechangers are probably Romney's money advantage and Romney's tax situation.
Quite interesting. I'm not sure I understand the source of Hank Lawrence's bravado.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Romney's money is a BIG deal. All you need to look at is the last election in California where big tobacco spent a fortune defeating the tobacco tax. All with lies and half truths. The electorate, true to form, were stupid and bought the BS. Oh, Romney's money is a big deal and could factor greatly into how this election turns out.