Posted by Context is King, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2012 at 2:09 pm
A great job of selectively editing 17 seconds out of a video! That's the good thing about Hank! One never has to worry about facts or context!
Hank: if you hate government so much, why don't you move somewhere that doesn't have a government? Web Link The beautiful true libertarian paradise of Somalia!
Hank can't defend Romney because Hank can't stand Romney and his flip flops! So Hank just takes bits out of context and thinks you are too lazy to notice. Or maybe Hank thinks you are too stupid to notice. Which is it Hank? Lazy or stupid?
Here's another video from last night, a tribute to a great man who dedicated his life to public service: Edward Kennedy. Take a look at the part a couple minutes in (I won't insult you with an edited version like Hank does!) where Romney enters the video - Web Link
It shows you one of many reasons Hank is so bitter about having to vote for Romney; here are the direct quotes:
ROMNEY: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.”
KENNEDY: “On the question of the choice issue — I have supported the Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.”
Later on, Kennedy said about Multiple Choice Mitt: “Now he’s for family leave. Now he looks like he’s for minimum wage. Now he’s for education reform,” the senator said. “If we give him two more weeks then he may even vote for me, because those are the things that I am for.”
Posted by Patti Killigan, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Mr Lawrence is going to get even more cantankerous as the next 60 days go by. With Governor Romney's convention 'uptick' being non-existent, Barack Obama will continue to increase his lead in the battleground states. Any further Romney decline in those important states will mean Obama will win by an electoral vote margin of over 100 votes, near the McCain landslide loss levels. As this reality dawns upon Mr Lawrence, his online forays will be even more deceitful than his out of context clip referenced above.
If the next set of Ohio numbers, due mid-month, show Obama > +5, this race is over. Mr Lawrence will need to find a new outlet for his frustration. Right now, Mr Lawrence is reduced to praying Friday's job numbers are less than 100K jobs created. Reduced to rooting against Americans.
Posted by Government rocks!, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Yo Hank, anyone in your family on Medicare?
Did you get out of your house today? Used your self built road, I suppose.
Drank from your private well? Which you have tested regularly?
Have your own oxygen supply, without some smokestack polluting it?
Anyone you love take some medicine today? In your Invisible Hand of the Free Market World, you don't need no steekin' FDA. If the untested and unregulated drug don't work, you as a Free Market Man will just try some other drug to see if it is manufactured correctly. Or safe. Or effective. If you live that long.
And somehow Hank mysteriously posted upon this forum with out aid of the Internet, something that came from the government.
Imagine that. We love our Hank, our Free Market Man. We love you so much, we'll let you use our Government and enjoy the benefits of our Government, even if you hate it.
With regard to the swing states, according to RealClearPolitics, they are tightening. Yes, that may change after this convention, but for now, they are closer than ever.
Finally, I would like to note this link to FactCheck.org (the Annenberg Public Policy Center site) about misinformation disseminated at the DNC meeting. Apparently, lying (or exaggerating) isn't limited to Republicans.
Posted by faux outrage, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Pogo's link identifies the video that Hank edited for a 17 second hatchet job, was not from the Democratic Party or President Obama.
It was from the city of Charlotte host committee.
"The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte. It's neither an OFA nor a DNC (Democratic National Committee) video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming. It's time for them to find a new target for their faux outrage."
Hank + Mitt = faux outrage
Better stick to debating an empty chair, Hank. Your guys almost won that one.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 6:43 am
Yesterday's Rasmussen Poll shows Romney with a 3 point lead over Obama-- 48% to 45%. The Democratic Party full court press on the recall of Scott Walker failed miserably as it should have. The Scott Walker recall is a bellwether for the November Presidential election. People are focused on Obama's record which is a consistent record of failure.
Our national debt is now over $16 Trillion dollars and climbing. Obama said that Bush's addition to the debt was unpatriotic. That was one of the few times he was right. If Bush's contribution to the national debt is unpatriotic then Obama's is time for a change in the White House.
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 7:38 am
I doubt many of the posters watched Bill Clinton's speech last night.
3100 scripted words, 5200 delivered, all pitch perfect. A masterpiece in speechifying (nod to Dubya,) a "now here's what's really going on..." gem. Not another American is qualified nor able to deliver that speech. Certainly not the GOP's empty chair.
"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."
Clinton spoke more highly of George Bush than all the speakers at the RNC combined.
Fact check for y'all:
"Since 1961 … our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million."
Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True."
Posted by Big Dog, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:11 am
Clintons 1 word solution to the deficit?
You can't balance the budget by giving ANOTHER 5 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires like Romney wants to do. We need to return to Clinton rates and Clinton job creation. Clinton gave us 23 million jobs. Obama has created 4.5 million in the last 27 months.
Posted by Topper, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:33 am
Hank... if Mitt can't do better than 3% in a Ras daily poll after his convention bounce, you got problems.
The GOP has already pulled all tv ads from Penn, New Mexico and Michigan, all big swing states they swore they would take.
Awfully early to give up in those states unless the wheels are falling off the mittens campaign bus. Watching Romney pretend he will carry his home state of Michigan while not running ads will be awkward to say the least. I bet he actually pulls some of his own money from the Caymans to run some ads just to save face.
Obama is up somewhere north of 80 votes. Just wait until the ads with Clintons speech hit Ohio and Florida. Especially about Ryans plan to cut Medicaid and kick seniors out of nursing homes.
Posted by Rufus, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm
If John Kerry gave as good a speech in 2004, we wouldn't have had the Bush Great Recession.
"They forget that we are exceptional not because we say we are, but because we do exceptional things.... Despite what you heard in Tampa, an exceptional country does care about the rise of the oceans and the health of the planet.... the only thing exceptional about today's Republicans is that almost without exception, they have opposed everything that made America an exceptional nation in the first place."
Better off than 4 years ago?
"Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 6:20 am
"Nonfarm payrolls increased only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, that was because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.
The survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed a drop in employment. The lackluster report keeps the pressure on Obama ahead of the November vote in which the health of the economy looms large."
Comments on the BLS data in the chart? Seems to me it clinches the case for not going back to the Bush/Cheney policies that Romney endorses. With an Obama reelection, the only question will be if Boehner is still speaker, will he continue to block action on job creation and economic recovery?
Posted around, the last ten 'Augusts':
August 2003: - 45,000
August 2004: +122,000
August 2005: +193,000
August 2006: +183,000
August 2007: - 18,000
August 2008: - 274,000
August 2009: - 231,000
August 2010: - 51,000 (includes Census layoffs)
August 2011: + 85,000
August 2012: + 96,000
Bin Ladin is Dead, GM is Alive
We can't afford to go back to Bush/Cheney with Romney. As Clinton said:
"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm
You may recall that in 2010 when they were supposed to expire, President Obama and nearly every Democrat in Congress endorsed continuation of the expiring "Bush tax cuts."
When they did that, did it also represent "going back to the Bush/Cheney policies" that "got us into this mess" too?
And the plan that Romney proposed isn't going back to Bush/Cheney. Romney has said several times that he wants to lower everyone's rates and eliminate deductions (which inordinately favor the rich) much like the Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested. (Ironically, even President Obama now appears to be embracing Simpson-Bowles...)
As FactCheck.org noted, just because you repeat a lie doesn't make it any truer. Then again, I'm not expecting to change any minds.
Posted by Rufus, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Due to the political climate and the economic climate in 2010, Obama appears to have kept the entirety of the Bush tax cuts rather than fight the Republicans to rescind the tax cuts on high income earners (end the 4% cut on incomes over $250K/year). If I recall, Obama also got a number of things in exchange (greater UI, etc..)
Depending on this election outcome, some Republicans seem inclined to support the higher rate on millionaires but can't outright vote for it due to their pledge to Grover Norquist. They have signaled that they support letting all the tax cuts expire on Dec 31, then passing a new tax package in January matching the cuts on all incomes TO $250K, but not above. Thus they have not VOTED to raise any taxes, though they effectively support the revenue generation to start the process of deficit reduction.
This lame duck session looks to be most interesting. With Obama the odds on favorite for reelection, the senate a toss up and the house likely to be republican, albeit a smaller majority, one can only guess how it plays.
If some Republicans actually break from Norquist and McConnell, maybe we can get some things done. Obama is clearly not wed to the congressional progressive caucus. Who knows, maybe in 4 years, Bill Clinton's statement will be quite nostalgic:
"the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
"...Due to the political climate and the economic climate in 2010..."
And exactly how has our economy improved since then (bearing in mind the recession ended in the summer of 2009) that would now warrant this change? Even the vaunted CBO that you seem to like so much says increasing taxes now would be a disaster.
Someone posted it above, I'm surprised you hadn't looked at it. 4.5 million private sector jobs in the last 28 months.
Stock market up a ton. Still a ways to go, but as Clinton said: "the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."
Forever the optimist, though my work is done here..... /wink
ps... What so you think of that CNN poll: Obama and Romney were tied 48-48 prior to the conventions -- Obama is now up 52-46. Given his lead and the Romney camp quitting in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mich, NM, etc.. Romney has to run the table with the rest and he leads n only a few. This one is all but over.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:51 am
Well, I'm not "biting" on your deflection about job growth. If you think we're better off than four years ago, so be it. I'm not aware of a single poll that supports you (and many are 2 to 1 saying we're worse off).
But, if you think our economy can stand a huge tax increase - and that's exactly what the fiscal cliff represents, you should argue with the CBO who says it will be a disaster. Even President Clinton said we shouldn't raise taxes now... before he was taken to the woodshed. But President Obama can try his little experiment and we can all suffer the consequences. If he wins - and he's looking pretty strong right now - regret will replace hope.
I'm not sure what evidence people need to realize that after four years and a sputtering economy that these policies aren't working. Yes, I know, (a) it was worse than he thought, (b) he didn't put enough money into the stimulus or (c) it was Bush's fault. Pick one.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:01 am
And, while President Obama does appear to be ahead and strengthening, it is interesting that today's Washington Post-ABC News poll show of LIKELY voters, showed it 49-48 in favor of our President. That's unchanged from pre-convention.
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:32 am
Rufus offers solid evidence of the improvement in the last 4 years and Pogo shifts to polls. ("I'm not aware of a single poll that supports you")
4 years ago, GDP SHRUNK 8 percent, we were losing jobs at a high clip, like 800,000 jobs per month. The market plummeted and destroyed 401K's, and on and on. So I'll answer Pogo's multiple choice:
"(a) it was worse than he thought, (b) he didn't put enough money into the stimulus or (c) it was Bush's fault."
D. ALL of the above.
It WAS worse than we all thought - look at Pogo's comments about now being worse than then as evidence. Yes, the stimulus should have been bigger - the list of economists that agree is long. Who's fault? It isn't called the Bush Great Recession for nothing!
Pogo is the master of deflection. When he asks "exactly how has our economy improved since then" and is answered with clear evidence, he switches to "well polls show da peeps don't think so!"
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:00 am
"if Rufus thinks the economy is so much better"
Yet both Rufus and I have SHOWN YOU (emphasis added) that the economy IS MUCH BETTER. Besides the job growth per month (from 800,000/mo job loss to 28 months of private sector job growth) there's the GDP graph Web Link that also shows we are far better off than 2008. Much work to do, but far better off.
Do you, Pogo, think that the economy is (a) better (b) same (c) worse?
...fully expecting Pogo to choose (D) as an alternate, perhaps the only time in this cycle he picks a (D) this close to an election...
Yes, a lame attempt at humor, something better left to professionals.
Speaking of: "the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in."
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:20 am
In hindsight, let me amend the question: what would you have done differently for recovery?
I revise to hopefully focus on the recovery, rather than bring deficit reduction, Medicare, Social Security, etc.. into the response. While all are important, even Mitt Romney (in a rare moment of actually discussing specifics) admitted that cutting spending a trillion would plummet the economy into depression.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:08 am
As I've said in previous posts, I would have allowed the economy to correct with market forces. Painful? Absolutely. Lots of winners and losers, but that's the way an economy is supposed to work. I wouldn't have bailed out banks, insurance companies, auto companies or workers.
I'd rather pull the bandage off at once and get it over with. Many economists believe that allowing an economy to self-correct quickly (instead of propping it up) leads to "V" shaped recoveries instead of "U" shaped recoveries - and we have a very elongated "U" right now. I've cited the example of foreclosed homes and keeping people in homes they cannot afford as an analogy. It just depresses the entire neighborhood for a far longer period. They can't afford it, get them out and allow someone to buy it - probably very cheaply - who can.
In this case, I was against TARP and I was against all of the bailouts (by the way, I was not against the stimulus... but we were promised that it would go to infrastructure ("shovel ready jobs") instead of states to give to public employees... and they eventually went away when that dried up.
I was against bailouts because that's precisely why we have bankruptcy laws! Companies fail every day and the government doesn't intervene and we somehow manage to survive without the sky falling. Is the autoworker's family any more valuable than the family of someone who worked at Emporium in Mountain View (that went bankrupt)? It is just as bad.
In the case of auto companies, no one suggests liquidation (closing their doors) as an alternative to the bail-out as the pro-bail out people suggest. Bankruptcy does not equal "closing your doors." You fly on bankrupt airlines all the time and they seem to do fine. These companies could easily and more efficiently have reorganized under the existing bankruptcy laws - eventually GM did precisely that, but only after taking about 25 billion of my dollars and selectively wiping out bondholders and non-union worker pensions and turning over union pensions to taxpayers. Gee, thanks. A bankruptcy court would have done this is a far more orderly and fair fashion. In the meantime, GM didn't correct it's highly flawed cost structure and the cracks are already starting to show. Congratulations, we spent all that money and just kicked the can down the road.
That's what I would have done, not would I would do in the future. For a start, I would embrace the Simpson-Bowles Commission's unofficial recommendations but eliminate ALL deductions, loopholes and subsidies.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:42 am
No, the monthly jobs isn't a "U." It's a downward arrow.
No, I don't know of a politician who supports "pulling off the bandaid" during their terms. In a related note, I know of no politician who supports entitlement reform either. That doesn't make it right.
Economists who support it? You must be kidding. The list is VERY long. But I won't do your work for you, you can google it for yourself.
We have the portion of the graph that gave rise to it's name - the bikini graph, that is clearly a V. Upon Bush's departure and instituting Obama's policies, the V starts it's upward rise. Since then, over two years of consecutive job growth.
Posted by Poll Watchers, a resident of the Portola Valley: Brookside Park neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm
The Washington Post ABC poll mentioned above is an apples and oranges comparison with, of all things, the previous WaPo ABC poll.
Before the conventions, WaPo measured registered voters, after, they shifted to likely voters. Not unusual, it's about the time of the cycle that most pollsters make the switch from RV to LV. One obvious difference is LV leans more to republicans than RV polls. A fact, there's a few reasons to it that I won't bother to explain.
From ABC WaPo:
"The survey shows that the race remains close among likely voters, with Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48 percent, virtually unchanged from a poll taken just before the conventions.
But among a wider sample of all registered voters, Obama holds an apparent edge, topping Romney at 50 percent to 44 percent, and has clear advantages on important issues in the campaign when compared with his rival."
The curiosity? The switch from RV to LV over the convention period, when many seek to measure convention 'bounces'. Sticking with RV, the two conventions netted a 7 point swing for Obama.
Most pollsters will be measuring Likely Voters for the duration.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:20 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
I suggest that you not waste your time with individual polls, each of which has some bias and some procedural defects, but look at a meta analysis like Five Thirty Eights which looks at a large number of polls. The author, Nate Silver, has no political bias and he simply analyses all of the existing poling data very carefully and deeply
Posted by 538, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:51 am
Agree about Nate Silver. I see him as non-biased numbers guy also, though I believe some at one end of the spectrum fear he is a flaming liberal. The right side of Nate's page, the side that shows what Nate sees as current conditions, with an Obama victory margin of 90 electoral votes, with an 80% chance of victory, has to be a little tough to swallow for the original author of this thread.
Several thoughts come to mind: Maybe Ryan is not as strong in his home district as once perceived. One would imagine being on the GOP presidential ballot while representing a district he previously won with wide support would be all the validation his voters required for reelection. Perhaps his voters are a little shocked at his positions now that they've seen scrutiny from the national glare, and Mr Ryan is soothing the savage constituent.
Or perhaps Mr Ryan can read the tea leaves as well as anyone: Fox News gives the Romney Ryan ticket a 5 point deficit: 43-48. 538 gives Mr Ryan a 1 in 5 chance of moving into Joe Biden's office.
On top of that, Mr Ryan slinks back to DC today to vote for bigger government and extending the debt ceiling, rather a a 6 month funding extension to keep the government running, squarely placing Mr Ryan's principles of shrinking government against the political reality that he wants to be elected.
Perhaps he is the perfect partner for the Massachusetts flip flopper, for petes sake. (apologies to Charlotte DD)
Posted by Ryan running for office, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm
A: I'm not outraged about Mr Ryan running TV advertising; Pogo needs to re-read the post if s/he believes I was 'outraged'
B: I don't think any of those Pogo listed had to run TV advertising to retain their local seats, while on a national ticket. Mr Ryan has a $5 million fund to spend.
The outrage belongs to others; it's easy to imagine Tea Partiers are outraged about Mr Ryan flying back to DC to vote on extending government spending while promising otherwise. Web Link
"As he accepted the vice presidential nomination on Aug. 29 in Tampa, Florida, Ryan pledged to “not duck the tough issues” on fiscal matters. Still, to avoid any perception that Republicans may again flirt with a government shutdown, Ryan and other anti-spending party members have abandoned for now their demands for $19 billion in spending cuts."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Your comment: "Why is Paul Ryan running TV ads for his seat in his home district, an unprecedented action for a sitting member of congress on a presidential ticket?"
Perhaps I misunderstood your point of "unprecedented."
It is unprecedented since 2008 when Joe Biden did it. And yes, he advertised on television in Delaware.
As for Mr. Ryan, I thought you admired politicians who compromised. You may want to read Bob Woodward's new book to see how much Mr. Obama compromised when we last needed to lift the debt ceiling. It turns out that Mr. Boehner's recollection was a bit more accurate than Mr. Obama's... at least according to Woodward.
Posted by Ryan running for office, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Regarding "an unprecedented action for a sitting member of congress on a presidential ticket?" I should have been more clear for Pogo: an unprecedented action for a sitting -House- member of congress on a presidential ticket.
Again, Pogo assigns falsehoods: much like the 'outrage' from two entries ago.
Regarding compromise, assigning a thought that I "admired politicians who compromised", I have never made that claim. It is arguable that compromise is necessary and to be admired when it gets the job done and the compromise moves towards one's goals. Mr Ryan is doing no such thing.
Here, Mr Ryan is compromising, wholesale, his stated principles of smaller government for the expediency of getting elected to higher office, after a mere 2 weeks telling Americans "on Aug. 29 in Tampa, Florida, Mr Ryan pledged to “not duck the tough issues”.
I am not 'outraged' and most definitely not surprised since that is actually identical to dozens of votes Mr Ryan made supporting George W Bush.
Posted by Hamilton T, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm
So Ryan is hedging his bets trying to keep his original job - big wup de do. Times are different from when LBJ was in the house.
Romney's lying about the Libya attacks is amazing not only for the lies, but for the credo that politics stops at the waters edge, especially when the event is still ongoing. Shameful.
from AP fact checkers
(AP) The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.
In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.
"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today," Clinton said
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:48 am
Poster Ryan is making a mountain out of a molehill; Pogo is either being obtuse or blatantly ignoring the finer point of @Ryan's argument - running TV Ads to defend a House seat
Seems the poster was talking about Ryan's requirement to run TV ads to win back his House seat.
Biden and Bentsen were not House members and as Senators were in a statewide voting 'district' versus a smaller congressional district. Johnson was a sitting House member.
The poster's point was a House member on a presidential ticket never had to revert to spending for TV ads in a CD to retain his seat, which Ryan obviously will need after his mistake in choosing to be on this ticket.
Barring a turnaround of significant proportions, Ryan will return to the House without the image he previously had. Everyone thought he would bring his serious thinker brand with him, but he must have misplaced it; he has yet to talk specifics.
The deluge of polls this week make Obama's lead pretty clear. Romney shoot from the lip performance in foreign policy won't change anything.
Posted by Stan, a resident of the Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm
For all of those commentors that take such great joy in vilifying the Bush economy and accusing those policies of leaving a mess for Obama try taking an objective look at the economic trajectory in the fall of 2000. Things were headed down hard and fast - yes Clinton had some good years but praise be to our good fortune that he didn't have a 3rd term - or we may have had an early start on 2008. Economic cycles may or may not be in anybody's control but one of the major contributors to 2008 was the repeal of the Glas-Stegal act - under Clinton's administration.
PS For those who want to fly or the floor in rebuttal please check your facts first.
Posted by Diogenes, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2012 at 8:03 am
A classmate of Obama's at Columbia has some interesting insight on why Obama wants his college records sealed. His theory is that Obama applied to Columbia as a foreign student from Indonesia. Does that mean Obama is a foreigner? Not necessarily. But it does suggest that Obama could have fraudulently represented himself as a foreign student to obtain financial aid and qualify under relaxed admission requirements thus denying a more qualified person the opportunity for a Colubia education.
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2012 at 8:23 am
A classmate of Romney's talked about his bullying while at his elite prep school - you remember the haircut for the gay classmate?
Another classmate talked about how Romney as a freshman at Stanford would dress as a state trooper and put a red light atop his car.
And if you want to talk about someone talking...
Someone told Harry Reid that Mitt Romney cannot release his tax returns, something every president since 1968 has done, because Mitt had some years where he didn't pay any taxes. Some say he can't release his returns because he's afraid his church will see he didn't tithe enough. Some say it's because of all the loopholes, Swiss bank accounts and Cayman accounts. Some say it's because Mitt took advantage of the 2009 Swiss account amnesty offered by the IRS. Some say there's something so bad in there, that after McCain saw them he said "whoa, podner, let's take another look at that whackjob from Alaska instead of this loser!".
All of the above have more basis in truth than the dumb tin foil hat birth certificate conspiracy theories.
Diogenes, by all means, stay in Full Birther Mode. It appeases the fringe 10 percent, while making the right appear quite coo-coo for cocoa puffs.
A pitiful recovery from the Bush Great Recession for sure, but Obama is doing the heavy lifting without republican help, other than the dozens of House votes on abortion. For some reason, those votes didn't do anything for jobs or the economy, as the republicans promised us in 2010.
I like my data raw and unmodified by political opinion.
Posted by Video proof, a resident of another community, on Sep 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm
SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
Web Link from David Corn, Mother Jones (includes video)
* "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you - name - it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
* His "job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Really, Mitt, so you are only running for the 1%?
- two-thirds of that 47 percent still pay federal taxes. (most probably pay a higher rate than Mitt Romney!)
- More than half are elderly
- Over one-third are nonelderly with income under $20,000
- Only about 1 in 20 is nonelderly with income over $20,000
Mitt speaks to the 1%, because he speaks FOR the 1%.
* "My heritage, my dad as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico, and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. < audio: wealthy donors laughing it up >
But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. And, uh, uh, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be, uh ... Latino." No Silly Mitt, if your grandparents were Latino, the Republicans would not have nominated you!
* How does Mitt use his wife for political purposes? "We ... we, uh, use Ann sparingly right now so that people don't get tired of her."
RESPONSE FROM A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
"It's shocking that a candidate for President of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives. It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation."
Republicans were warned by many, including Rick Santorum, that Mitt Romney was a disastrous choice! "Mar 25, 2012 – Rick Santorum said Sunday that Mitt Romney is the "worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama"
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
As a life long Republican I cannot bring myself to vote for Romney. He is an arrogant elitist who lacks the judgement needed to deal with international issues and the understanding and compassion necessary to providing domestic leadership.
Posted by Diogenes, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 7:12 am
Obama is a committed redistributionist. 47% of all Americans pay no taxes at all and in many instances receive subsidies. This comes from the 53% of hard working Americans who do pay taxes. About half the country is working to support the other half. And this is what Obama wants.
Obama said that Government needs to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."
Well I actually believe in redistribution in a narrow sense. We need to redistribute seats in the House and Senate currently held by Democrats to fiscally responsible Republicans. We also need to resdistribute seats currently held by liberal Republicans to fiscally responsible Republicans. And of course we need to redistribute the presidency in November.
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Of the 47% that paid no income taxes, we should probably include Mitt Romney. Most of his income is in capital gains, also that 'carried interest' loophole for hedge funds, hidden in Swiss bank accounts and the Cayman Islands, etc...
Of the 47% that Mitt does not seek to represent: (from another post, will offer links if you dispute any of the below:)
- all US active duty troops in combat zones (do not pay federal income taxes) Mitt doesn't care about them anyway - see his convention speech
- 2/3rd of those 47% DO PAY other federal taxes, as well as state and local taxes
- More than half are elderly
- Over one-third are nonelderly with income under $20,000
- Only about 1 in 20 is nonelderly with income over $20,000
In the 47% of people Mitt claims to not care about:
- in 2011, 7,000 millionaires paid no income tax Web Link
- half a million families making more than $100,000, also paid no income tax.
- of the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers in 2009, six paid no income tax
- in 2011, about 7,000 taxpayers with income over $1 million paid no income taxes.
Time for Mitt Romney to show his tax returns for ten years so the American people can vet Romney the way he vetted Paul Ryan.
Posted by Diogenes, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Mitt Romney is the man who gave away his entire inheritance. Mitt Romney did not enter into crook real estate deals with Tony Resko. Mitt Romney showed some of his tax returns and he paid substantially taxes- a lot more than Barack & Michele combined.
Yes Romney should show the last 10 years of tax returns when Obama reveals his college records. The reason that Obama does not want to show his college records is either he lied upon applying to Columbia and said he was a foreign student when he was not; or he told the truth when he applied to Columbia as a foreign student.
Obama has not ever had a success other than getting elected. Romney has been enormously successful in both the private and public sectors. Obama will get the vote of the lefties and Romney will get the vote of the heartland of America. At the end of election day Romney will be President Elect and Obama will be a Community Organizer Retread.
Posted by Charlotte DD, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Diogenes is a birther?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? "Yes Romney should show the last 10 years of tax returns when Obama reveals his college records."
Case closed. Never worth debating a zealot who lives in an alternate reality.
Mitt Romney wants to write our tax policy, has shown John McCain 23 years of his taxes as vetting, demanded 10 years from Paul Ryan to vet, yet won't allow Americans the right to vet Mitt Romney! That is arrogance beyond any in the history of presidents and their tax returns.
Mitt also has a track record of lying to voters about his taxes -- he admitted as much when running for his failed first term as governor of Massachusetts.
What is Mitt hiding? It is one, or is it all of these things, and more?
- claims that Mitt had multiple years where he paid NO TAXES AT ALL
- claims that Mitt did not tithe properly his church according to his religious convictions, so he can't show his taxes (I doubt this one, but Mitt can prove it instantly)
- years where Mitt made obscene amounts of money and paid less than a 10% rate on $50 million
- Mitt took advantage of the IRS 2009 tax amnesty for secret Swiss bank accounts
Or is Mitt hiding something else?
Diogenes alternate reality, part II:
- "Obama has not ever had a success other than getting elected." WRONG. Ask Bin Ladin about Obama successes. Reveiw Romney's 2008 claim he wouldn't go after Bin Ladin. Review Romney's Libya statements from this weekend.
- Romney has been enormously successful in both the private and public sectors. WRONG. Private? Yes, he's made a ton of money. But that deosn't apply -- look at our first DEO president: George Bush. Public sector? WRONG. Mitt Romney was such an abject failure as a governor he couldn't get reelected to a 2nd term. Complete failure.
- At the end of election day Romney will be President Elect and Obama will be a Community Organizer Retread.
Can't read polls in that alternate reality? Not surprising. You can't read mainstream news there either. Not enough crazy birth certificate news for you.
Posted by race over, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:19 pm
The title of this thread of Hank Lawrences is "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" Folks have long ago abandoned Hank's silly premise, and now it appears that voters have abandoned Mitt and Hank, leaving "The Government Belongs To Obama"
Look at these so called battle ground states -- Romney's toast. Dems keep the senate. The battle is now for the house.
Even Fox has Obama up 7 in Ohio. Wait until Romney's 47% comment takes hold among the elderly in Florida.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 3:46 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
This is what Joshua Green in Business Week had to say:
"Stop and think about that for a moment: A Reagan-endorsed program to encourage work and get people off the dole has been recast by Romney as part of a dependency-breeding culture of shiftless moochers. That isn’t just wrong or bad politics. It rejects the basic faith in Americans’ capacity for self-improvement that is supposed to lie at the heart of our national character."
When BW speaks out against the Republican candidate for President there has to be serious reason for concern.
Posted by Diogenes, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 6:38 am
Don't you just love it how the Left deliberately mischaracterizes main stream Republicans. Republicans have no isses with welfare for the truly needy. But we have all heard about people who fraudently use their welfare debit cards in casinos and cruise ships. These people are crooks who are stealing from America, yet the left has no problem with this.
What is even more ridiculous is Obama, the great Class Warfare Troublemaker in Chief, putting out ads about the Republican party engaging in class warfare. That takes real Chutzpah. Obama practically invented Class warfare and he has been dividing our country from the day he took office.
Obama's strategy has always been to run away from the most abysmal presidential record in the history of our country. No president has performed as badly as Obama. However, his Weapons of Mass Distraction will not work. Voters like the young woman on U-Tube who ecstatically screamed "I won't have to make my car payment or pay my mortgage" have since found out the the Democratic Party lied to them. They are not going to fall for the lies of the Democratic party this time around. Obama is going down in November.
Posted by Diogenes, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 6:58 am
Yesterday's Rasmussen poll has Romney leading Obama 47% to 46% in the swing states.
From the Rasmussen Poll
"The full Swing State tracking update offers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin".
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 7:22 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
From Five Thirty Eight - the best poll aggregator and analyst:
"By the end of Wednesday, however, it was clear that the preponderance of the evidence favored Mr. Obama. He got strong polls in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia, all from credible pollsters. Mr. Obama, who had been slipping in our forecast recently, rebounded to a 75.2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, up from 72.9 percent on Tuesday.
The most unambiguously bearish sign for Mr. Romney are the poor polls he has been getting in swing states from pollsters that use a thorough methodology and include cellphones in their samples.
There have been 16 such polls published in the top 10 tipping point states since the Democratic convention ended, all conducted among likely voters. Mr. Obama has held the lead in all 16 of these polls. "
Posted by Big Dog Bill C, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 10:09 am
Diogenes falls back to Rasmusssen, a sure sign of how good things are for Obama. Even Fox has Romney getting massacred in Ohio. No repub ever won w/o OH.
"But we have all heard about people who fraudently use their welfare debit cards in casinos and cruise ships. These people are crooks who are stealing from America, yet the left has no problem with this."
Sounds like Reagan and his mythical Welfare Queen with a fleet of Cadillac's. Wasn't true then and the above statement is false. Show me where "the left" said they have no problem with fraud, however little there actually is.
"Obama practically invented Class warfare and he has been dividing our country from the day he took office." This is great, all week we hear about Romney and his 47%, yet someone has the ability to type that without dying while laughing too hard. Won't bother with Reagan and his Queen, or Willy Horton ads, etc..
"the most abysmal presidential record in the history of our country"
The best! Well, the best at factfree rhetoric!
--- 28 months of private sector job growth creating over 4.5 million jobs, after taking over in the midst of the Bush Recession that lost millions upon millions upon millions of jobs.
--- After Romney says he wouldn't get bin Ladin, after Bush quit looking, Obama nails bin Ladin.
--- Dow at 8,000 in Nov 2008; Today, currently down 26 to 13,551
Clinton: "In Tampa the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.
I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in? If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility -- a we're-all-in-this-together society -- you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."
Diogenes clearly can't look in a mirror for his quest.
Posted by Saddleman, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm
While the media was out there trying to destroy Romney's campaign for what he said about the 47%, they had nothing to say about the president claiming on Letterman that he doesn't know how much the federal debt is. Do you hear the silence?
Hey...Obama...I'm not the president, but I darn well could have told Dave and his audience that the federal debt now stands north of 16 trillion dollars!!!
In Obama's defense, what he actually told Letterman is that he didn't know what the number was "precisely." That's understandable. The darn thing is going up so fast minute by minute, it would be impossible to know at any given moment. You'd need one of those electronic billboards next to your head with the numbers continually changing as the debt continues to rise!
Then Obama had the gall to claim the debt it's not a problem because, "mostly we owe it to ourselves." Not a problem? That's not what candidate Obama said in '08. He squarely criticized President Bush for "taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children...so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back.”
When Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. So, under his watch, the country has added another $5.4 trillion. That is more in 3 and a half years than Bush piled up in eight. Obviously, president Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt, despite making the campaign promise in 2008 that he would cut it in half.
At least Bush had two wars to pay for, the new Department of Homeland Security to fund and the bail out of the banks "too big to fail." Under Obama, it would be difficult to say where all the money has gone since Harry Reid's senate hasn't passed a budget the whole time he's been in office and the proposed budget Obama sent to the Congress was rejected in both chambers without receiving a single "aye" vote.
Give him another four years? For what? So he can double down!? I don't think so!
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm
"At least Bush had two wars to pay for, the new Department of Homeland Security to fund and the bail out of the banks "too big to fail." "
Two wars Bush that started, a 9/11 attack that he was repeatedly warned if and failed to stop and which then was used to justify the Department of Homeland Security and bank failures facilitated by an administration that refused to regulate the outrageous behavior of those banks.
Posted by Obama 2nd Term, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Defend Bush and his Great Recession all you want, Saddleman; history tells us the truth:
- Bush was given consecutive years of SURPLUS by Bill Clinton
- Bush left the country the first Trillion Dollar DEFICIT
Bush left office with monthly job losses exceeding 750,000 per month, totaling millions of jobs lost in Q4 08 and Q1/2 2009. The economy SHRUNK 8% in Bush's last quarter.
Bill Clinton summed it up: the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a TOTAL MESS, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.
An Obama 2nd term -- sure beats the GOP alternative!
Posted by tax deductions, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Saddleman, maybe you are more qualified to discuss the four legged crowd than the economy. Help me answer a classy hoof ownership question, please.
Ann Romney claims Rafalca is her horse (she built the horse herself, I suppose) but the Romneys took your and my taxpayer dollars with their $70,000 tax deduction for the big horsey last year.
So is it our horse, or her horse, that has such a classy hoof?
"...giddily relaying how Ann Romney, for whom Georgette has served on the host committee for several fundraisers in New York, privately reacted to Democratic attacks on her dressage-competing mare. (“My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than they do in their whole deal,” Lyn recounts.)"
Posted by Herman, jump on the Cain Train, a resident of another community, on Sep 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm
did the last poster "tax deductions" know that Rafalca's tax breaks are out of the news today?
Mitt Romney's Very Very Bad No Good Week was so awful, he decided to release his tax returns to get BETTER news!
- A lousy convention with no bounce, even then he gave his consultants a quarter million dollar bonus for the empty chair
- the Dems rock their place with Bill, Michelle, Joe and the President
- Screwing up on the Libya blame game
- starting this week with a reboot, claiming Mitt is going to add depth and detail to his plans
- Mother Jones releases Mitt's "half of America are victims"
- by yesterday, they tried another reboot, claiming Mitt is going to the middle
None of it works, the press is SO bad, they release his tax returns and even screw that up with a claim of an "average" tax rate for the last decade. Have Mitt's consultants ever seen a campaign before?
Herman Cain says it all: "Herman Cain says that if he were the Republican nominee, he would have a “substantial lead” over President Barack Obama right now."
“The reason is quite simple,” Cain told reporters on Thursday, according to the Gainesville Sun. “I have some depth to my ideas.”
Herman, ANYONE has more depth to their ideas than Ryan/Rmoney.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Going back to the original post in this topic I think that Ezra Klein has provided a superb answer:
Romney, apparently, thinks it’s folks like him who’ve really had it hard. “I have inherited nothing,” the son of a former auto executive and governor told the room of donors. “Everything Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” This is a man blind to his own privilege.
"As economist Jed Friedman wrote in an online post for the World Bank, “The repeated trade-offs confronting the poor in daily decision making — i.e. ‘should I purchase a bit more food or a bit more fertilizer?’ — occupy cognitive resources that would instead lay fallow for the wealthy when confronted with the same decision. The rich can afford both a bit more food and a bit more fertilizer, no decision is necessary.”
Posted by The Coming GOP Civil War, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2012 at 10:58 am
Hank "Yesterday's Rasmussen Poll shows Romney with a 3 point lead over Obama-- 48% to 45%."
Rank of polling firms in 2012 election - from Fordham University's Costas Panagopoulos, director of the university's Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy.
"For all the ridicule directed towards pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide vote shares for the two candidates," said Dr. Panagopoulos.
On average, pre-election polls from 28 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 1.07 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 0.63 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 1.7-point Obama margin in the national popular vote. [...]
1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
5. Purple Strategies
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
27. National Journal
Unskewing of polls, listening to Rasmussen, even Karl Rove on Fox last night trying to sell his version of "the math" (like in 2008)... when will the fringe ever learn about math?
Looks like the composite poll sites are spot on, with some poll firms doing quite well also, notably PPP and PPP teamed with Kos.