Mitt Romney is the Better Leader

Good Morning all you SUFA folks! I thought I would share this article written by someone many of you are familiar with from her past dealings with SUFA. Rani Merryman, as many of you know, is one of my dearest friends whom I have known since we were kids. She recently wrote this opinion piece that was published in the Baltimore Sun. Rani is one of the better critical thinkers that I know and I highly value her opinions on political matters. No matter where you lean on politics, I think you can appreciate her take on the lack of leadership from our current President. Without further bloviating by me, here is Rani’s article published in the Baltimore Sun on Thursday, September 6th:

As I watch the election unfold, I think of the last four years with President Barack Obama. I hear all of the comparisons, the blame assigned the former president, the spin media outlets put on facts and the rhetoric the campaigns use to sway voters.

In deciding my choice, there are some key factors I will use. You often hear that if you vote for Mitt Romney, you will be getting four more years of George W. Bush. This is like saying, if Hillary Clinton had been elected, she would have governed in the exact same manner as President Obama. The same can be said when Republicans champion Mr. Romney by saying how good the Ronald Reagan years were or as silly as saying that simply based on party affiliation alone, President Bill Clinton was the same as President Jimmy Carter.

The key factor that stands out for me is the lack of leadership our current president exhibits. This is a man who promised unity, yet he can’t seem to unite the parties enough to accomplish even the most fundamental of tasks. For three years, we have not been able to pass a budget. You cannot say the same for President Clinton. He worked not only with Congress to obtain bipartisan support, but also included people such as Newt Gingrich to provide crucial assistance in forming the plan to right the country. You can saddle President Bush with many things, but he also worked hard to maintain a shared responsibility among both parties.

We can review the past administrations of most presidents and you will find this to be a resounding truth. Leaders are able to draw people together for the common good. While President Obama may be a good “doer” of things, time and again he has failed on this major responsibility of a being a good leader. I do not know if it is indecision that has been the cause or simply inexperience.

In tackling some of the pressing issues we face, economically, in domestic affairs, and regarding foreign policy, one thing rings true. We will need a leader who can not only unite the two major parties but also show respect for the growing independent, libertarian and tea party members who deserve consideration if we hope to find solutions that will work long term for our nation. I think you would be hard pressed to find any voter who wholly agrees with their party’s platform. Likewise, you will not find legislation, when passed by mere portions of only one portion of our electorate, that is worthy of continuing our nation’s history of freedom and democracy.

For this reason, Mr. Romney will get my vote this year. For the title, Leader of the Free World, often used to describe the office of the President of the United States, we need a proven leader. It is not “The Doer of the Free World,” or “The Dictator of the Free World,” or “The King of the Free World,” but rather the “Leader.”

Advertisements

Comments

  1. OMG! Obama Must Go! 🙂

    • Good article. While I don’t believe that voting will change anything, I’ll debate the subject of Romney / Obama. Obam, IMHO, is the worst President ever, at least in my lifetime of 47 years. It matters not where the Dems point the fingers anymore, they own what we have NOW! I am in full agreement with Rani, Obama is not a leader. So far, Obama greatest accomplishment is to embarrass the citizens of this country. He’s pathetic and a compulsive liar.

      Thanks Rani for at least trying, I have in the past, with no positive results.

      • So, you would rather have “the worst President ever, at least in my lifetime of 47 years” re-elected than help Vote him out of office.

        • V.H.

          How many wars did Obama start?

          …he is hardly the worse, but that is a reverse beauty contest and not worth much.

          • Even in keeping the war going he isn’t the worst. I don’t believe history will show him to be the worst either.

          • 3 wars

            • Which ones?

              • (1) Widened the war in Afghanistan by 66,000 troops. (2) Extended the War to Pakistan by boots on the ground troops (1,300) and air raids and drone strikes (3) We now have Special Forces ground troops in Syria for the last 16 months (Over 800), (4) We now have ground and command troops in Somalia (over 1800), (5) We now have Special Forces and ground troops in Libya since 2010 (over 800) in the form of advisers and command and control and air assets. (6) We now have ground troops in Ethiopia ( amount unknown) since 2009. (7) There has been a reintroduction of American ground troops in the Philippines (900) that are actively fighting right this minute.

                My definition of war is the same as yours…..if bullets are flying and troops are intervening…..it is war.

            • Colonel Sir;

              Have you seen this piece from the NRA? Would you say that it is basically true? http://videos.allinnra.com/share

              Hope you are well and had some wonderful times this past summer with the family

              CM

              • Hey there CM…just getting over an MI…..but all is well. It does me no good to post what is going on at the border because no one believes it and the only response that I usually get is…..just open the border…they are innocent people looking for work……which is total bullshit but you cannot convince the progressives of that. However, since Obama started his amnesty program, it has become more volatile.

                This piece is basically true. One HUGE HUGE HUGE lie that Obama has said is that the majority of the weapons that the Mexicans are getting are from the border gun sales and the United States…this is an out right lie…..a lie perpetrated by the progressive left. The majority of weapons (over 85%) come from Honduras, Guatemala, and the ports of call in Mexico. and the Mexican Army, AND THEY ARE NOT US MANUFACTURED. This is fact and I reported on it here and no one said anything. The other HUGE HUGE HUGE lie…is Napolitano saying the border is as safe now as it has ever been. It is a war zone…..bullets are flying, grenade launchers are firing, mines are being laid (on the Mexico side) and Limpet mines in the rivers by the cartels….but this is not reported and it is not believed. Texas, of course, does not give a rat’s ass…we are taking care of ourselves. We profile and we stop and arrest and send them back. Children are being forced to ingest plastic baggies of drugs to get across the border and if they cannot pass them normally, they are cut open, women and men are being forced to strap “coke belts” (similar to money belts) to cross the border….NO ONE is innocent…..NO ONE!!!!!!! These cartels are ruthless and they are trained by Asians and, unfortunately, we trained the first round of them under the DEA’s program back in the 90’s.

                Operation Fast and Furious had ONE design…..to turn public interest on guns sales for stricter gun laws. There is no question on this as well. Janet Napolitano and Obama have one design……disarm. This has already started on the border and I reported it and no one gives a shit. See a gun and run is the name of the game now. Federal border agents are being disarmed. If anyone on here knows a border agent…..ask them what is going on and see what your answer is. They are leaving Federal Employment in droves. For the first time in my lifetime, the DPS has a waiting list for employment. Why?…….we arm our police.

                When Texas told the Feds to go to hell….and we started patrolling our own border with gunboats and using our own Guard troops at our own expense, there has not been one single robbery or murder on border lakes when there were dozens before. Not one splash down (the practice of drug cartels driving their cars into the river to escape Federal Prosecution) has been successful since we started patrolling the river with our own Department of Public Safety and paid for our gunboats without Federal Dollars. As you know, all Federal dollars come with contingencies.

                So, yes, the piece is about 90% factual.

          • I don’t believe I was the one who claimed Obama was the worst President ever-I don’t care who was the worst ever-But I think his ideas are the worse for a people who believe in freedom.

    • charlieopera says:

      But he’ll stay … 🙂

  2. A vote for Romney is a vote for the CFR.
    A vote for Obama is a vote for the CFR.

    The choice is clear.

    Don’t bother voting unless you like how the CFR is running things.

    • Howdy this morning, BF. So, I am sure that you have explained this before…..so a no vote does what exactly? I see a no vote as a vote for CFR. A no vote is no good unless you have 300 million no votes.

      • If you are waiting for 300 million, you wait forever and for nothing at the same time.

        When enough “no votes” happen – the system itself will begin dissolving at its edges.

        Consent is the core of legitimacy, and when enough withdraw consent, legitimacy evaporates.

        But that never requires all, most, or even “many” – it merely requires “a few”

        • In 2008 there were 231M residents of voting age. 132M voted for 56.8% turnout. 53.2% is more than a few. In my opinion It would be more effective to vote for a third party candidate to register disapproval than not voting at all. It would be even better if we had a none of the above option.

          • I don’t think it would make a difference, since the President isn’t Congress. Plus third parties are regularly locked out of the two party system.

            • A non-voter is just an apathetic voter hence there is no indication to anyone that this missing vote is a protest. If you want to organize a protest that will register as such then organize one for write in candidate Mr. John Doe NOTA. Thus the vote is registered and recognized as legitimate protest but does not count towards any particular individual. With enough people voting for Mr. NOTA, the message will be clear.

  3. 😐

  4. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping President Barack Obama’s 2010 U.S. healthcare law, said in remarks aired on Sunday that he likes key parts of “Obamacare” despite his party’s loathing of it and wants to retain them.

    hahahhahahhahh!

    Let’s all chant together!
    CFR! CFR! CFR!

    • CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR!

      What the hell is CFR?

      Clinton #&^@*^% Relations?
      OR
      Obama’s Socialist Utopia?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Council on Foreign Relations.

        • The Council on Foreign Relations is taking over the world? When did this start? Did I miss the memo? 😉

          I thought it was either the UN or Obama’s Socialist Utopia?

          I guess “Mister Consistency” isn’t so consistent this week…

  5. @ VH, Sorry< I can no longer accept corruption. I will not vote for Romney or Obama, both parties are corrupt. I did watch the Republican Primary closely, Ron Paul got screwed and should be running instead of Romney. The establishment won't have that, so, you get to vote for another puppet, there isn't much difference in either. Vote your heart out my Friend, if that is what you desire. You will just come to find that they are all liars.

  6. I don’t see any real reasons listed to vote for Romney – other than he’s not Obama.

    No matter where you lean on politics, I think you can appreciate her take on the lack of leadership from our current President.

    Well, I can appreciate that this is just another right-wing hit piece…

    • Really Todd? Right Wing hit piece? She simply pointed out a lack of leadership as defined by previous Presidents. I find it odd that you would cal it a hit piece while not at all noticing the actual hit pieces that are published regularly by those from your side. I thought she handled it pretty fairly. No mis-representations, no made up facts, no “Obama is a dirty socialist, muslim, etc..”

      In fact to be fair, with the lack of those things, her thoughts were the exact opposite of what the media publishes every day and has the audacity to call “news.” I understand you are firmly in the Obama camp, and that is your right. But to simply ignore facts by saying they are nothing more than a right wing hit piece is actually exactly why so many people choose not to try to get through to liberals any more. Facts don’t matter. Reasoned arguments don’t matter. You easily just ignore away what doesn’t agree with you.

      • USWeapon,

        Facts don’t matter. Reasoned arguments don’t matter. You easily just ignore away what doesn’t agree with you.

        Yes, facts and reasoned arguments do matter. And Rani provided neither.

        It seems she has a (conveniently) short memory. Or maybe she just needs to take off her rose-colored-glasses when looking at the past.

        Remember:
        * Newt’s government shutdown
        * Republican’s “it’s unpatriotic to criticize the President during a time of war”

        It wasn’t all “bipartisan” during the Clinton and Bush years. And remember, “bipartisan” requires both sides to work together and compromise.

        Do you remember the Republican’s “I want Obama to fail?”
        And the Tea Party going nuts about the debt and deficit just months after Obama took office, after 8 years of silence while Bush took a budget surplus, turned it into a deficit, and ran up the debt?

        It’s hard to lead when no one wants to follow.

        And again, I don’t see any real reasons listed to vote for Romney. I think some examples of Romney’s leadership and how he would be different from Obama are needed for a reasoned argument.

        When it’s just one-sided against Obama, it is a right-wing hit piece.

        • charlieopera says:

          Yes, facts and reasoned arguments do matter. And Rani provided neither.

          Bingo. This was one very weak article. If she’s looking to support Romney and mentioning the tea party, isn’t that a bit odd? The tea party did it’s best to rid the GOP of Romney. Romney, according to the ultra right, is an abomination.

          I think he’s an abomination for other reasons and while he probably would be a better worker than Obama, leadership is in the hands of those donating the duckets … so let’s not kid ourselves about what one man can do in our political system. Those days are long gone.

          Obama is a stiff, I’ll give you that, but Romney hasn’t been consistent on anything since he’s been a pol. And his cow-towing to the wingnuts in picking Ryan for Veep is just more of the same (not to mention dangerous).

          All Romney (or this article) does is convince me even I’m forced to vote for Obama this go … and that about makes me puke.

        • Newt’s government shut down, was a brilliant piece of political theater by Clinton. Newt was bluffing and Clinton called the bluff. That which was not supposed to happen, happened. Newt got the blame even though Clinton forced it. It was like welfare reform and balancing the budget in reverse. Both were forced on the President, both worked and in both cases the press awarded the credit to Clinton and he was perfectly happy taking it.

          Any republican who claimed it was unpatriotic to criticize the president in time of war is as dumb and as brain damaged as the Democrats who claimed it was unpatriotic to criticize President Johnson in time of war in ’64, ’65,’66 and ’67. By ’68, it became unpatriotic NOT to criticize the president in time of war, especially if his name was NIXON.

          I never cheered for Obama to fail mainly because it was obvious that he would as it was obvious Carter would. For some strange reason, certain folks, perhaps you, mistook the words HOPE and CHANGE for some kind of plan. Under those two words, President Obama has felt that he is able to do absolutely anything. Both the number and breadth of his executive orders prove the point. While a bad idea in general, those orders, in Obama and Holders mind seem to give them the feeling the can re-create the Russian/French revolution if they want to. laying blame where it is due, the congress takes the blame because they allowed it.

          Sitting back, clearing my mind and looking objectively at Barack Obama before the election and watching his campaign and the mood of the country. I saw what the populace meant by Hope and Change. They hoped that we could get out of the doldrums we were in, war, economy, non responsive leadership etc. and change the path we were on. They did not, repeat, did not anticipate nor want fundamental changes to the system. His mandate, such as it was, never went that far only a megalomaniac would think so. The only empirical evidence I have is about a dozen friends who voted for him, ten being what you will call Reagan democrats and the other two being real progressives who have since gotten their belly full of lies and deceit. 11 of the 12 will be voting against him or possibly staying home. The twelfth unfortunately passed away last week without doing an absentee ballot.

          My old Daddy taught me that before you make up your mind on anything important (that includes voting), you have to look carefully at both sides and steep yourself in the ideas of the opposite side to the extent you can argue their case if necessary. In 2008, i saw the merit in not voting for McCain and in positions different from the “more of the same” offered by the Republican party. These things were easily offset by Barack Obama’s failure to define any changes he would make. At the very least, you could say I was “suspicious”. Rightfully so, rightfully so.

          • Steven,
            Right – that’s my point – those weren’t exactly merry old times of “bipartisan” agreement, which is what Rani is proposing…

  7. I agree with Todd here – I read nothing compelling in the article to move me to vote for Romney other than, he is not Obama. That in of itself is not a good reason to vote for him. I’d like to see some specific examples of where Romney has demonstrated leadership in a manner such that it places him head and shoulders above POTUS. Problematic is that there is no good test bed for how a Romney can build a resume that will not be immediately torn down. Salt Lake? How much guvmint money (er….bailout) did he need to “rescue” the Olympics? Mass. Governor? Whoa Health Care. Bain? For all the Staples there is a KB toys hiding in the closet. Claiming Romney the better leader is an empty argument.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ray

      Why would he have to be “head and shoulders above POTUS”? Mr. O had zero leadership experience when elected. Now you want someone who has had leadership experience to show that he is above the guy who now has 4 yrs only.

      Something doesn’t seem right about what you and Todd are requiring here.

      • In fact, JAC, I seem to recall that in the last election Obama was up against a guy who absolutely DESTROYED him in terms of leadership history and ability, but that didn’t seem to matter in that election. Now all of the sudden when the potential lack of leadership history is in the other party, demands for it seem to be considered important…

        • USWeapon,

          Obama was up against a guy who absolutely DESTROYED him in terms of leadership history and ability

          What? Who? McCain? Leadership? He was – and still is – a loose cannon. Remember “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb…Bomb Iran?” Remember that “insightful” choice for Vice-President?

          Now all of the sudden when the potential lack of leadership history is in the other party, demands for it seem to be considered important…

          Well, you posted the article from Rani talking about leadership? If it’s so important for Obama, why not Romney?

          PS – nice to have you back – this is FUN! 🙂

          • charlieopera says:

            And the winner is Todd (straight out of Sweeney Tood) see video.

            Bringing McCain-Palin into the mix further weakens your case. Look, Obama is a stiff, even most Dems know that … but how can anyone claiming to be a libertarian think Romney is a better leader (he did what Obama did before Obama) … oy vey

        • @USW – all of McCain’s credentials in leadership evaporated when he showed a complete lack of leadership in selecting a profoundly unqualified running mate in Palin – someone who had perhaps equal the leadership resume of Obama (or slightly more) and then failed to prevent the left from controlling the leadership narrative. Romney MAY have a distinct leadership advantage but he is imho doing little to exploit it AND Rani’s write-up merely toes that same line.

      • Why would he have to be “head and shoulders above POTUS”?

        Oh JAC, do we always have to play word games? Do you have any examples of Romney’s leadership skills?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I did not use the words Todd. I took them at face value. If that is not what was meant then simply explain so. I won’t even accuse you/Ray of “walking back” your comments. A simple clarification is fine.

          You have listed his experience. Olympics, Bain, Governor.

          Seems funny that you want to de-classify his experience, or denigrate it, because he used Govt, created STATE health care or leaned left. This of course means that someone leaning left is NOT A LEADER. Now who else leans left???

          Why is the Mass. Health Care bill such an issue with you lefties? It was imposed by the STATE. The STATE’s have that authority. The FEDS DO NOT. Romney’s biggest flaw this time has been to not repeat this argument, which by the way he has clearly stated in the past.

          • charlieopera says:

            Why is the Mass. Health Care bill such an issue with you lefties? It was imposed by the STATE. The STATE’s have that authority. The FEDS DO NOT. Romney’s biggest flaw this time has been to not repeat this argument, which by the way he has clearly stated in the past.

            Clearly you forget he wrote an op ed article stating it was a good model for the country (i.e., federal government?). He was obviously for it before he was against it … 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              Yes, he did. But that was not a proposal or stated desire to have the FED GOVT create the same. In fact, when he stated this he was also arguing that it was a STATE issue and NOT a Federal issue.

          • JAC,

            Seems funny that you want to de-classify his experience, or denigrate it, because he used Govt, created STATE health care or leaned left. This of course means that someone leaning left is NOT A LEADER. Now who else leans left???

            What I find funny, is all of Romney’s “Leadership” experiences involved solutions from the Left’s bag of tricks – mostly “Big Government!”

            Of course, that’s the only solution those of us on the left could ever imagine, but I’m surprised you would support someone who so blatantly supports “Big Government.”

            Why didn’t Romney lobby for tax cuts and reductions in regulations to save the Olympics?

          • @JAC – you have slightly misread me and I apologize for that. Romney, I believe, may have a stout leadership resume, but I think he is allowing the filthy media to use that possible strength against him. He has some strong cards in his hand. Use them FFS – would make this more interesting.

        • charlieopera says:

          Here you go, Todd. Romney, the potential “better” leader: Please note his own party (i.e., Fox, etc.) … that’s how much THEY believe in him.

      • @JAC – “head and shoulders” I used intentionally as a purely subjective and meaningless measuring stick between the two – sort of like saying Romney is a better leader than Obama without offering any compelling evidence other than “well, he’s not Obama”. I’ll take at least some minor offense at the suggestion that Obama either “had zero leadership experience” when elected or at this point “has shown zero leadership”. Both are empty statements that really mean anything or nothing but not everything. It just begs the simple question – well how the gel are you/we defining leadership? Words matter no? You can dislike the leadership style, or results or whatever attributes of leadership the person has demonstrated w/o being dismissive that he has never shown leadership at all. I would offer that his lack of leadership experience (not absence of) prior to being elected should have been alarming to most. I would also offer that during his term he has shown both quality leadership on some key issues while also showing a complete absence of leadership in other areas.

        If leadership is what sets Romney apart – how about instead of using the Romney “I’ll be specific about nothing approach” and give me the independent voter something to chew on and contemplate about your leadership experience? Let’s get to brass tacks on some Bain success instead of allowing the left to draw the complete narrative on the “evil” that you did while at Bain.

        That is all JAC.

        Your turn my friend.

    • @Ray… perhaps you are right. It will be difficult to build a case that Romney has shown tons of leadership. But it isn’t difficult to show that Obama hasn’t shown any. So the real question is this:

      When it comes to leadership, would you rather have a guy who has proven over the last 4 years he doesn’t have any? Or would you rather have a guy that hasn’t yet shown that he has a lot of it? Seems to me one is a proven negative quantity while the other is a potential negative quantity. Seems like an easy choice to me.

      That isn’t to say that my decisions are made. It is a lot more than leadership that will factor into the decision. But if leadership alone were the criteria, I would have to say the choice would be easy. At least with Romney we have some sort of potential for leadership….

      • USWeapon,

        When it comes to leadership, would you rather have a guy who has proven over the last 4 years he doesn’t have any?

        I think this is more of an opinion than a proven fact.

        Or would you rather have a guy that hasn’t yet shown that he has a lot of it?

        Would you apply this same standard to Obama on any issue?

        That isn’t to say that my decisions are made.

        Are you sure about that? Are you really considering voting for Obama? 😉

        At least with Romney we have some sort of potential for leadership….

        Seems like you’re setting the bar awfully low here! 😉

        • I think this is more of an opinion than a proven fact.

          No, I think Obama has proven he isn’t a leader. In 4 years he has managed to show zero leadership ability.

          Would you apply this same standard to Obama on any issue?

          Yes. And I do.

          Are you sure about that? Are you really considering voting for Obama?

          Yes I am sure about that. No I am not considering voting for Obama. But I certainly haven’t thrown my lot in with Romney. I am leaning towards voting for a third party.

          Seems like you’re setting the bar awfully low here!

          At least when it comes to leadership, I feel as though I have set the bar at least one notch higher than you have if you are going with Obama as the stronger leader.

          • US, give up on this one. You and I know that leadership is more than yelling and barking orders. But at least 80% of the population does not.

            The current president fails the test on so many levels I can’t even begin without throwing in the eleven points I learned in OCS while in the Guard. I feel he has failed on setting the example and employing his command within its capabilities. Keeping the troops informed (us) is another. The mission has not been publically identified to us. he is a one man band and has no conception of a team.

      • charlieopera says:

        When it comes to leadership, would you rather have a guy who has proven over the last 4 years he doesn’t have any? Or would you rather have a guy that hasn’t yet shown that he has a lot of it?

        Interesting line of logic here. I often ask this about trying socialism (or a hybrid of it) vs. capitalism … since it isn’t working for the vast majority of people … 🙂

      • @USW – I posted most of my intended response to the comments JAC has made – but I’ll merely add that I think Obama HAS shown good quality leadership in some respects in the last three years.

        In the last 3 years:

        Obama HAS shown good quality leadership on key issues.

        Obama HAS shown poor leadership on key issues.

        Obama HAS shown a lack of leadership on key issues.

        Mitt Romney is supposed to have better leadership skills than Obama. I am open minded and willing to understand what that means.

        The Romney campaign and its surrogates have done a poor job in educating me on how Romney will:

        Show MORE good quality leadership than Obama

        Show less poor leadership than Obama

        Show less lack of leadership than Obama

        It sure does suck that we often need at least some history to show us the grade of the sum of leadership of a particular President.

    • Ray, Todd, I suggest you read Bob Woodward’s excerpts posted on Drudge or read the book The Amateur by Edward Klein. Neither author could be described as right wing but both provide examples of incompetence. Romney has lots of flaws but to attack him on leadership especially in comparison to Obama is a stretch. To create something like Bain, to salvage the Olympics, to govern a decidedly left leaning state, requires the ability to get diverse people to work together for common goals and to inspire them to go above and beyond. Obama has not gotten a single budget through Congress, he let Reid and Pelosi write ObamaCare and the stimulus bills. He demonstrated his skill at uniting people in his first congressional meeting in the WH by telling the Republicans we won you lost. Not a very diplomatic statement for someone who was supposed to unite the country and the Congress.

      For the last three years, the economic experts on here have been warning that we are headed for a financial abyss. If Obama stays at the helm, we will get there faster. I fear that Obama, unfettered by the pressure to get reelected, will be totally unrestrained in a second term. If my prediction is true, then Congress will either become irrelevant or will have to impeach him, neither of which will be good for the country.

      On another note, several weeks ago it was reported the Bill Clinton tried to get Hillary to challenge Obama using some unflattering language. If this is true, then his speech at the DNC was pure hypocrisy. Even more puzzling is why would Obama allow him to give it.

      • T-Ray,

        To create something like Bain, to salvage the Olympics, to govern a decidedly left leaning state

        Have you read about how and why Bain was formed?

        How Romney “salvaged” the Olympics?

        How Romney governed Massachusetts? You mean back when he was a decidedly left-leaning Republican?

        For the last three years, the economic experts on here have been warning that we are headed for a financial abyss.

        Financial Abyss? Do you remember what was going on 4 years ago this very week? Look that up and then tell me about the financial abyss…

        several weeks ago it was reported the Bill Clinton tried to get Hillary to challenge Obama using some unflattering language.

        Reported by who? It was also “reported” that Obama was going to drop Biden for Hillary…

        • Talking about Romney’s ‘great leadership’!? One really needs to look no further than his campaign for President – fumble after fumble, a refusal to release any specifics, a complete inability to address known issues, etc. etc. etc.

          And of course, as you’ve already mentioned — Bain, Olympics, and Massachusetts…

    • Oooo – I love the avatar Ray! Quite the THINKER!!

  8. Romney passed Mass-Care in Massachusetts.
    He has pretty much thrown that under the bus.

    In the primaries, he said he would repeal ObamaCare on day 1.

    Today he said he’s not getting rid of all of ObamaCare. He wants to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage, families can get coverage up to whatever age they might like, and individuals can buy health insurance on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.

    Tonight his campaign “clarified” that he does not support ObamaCare and “the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for.”

    So which of these options is it?

    Is this the “leadership” you’re talking about?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Now who is playing word games? Repeal Obama Care. Pass new legislation requiring States to require the aforementioned coverage.

      BOTH are accomplished and consistent with his claim.

      I have heard Romney, Ryan and other Republicans mention that they would maintain these requirements. So it is nothing new and it is NOT inconsistent with his positions.

      I do believe, however, that it is inconsistent with what some of his potential voters “thought” he was saying.

      There has also been another idea raised by some of the Republicans, and I think Romney commented on this a “possible” solution as well.

      That is to repeal Obama Care entirely and then look to add the “prior condition” folks to one of the existing programs, like Medicare or Medicaid.

      • Matt Lockwood says:

        JAC- I don’t want Obamacare, and I don’t want my only option to be going on a government program. What I DO want is an insurance option that I can get my wife on w/out us being required to have an employer provided insurance, that we can pay for on our own, that actually covers something w/out putting us in a poorhouse if we have to actually use it!!

        • Hey Matt,
          Welcome to the looney bin! I hope you’ll stick around – we could use some “fresh blood” here!

  9. 😥

    56% of NYC Abortions Are Repeats

    by Ben Shapiro 9 Sep 2012, 10:27 AM PDT 56 post a comment
    According to the Chairoscuro Foundation, New York City’s disastrous abortion rate – 41 percent of all pregnancies in the city end in abortion – is largely the result of repeat abortions. The highest rate of abortion in New York City is in the Manhattan Chelsea-Clinton neighborhood, where 67 percent of pregnancies in end in abortion. Most shocking, in 2009, a full 56 percent of abortions were second abortions; 38 percent were paid for by Medicaid.

    These statistics give the lie to the liberal notion that abortion can be safe, legal, and rare. Rare is obviously not a priority for groups that are happy to perform abortion on demand. And far too many women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/09/56-percent-NYC-abortions-repeats

    • VH, not to get into yet another abortion debate on SUFA, but how does this prove there can be no means to make abortion safe, legal and rare? Seems that we got 2 out of 3, now we just need to work on ‘rare’.

      • The groups pushing abortion, are not trying to make then rare.

        • Not true in the least. The groups that provide abortion and are pro-choice are most certainly also advocating access to birth control, educational campaigns, etc.

          • I gonna make you mad here-but you are being naive-now I know it’s not fair to make that statement and then leave the conversation-but that is what I’m gonna do. We can pick this up another time. Not today.

    • charlieopera says:

      Better birth control than bringing kids into a world where their parents (usually parent), can neither afford them or have a clue how to raise them …

      • Well hell, Charlie-lets just KILL all the children that have families with problems-it would be oh so much better for them to die.

        • charlieopera says:

          I’m thinking a better way to go about it is education, perhaps chip implants that restrict pregnancy while women can’t fend for themselves (very statist, I know, but I don’t see a better option) … if you force them to have kids they don’t want/can’t afford, etc., you’ll have an awful big welfare problems … unless, of course, you opt for the Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan method of birth control … let them fend for themselves and either go hungry or become thugs and theives. No, they didn’t state that (neither had the balls to do that), but what is the other option, V.H.? Are you going to take the unwanted kids into your home? Do you not see that becoming a statistical problem down the road? Or are you opting for a more enhanced welfare state?

          • I suspect-what would happen Charlie-is that less woman would get pregnant. As far as the rest -another day. I wasn’t gonna comment at all-was just putting new information out there but you infuriated me. I am just not in the mood today. So if anyone else wants to answer or discuss -have at it.

            • charlieopera says:

              I suspect-what would happen Charlie-is that less woman would get pregnant.

              And how’d that work out for you when abortion was illegal? How many women maimed (or killed) themselves trying to abort? How many kids grew up in poverty? How many were abused? And what about the welfare rolls?

              Glad to infuriate you … it’s my job as a libtard …

          • Canine Weapon says:
  10. I like to see the lefties of SUFA make a case FOR Obama.

  11. You know there are so many TV channels,
    Each one starved for new programs.
    In a rural program for farmers, a female TV reporter
    Seeking the main cause of Mad Cow disease,
    Arranged for an interview with a farmer who
    Might have some theories on the matter.

    The interview went as follows:

    The lady reporter:
    I am here to collect information on the
    Possible sources of Mad Cow Disease.
    Can you offer any reason for this disease?

    The farmer stared at the reporter and said �
    Did you know that a bull mounts a cow only once a year?

    Reporter: (obviously embarrassed):
    Well, sir, that’s a new piece of information but what’s the
    Relation between this phenomenon and Mad Cow disease?

    Farmer:
    Miss, did you know that we milk a cow twice a day?

    Reporter:
    Sir, this is really valuable information,
    But what about getting to the point?

    Farmer:
    I am getting to the point, Miss. Just imagine,
    If I was playing with your tits twice a day ….
    And only screwing you once a year,
    Wouldn’t you get mad?

  12. Obama is not a leader, he is a puppet with several strings all being pulled by a controlling body driven by a common goal to further “fundementally change” what was once a nation designed to run as a Republic. Romney is also a puppet with several strings being pulled by a controlling body driven by a common goal to further “fundementally change back” a nation initially designed as a Republic. The irony is that although both parties may know exactly what a true “Republic” looks and functions like, neither party has any desire to return the US to one. That would require both parties to relenquish control of the government back to the people; and that ain’t going to happen any time soon.

    Re-electing obama may expidite the eventual collapse of this nation, or it may not. Electing Romney may slow the eventual collapse, but no one knows for sure.

    Unless the majority of government laws, processes and seated representatives are removed, taxes (corporate and individual) are drastically cut, and the federal government withdraws from all but what it was initially intended to manage, things are not going to change significantly to turn our country away from a collapse.

    Regardless of who is setting in the Oval office next, how and what the federal government does isn’t going to differ enough to matter at the individual level. Changes at the individual level are going to be envoked by the individual(s) at a local level, and until enough individual(s) envoke enough change to either elliminate or mitigate federal influence, the only thing that is going to change is how the news is reported.

    Obama’s handlers want Socalism instead of a Republic, Romney’s handlers want their version of a Democracy, neither wants true individual freedom and liberty

    Now, I truely do believe that obama loath’s the fundimental principles of a true Republic, and at the same time despises the founding principles this country was initially built on. He and his handlers invision a government that controls the populace in order to maintain and/or increase the governments influence. Principally, that makes him a very bad choice for POTUS.

    Romney may or may not truely value individual liberty and freedom, but make no mistake he isn’t calling the shots any more than obama is. Whichever individual winds up in the Oval office, neither is going to promote true individual liberty and freedom.

    Focus on your local issues and only pay attention to the acts of the federal government that affect local issues, otherwise we are just wasting time and energy that should be directed elsewhere.

    CM

    • charlieopera says:

      Obama is not a leader, he is a puppet with several strings all being pulled by a controlling body driven by a common goal to further “fundementally change” what was once a nation designed to run as a Republic.

      Ah, if only that were true … I might enjoy voting for him …:)

      • Charlie;

        If you truely do believe that 1 (one) man can control all government and business operations, while planning and supervising the execution of a plan designed to fundimentally change america, you need to at least think about the logistics of such an effort. They are literally too involved and dependent upon the support of like minded groups to even fathom one person constucting it. Couple that with the fact that until a well funded and influencial group decided obama was going to be their puppet, he was no more than a junior representative with little influence outside of Chicago. obama is a made man, but he is anything other than a self made man. Romney is just the lessor evil of the two, but he too is a puppet acting out as his puppeteers direct him.

        And regardless of our differences in social order, each and every act obama and his minions envoke or mandate are anything, anything but those required to maintain a Republic. And anything outside of a true Republic results in somekind of ism. So, yes he and his minions are fundimentally changing the US; and at the same time removing and/or eliminating individual liberty and freedom.

        CM

  13. Why is Bain such a hot issue? Obama and Immeld have done far worse.

    • G’morning Colonel!

      I think Bain has become such a hot issue because Romney has raised it as one of his primary qualifications for the Presidency. How so? If you are going to run on your business experience (Bain) as making you qualified to serve as President, shouldn’t we question that experience and how (or even whether) it pertains to being President?

      • Yep….what surprises me is that the dems raise how many jobs Bain supposedly sent overseas……and that is paled against what the dems have done but there is no fighting back….and I guess if I were a dem, I would be firing rockets when all I know I get back is spit wads……….when you are in the gutter with rats, you have to be a rat and the repubs are not doing that. The job numbers, the deficits, the spending, the creation of debt so immense that we are in for a major fall……are far worse than the Bush years….and are going to rival the Carter years….( I am old enough to remember those days ) and…..the economy of today was NOT inherited. YOU CANNOT SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF TROUBLE……..Bush spent money…….but not like this and it is false economy…..but I did ask about Bain and you answered….thank you.

        I am doing ok….just out of the hosp for an MI….had a stent put in……but doing great. Have to take a stress test next week to get back on flying status. The groin is a little sore but it was interesting to watch the procedure on the TV screen. Have a great day, Counselor.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        It certainly does. But ask the pertinent questions and not the ones handed out by the DNC or Obama campaign.

        He has never said that Bain qualifies him to be president. He has said it gives him relevant business experience which is needed to address our economic situation.

        The combined experience of business and govt, as governor.

        And you guys say NOPE, not been a leader. NOPE, didn’t do anything. NOPE, not more qualified or even equally qualified.

        What a bunch of bull dookey. Your rationalizations of Obama over Romney are the support for re-electing every President to a second term. After all, nobody would EVER have the same experience.

        You guys also ignore that Obama has done once again what he did last time in all his great talk. He uses words that can have differing meanings so he won’t get trapped. Just like the lawyer he is, fuzzy words and lots and lots of gray.

        Yes, Romney is trying to walk on top of the fence. But so is YOUR guy.

        • Ok so lets ask the pertinent questions:

          How, specifically, does Romney’s experience at Bain provide relevant experience necessary to address our economic situation while serving as President? Please, be specific.

          How, specifically, is Romney more qualified than Obama as the two currently stand? Please, be specific.

          Any other questions pertaining to Romney’s experience at Bain that you believe are pertinent and should be asked? Please, list those questions and provide specific answers.

          Thank you kindly!

          • charlieopera says:

            How, specifically, does Romney’s experience at Bain provide relevant experience necessary to address our economic situation while serving as President?

            Specifically, it works great. Vulture capitalism vs. a workforce that is depleting fast enough to lead more middle class into poverty. Much GREATER profits for investors … what a great idea! More money for the rich and less work for the poor and more poor (bang for the buck)?

            Romney is EXACTLY what Wall Street is … vulture capitalsim at its best. Just what the country needs another, bigger dose of …

            Thanks, but no thanks.

          • By the end of 1990, Bain had raised $175 million of capital and financed 35 companies with combined revenues of $3.5 billion

            That represents successful leadership. Romney was also brought up in a successful business and political environment. And Obama was….an unknown community organizer with 6mos Senate experience. Now he’s having a hard time proving he’s a leader.

            • Being successful in private equity and raising a ginormous profit for oneself is not the same as being successful for the country as a whole as President.

              So I ask again — how, specifically, does his experience translate to a qualification for President? How specifically does his work at Bain carry over? How would it influence his Presidency?

              • What do you want as proof Buck? A hand written note from G Washington? What I laid out is proof, you just don’t like it.

              • Anita, I asked for someone to make the case has to how, specifically, Romney’s experience at Bain provides evidence of his qualifications for President.

                You say: He ran a successful firm and made boat loads of money! I say: Umm…ok…anything more specific? You say: lalalalala

                Care to try again?

              • No I don’t. Why is that good not enough. Proven leadership experience. Versus a community organizer with a hard time showing leadership. I met your request Buck.

              • Sorry but you failed to meet my request. You have failed to provide any specifics as to precisely how his experience at Bain can or will translate to his Presidency. The only thing anyone has ever pointed to is…well he ran a successful private equity firm. Ok, that’s great, and…

              • Maybe the question that needs to be asked is What is on YOUR list of qualifications for President?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Go to the bottom.

      • “shouldn’t we question that experience and how (or even whether) it pertains to being President?”

        Buck, to bad you guys didn’t do this with the guy you elected, his total lack of qualifications has been a glaring issue!

        • charlieopera says:

          True-Dat, Gman, but he’s the president and he’s going to win again. I think you’ll have to get used to it, brother …

        • Gman, I’ll agree with you to a point. I don’t believe Obama had a ‘total lack of qualifications’, remember the guy was serving as a sitting Senator. But it could be said his qualifications weren’t gone into in enough detail for my liking at the time. So let’s not make this mistake again.

          Now, care to answer the above questions relating to Romney and Bain?

          • Buck.. a sitting Senator who had no bills passed and voted present how many time? He can’t even take a stand! And continuing on with Romney..I have also posted in the past that it makes a big difference who you surround yourself with. Note who each candidate had as back up at their conventions. I’ll take the R’s any day.

      • Staples, Staples, Staples, Steel Mill, Steel Mill, Steel Mill. Here in the US no less! If you just want to harp on the same bandwagon, go ahead and do so if it makes you happy. I am getting sick and tired of pointing out that one must look at everything, all factors, all variables and not just one thing. Want manufacturing back, want better jobs, want to see domestic industry grow again? I know I do, but to accomplish that certain things must happen. Cheap energy is one, Corporate tax reform, is another, antiquated work rules for no show jobs extorted by the old line unions are others. Until and unless you (and I mean YOU) are able to deal with this you are nothing more than another part of the problem rather than the solution.

        Bitch, moan, cry and scream as much as you want. Things change, things never stay the same. Darwin is right on the adapt or die. Every effort to adapt business and industry in this country has been thwarted by a federal department of something. Hearkening back to my old Dad for yet another example. When he looked under the hood of the ’66 Dodge Coronet for the first time, saw the new new hoses and the PCV (pollution control valve) for the first time, this lifelong democrat snorted in disgust,”don’t those jerks in Washington know anything about engines? Set a standard and give the industry 10 years to meet it, don’t change the rules every year.”. He said it, I just repeat it in his memory, “revolution, not evolution”. Still waiting for that to sink in.

        Ever wonder why electronics move ahead so fast, get consistently cheaper and other things do not. Well, it is really simple, it is one of the few industries essentially not regulated. Had the government gotten into VHS vs Beta back in the 80’s we would be nowhere today as we are with construction, automobiles, manufacturing, energy and the rest.

        The market decided VHS was the winner as it later decided that CD’s would supersede tapes. In all the other industries, the government has intervened to pick the winners or at least protect the losers Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out, merely someone who is willing to expand their knowledge and horizons and immerse themselves in the Gestalt.

        • charlieopera says:

          Another way to make things happen financially, Stephen, is to remove all regulations, labor unions, etc., and put everyone to work for minimum wage. Full employment and maximized profits for the job “creators” …

          You’re right about change and adapt, but you’re demanding it of the wrong people.

          • You routinely ignore 90% of what I say. Staples, Staples, Staples, Steel Mill, Steel Mill, Steel Mill do not pay minimum wage unless you consider entry workers or part timers who I believe are hired above minimum wage in both locations.

    • charlieopera says:

      One of the great ironies of this race, Colonel, Sir. (And good morning from Pluto!)

      The Reps can’t go after all the dirtbagging crap Obama did (like hiring a jobs czar who’s company outsourced thousands of jobs to China (GE) because ultimately they support it … it’s a pathetic joke … and one more reason to avoid the GOP at all costs.

      Including voting for Obama and Dems … oy vey

      • Good Morning Captain Canolli 🙂 I think it rather funny that you think Repugs or Dems want to outsource jobs. Governments don’t do this, company owners do this for various reasons, like over-regulation, over-taxation, high union wages and rediculous demands for other benefits. Maybe if all the “communist” style issues would GO AWAY, outsourcing may not exist!

        • Hoo Rah!!!!

          • charlieopera says:

            How very short sighted of yous two … but it only goes to my last post responding to Stephen (make us all earn minimum wage and restore full employment/maximized profits for the job creators) … What a deal! Hoo-Rah, indeed!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              During the last economic boom period, that would be the Bush years prior to the crash, McDonalds was forced to raise its “entry wage” to 10.00 per hour in Idaho. A Right to Work State. Why???

              Because the demand for workers was greater than the supply.

              So if there are NO regulations and businesses thrive, demand for labor goes up. Wages will go up.

              Wages for untrained, unskilled, entry level will go down in many states. Then kids will GET EXPERIENCE that will allow them to move UP in the labor market, improving their wage return on work over time.

              Kids will be able to mow lawns again without having OSHA show up to fine their employer.

              • charlieopera says:

                So if there are NO regulations and businesses thrive, demand for labor goes up. Wages will go up.

                Unless, of course, you’re dealing with REALITY. Outsourced jobs have reduced not only the numbers of employed here in the U.S., it has also decreased the salaries of those remaining with jobs … while profits go through the roof. Great system. And you want to blame unions for the rise of middle class numbers entering poverty … it’s almost funny …

            • Charlie, your dreaming about your Communist Utopia (where everyone is forced to work for minimum wage) In the real world, people will not work for just minumum wage and companies will compete for good workers by offering higher wages. You really are from Pluto, aren’t you? 🙂

            • We starts off with low paying jobs then moves ourselves up the line as time goes by. That’s the way it worked for me.

              • charlieopera says:

                Just tell it to the millions out of work now … the milions joining the poverty class while the 1% gains in wealth. Yeah, right, it works great.

                What a load of shit … 🙂

              • Glad you think so. Then do something about uncorking that frigging oil in Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas and building the damn pipeline. How about some real jobs, how about a boom instead of the stupid McDonalds/Holiday Inn jobs that lead nowhere. You guys care so damned much, you really do.

  14. The media want to talk about Ryan misstating his time running a marathon over 20 years ago. (Call it lying if you want, but he has retracted)
    Meanwhile, is there any falsehood’s that have been overlooked concerning the actual, current president? Is this the example of leadership we should be following? (maybe I should steal D13’s SS #?)

    President Barack Obama has apparently been using a fraudulent Social Security number for the last 25 years.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/time_to_ask_obama_abut_his_social_security_number.html#ixzz264gKrsqu

  15. NORAH O’DONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Finally, let me ask you about the time that you gave in terms of when you were asked about running a marathon and you said that you had run a two hour and 50-something marathon. It turned out that of course it was actually over four hours. When I first heard that, I thought, “Well, he must have misspoke or perhaps he didn’t remember.” But a lot of people, this keeps coming up. I mean, you are a fitness buff. You are a numbers guy. How did you make that mistake?

    PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It was an honest mistake. I was 20 years old. I hurt my back when I was about 23 or 24 and I had to quit running. I herniated a disk in my back. So I’ve just lost perspective on what normal times are. I ran an ordinary race and I thought the answer I gave was an ordinary time. Obviously, it wasn’t. It was 22 years ago.

    You know, I think what’s happening here is the president doesn’t have a positive story to say, so they’re trying to use this kind of rhetoric. My brother’s been busting my chops ever since I said that because he is an actual marathon runner and he’s been saying, “Are you crazy? That’s crazy fast.” Look, it was just an honest mistake.

    O’DONNELL: Right, but remember, everybody was criticizing Al Gore when he said he invented the internet whether fairly or unfairly.

    RYAN: Look, 22 years ago, I stopped running a long time ago because I have these back issues. I just lost perspective of what ordinary times are.

    O’DONNELL: All right, Congressman Ryan who has run, to be clear, an over four hour marathon.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/09/norah-o-donnell-ryan-misstating-marathon-time-gore-s-bogus-internet-c#ixzz264lXAVmI

    • Here’s a thought: If you don’t want the media focusing on the lie you told about your time in a marathon 22 years ago…don’t tell that lie.

      Is Paul Ryan so stupid he didn’t think anyone would notice or check?
      Or is he such an ego-maniac that he had to pretend he was some great runner?

      I don’t buy the “honest mistake” line. Paul Ryan is a fitness buff. He ran a marathon. His brother “is an actual marathon runner.” When there’s that much ‘marathon’ in the family, you know sub 3 hours is every ones goal/dream. Or maybe he’s not smart enough to know this?

      What does this show about his character?

      If Obama told a lie like this, the right-wing would go nuts and never let it end. Probably call for his impeachment.

      Don’t pretend that the left-wing-lame-stream-media is so hard on poor Mitt and Paul. They bring it on themselves.

      And on the same show, Ryan lied about voting for The Budget Control Act, which included the $600 billion in defense “sequestration” cuts.

      How much of this are you guys going to take?

      • How much of this are you guys going to take?

        As much as it takes.

        Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only reliable newsmen left in America.

      • Indifferent to the small, personal stuff. Anyone cane be tripped up over what they remember doing 20 years ago. And that could be in their job. If Biden makes a mistake and corrects it,” I voted nay, not for, but could not remember without reviewing.” Pass, non-issue. If you put everyone under a microscope, at some point it will appear they are picking their nose… But what does that have to do with running the country? What spending cuts has Obama advanced to balance the budget?

  16. Canine Weapon says:

  17. @ Buck,

    Romney’s business experience gives him the knowledge of how thw economy and govt regulations and taxes effect the businesses he was involved in. Whether the business failed or succeeded is a moot point, it’s those experiences, both positive and negative, that could help businesses have a better chance of success, by reducing the govt’s interference. Now, How how the hell is the last 3 years of a failed Presidency make Obama qualified for a second term?

    • I don’t believe the last 3 years demonstrate a failed Presidency.

      Caveat: Neither have the last 3 years demonstrated a hugely successful Presidency. There have been good and bad, as with any President, though in my mind the good has outweighed the bad. And remember, to me, much of the ‘bad’ is stemming from criticism of Obama from the left.

      • Buck;

        An experienced lawyer joins your firm. Let’s say he specializes in family law. How long would your firm give that new lawyer to start generating revenue, at a positive level, before they decided he was no longer worth keeping around? 6mos or 3 years?

        How long should a POTUS get before we as a people decide he is no longer worth the risk?

        CM

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    While at Bane Romney was known for his ability to recruit and retain very highly qualified people with great skills at both analysis and management. He showed a preference for FACT BASED decision making. You should love this part. It shows great PRAGMATISM.

    As a VC company he and his team “managed” many other companies. In other words, this requires MANAGEMENT skills and success shows success at MANAGEMENT. Now are we going to argue that Govt does NOT need better management???

    Leadership is obviously part of the management success. Leading not only Bane but the companies they bailed out or those they had to close. He hired good people, set goals, allowed them to do the work he asked, and held them accountable.

    Ability to set and achieve goals. Again we have the success as well as dissolution of various companies and the attainment of profits for shareholders. That was his goal and he displayed leadership and management skills in attaining these goals.

    Knowledge of FINANCE. This is a big one to me. People like Gietner are less likely to bamboozle Romney than someone like Obama, Biden or Bush II.

    Knowledge of Business. This is also big to me. Because of the breadth of the companies Bane dealt with he has a much more detailed and comprehensive UNDERSTANDING of the barriers to business created by Govt. He should also have a BETTER understanding of what is needed to get business moving. In finance and business he trumps Obama by so much I find the rest irrelevant. My biggest concern in these areas is his “moderate” view of the world. He is just as likely to use Govt to “stimulate” but just in different ways.

    For example, I would expect him to pass tax “breaks” to target business development rather than give them Fed loans. While procedurally different, it has the same effect to the Govt Fiscal Situation.

    And here is some more from Jack Welch on how Bane adds to the Romney resume’.

    http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/18/joe-biden-private-equity/

    Now I want to address the game of using Bane alone to criticize Romney’s experience. It is NOT Bane alone that makes him more qualified. It is the COMBINATION of his record on the Olympics, Bane AND his time as a Governor. He has a track record of success in dealing with complex and difficult situations.

    And frankly I believe him to STILL be more experienced than Mr. Obama. Four years as POTUS does not trump a lifetime of experience in both public and private sectors.

    One thing that should make you feel better about Romney is that he has not surrounded himself with the usual Republican or Conservative operatives. Some are out there campaigning for him, but they are not his inner circle. Those people are the RHINOs the Tea Party loves to hate.

    • Will try to get back into this a bit more after lunch. But for now:

      “…known for his ability to recruit and retain very highly qualified people…” And what about his current campaign? Where are these highly qualified people? Romney has been running a far from successful campaign…

      “…the COMBINATION of his record on the Olympics, Bane AND his time as a Governor…” All of which he is running away from! Bain = outsourcing, layoffs, make a gazillion dollars; Olympics = government bailout; Governor = liberal Romneycare, bad record of creating jobs.

      While I give Romney credit for his personal experience at Bain, I just don’t see how this experience translates to serving as President. The experience that matters most to running government, would be his experience as Governor of Massachusetts.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        No it wouldn’t. WE NEED business experience IN Govt. I spent 12 successful years in Govt. I did better than my peers because I had business experience when I went into Govt.

        You asked me what EXPERIENCE Bane provided. I gave you legitimate KSA’s and you return with “outsourcing, layoffs, gazillion dollars, etc”. What a bunch of BS. And how is he running away from these things. He admitted on national TV, in primetime, at the convention that sometime they saved businesses and sometimes they failed. That is the nature of business. But it is NOT the business of Govt to act as a private equity firm.

        I see on fact coming out here Buck. You are no more being objective about Romney than V.H. is about Obama. At least V.H. is honest enough to openly state she can’t stand his political philosophy.

        • sometime they saved businesses and sometimes they failed

          This is something I know a little bit about.

          The goal of a PE shop is NOT to save failing businesses. It is not to help employment. It is not to protect employees or their pensions.

          The goal of a PE shop is to make money. Anyway, anyhow. If that creates a successful and stable business, that’s beside the point. If they ruin an otherwise successful and stable business, that’s beside the point.

          So “sometime they saved businesses and sometimes they failed” is nonsensical. Sometimes they saved businesses and sometimes they didn’t. But not saving a business isn’t “failure” to a PE shop. Losing money is failure to a PE shop. So it should read:

          “Sometimes they saved businesses and sometimes they didn’t. Sometimes they made money and sometimes they failed.”

          ——

          Now, does this impact on qualifications to be President? I’ll let Buck fight that out with you, but you shouldn’t delude yourself into thinking that Bain was going around trying to save businesses and help people – it wasn’t – it was trying to make a profit. Now, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to make a profit, but you should consider the way in which they went about it and if those characteristics are something you would want in the President.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I think you would have to have worked there to truly know how they viewed their mission.

            I know some PE folks who in fact considered the “saving” of business as their primary goal along with making money.

            There are obviously those that don’t give a rip.

            But my point was that Romney has not “run away” from Bain or what happened to some of those companies. What we do know is that some of those folks who have been used by the DNC against Bain were not exactly telling the whole story.

            • I think you would have to have worked there to truly know how they viewed their mission.

              I have known plenty of PE guys. If they could help people out, that was great, but what they wanted was to make money, and to hell with anything else.

              I know some PE folks who in fact considered the “saving” of business as their primary goal

              But, let’s just go out on a limb and guess that saving businesses was not the goal of these guys.

              […] along with making money.

              And, pray tell, what happens when the two conflict?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                So EFFING WHAT!!!

                He ran a business that ran other businesses. This resulted in EXPERIENCE that will benefit him in our current situation.

                Who the hell cares if Bain cut jobs or if it MADE MONEY for the shareholders. If that is its primary goal then so be it. The question is whether he accomplished the goals. He ran a company that save some other companies and did not save others. His company made money.

                HE WAS SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT HE DID.

                Are you going to make the argument that only priests, nuns or people working for benevolent non-profits are now “qualified” to run for President? This seems to be where you are going with this.

                I once worked for business, then I worked for Govt, then I worked for business again. When bidding on a contract a “person” tried to make an issue of my business experience as a negative. Because of my experience and conduct several people, whom I opposed while in business, stood up for me against the “opposing viewpoint”. They correctly pointed out that I had a job to do when employed by the “other people” but I had done that job in an honest manner. They thought that if I conducted myself in the same manner on this “job” they would all be well represented.

                That Mathius is the essence of the Romney question. Along with whether he has enough Govt experience and the right personality to get some things DONE in D.C.. But in the end, that will largely depend on the hard core left, if he is elected.

              • JAC, yes, he was extremely successful at what he did. No one is denying this. But Mathius makes the point for me — successfully running a PE shop is not nearly the same as being able to successfully run a country. Its a completely different game.

              • You expect that Romney should have presidential experience before being president. I asked for your criteria earlier and you didn’t respond and now Common Man has also asked ..hook us up…….

              • He ran a business that ran other businesses. This resulted in EXPERIENCE that will benefit him in our current situation.

                I’m really good at programming.

                Therefore, that experience should help me in my new career as a professional basketball player for the Lakers.

                Who the hell cares if Bain cut jobs or if it MADE MONEY for the shareholders.

                ::Raises hand::

                Are you going to make the argument that only priests, nuns or people working for benevolent non-profits are now “qualified” to run for President? This seems to be where you are going with this.

                No, of course not. Nuns scare me.

                I don’t think anyone is making this claim. All Buck and I are saying is that being successful at a job whose goal is so misaligned with the job of the Presidency is not necessarily a positive. It’s not a disqualifier, per say, but neither does being successful there mean that you would be successful elsewhere or that your personality is necessarily one disposed to serving the goal of helping all Americans.

                If he had been a mob enforcer, and wildly successful at that, would you still contend that his success means he would make a great President? Of course not. Now, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that he’d be a bad one, but you’d look at it and at least think twice about the kind of person who excels at that particular career and whether that nature is something you want in the White House. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but it’s worth considering.

                When bidding on a contract a “person” tried to make an issue of my business experience as a negative.

                Why is “person” in quotes? Do you suspect that he was secretly a llama?

                You expect that Romney should have presidential experience before being president.

                No, of course not. That’s not possible unless you have a time machine.

                I expect him to have some governmental administrative experience before being President.

                What’s that you say? He was a governor for four years?

                Well that certainly seems to qualify for me.

                So then what are we jibbering about here?

                Bain does not qualify you for President (not that anything truly qualifies you for that job), but a governorship does seem to fit the bill, at least in my opinion.

                Just remember that neither one guarantees that you’ll be a successful President. Bain says more about his personality and morality (negative) than his qualifications (neutral, maybe mildly positive). His governorship says something (positive) about his qualifications.

              • He ran a business that ran other businesses. This resulted in EXPERIENCE that will benefit him in our current situation.

                I’m really good at programming.

                Therefore, that experience should help me in my new career as a professional basketball player for the Lakers.

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHA — thanks, I needed that today!

              • So, you are saying that since he worked in a business which sometimes dismantled unsuccessful businesses-that it might mean he is a selfish person who cares more about money than people. What is your job Matt-if memory serves me, it is in investments-do you have any idea how YOU could be betrayed as a selfish person who leads people into unsafe transactions? This isn’t true is it Matt-should it be used against you- If I’m wrong about your profession than take out the YOU and just think about the point.

                A person who works on Wall Street-can’t be President
                You had a job as a collection agent-boo-bad person-no Presidency for you.

                Anyway you look at it-Romney has Both government and business experience- and there isn’t any way that all that business knowledge isn’t a plus.

              • My mouth dropped open with you credited being a politician as a better indicator of Good than being a businessman. Are you kidding?

              • you are saying that since he worked in a business which sometimes dismantled unsuccessful businesses-that it might mean he is a selfish person who cares more about money than people.

                Of course what I’m about to say is generalizing, but yes.

                PE shops don’t just dismantle unsuccessful businesses, they cash out the equity, load up debt, raid pension, and crash healthy corporations into brick walls – all 100% legally. You should only know some of the kinds of BS these guys can – AND DO! – pull on a daily basis. It’s insane. You think the mob was bad, the Sicilians are in awe of PE guys. I’ve known and worked with a lot of these guys – they are manic, workaholic, smart, driven, and absolutely uninterested in the MASSIVE collateral damage they cause.

                They tell themselves (and, to be fair, there is some truth in this) that they create a more efficient market in corporate ownership. But they are absolutely disinterested in the little guy.

                Now, is there a shop out there that is interested in “doing the right thing”? I’m sure. But is it the rule? Emphatically no. Just like there might be a gorgeous hooker with a heart of gold out there somewhere, Julia Roberts was a rarity, not the rule.

                What is your job Matt-if memory serves me, it is in investments-do you have any idea how YOU could be betrayed as a selfish person who leads people into unsafe transactions?

                I work at a hedge fund – not the same thing as a PE shop, but for lay purposes, not too far removed. Like a first cousin.

                I can’t really get into the specifics of what we do and do not do at my company, but I can say that we don’t do anything too crazy. HOWEVER, I can say that if there was some P&L to be made, we’d probably bankroll Stalin.

                That said, I’m sure I could be painted that way. HOWEVER, I’m a numbers monkey. I help keep the wheels turning. I calculate P&L, settle trades, reconcile against brokers and the administrator, I’m a functionary. I do not make any decisions. If they wanted to invest in resurrecting Stalin, I might quit, but no one could say that I (personally) had any hand in that decision. Someone might still say I was partially culpable if I didn’t quit, and they’d probably be right.

                Blaming me for evil actions of my company is like blaming the fry cook at McDonald’s for the failure of a national corporate strategy.

                Romney, however, was the president of Bain. There’s a big difference.

                A person who works on Wall Street-can’t be President

                Nobody said that. Wall Street is very diverse – there’s and there are very different shades of grey.

                PE is a mean and vicious animal. It wants what it wants, it works hard, it makes a LOT of money. But it’s not concerned with doing the “right thing” – just the bottom line.

                But no, even working at a PE shop doesn’t disqualify you from the Presidency. But it sure as hell shouldn’t be counted as a plus.

                Romney has Both government and business experience- and there isn’t any way that all that business knowledge isn’t a plus.

                Government experience – check.

                Business experience – check… in the sense that he had administrative experience and people management and budgeting, etc. Minus in the sense that his company implies (though does not prove!) that he is a person more concerned with making himself rich than with doing the right thing.

              • My mouth dropped open with you credited being a politician as a better indicator of Good than being a businessman. Are you kidding?

                V.H.

                Being just any businessman is (generally) a good thing, but you are not looking at the kind of businessman his was.

                As I said before, imagine he was a mobster – that’s a type of businessman – but what does it say about him as a person? What does it say about his goals, his concern for others? Maybe he’s experienced in business (good), but it strongly suggests that he’s not very interested in the welfare of others (bad).

              • Wow – how would you even describe that picture? “Wall Street” on steroids?

                That is just too funny.

              • You are making assumptions, Matt, and you are leaning towards the negative-I have no doubt they’re are people who care about nothing but the bottom line-business, especially big corporations, can take away that human quality. But I must wonder how many business’s would have simply gone out of business, if Bain hadn’t stepped in. They would have still lost the list you listed-but what about he ones they saved.

              • But VH, that’s the entire point — Private Equity is not about saving businesses; It is about making money. Look at Bain’s record — business succeeded, Bain made money; business failed, Bain made money…

              • I must of missed something-What are you talking about ? Wall Street on Steroids ?

              • Then educate me Buck-does Private Equity get involved if the business is strong or when it is weak and in danger of failing? Making money is a necessary for any company? So is the point the companies they couldn’t save or the ones they saved ? I really don’t know.

              • I think Mathius described it best:

                PE shops don’t just dismantle unsuccessful businesses, they cash out the equity, load up debt, raid pension, and crash healthy corporations into brick walls – all 100% legally.

              • How do they manage to do this to companies that are strong?
                And if the company isn’t strong-wouldn’t time and mismanagement have the same result?
                And why would they prefer to destroy a good investment-instead of making the company whole-where they would make money for years to come?

          • It’s all fair. He can settle into the office of President and if it turns out that many government employees suddenly find themselves unemployed..so be it. His job is to make the USA a successful country, there will be losses along the way. No one in government should feel they are entitled to their..scratch that..OUR job. What was that Eastwood said….”if someone’s not doing their job, ya gotta let em go.”

    • And what’s Obama’s record in four years?

      September 10, 2012
      GM loses $49,000 on each Chevy Volt it sells
      Rick Moran

      This is Obamanomics at work. Make a worthless POS hybrid — not to make a profit but to employ union auto workers.

      Reuters:

      Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.

      Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/gm_loses_49000_on_each_chevy_volt_it_sells.html#ixzz265CuAc9L

  19. CNN’s Tom Foreman and Erin Burnett did a little “Reality Check” this week at the Democratic Convention that was bold and effective. Don’t they realize that they’re not supposed to call out Democrats who fudge the truth? Apparently not, and good for them.

    On Tuesday night they responded to the constantly heard refrain: Barack Obama had created 4.5 million private sector jobs in 29 months. Besides the issue of whether it was the private sector, not Obama, who created whatever jobs were created, this figure became the mantra to show that Obama had turned the economy around. Foreman, to CNN’s credit, said that the problem wasn’t in the math, but in the context. They agreed that 4.5 million private sector jobs have been added during this administration, but, as Burnett said, the problem is that there were also “many jobs lost. In fact there were five million private sector jobs lost. So, net jobs lost, private sector, 500,000,” said Burnett. She said that if you look at other jobs, including government jobs, “the picture is actually much worse. In terms of net loss, we are still 1.1 million jobs in the hole under this administration.”

    She said that regarding unemployment, “the answer is that categorically we are not” better off than we were four years ago. They showed that the unemployment rate was 8.3% (today that number was lowered to 8.1%, but only because 368,000 Americans left the labor force), compared to Election Day 2008, when that figure was 6.5%, and on inauguration day of 2009, it was 7.3%, though it later peaked at 10%.

    They also explained that many of the jobs that were added were short-term jobs, such as with the stimulus money, or with the census. In fact, many people were hired multiple times over a several month period to work for the 2010 census, each time counting towards that 4.5 million figure. Foreman added that surveys showed that “somewhere around 80% of the jobs that had been lost in this recession and afterwards, were middle to high wage jobs, and about 60% of the jobs we’ve gained are low wage jobs.”

    The following night the two tackled Democratic claims that President Obama had saved the auto industry. Erin Burnett cited several people who had made the claim, such as his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, and First Lady Michelle Obama.

    “And we heard it again tonight from the head of the Auto Workers Union, Bob King,” said Burnett. “One of his lines, ‘what did Mitt Romney say?’ ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt.’ Now that is actually from an op-ed in 2008. It was titled, ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.’ But I think we should make it clear that was the title the editors of the ‘New York Times’ gave the piece. Mitt Romney himself had titled it ‘The Way Forward for the Auto Industry,’ and said he preferred managed bankruptcy.”

    Tom Foreman, her fellow CNN correspondent who had “Reality Check” duties that night, said, “Yes, that’s absolutely right. And although a lot of partisans here don’t want to talk about this, Romney was really making an argument against the bailout, not for the liquidation, not for the wiping out of this company. Here’s what he wrote: ‘the American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. The federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.’”

    He added, “The fundamental issue here is not wiping them out, not wiping out all those jobs, but instead keeping them going, just a different way. The second part of King’s statement, more than a million jobs saved, signs all over here, people waving them, 1.1 million jobs saved. The Obama campaign has used that many times, but they also couched it on their website by saying up and down the supply chain.”

    Foreman and Burnett also took on the cost to taxpayers. “How much did taxpayers put into G.M.?” she asked.

    “You as a taxpayer with General Motors, specifically, right now, you own about a third of G.M. That’s how the bailout was structured. G.M today closed on the stock exchange at $21.76 a share. Now, in order to break even, so for taxpayers, you out there to make that money back, G.M. shares would have to rise to between 52 and 60 dollars a share. Treasury right now says they expect to lose 25 billion dollars or more, which, of course, is interesting. When you look at the banks specifically, taxpayers have made money. They’ve lost money on G.M. right now and on AIG, the insurer. But when you look at the auto industry, Anderson, there is one company that did not get a bailout and is thriving. And that, of course, is Ford.”

    Thankfully CNN took its job seriously, at least for these two issues, and called out the Democrats for, shall we say, bending the truth. Good job, CNN.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Obama is going to use the money SAVED by cutting the military, coming home specifically, to pay for other programs.

    Question to Matt, Buck and Todd.

    WHAT SAVINGS????

    I thought Iraq and Afghanistan were NOT PAID FOR. In other words, we were BORROWING to pay for these wars and the associated military build up.

    If we borrowed for that and then we stop spending that, and spend it on something else, are we not still borrowing?????

    • JAC,
      The source of the cash and spending the cash are two different things.

      If I’m about to buy something, on my credit card for $100, and then change my mind, I just saved myself $100.

      If I’m about to buy something, with cash for $100, and then change my mind, I just saved myself $100.

      No difference.

      So Obama is saying this would be debt/deficit neutral:
      * Spend X dollars less on War
      * Spend X dollars more on other programs

      See – pretty simple, hey?

      • Is this an example of LOGIC? if it is. I will stick with common sense. 🙂

        I found this great sale and bought 35 pairs of shoes, but I saved money.

        • V,

          I found this great sale and bought 35 pairs of shoes, but I saved money.

          Oh crap, I thought you were my wife at first – gave me a scare! 😉

          You only save the money if you decided to not buy the shoes…

      • The shoe thing is for Kathy-I think I have a total of maybe 5 pairs of shoes. 🙂 😉

        • I own:

          1. Work shoes
          2. Sneakers
          3. Steel toe boots
          4. Sandals
          5. Dress shoes

          My wife bought me some brown shoes.. something about not wearing black and navy or black and brown.. who knows? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Anyway, I technically own a these as well but I’ve never taken them out of my closest so I won’t count them. Five pairs.

          • I was wrong, I have seven pairs of shoes.
            2-tennis shoes
            2-sandals
            3-high heals
            Oh and a pair of those shoes you wear to the lake. So I guess that’s really 8, if you count the ugly ones.

            • if you count the ugly ones

              What – you think the “ugly” ones are free? 🙂

              If my wife hears that, she’ll declare all her shoes “ugly”…and I’ll be sleeping on Mathius’ couch…

              • She already declare’s them ugly-she just uses words like old or out of style.

              • OMG – I’ve been HAD! Just wait until I get home tonight!!

              • Todd,

                Get your wife one of these:

              • Why do I suddenly feel like I have betrayed womankind? I didn’t mean too, I swear. They are old and out of style-she keeps the out of style, which saves money in the long run, because they almost always come back into style. So buy her the Shoe conveyor so she can save you money.

              • The shoe conveyor – too cool!

                Why do I suddenly feel like I have betrayed womankind? I didn’t mean too, I swear.

                No – that’s impossible. Explain as much as you want – we’ll never get it!!

                They are old and out of style-she keeps the out of style, which saves money in the long run, because they almost always come back into style. So buy her the Shoe conveyor so she can save you money.

                I think this is the same reason she keeps me – I’m old and out-of-style, but she’s hoping I come back into style!! 🙂

          • You wear a brown shirt with beige pants and wear Black shoes-No, you must have brown shoes and a brown belt. 🙂 Seriously, I’m not even that much into shoes-but in this instance, and of course in any other topic, your wife is right. Black with blue-don’t see where that’s a problem though. She probably didn’t say this-your just not remembering correctly.

          • I’m almost embarrassed to admit:

            Black dress shoes
            Brown dress shoes
            Black casual shoes
            Brown casual shoes
            Sneakers
            Moccasins
            Sandals

      • How about don’t spend money on war, then half the money you needed to borrow for war (since we borrow 47% of every dollar spent) is available to pay down debt.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        You misrepresented the problem.

        You decide to use your credit card to buy X at $100. You change your mind and buy Y at $100 on your credit card.

        You SAVED NOTHING.

        YOU BORROWED $100.00 from China, er I mean your credit card company.

        If instead you had decided to NOT buy X and just cut up the card………..You would have SAVED incurring $100 in debt. Assuming you intended to actually pay off the debt.

        Maybe that is the difference between you and the Govt!

        • JAC,

          You misrepresented the problem.

          No I didn’t. But maybe my “If’s” were incomplete on the spending part. I was first trying to show how you “save” the money. I did say spend in the next part.

          You decide to use your credit card to buy X at $100. You change your mind and buy Y at $100 on your credit card.

          Right. And Obama was going to use our credit card to for another year in Afghanistan. He changed his mind. He will now use that money to pay for other programs.

          You SAVED NOTHING.

          Right. Obama didn’t say he’d save money – period.

          He said he’d use the money saved from Afghanistan for programs at home.

          YOU BORROWED $100.00 from China, er I mean your credit card company.

          Yup (your cheap shot is acknowledged!!! 😉 )

          If instead you had decided to NOT buy X and just cut up the card………..You would have SAVED incurring $100 in debt.

          Correct. But that’s not what Obama said. He said save in Afghanistan, spend at home. Not a net savings, but a net transfer.

          Assuming you intended to actually pay off the debt.

          Of course not! (your second cheap shot is acknowledged!!! 😉 )

          Maybe that is the difference between you and the Govt!

          Na – we’re really the same! (your third cheap shot is acknowledged!!! 😉 )

  21. Buck;

    Please tell me about obama’s qualifications for POTUS. I am sure they far outweigh those of Romney, Cause God knows he too depended on the wealfare system, government grants, and taxpayer monies to obtain his experience????

    CM

  22. Well, let’s see…..I would suggest that Romney knows how to read a balance sheet. I question whether Obama knows one when he sees it, which is obvious in how he is running the country’s fiscal policy. I would suggest that Romney knows what a loan is, the purpose of a loan, what interest is, and the purpose of interest, and how to repay it. I already know that Obama does not even understand the concept for if he does, there would have been no bailouts and unpaid loans……and, yes, Dorothy, GM is unpaid no matter what you read. I know that Romney understands what a p&L is……I doubt that Obama understands profit at all. I would suggest that Romney knows how to surround himself with qualified executives that know their jobs….it is apparent that Obama does not know how to do that. I would suggest that Romney knows and understands proformas…..Obama does not know how to spell it much less understand it. And this is just fiscal…….want more?

    • Being a junior sitting Senator does not qualify one to be President anymore than the owner of the corner lemonade stand. I would suggest that the owner of a corner lemonade stand makes more command decisions than Obama does.

    • Colonel,
      Do you realize you’re answering your own posts?

      How’s that heart doing?

      Are you getting grumpy from being confined indoors all the time?
      Do you feel the urge to get out there and shoot something?

      BANG!

      Oh, I hope that didn’t cause any additional heart problems… 🙂

      • Hi Todd….I am actually doing pretty good. The heart is doing perfect. The hard part was after the stent, was lying on one’s back for 8 hours because the femoral artery had to heal sufficiently and had to keep the right leg immobile……but, I am driving already, albeit short range, just cant exercise or do anything ” strenuous ” for 7 more days….off flight status until I pass a stress test….but…..thank you for inquiring….I am doing great.

        Answering myself…..I really have to watch that…..It is actually Mathius and DPM’s fault.

    • Colonel,

      Do you happen to know who keeps shooting out my porch lights?

  23. charlieopera says:

    Let me stir the shit a little … what will the GOP do with this:

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/10/3519414/gallup-poll-obama-got-stronger.html

    I originally thought Obama would just win … then I said landslide … now I think it’ll be such a landslide, the election is called before 11:00 p.m. east coast time.

    And while all a’yous wingies are puking in your cereal bowls, the lefties will be singing, Na, na, na, na … na, na, na, na. … hey, hey, hey, goodbye (Romney) …

  24. Those low down dirty capitalists..only looking for profit…screw the little guy!

    ANN ARBOR, Mich. – Before retiring, a Michigan car dealership owner wanted to thank his employees in a special way.
    All 89 employees at the Howard Cooper Import Center in Ann Arbor were given $1,000 for each year of service to the 47-year-old auto dealership.
    “The lady behind me had tears running down her face,” employee Sandy Reagan told AnnArbor.com. “I sat next to a person who drives the parts van and he’s been here almost 28 years. He doesn’t make a ton of money, but he got almost $28,000.
    “I watched his face and he just said, `Oh my God,’ ” said Reagan, who has been with the company 46 years.
    The 83-year-old Cooper sold the dealership in April to Ohio-based Germain Motor Co., and employee retention was part of the deal. The business is expected to change hands later this month.
    “I wanted to thank my employees and that was a way I could do it,” Cooper said of the surprise checks. “I hope it makes a difference in their lives like they have made in mine.”
    Cooper received a standing ovation when the checks were distributed Wednesday morning. He did not reveal how much workers received in total, but 26-year mechanic Bob Jenkins’ check was $26,000.
    “I was shocked,” Jenkins said. “You just don’t expect something like that. The whole place was just in shock. People are still talking about it.”
    Jenkins said his check is going into the bank.
    “I have two little kids — a 5-year-old and a 9-year-old — so the money will go to good use,” he said.
    The dealership opened in Ann Arbor in 1965, selling Volkswagens. Porsche and Audis were added in 1972, and Hondas came along in 1979.
    “The business has been my whole life for 47 years,” Cooper said. “I love what I’ve done and I enjoyed going to work in the morning.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/10/retiring-car-dealer-gives-employees-1000-for-every-year-theyve-worked-for-him/?test=latestnews#ixzz265oLwBrw

      • Throw that thing at me one more time!……. there is no burden of proof to be shown. It is a simple FACT that the owner gave cash bonuses. You guys make things too complicated sometimes.

        • Throw that thing at me one more time!

          Then stop using logical fallacies.

          Watch, I can do it too: I’ll see your bonus-giving guy and raise you Bernie Madoff!

          • I didn’t realize there was Robert’s rule of SUFA. How would you like me to get my point across? You say people are evil and greedy. I post something that shows it doesn’t have to be that way. You say logical fallacy. I say WHATEVER! The way I see it you just disregarded the point of the post. Could you maybe give the guy some credit and maybe spread some good news for a change?

            • That’s great what he did. No two ways about it. What a nice and quality guy (wish my boss was like that!).

              But he’s not the NORM. The NORM is every man for himself, and do ‘what’s right’ only if it serves your own ends. That, my dear, is capitalism.

              • You need to get out of the city and look at things differently. EVERYONE needs to look at things differently.

              • Why should I look at things differently if I’m right?

                M: 1 + 1 = 2
                A: You need to look at things differently.
                M: Huh?

                Human beings are not “good.” Human beings are nihilistic sociopaths who delude themselves into believing that they are good and that those around them are also good. The very beating heart of capitalism – the reason it works so well – is that it’s every man for himself with cooperation being only a tool for furthering that goal.

    • I believe this is the exception that proves the (left-wing-bat-shit-crazy) rule to be true…

    • Oh come on – this is from Ann Arbor, MI. My brother-in-law and his family live there. There is not a more LIBERAL city in the world.

      When I was a kid, parks had trees and swing sets – both which could potentially kill you (which was part of the fun!).

      In Ann Arbor, they have parks with “designated learning areas” that have carefully constructed stations along a path – with signs that say “Please Stay on the Path”.

      Geez – that was overboard even for me!!

      No wonder some old geezer in Ann Arbor is giving away cash – he’s probably a bleeding heart LIBERAL! 🙂

      • You are correct about Ann Arbor being liberal, but liberals don’t like corporations or profit so the owner must be conservative.

        • And you are correct too ( 🙂 ) – bleeding heart LIBERALS don’t like profit, that’s why the owner must be a bleeding heart LIBERAL – he’s giving all his profits away!! 😉

          A REAL conservative would never give away his profits! 😉

  25. Anybody know anything else about This?

    Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like
    By Dick Morris on September 10, 2012

    The Obama Administration’s Justice Department announced, on August 22nd, that it was joining a lawsuit by a former Gallup employee and whistleblower against the Gallup Corporation for allegedly overcharging the government on polling work.

    The announcement comes on the heels of a confrontation between Gallup staffers and Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he accused the company of using out of date sampling methods which, he said, generated polling data negative to the president.

    The whistleblower’s lawsuit has been kicking around since 2009, but the Justice Department joined the suit only after the run-in between Axelrod and Gallup in April of this year.

    In a scene right out of a typical authoritarian regime, Fox News reports that “employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday.”

    That poll that sent Axelrod ballistic showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent.

    The Daily Caller published e mails that started when Axelrod sent a tweet to Gallup saying the tracking poll was “saddled with some methodological problems” and directing followers to a National Journal story in which a professor suggested outdated sampling.

    According to the email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup,” the White House in addition asked that a Gallup staffer “come over and explain our methodology,” which was apparently perceived as a subtle threat.

    Fox News reported that “a Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure ‘sounds a little like a Godfather situation.’”

    Gallup refused to change its methodology to suit the White House.

    And the Justice Department intervention in the whistleblower suit came three months later. The whistleblower, Michael Lindley, claims that Gallup violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the federal government for its services to the U.S. Mint, the State Department and other federal agencies. The Justice Department plans to add Gallup’s work with FEMA to the list of alleged overcharges covered in the lawsuit.

    Lindley charged that Gallup overestimated the number of hours of field work that the government surveys would require and that it billed the feds based on the inflated estimates.

    According to the Washington Times, Lindley worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 as an Iowa field organizer based out of Council Bluffs, Iowa.

    As the election progresses, this blatant effort to influence Gallup’s data and its poll numbers is an example of Chicago political thugs at their worst.

    http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-thugs-rough-up-gallup-for-polls-they-dont-like/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

  26. Gaps’ in Obama’s leadership, says Woodward
    Rick Moran

    Woodward is being nice. What he really means is that there were many times that Obama was an empty suit during the debt ceiling negotiations that the president simply failed to lead.

    In an interview with ABC’s Judy Woodruff, Woodward talked about his new book “The Price of Politics” which covers the debt ceiling crisis from last year.

    A few choice tidbits:

    Asked if Obama simply wasn’t ready for the job of being president, Woodward responded:

    “I am not ducking this. I am weighing evidence, and there’s evidence that he got on top of a lot of things, he did a lot of things. And there’s evidence that there are gaps,” he said. “He did not fix this.”

    Woodward places particular blame for the failure to reach a deal with Obama, writing that the seeds of discord were planted early in his administration. He displayed “two sides” of his personality in early meetings with congressional leaders, Woodward said.

    “There’s this divided-man quality to President Obama always. Initially he meets with the congressional leaders, he says you know, ‘We’re going to be accommodating, we’re going to listen, we’re going to talk, we’re going to compromise,” Woodward said.

    “But then they — Republicans ask some questions and challenge him a little bit and he says, ‘Look I won. I’m in charge here,’ ” Woodward continued. “And the Republicans feel totally isolated and ostracized. And this was the beginning of a war.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/gaps_in_obamas_leadership_says_woodward.html#ixzz2665KT287

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius and Buck raised a good question.

    If Romney had been Successful at being a mobster would that experience help him as President.

    Well I respond by saying why don’t you ask the man who has come the closest to actually being such a person. A man who’s career was focused primarily on the politics of RACE, which included helping shake down banks to get loans and free cookies for his constituents?

    You can reach him at 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  28. charlieopera says:

    @V.H. And if the company isn’t strong-wouldn’t time and mismanagement have the same result?

    See Wall Street Bailout …

    • Your gonna have to explain your point-I don’t get it

      • charlieopera says:

        Mismanagement, bankruptcy … who won? who lost? Wall Street gets bailed out for going broke. American workers get laid off. Nice system. The “job creators” went to the casino, lost, got refunded on the way out and watched as the employees of the casino were fired. You want to compare that to union power? Have fun.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Where did Ryan claim he did not vote for the bill??? Here is the interview summary with O’Donnell, from Huff Po:

    “CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell put Paul Ryan’s feet to the fire for criticizing President Obama for defense spending cuts after he supported them himself.

    Mitt Romney’s “Meet the Press” appearance put the cuts back in the spotlight on Sunday. The candidate said that Republicans made a “mistake” when they agreed to a debt ceiling deal that would decrease defense spending by $500 billion over the next ten years.

    O’Donnell did not give Ryan on an easy pass on the issue. “He’s talking about you because you voted for those cuts, correct?” she asked him.

    Ryan said that he voted for the cuts because he was trying to find “common ground” with the Democrats to reduce the budget deficit. He added that he wrote a bill that would have reduced spending elsewhere and prevented “the president’s irresponsible, devastating defense cuts.”

    O’Donnell continued to press Ryan, saying that the defense cuts were part of the Budget Control Act and that he supported the act. She went a step further and quoted him calling the legislation a “victory” and a “positive step forward.”

    “So, you voted for defense cuts, and now you’re criticizing the president for those same defense cuts that you voted for and called a victory,” O’Donnell said.

    “The goal was never that these defense cuts actually occur,” Ryan responded. He said that he supported a sequestration measure, which would have triggered automatic cuts if the supercommittee did not reach a deal. O’Donnell said that the act also contained $1 trillion in immediate cuts, including the defense cuts.

    “And you also voted for those, and now you’re saying you didn’t vote for them?” she asked. He said that the Obama administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts, in addition to cutting about $500 billion in defense from the sequestration.

    “Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it!” O’Donnell shot back.

    “No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act.”

    “That included defense spending!””

    I know the lefties over there are all excited thinking Ryan was slapped down here, but it sure looks to me like O’Donnell who once again can’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand, what the interviewee is telling her.

    Now it is true that by criticizing Obama on defense cuts Ryan and Romney SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED this line of attack from DNC/Team Obama/and the media. Ryan’s explanation seems fine to me. But as usual, the media can’t handle anything beyond 1+1.
    +

    • Give me a frigging break already Norah. Stick to the marathon times, that’;s important.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        I know, I saw that one also.

        Scariest part is that the left are the smart ones you know. They remind us of it every day.

    • JAC,

      O’DONNELL: So, you voted for defense cuts. And now you’re criticizing the president for those same defense cuts that you voted for and called a victory.

      RYAN: No, no, I have to correct you on this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says a sequester will occur if we don’t cut $1.2 trillion spending in government. We offered $1.2 trillion in various — the super committee offered it. We passed in the House a bill to prevent those devastating defense cuts by cutting spending elsewhere. The senate’s done nothing. President Obama’s done nothing.

      He’s trying to deny his vote by qualifying it with what happened after the vote.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I don’t see him denying his vote in any way. He is explaining why he voted for that bill, as did many others. Note that he and others now admit it was a mistake. How often do you hear politicians admit that? So I think this “taking back” or “denying” is just more DNC construction.

        Now I do agree he shouldn’t tag Obama for signing it because he can use the same reasoning. However, Mr. O has not done anything to get his D’s off dead center to prevent the sequestration. On that he should be taken to the wood shed.

        Did you notice how O’Donnell got the amounts and authorizations mixed up in the end? Her goals was not to get answers but try to ridicule Ryan. She lost, in my opinion.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Fact Checking Obama’s Convention Speech:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21489568/fact-checking-obama-speech?source=inthenews

    Oh……..first item……………. There is no PEACE DIVIDEND or SAVINGS. Using the phrase “savings” is misleading.

    I submit it was DELIBERATELY used to MISLEAD the people.

    • JAC,
      I won’t have my comments dictated by fact checkers…

      The wars were largely financed by borrowing, so there is no ready pile of cash to be diverted to anything else.

      Right. I said the source of the funds is not the issue. Money that would have been spent in Afghanistan can instead be spent at home.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        That was funny. Good one.

        We are in agreement on the technical point if you say saved in one place and then spent on another and thus you have not saved anything in reality.

        You have simply changed your allocations.

        I still maintain the word “savings” was used to get people thinking there is an actual savings. A reduction in deficit/debt. This is confirmed by the number of people now posting on the left who are declaring some “peace dividend”. I went around with a few on this because they actually believe the deficit will be reduced AFTER the reallocation. I am not putting you in that camp so no need to react.

        Here is the fact of the matter and the hypocrisy that has not been addressed by the D’s. If we couldn’t afford two unfunded wars then we CAN NOT afford more unfunded domestic programs either.

  31. Grandchildren Are Smart…………

    I was eating lunch with my youngest Granddaughter
    and I asked her, “What day is tomorrow?”

    She said “It’s President’s Day!”

    She is a smart kid.

    I asked “What does President’s Day mean?”
    I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln or something.

    “President’s Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House,
    and if he sees his shadow, we have one more year of BullShit.”

    You know, It hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose!

    • 🙂 LOL

    • charlieopera says:

      And just think, you can tell that joke for another 4 years!

      • That’s a joke for a lifetime, not just while he’s playing God. By the way, I haven’t asked yet, but while your head is up his ass, is he as full of shit as we all think? 🙂

        • charlieopera says:

          4 more years, genius …. so sweet

          • Charlie, (Speaking in a whisper) It really don’t matter which puppet is in office, as long as yous fools keep voting for puppets, everyone is screwed! Obama/Romney are just puppets with different colored shirts, but they are still PUPPETS! You, like most have been fooled into the false left/right paradigm, all the while the politicians are still moving in the same direction. Forget about my jokes and sillyness, the most important info is that “the politicians are still moving in the same direction”! Has it really mattered which colored shirt is in charge?

            • charlieopera says:

              Has it really mattered which colored shirt is in charge?

              Not enough to make a difference. I agree with you (and BF–check my pulse) … but until we change the entire system, which won’t happen while I’m alive (I don’t think), I’ll ALWAYS vote against an Ayn Rander … why, you ask? Because Ayn Rand’s philosophy is the extreme polar opposite of what I believe.

              • I’ve never read Ayn Rand, so I really have no idea what her philosophy is. Too me it is far simpler I guess, Is DC corrupt? YES. Does that fact change depending on which party is in charge? NO! Corruption is corruption, no point in me wasting my time voting in the Federal part of the election. State and local will get me out to vote, but I will try to avoid voting for a D or an R.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                So true..

                She believed and preached FREEDOM, LIBERTY and JUSTICE.

                You are the polar opposite

              • She believed and preached FREEDOM

                Freedom is slavery, dontcha know?

      • And just think, you can tell that joke for another 4 years!

        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    I want to share something I heard on the radio this morning. I might have dismissed this if not for the video posted by someone showing the Union vote where the union organizers went to people’s homes to “help them vote” er I mean “to collect the ballots”.

    Anyway, the story is that the big Unions, SEIU included, are not using their piles of money to buy advertising for Obama. Instead they are going to use the money to organize and implement a door to door campaign in the “swing states” to COLLECT BALLOTS or MAKE CONTACTS.

    Obviously, when they collect them they can then dispose of them or help the poor folk figure out how to fill them in properly. Now if we get the same sort of thing with this that we saw in the video of the union vote (California?) then we have large scale vote fraud.

    I don’t swallow the talking heads claim of “picking up ballots”. I am not aware of a state that allows that to happen. Although I would not put it past some of them. But having somebody show up at the door of a person with a mail in ballot and then start “helping them make up their mind” is not comforting to me. Not in the least.

    I came across another gross weakness in the mail in ballot system due to my dealings on behalf of Lil JAC. When I completed the paperwork for his Supplemental Social Insurance and the county Welfare enrollment, I had to sign a paper declaring whether he would VOTE or not. I put NOT because he is not mentally capable of making those types of decisions. But the County Clerk sent me a notice that they needed MORE information as my Son had indicated he DID INTEND TO VOTE. So first question arises; how did NOT turn into WILL on the form????

    Second question; what is preventing me from going ahead and registering him, getting his mail in ballot and then voting FOR him??? Other than my own hangup on ethics that is.

    Now multiply that by the thousands and thousands of people who have legal guardians due to their incapacity in States with mail in ballots. In many cases there is a STATE employee assigned to handle these things when the STATE is the guardian. How does that make you feel???

    As I have said before, the MAIL IN BALLOT is the greatest threat of FRAUD. Then comes same day registration and voting. Voting machine tampering is probably next. Then comes Voter ID Fraud. And yes Matt and Buck, I have seen it and I have seen the County Clerk simply IGNORE it. Thus it NEVER happened………… kind of how those voice votes went at the RNC and DNC. The Ayes have it and therefore the measure passes…… ROTFLMAO.

    • This isn’t about Federal voting-it was a local issue-trying to make Fed Ex. go Union-they came to visit a friend of mine-He said-it was induendo, which he probably couldn’t prove, but he and his wife felt threatened.

      I remember after we finally went Union, after having a huge judgement against us, a totally BS charge, a case we won on the local level, but somehow lost when it was sent to Washington for a ruling-a ruling which we had no voice during the proceeding. We went to the local watering hole and our friendly Union members said, I quote “Good thing, ya’ll became Union, we would have happily burned down your house with your family in it, if you hadn’t. But I’m supposed to feel for the Worker. Well, I like the worker-I hate the UNION.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        The example, video, was a vote on a decision of which union to select.

        But the radio show I heard this morning was about VOTING in the General Elections. The Unions are going door to door looking for people with absentee or mail in ballots.

        • I understood that JAC-it was just an example of what they do during those visits. And their general attitude about non-Union companies. I try to separate the Union thugs from the general Union members-but some of them are thugs.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Oh, I see now. Sorry I got confused. Must be age catching up…… 🙂

            Yes, what you describe was what was on the video I saw. It is also my personal experience with union leaders and “enforcers”.

            Yes, they are THUGS and I might add………..Bullies.

            • No problem 🙂

              We remained Union for about 2 years-then shut it all down and re-opened non-union- learned a lot by then and have so far, cross my fingers, been left alone.

              I will give the Union one favorable opinion-education-they are good at educating people. But other than that, they employ thugs, they have no loyalty, and they have become too powerful-too bad really-I think at one time-they really were on the side of the employee and a help-I suppose there are still a few that have integrity-I just haven’t met them.

              • charlieopera says:

                I will give the Union one favorable opinion-education-they are good at educating people. But other than that, they employ thugs, they have no loyalty, and they have become too powerful-too bad really-I think at one time-they really were on the side of the employee and a help-I suppose there are still a few that have integrity-I just haven’t met them.

                Very true (not across the board, but in general), except they are responding to a greater corruption with MUCH more power & MONEY — Koch Brothers are one example (42% of all U.S. assets) … unions aren’t close. You can be a thug with money, too, V.H., don’t kid yourself.

              • If Union members are good at educating, then why has every President for the past several decades said we have to invest more into education because it isn’t good enough?

              • Educating people in a specific trade. The electrical union does a good job in training people to be electricians.

              • Not kidding myself-I am aware that power and corruption-which is made worse, when they have governmental power behind them- is rampant.

      • Just realized I wrote Federal-see why you were confused-my fault 🙂 not your age. 🙂

      • Hmmm-One really shouldn’t have a couple drinks and talk on the internet-sent to Washington-I really don’t remember exactly where it was sent-I wasn’t much involved with the company at that time-I just know it came back and we were suddenly guilty

  33. Very interesting video on Government debt.

    http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bama

      Boy, after the first weekend it sure looks like the Tide got an open path to another trophy. Barring injuries and such.

      There, maybe that’ll jinx em…….. bwahahahaha.

      Couldn’t believe Arkansas blowing that lead.

      • Did ya have to bring that up? In our defense,,,,there is no defense. Didn’t watch or follow, bad for bloodpressure…Good luck Bama
        (of coures, Razorbacks are great at spoiling a winning record)

  34. charlieopera says:

    @ STephen: You guys care so damned much, you really do.

    It’s your guys holding onto the “capital” my man … trillions … because of Obamacare? Yeah, right …

    • Capital is ready to go, government is not. You forget what the Soviets said about capitalists, ie: “they will sell you the rope to hang them”. So, with proven oil reserves in the billions of barrels through the western states and frenzied activity by the capitalists (including OMG, competition between capitalists) on private lands, what is holding up the production? 1. The government not leasing out federal lands and 2. The government not allowing the pipeline to be built across government lands.

      Last time I looked the government was us but to date, no one has asked our opinion nor specifically the 23 million un or under employed on whether they would like to see their job prospects enhanced by an oil/gas boom rivaling the 1920’s.

      So, get off your butt, help your fellow workers of the world and lets get this damned show on the road.

    • Charlie………hate to say this but the ACA has made us hold onto lots of cash and not reinvest right now. We are scared of the Obama economy and the utter disregard for debt. We are preparing for a crash which is coming and it is not private business that is going to do it. It is the government. It cannot pay its debts. You can tax 100 percent of the entire population of the United States and it cannot pay its debts. Pure and simple. The only thing that is saving us now…….is that the rest of the world is worse off. This is not the fault of capitalism at all….it is out of control spending. Even if your scenario was in play right now and all of the industry was nationalized and all of the money controlled by the government……you would still be in debt and you still cannot support the population. It is impossible. There would still be rationing and people would still not have health coverage the way progressives envision it.

  35. @ Charlie……here ya go Charlie…….some of your Obama math and bailout numbers.

    GM losing $49G on each Volt sold, according to report

    Published September 10, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/09/10/gm-denys-report-it-is-losing-4g-on-each-volt-sold-while-admitting-program-is/?test=latestnews#ixzz267Z0Dwr2

  36. Charlie….another question for you……what do you consider a landslide?

    • charlieopera says:

      Romney will lose: Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina … bada-boom, bada-bing.

  37. Matt’s house

    • Thanks to my silenced 50 cal

      • Was at the shooting range recently, minding my business in my own lane, earplugs in, concentrating hard on my target, then BOOM! SCARED THE CRAP OUTTA ME! That guy shot his 50 cal..I had to put my gun down and hold my ears as he shot. The gun itself was huge and the ammo was round as my thumb. What are you going to shoot in the suburbs with that? A moose?

        • I hate to say this and I am sure I am insulting a lot of people who don’;t deserve it but, those .50 handguns, well there is only one reason I think most owners go for them:

          • Funny as heck that you said that. The friend I was with said the same thing , but he add that the guy probably had a small..insert whatever word suits you… and had to show the world how tough he isn’t! He was a jerk too. We tried to make small talk with him but we weren’t worthy of his time. 🙂

        • Anita…..ask responsible gun owners about a 50 cal handgun….they are useless unless you wish to take out the engine block of Mack Truck. In my opinion, it is the most useless “thumb busting” handgun in the world…..next to Clint Eastwood’s .44 Mag…..

          .50 cals are good for sniper rifles and perimeter defense…..nothing more.

          • *cough* and taking out raptors at 800m *cough*

            (I guess that falls under perimeter defense..)

            • Do you know how much you have cost me supplying body armor to my raptors? And you wonder why I cannot have the naked Cowboy Cheerleaders dancing on my front lawn anymore….besides Emilius busted up your telescope.

              • 1. I don’t think body armor does much against a 50 cal, does it?
                2. I’m pretty sure body armor doesn’t do much against a head shot.

                Save your money, bring the cheerleaders back.

        • I think SK has nailed it. I’ve seen the same attitude at some gyms but also had the most hard-core gym-rats be the most encouraging. There are shooting forums where you will see comments like 9mm are for guys that squat to pee. A 9mm is my preferred, but I also carry a .380 & .32 at times. And the .22 is the preferred firearm for assassins, so deadly is in the hands of the shooter. Would bet you guy has never heard of the FiveSeven. I don’t have/want one but they sound like the highest performance round in modern handguns…

          Whats the weather like up there? Have to come to Dearborn in a couple days for a conference. Traveling commercial so will feel under-dressed the whole time. Thinking of lines to use on TSA that won’t get me arrested or probed….

          • Cool! Low 80s and low humidity for several days, low 50s at night though, bring some sleeves. Need a ride? Any spare time? My treat.

            Shot a 9mm, 45, and a 380. Didn’t like the 9 at all. 45 took two chunks out of my thumb before I realized it, my fault for gripping it wrong. I did like the 380. More practice with different guns to come. Patting myself on the back for straight shooting. Took about 60 shots..I’ll say 90% kill shots. Yay

          • Remember that in the original James Bond books, Bond preferred a .25 automatic with skeleton grips. Later he was, involuntarily, switched to the PPK in .32.

  38. V.H.,

    How do they manage to do this to companies that are strong?

    A company which is financially strong may still be vulnerable to just this sort of thing. An example is what is called a leveraged buy out (LBO). This is just one example, but it should be instructive.

    What they’ll do is buy the company by issuing debt on that company. Think of this as a mortgage on a house. You don’t have the 500k to buy the house, so you buy it with debt borrowed against the value of the house. Same thing here. They don’t have the 5b to buy a company (or they might, but don’t want to spend it in cash). So what they do is get the money in place, and make an offer to the shareholders. The shareholders are given a premium (which can be very large in some cases) to sell. Where does this money come from to buy the stock? From the ‘mortgaged’ value of the company itself (how cool is that!?). So the shareholders sell, the shop buys, and pays using this borrowed money. Instead of equity on the balance sheet, it’s now just vanilla debt. These debt structures can be insanely complicated, and I’m MASSIVELY oversimplifying. (D13, don’t yell at me, this is just a bird’s-eye-view).

    So now the shop owns company X, the previous shareholders have been paid off. But the problem is that this once-stable company is now so loaded up with debt that it’s dangerously unstable. (this is one possibility – alternatively, it could be just fine, or anywhere in between). So the shop has two choices, it can prop it up, fight to pay off the debt, stabilize the company and earn profits… eventually. OR it could go the alternative route. The alternative route is to shut down R&D, sell off any parts which aren’t directly used as collateral, fire everyone they can, loot everything they can, and pay themselves MASSIVE dividends.

    See, they had to invest some of their own money in this deal (let’s say 50mm), but they’ve just paid themselves (as the sole owners at the holding company level) 100mm in divs. So they’ve made a 100% return on investment. That money is now gone – poof – vanished without a trace from company X, who now has no money, no R&D, and massive debt obligations it can’t afford – it no longer has any hope of remaining solvent. The company defaults (of course!), and is sold off for scrap. Everyone loses their shirt (especially the debt holders and the former employees), but the PE shop makes a bleeding fortune – massive returns on a relatively small investment.

    If you want to consider the analogy a little further, consider that you took out your mortgage to buy your house. But YOU didn’t buy the house. You had your brother-in-law buy the house. You paid 50k (10% down) which you lent to your brother-in-law and had him take a loan for 450k (90% debt / mortgage). Now he owns a house, but rather than just occupying the house and paying down the debt, he dismantles the house piece-by-piece and sells it off. He makes 100k. He then takes that money and “repays” you. You spent 50k and got back 100k (100% return!). But now your brother-in-law has a 450k loan on an empty lot. He can’t pay this, so he defaults. The bank repossesses the land, but it’s not worth as much as the loan, so the bank is screwed – and the money is gone – poof – vanished – because it’s now YOUR money. How cool is that? (in this scenario, the brother-in-law is a corporate entity which exists for the sole purpose of this transaction – to take the fall after transferring the money to you).

    And why would they prefer to destroy a good investment-instead of making the company whole-where they would make money for years to come?

    There’s something to be said for the quick buck. 100% returns today are better than anemic (remember, they have tons of debt to pay off) and questionable (remember, they may not even be able to pay it off at all) returns in perpetuity. Which would you prefer 100% today or 1% for the next 20 years, maybe, and with the hope of 5% thereafter, also considering that you now have to manage this company during this whole time? And, by the way, 100% is just a throw-out number. This could be as high as 1,000% and it wouldn’t be unheard of. And the perpetuity may be negative at times and/or require you to supply additional capital to prop up. You do the math.

    I hope this all makes sense. Let me know if you have questions.

    • Not yelling…..pretty simplified…..but not yelling…..

      • What? You want me to go into a graduate-level dissertation on LBO’s in a SUFA post? Feel free to elaborate if you like.

        Maybe I should have just told her to watch Barbarians at the Gate?

        Adding, my mental image of D13 is of F. Ross Johnson with a giant cowboy hat.

        • owwwwww………….no…..no dissertation is necessary….SUFA data base is not large enough. LBO’s are great vessels depending upon the intent of the buyer……we never expand without LBO’s…..why use your cash when the assets of your prospective is solvent on the balance sheets? However, I can understand the attitudes towards corporate raiders….but I do not put corporate raiders in the same category as venture capitalists….which our family does not believe in that either. Corporate raiding or venture capitalism…..both are very legal. Now, let us talk ethical. As a family, any expansion or buying that we do is for the ROI only. And ROI does not mean buying something, raiding the cash and selling the assets, then dumping the company in a BK. A return on investment, in our eyes, is a continuing return. As you know, LBO’s are ripe with depreciation assets….that transfers into cash and that also reduces the leveraged debt taken against those assets. Then you now own a company that has repaid its debt and is worth something more than a mere asset sale. You can now keep it or dispose of it through a sale and all prosper…..you, the employees,,,,,,everybody.

          We also, as a family, have made the decision that we never buy the stock of a company…..the stock price is always an inflated value with “blue sky” added in.,,,,,the worth of a company, is the cash in the bank, and the value of the assets. We ALWAYS do asset buyouts.

          And……these huge LBO’s are normally publicly traded companies where you can get control of a company by only owning 10% of stock. Private companies are exempt because they are not publicly traded. The business world is ruthless….but the intent is to make a profit. We like employees….but good business sense right now is to not have any if at all possible….the government regulations and taxes are making it non profitable.

          • but I do not put corporate raiders in the same category as venture capitalists

            Bain did some VC, but mostly in it’s early years (see, Staples, et al). It was a “corporate raider” for most of it’s time under Romney.

            both are very legal

            True, which is why I talk about the morality / priorities of someone engaged in this, rather than saying he’s a criminal.

      • • 1988: Bain put $10 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $184 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
        • 1992: Bain bought American Pad & Paper, investing $5 million, and collected $107 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
        • 1993: Bain invested $25 million when buying GS Industries, and received $58 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
        • 1994: Bain put $27 million down to buy medical equipment maker Dade Behring. Dade borrowed $230 million to buy some of its shares. Dade went bankrupt in 2002.
        • 1997: Bain invested $41 million when buying Details, and collected at least $70 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

        Link.

        This is more in line with what PE shops do. Mr. 13, would you care to disagree?

        • No sir……I do no disagree. But……answer this. Other,,,,,,OTHER than ethical considerations……where is this wrong? (Please read carefully the question).

          • PS….Barbarians at the Gate…..interesting, to say the least.

          • OTHER than ethical considerations

            Nothing. Nothing at all.

            In fact, ethical considerations aside, it’s a good thing since it shows you’re smart and capable of operating very well in a complex environment, achieving your goals with great focus and tremendous amounts of hard work.

            ….

            But that’s like saying, morality aside, there’s nothing wrong great bank robbers.. in fact, they’re smart, highly motivated, and so forth.

            But I’m not going to put morality aside when considering voting for one for President.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              WHAT ethical considerations???

              What ethics would or should deter you from purchasing a company and selling off the pieces if it is worth more dead than alive??

              If Society has not placed a high enough value on it to be alive but dead instead, then why is it ethically wrong to comply with Societies conclusion?

              • There is nothing wrong with it JAC…..nothing at all. As a family, we set what we consider to be “our” ethical standards. It is what we abide by. Our ethical standards are higher than those of corporate raiders…we are simply cut from a different cloth.

                Also, the fact that a Presidential candidate did business things legally……is the only consideration that I would give it…….legally. My ethics do not believe in corporate raiding…..but that is me. However, that does not make a bad President. Quite frankly, I would rather have a President that would have the same focus as it pertains to the United States.

              • Colonel,

                If you hold yourself to such a higher ethical standard, shouldn’t the same be true of those you elect to office?

          • Legally it is perfectly OK!

            But I gather from reading your posts that this type of action is ethically dubious (to put it nicely), correct? So…if this raises ethical questions, is this a quality you want in your President?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Once again, it is irrelevant. His role as CEO of Bain was different from that of the Olympics and both were different from his role as Governor. This is simply Dem/Progressive PROJECTION aimed at furthering the “cult of personality” rather than objective and rational thinking.

              And the hypocrisy of you and others to hold Romney accountable for his “actions” as the CEO while extolling the virtue of Bill Clinton as a “leader” is mind boggling. The ethics of a CEO, as decided by the left, disqualifies Romney from election but the lying to a Grand Jury, violating the ethics of supervisor/employee relationships, etc is OK by you guys. You have all admitted you would vote for him again. And even worse, you would vote for his lying wife who helped him cover up his indiscretions and abuses of power in order to get to the White House.

              So to your question. YES this is the kind of man I would like to see in the White House. That is if MY guy doesn’t win. Romney makes the best “second” choice. His skills and cold blooded Venture Capitalist mentality will be useful, because:

              I want him to dismantle those parts of the Govt that are surplus to our needs. They have no real value and should DIE.

              • Given Romney’s political history, what makes you think he’ll actually treat government in this manner, dismantling and stripping out “valueless” and “dying” elements?

                I still say it is not irrelevant — it certainly doesn’t disqualify him for the Presidency, but why shouldn’t it be taken into consideration?

            • See my answer to JAC, Buck. It is how I feel. Obama, in my opinion, makes Romney look like Polyanna where ethics are concerned.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13

                Good morning Colonel. Sorry for your house arrest, so to speak, but glad you have a little more time for SUFA. I am guessing you are getting pretty “itchy” by now.

                I did find the only reason to consider voting for Obama this morning. Headline on HuffPo was the Progressives planning to move to Canada if Romney is elected. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for doing that to my Canadian friends.

                Now if they said they would move to France…………… Bye, Bye…. 🙂 And of course, “let me help you pack”. 🙂 🙂

                Hang tough my Texican friend and keep yer powder dry.
                JAC

                P.S. There is a reason to pack a .45 or bigger hand gun. One word……….. GRIZZLY. 😉

    • Yes, it makes sense-thanks for taking the time. No questions right now, need to digest what I am reading today. 🙂

  39. @ Buck………….you said “If you hold yourself to such a higher ethical standard, shouldn’t the same be true of those you elect to office?”

    My answer is I would very much like to do that BUT I have to weigh your question…..IMO….Romney sets a much higher ethical standard than does Obama in his last four years. One major thing that guides this is his book “Dreams of my Father”…that should be required reading.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    “I still say it is not irrelevant — it certainly doesn’t disqualify him for the Presidency, but why shouldn’t it be taken into consideration?”

    It should be considered in the context of his life and as I described it. It was a job. He did not break the law. He was successful.

    He gained experience in leadership and management and how the business world functions. This is good experience for a POTUS.

    What you, the DNC and the other lefties are trying to do here is assign some NEGATIVE personality defect on Romney because he chose venture capital as his business. Yet there are NO ethical standards identified by which to judge him. Only YOUR opinion that this is somehow a defect.

    Exactly WHY should his work be considered “unacceptable”? What is the REAL problem that would cause him to be ineffective or fail as POTUS?

    Is it the fear that he is not compassionate enough for the Progressive mind?

    This entire line of attack on Romney is Unadulterated Bull Shit. It has been and will remain nothing but a play on populist emotions. It is not much different than what the Cons do in playing on the fear of “COMMUNISTS” in the White House…..blah, blah, blah.

    I do not believe he will dismantle entire agencies. He will focus on improving efficiency and reducing management overhead. You can expect some agencies to be combined and reductions in force caused by retirements rather than layoffs. I think the long list of action items he identified in 2008 will be carried forward. I think he would like to eliminate agencies but the political reality will not allow it and I am not sure he has the desire to fight those battles right now.

    I think Romney and Ryan are of the same cloth when it comes to the fiscal situation. They think we can make small cuts, then freeze spending and use GROWTH to balance the books in the long run. By small cuts I think in the range of a few billion not the trillion needed.

    As I said, he is the second best thing available. Gary Johnson is the FIRST best thing.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Here is the error in the entire argument:

    “Colonel,

    If you hold yourself to such a higher ethical standard, shouldn’t the same be true of those you elect to office?”

    What makes D13’s decision “higher” than yours or mine or Romney’s???

    What OBJECTIVE criteria are you using to make this determination.

    His standards are much the same as mine. But I do not consider my ethics higher, only that my acceptable business activities “different”.

    I personally like to build things. So taking apart companies just for money is not my style. But has nothing to do with ETHICS.

    However, given that the Fed Govt has caused my financial situation to decline and the fact I have other goals that involve building things, I reserve the right to acquire and liquidate a company just for the money if I choose. Because I can use that money to do something else I place greater value on.

    • So taking apart companies just for money is not my style. But has nothing to do with ETHICS.

      Perhaps “ethics” isn’t the best term.

      What do you consider it to be when you destroy the livelihood of thousands in order to make yourself rich, or when you IPO a company whose long-term prospects you know you’ve destroyed? What do you call it when you – perfectly legally – loot the pension fund for thousands of employees in order to make more money for yourself? What do you call it when you load a company up with unsustainable amounts of debt knowing full-well that you’re probably going to wind up defaulting?

      • Business?

        • I think I speak for all us lefties when I say: therein lies the problem.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            There is NO problem. Except the left’s desire to control the actions of others as needed to conform to their view of “ethics” or “morality”.

            You still have not addressed the primary question. If you think this behavior unethical, immoral or simply WRONG, then by what objective measure do you make that determination.

            If morality and ethics is “subjective” then who are you to say this is bad or wrong??? If it is “objective” then make your case.

          • Hmmmm…..are you not a hedge fund manager?

            • No. I am a hedge fund employee. I am the “Director of Middle Office,” which sounds great until I add the fact that I am the only person in Middle Office (ergo, director of myself).

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Ah yes, the loaded emotional rhetoric instead reason.

        False assumption number one. That eliminating a business is “destroying the livelihood” of others. If they become unemployed they can certainly move to other means of income, jobs, businesses etc. NOBODY has an obligation to provide anyone else with a livelihood. A job is not a right nor an entitlement. So if my selling off the parts results in jobless people, then that is just their bad luck.

        Obviously what ever it was they were doing was not of enough value to society that keeping the company had more “value” than selling off its pieces.

        If I commit fraud in presenting the condition of my IPO then that IS an ethical matter. If I present it accurately and others think it good, it is not relevant what I think I have done. Perhaps they see better than I do.

        I am not sure how I could LOOT a pension fund that was a true pension fund. The problem is that these funds are really not Pension Funds but Company Assets with an accounting title that confuses their status. Why is it unethical to deal with reality instead of the lie perpetrated by the previoius owner and union leaders?

        As for loading up with debt and “knowing” I would default? Why should I not behave just as my Govt behaves???

        Besides, if I load enough debt then Govt will bail out the company. So I did not harm anyone………….. right? Yes….that was sarcasm.

        • JAC…….figure this……If I am correct, Mathius is a hedge manager and Buck is an estate planner……The ethics of such must not bother them much…or they would be out of business…I doubt if either have turned down clients that received their money in such terms…..BUT

          You are quite correct in two things…and this is a game of hardball with no rules…..no one is guaranteed a job and, if the pension fund were properly secured under the PBGC…then there is no raid of a pension fund……if the PBGC is not involved…it is merely cash in the bank.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            I do get a kick out of Progressives trying to dive into the pool of ethics. Kind of like watching a Buffalo wallow around in a mud pot. Lots of bellowing and thrashing around, but they still die in the end.

            They have created a world governed by the “Pirate Code” but then they want to condemn rational people for operating according to the reality that they created. It is so confounding at times.

            Just for the record, I passed on several companies in my day, and closed one down, because I could not provide my employees/contractors with a living wage. Obviously the value of my service was not enough to provide a value to the employees/contractors. In my way of thinking I did them and me a favor by shutting it down. It freed all of us to pursue more meaningful and highly valued paths. The companies I passed on eventually went under.

            I wanted to also express my agreement with your strategy of buying based on ASSET values and not securities. It baffles me how many people ignore the Balance Sheet and wind up buying a pig in a poke. My experience tells me that a truly profitable company has both a solid P&L and Balance Sheet. And their Cash Flow statement rarely shows gimmicks.

            My focus has been small companies, more family businesses, that fit my style. I almost always find a bunch of debt on the books that is really “personal” debt they try to put on the business. Following one meeting between the seller, his accountant and me, the accountant dropped the seller as a client. He could not believe the crap I found in the books. Which then caused me to tell others to AVOID that accountant. If this old cowboy could see it, a trained professional sure as hell should have seen it.

          • If you were to find what I do to be an *ahem* ethical dilemna of sorts, and if I were to run for the Presidency, I would expect you to weigh this against me alongside any other qualifications I may (or may not) possess in reaching your decision whether to support my candidacy.

            That is all I am saying in terms of Romney and his Bain experience. Personally I view Romney’s role in private equity to be a somewhat morally compromising position. So I hold it against him. If you do not, or feel his other experiences and qualities surpass any ethical/moral downsides of his character/qualifications, then you should support his candidacy. Make sense?

            • Of course….you always make sense counselor…..I just pick at it from time to time….I understand thoroughly your position….I would still take you for a top shelf marguerita…

              • Patron Silver por favor!

                And if you ever make that trip out to NYC, there’s a martini at the bar waiting for you…along with a Texas-sized steak.

              • Tch Tch……Don Julios……………………only the best for you, my friend. I really want to see that new remake of Harvey.

          • Mathius is a hedge manager

            HA! No.

            I work at a hedge fund running middle office.

            That’s the difference between the President of the United States and some mid-level functionary.

            Decisions and trades are made elsewhere – I just tell people how much money they made and/or lost and keep the other miscellaneous cogs turning.

            For what it’s worth, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with hedge fund managers (or PE managers, for that matter). It’s all in how you do it. There are plenty of hedge funds that are up to lots of morally dubious (though perfectly legal) things. Mine is not one of them – we are certainly after making money – but we have never (to my knowledge) done anything which I would consider to be “bad.” Likewise, a PE shop could operate as you described elsewhere, or it could operate as I described elsewhere. One is good / neutral the other is not. But which one was Bain?

            Now, to be fair, if – IF – my company was doing evil, and I supported it by doing my middle office duties, then I would be (at least somewhat) culpable. However, as I said, the difference between me and Romney is that I’m the guy taking orders and he’s the guy giving orders. If the company is doing something “bad,” then it’s the guys at the top who made that decision while the rest of us are just trying to keep our paychecks.

        • “So if my selling off the parts results in jobless people, then that is just their bad luck.”

          Well well JAC – at least you have the balls to say something like that….er……is it leadership? We know Mitt doesn’t have the balls to say something like that. In business there are winners and losers. That is just the way it is. Just wish Mitt would cut the shit and wipe the windex smile off his face and explain how the bad luck equation he learned to exploit so well could be repeated on the grander scale of the US of A. That’d tell me more about his “leadership” over the empty rhetoric and crass bullshit he tries to one up the current POTUS with.

          I work for a company now that is owned by a PE. Its very interesting. I am there by my free will and have no expectations of a guarantee of anything. While our balance sheet has been strong, we’ve seen the company loaded up with debt, experienced deep deep cuts in headcount, benefits (frozen wages, bonuses eliminated, 401k matches eliminated) trimmed heavily, and a variety of other belt tightening things. The contrib to ownership has been strong throughout and expected to stay that way. I’d be shocked if we weren’t soon IPO’d or broken up and sold off. I have to continually eval my own personal cost/benefit ratio – I am not stupid – I know the company is stocked with people who will be left as broke asses who mistakenly thought that it is enough to work your ass and those market forcy things would keep the whole ship upright and chugging along. Its all perfectly legal, sort of like Obamacare, and I don’t blame the higher level players for doing what the numbers say they should do. Its called “dark leadership” – but it is leadership. I just wouldn’t want one of those empty suits running my country. Or would I?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Ray

            I think that would depend on whether that is their general nature, personality if you will, or if it is what they consider their job.

            As for Romney, we have a record to look at outside the VC or PE business. There is nothing there to indicate his personality is one of ruthlessness and uncaring, or “dark leadership”. This has been my point with Matt, Buck and Todd. He should be evaluated on his life’s work and not just on Bain. His PE days provided certain experience that is more than useful given our economic situation.

            What is going on here is an attempt to portray the man as evil and heartless because he was in VC/PE, because of course ALL such men are evil, and then claim this is how he would run Govt. Frankly, we could use some of that characteristic in dealing with Govt bloat, but I just don’t see that in Romney.

            I do agree that Romney needs to get off the Bain thing and the daily commentary on Obama, and simply speak to WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO. I don’t want or need specifics. I want general goals and principles he will not violate. I want some discussion about how his EXPERIENCE will help GET THINGS DONE. Or his assessment of what is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE given the gridlock in our country. I want that HONESTY that was alluded to at the R convention. Like “WE ARE BROKE and this is the general plan for addressing it. Now the details will depend on what we can get D’s and R’s to agree to, but you need to know how bad this situation really is.”

            The current campaign is what we should have expected. PLENTY OF PETTY from both sides. We are living in the New Media Age which has placed the politics of Personal Destruction on steroids.

            I do believe that what you are experiencing in your business is largely the result of Govt laws and policies. Capital Gains treatment of income that is not really cap investments, a bias towards debt financing, and other such things are driving the SHORT TERM view of too many business people. Change the reality and people will adjust to the new reality.

            As I have said many times, a new Paradigm is required. A very, very, BIG change.

            P.S. Given how the public has been poisoned with all the emotional stuff over the decades what do you think would happen to Romney if he said it was just “tough luck” these companies were liquidated and people lost jobs? Would that win him the independent and still undecided vote???

            I guess what I am getting at is that if we want that kind of honesty out of Romney, we should DEMAND it of Obama as well.

            • I don’t want or need specifics.

              No, I want specifics! I’m surprised after all the empty rhetoric given by politicians on both sides of the aisle, you are willing to accept lofty aspirations and empty rhetoric now…

              • Specifics like hope & change?

              • Once again you confuse me for an Obamabot….sigh….

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                The “empty rhetoric” almost always is focused on specifics. Things, or free stuff, that they cannot provide.

                That is what Obama did last time. Just specific enough to get the vote out but not enough to look like a complete failure for not coming through.

                The PRESIDENT does NOT RUN THE COUNTRY ALONE. The PRESIDENT DOES NOT have the AUTHORITY to do many of the things they promise or argue they will get done. This is the empty I don’t want to see anymore.

                Staking our “specific plans” during a campaign is absolutely stupid. The “specifics” become the issue when we all know that the final outcome must be the result of negotiation.

                Now I understand why many on the left want a “specific plan”. They view POTUS as KING, or at least they wish we had a KING. If that were true, then the specific plans of the candidate would matter. Because they would be able to implement those plans. They also want something easy to pick apart.

                I do NOT WANT lofty rhetoric and empty platitudes. I want a picture of the goals and direction, I want to know which key principles will NOT be sacrificed in the “legislative process”.

                Right now Buck, we could use a leader with some serious humble nature who is willing to NOT stake out to much ground before beginning office. I want the basic principles to be saved. Like no more reductions in freedom. But otherwise a lack of specifics would work towards reducing the friction in Congress if Romney should win. The more specifics, the more territory staked out, the greater the animosity in the beginning. Just like we got with Obama’s………. I won. It would be best if the Pres. were an honest broker in negotiations with both sides in Congress. This means not starting with hard core positions due to the campaign.

                This is in fact why we wound up with Bush Tax Cuts even after the Magical Clinton Surplus vanished. Bush felt he was obligated to follow up on his SPECIFIC Tax Cut promise.

                Romney/Ryan said they would hold spending to 20% of GDP. This is specific enough for me. How about you?

                But it raises serious questions that must now also be answered, if this is to be met. I would like to see them distinguish between what are “Goals” and what are “Strategies/tactics”. The goal should be to eliminate the deficit by X date and reduce debt by Y amount and X+ date. Then they need to make the case that the goal is achievable in different ways. A 20% of GDP spending cap is a strategy, not a goal in itself.

                But then, Mr. Obama has not done this and he is leading in the polls. Mathius and you have both expressed that you will vote for him. So why is Romney’s lack of “details” a real issue? Would it change your mind in anyway?

            • What is going on here is an attempt to portray the man as evil and heartless because he was in VC/PE, because of course ALL such men are evil

              False.

              VC is not evil – it’s generally a very good thing. He did some VC, and while it can be wildly profitable, it’s still a good thing. It provides capital to build businesses. That is very well aligned with the goal of the Presidency.

              PE is a different story. While it CAN BE neutral or even good, Bain was not. I’m not painting “all such men” as “evil.” I’m saying that Romney, as President of Bain, certainly acted in a fashion which showed a blatant disregard for the wellbeing of the workers, of the debt issuers, and of the purchasers of his IPO’s. Sure it was all legal, but that doesn’t mean that these are qualities we should look for in a President.

              • Why not?……..perhaps it is what is needed to get our fiscal house in order, wouldn’t you think (taking all emotion out of it)….I do not see any other way…..I know you see this too….it is just hard to fathom because of the emotion involved.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I can see the argument – I do. The government has a LOT of bloat that needs to be cut away.

                But I don’t think the government should be run like a business. It’s not a business. The goals are different. That’s not to say Romney isn’t qualified (I think he is!), but that he has worked in a capacity which is directly hostile to those goals and that’s.. troublesome.

                Certainly the fiscal house needs to be put in order.. but is slash and burn the right way to go?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Your continuing on this line of BS proves my point, instead of making the case against it.

                Did Romney practice “slash and burn” with the Olympics? Did he display “blatant disregard for the well being of workers, etc” when Governor??

                Once again you go back to the “outcome” of Bain and not the relevant EXPERIENCE. What KSA’s did he acquire? Are these relevant to POTUS?

                I say YES, YES, YES, and more YES.

                Has he displayed successful leadership in Business, NGO, and Govt??

                I say YES, YES, YES, and more YES.

                Leadership is not about whether you feel good about the outcomes. It is about the ability to set clear goals, objectives, hire the right people, empower them, get needed resources and then manage all this to ACHIEVE the goals. The ability to get diverse groups and organizations to focus on common outcomes and get the job done.

                The question is whether he has LEADERSHIP skills. He has…………. in SPADES.

                The next question is whether he has shown an ability to function as a leader in Govt. He has………….. in SPADES.

            • @JAC – nice response – enjoyed reading it.

              Personally I’d like a little more specifics.

              To your question – I fear things are too poisoned. Maybe it isn’t he does not have the balls but realizes its all about the packaging anyway. Filthy media sucks ass.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Ray

                I am not totally disagreeing with having more info, just don’t need more stuff like “I’ll create 12 million jobs in four years”.

                Instead tell me you intend to eliminate 20% of the Fed Budget but the details will be handled in negotiations with Congress. It is the 20% that matters as the base line. Now some people want to know which agency gets whacked. I think it is OK to give a few, like Dept of Education, but be honest and explain to America that it is the role of Congress to make the final choices, because it is Congress that represents the people. I do not want to be King but given our current situation I will not stand by and let Congress drive us off the cliff. I will hold to my targets unless Congress can come up with another way to meet the same goal. That is first a balanced budget, and then reduce the debt.

                Oh wait, was that me speaking or me speaking for Romney? I guess that was ME! Vote VDLG………. Freedom, Liberty and Justice, for ALL.

                There is a great danger in giving to much specifics. Like the 50 page economic plan. The media policy wonks will spend the next three month picking away at every last little item. I agree, filthy media sucks ass.

                Hope all is well in the Hawkins household.

  42. Rani has made her case on why she thinks Romney is the better leader. I look at the other side of this issue, a lack of leadership. Or maybe a leader determined to drive us over a cliff with millions shouting, “turn around!” Ex..

    http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/09/11/moodys-expects-to-cut-us-rating-without-deal-to-lower-debtgdp-ratio/

  43. @ JAC……”There is a reason to pack a .45 or bigger hand gun. One word……….. GRIZZLY.”

    Hell, JAC…..a .45 is a great weapon……..but if I plan on coming face to face with a GRIZ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then I want something really nasty, I agree. Much larger than a .45. A nuke comes to mind.

    Now…..there is a gentleman that I went through Nam with…..he did three tours as a LRRP and not a scratch…I was invited on a bear hunt in Illiamna, Alaska with him during black powder season. He wanted me as his “back up”….he had a sharps .50….I contemplated and decided that it would be cool and I wanted to do some trout fishing as well……I carried a 300 Weatherby at combat ready…a .270 Winchester in a sling on the left shoulder…..a .45 Colt Automatic and a 40 ft range pepper spray canister and a Kbar (who the hell knows why). This guy had one shot…. I was gonna have several and a head start. He said the thrill of it is the hunt…..I disputed that but it was his hunt. Anyway, off we went…hunting Griz or black whichever popped up. Going through some thick alders, he showed me a “highway”….(bear trail)……He was 30 yards ahead and wouldn’t you know it….up stood a black bigger than anything I have ever seen anywhere….(had a 11 ft tree mark reach)….but this guy was cool hand luke……one shot in the throat and down he went….I never had to fire a shot…..just put on clean drawers….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      That is why I prefer a Gatling gun when in Griz country. I find the distraction of soiling myself bothersome to my aim with a handgun. 🙂

      • Especially in -10 weather.

        • Did you have to say that 🙂 Thanks JAC and D13 for your posts about Romney and his business. I could feel stress leaving me as I read. Wish I could speak it like you two can.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            Actually you did, and in many fewer words. While mine was much longer I doubt it had any more positive affect than the shorter version you and V.H. posted.

            The guy has a great record of experience and success that would help him as POTUS. But as with all people, you never really know until they get in the big chair.

            One thing I know for sure though. The guy in the chair is COMPLETELY unacceptable to me. Hell, I would rather have Carter back that see another four years of this “person”.

            • Anita…..you said it fine. It is always nice to have other people understand what you said. Actually, JAC and I did not have to say anything…you were on target.

              • @JAC…..another four years of Jimmy Carter over Obama??????? whooooo eeeee……I guess that would be ok…we made a small fortune under Carter…..we did the same thing as now…sat on our cash and when cash got tight….banks offered jumbo CD rates as high as 13%…inflated dollars. But when reality came to earth…those inflated returns were quite nice. Now look at the CD rates….if there are any…..lol. If obama stays in office, we, the family, is relatively sure that money will totally dry up. The housing will continue to crash and the medical field costs will rise more than they already have (average increase since Obamacare went into effect is 21%)….probably a good investment opportunity tho…..we are watching and sitting on cash.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13

                I know Colonel, it sounds awful. But I figure 4 years of Marvin Milktoast much better than 4 more years of this divisive “person”. Trying to mind my manners some today. Been throwing the BS around a little to much lately.

                Yes, I could use a little runaway inflation right now with high rates. Followed by a serious crash. This time I wouldn’t get all the arguments about NOT SELLING all our real estate at the height of the market.

                I don’t disagree with your assessment of the future. Not sure how much Romney can really do to prevent that scenario either. My only hope for him is that he STOPS the race to bring the USA in line with European Political Philosophy.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius and Buck

    I just want to take this moment to point out that in this discussion of Bain you did exactly what all the other lefties so often do. You had to quickly move the target to avoid addressing what you “claimed” was the initial issue. Caveat once again: Lefties to me include most “conservatives”.

    This discussion started with “show us how Bain provided EXPERIENCE” that might make Romney a better leader or POTUS than Obama. When I and others responded with specifics on knowledge, skills, abilities, that would be important as POTUS, especially given the economic situation, you immediately moved the argument to the “outcome” of Bain’s activities.

    I will leave it up to Mathius to come up with the name of this logical fallacy. He is much faster at it than I.

    Now I think that where you took the argument is the TRUE argument by most on the left. They don’t like the “outcome” of venture capital/private equity. It doesn’t FEEL right. So they use that to denigrate the person, portray him as evil and then try to argue that business experience DOES NOT help in Government. They try to make us all think that he would run Govt like a VC/PE business. They want us all to believe that he WOULD push granny off the cliff if he thought it would enrich him or his friends.

    I expect this of the die hard Dems and Progressives. I find it baffling coming from those who portray themselves as “independent” or “moderate” in any way.

    Romney has an uphill battle. Always did. He has a legitimate chance to overcome the hill and win. But as Ray said above, he needs to stop fighting the Left’s game here. He is a leader and he needs to display that leadership right now and not get into the gutter politics. He should not explain how Bain adds to his experience, he should simply SHOW US how that experience works today.

    Now that is a nice dream, and even if he were inclined, but I can see why he would not want to get out there too soon. Can you imagine what the Obama team would do to him if he started presenting the absolute truth about our situation and meaningful solutions?

    We all know down deep that the Safety Net programs are unsustainable by design. The ONLY way to assure these programs are sustainable is to essentially privatize them. Whether that is retirement or medical funds. But do you think we could have a rational discussion about that in the current political climate? With the current “gottch ya” media types running everywhere?

    With people like Buck who think the Govt Option should be implemented because somehow the MAGIC of a govt program will drive down the costs that the private sector cannot control?

    • They don’t like the “outcome” of venture capital/private equity.

      Quick point of order — stop conflating venture capitalism with private equity. They are two entirely different things.

      Now, to address you point as to Romeny and Bain, I do agree that there are two separate issues here — one is to his actual experience at Bain and whether or not this experience qualifies him to serve as President [Note: I still am not convinced that his experience at Bain can or will translate to the Presidency; no one has made any argument to sway me on this]; second is to his character and what his experience/role at Bain tells me, personally, about his character and moral compass and whether or not I want that quality in a President.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You guys have gone back and forth with the references. So I am simply putting them all together so there is no argument of silly points of order.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        So like all the other “P” Progressives, what you do here is isolate Bain and ignore all his other experiences that would inform you of his “character”. You have to isolate and focus on Bain because it is the only thing that “fits” the D narrative of the “Ugly Republican”.

        I and D13, along with Jack Welch have provided far more evidence of how the KSA’s of the CEO of Bain might relate to the office of POTUS than anyone ever did for Obama’s. Yet you claim you are not convinced his experience will translate.

        I thought you said you voted for Obama last time? If you did then why is Romney’s “specific” leadership skills of such importance to you this time?

        Buck, you know full well what the KSA’s are associated with someone running a successful company. Especially one involved in the world of finance. How can you say you are not convinced these skills would not help him in the role of POTUS?

        Now take those KSA’s and combine them with his experience as a Governor. Let me guess. The next argument is your not convinced his experience as Gov. of Mass. will help him in the role of POTUS.

        This meme that we don’t want Govt run as a business is pure distraction and obfuscation. The issue is the knowledge, skills and abilities. Some of this goes to leadership and part to general understanding.

        Here is the bottom line Buck. He is NOT a radical Progressive Democrat. He is just another Progressive Republican. Therefore, you oppose him.

        • So like all the other “P” Progressives, what you do here is isolate Bain and ignore all his other experiences that would inform you of his “character”

          For his whole life he was a good and successful businessman. He gave to charity, was faithful to his wife, kind to his children. Sure, I mean, yea, there was that 18 year period where he was a mob hitman, but you’re ignoring all his other experience that would inform you of his character!

          Typical liberals.

        • I thought you said you voted for Obama last time? If you did then why is Romney’s “specific” leadership skills of such importance to you this time?

          It’s not. I think he’s “qualified” in terms of leadership skills by virtue of his governorship and his many (including Bain) business leadership roles.

          His time at Bain only speaks poorly of his character not his ability.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            And Obama’s time working for Acorn and other “special group” political operatives speaks “well” of his character?

            If you consider Romney’s time as a Venture Capitalist as somehow preying upon others, then what the hell is a “community organizer” and “political activist” doing? Yes, Matt they are preying upon others. Attacking one to benefit another. But what the hell. At least it is “altruistic” instead of like those “selfish” Capitalists.

            • Well, when you consider the goal of Obama’s “community organizer” and “political activist” to the goal of Romney’s Venture Capitalist…at least it is “altruistic” instead of like those “selfish” Capitalists.

              JAC,
              You can’t paint everything Obama has done in his life with such a negative brush, and then expect people to try to understand that Romney has some ‘good’ points too…

        • He is just another Progressive Republican. Therefore, you oppose him.

          If he were, I might vote for him. In fact, I think he’s more a of center-right pragmatist. It’s actually to his credit that he apparently doesn’t hold any internal ideology – it means he’s flexible to do what the situation requires. I like that in a leader.

          The only concerns I have is that he’s had to move so far to the right that I worry he’ll govern that way and/or that he might actually try to “run the government like a business” which would be very bad for the lower classes.

          The other factor, of course, is that Obama is a center-left politician. Being to the left, myself, I would generally prefer the one closer to my ideology. Neither one is a perfect (or even close) fit, but Obama is closer.

        • JAC,
          The title of this post is:

          Mitt Romney is the Better Leader

          But then the entire article is about Obama. So we asked “you” to provide Romney’s leadership examples, traits, etc. And you did – sort of… 😉

          So why isn’t his campaign playing up these traits? These have all been key topics in the past (I don’t remember exactly when, but they’re all well-known). I realize there are some negatives related to these, but there are negatives in every narrative. You have to acknowledge those negatives, but then keep pushing the positive narrative.

          It just seems like the Romney campaign can’t find a consistent narrative to stick with.

          • It seems to me there is a serious lack of leadership in Romney’s campaign…

            • charlieopera says:

              This article was as weak as they come … and pretty much shows you what the right has in 2012 … NADA.

              Now that the knives are out (the wingies on the radio calling for Romney’s head), you can pack this baby up and say Night-night …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I disagree but see my comment to Todd for more.

              • One other point that I feel may be missed in this conversation:

                Assuming Romney is, in fact, a better leader than Obama, we must still ask if we want to head in the direction Romney would lead us in. To me, that would be a resounding NO.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            My short answer, the one I am giving as the VDLG Presidential Candidate is: I do not know!

            Now for my analytical answer:

            I think there are a few things at play. But I don’t know the people running his campaign so can’t say for sure. But based on history:

            First, I am not convinced there is not a consistent narrative. It is hard to say anymore with all the talking heads, new media partisans, etc. You can stay on message and have the outside world decide something else is important. Then you have to deal with it.

            Now that is not all that is happening but it is happening. Ryan did make the silly comment about the marathon. But it is really NOT an issue. However, look how much media attention was devoted to it.

            One mistake, and you mentioned it as well as Ray is the feeling that you need to respond to everything Obama is doing or saying. The Obama campaign used this strategy against McCain pretty well. But this is a different time and a different person. Romney needs to stop this in my view. But hen look at all the Cons urging him to get MORE feisty. They want him to be MORE aggressive. I think they are full of Bull Dookey. The “middle” don’t want more fighting they want to see how someone is going to get the two sides to do something.

            Second, I think that all politicians who are not PRO’s at running for office, ie. career types, become victim to their “experts”. This is where good leadership can hurt for a period of time, when the candidate follows the advice and gives the person a chance to fix it or fail. Unfortunately, in a campaign this can be deadly depending on when it happens.

            Right now it is not fatal. But if the “perception” of this continues it will be fatal.

            Third, this is my media excuse, and I think it applies to all “challengers”. Also those the media builds up because then they love to tear them down. The media picked Romney way back as their preferred. Now it is tear down time. I thought Obama was going to fall victim to this a week or two ago, but now it looks like they may have decided to ignore him. EVENTS will dictate if this continues.

            Part of the media influence is the nature of media coverage over all. I think we could agree it is getting ever more partisan and PETTY. So you don’t just have a “few negatives” in the narrative to deal with. You can have constant negatives or at least the sense they are somehow negative because of the tone the Media sets. Many people will form opinions based on the tone they hear and not listen to a technical explanation.

            I try to scan various web sites during the day and TV stations at night to get a sense of what is happening. I don’t get a sense of what EITHER candidate is ACTUALLY saying or doing. What I get is a sense of what the SURROGATES think or want us to think. It is quite bizarre. The only reason I have an idea what Obama is proposing is his convention speech and his sticking to the same old rhetoric as last time. No change. If he has offered up something new I am unaware and I am guessing nobody else is either.

            I don’t think the PRESS or even NEW MEDIA is really contributing in a positive way to “informing” the Public. It is looking more like and extended tool of who ever can use it.

            Fourth, Romney is still being forced to run a “primary” WHILE running a “general” election. The Factions within the Republican Party are adding to his problems building narratives. Just look at the talking heads who are criticizing his campaign. These self proclaimed “conservatives” were the ones who helped hand pick him. Now they complain he is NOT THEM. So they bitch in public and threaten his base.

            The Republican Party does NOT have its act together nearly as much as the DNC and affiliate groups. Any Presidential candidate needs the party “machine” to be hitting on all cylinders. Otherwise Romney can get rolling and somebody else can torpedo him by creating distractions. Like some Senate candidate discussing “legitimate rape”. For the last 4 to 6 years the Dems have been much better at this, although it was done by pushing the moderates away.

            This goes to what I said months ago. The Republican Leadership seems pretty much STUPID. They are completely capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

            NOW, Given all that the challenges are not insurmountable. I think the middle is still available. I am not sure the middle control the swing states, however. It may be that Romney could capture the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.

            It is up to Romney to figure out where they are and what is needed and to kick some back side inside the campaign to get the final push. We will see what he has left. Three years is a long time to campaign. But remember how many times the pundits thought he was toast during the primaries and he came roaring back.

            Then again it may turn out he would make a great President but we won’t know because he turns out to be a poor campaigner.

            Here is the ONE place where I think he needs to exert his Leadership and push back against all the experts. Because of all this advice and the need to deal with the factions within the R party, he has tied himself in knots, creating a caricature of the guy with his finger in the wind. I think I have a good idea of who he is, that being the “moderate” Progressive Republican. This is the time to simply let that hang out there and take a chance on his base leaving him. If they do, he loses. If they don’t, he wins going away.

            Now I have a question for you. Should he continue with the attacks on Obama or should he go Totally Positive and Ignore Obama from here on out?

            This is the danger zone for a politician. Instinct is to go positive because people say that is what they want. But history shows that positive LOSES to the negative. It is a conundrum of American politics for sure.

            If Romney was to ask me for advice it would be KISS. And KISS over and over and over and over, until November. Only a handful of critical program initiatives that can be easily explained and that connect with most people at the gut level. Stick to it and keep quiet on everything else. Putting out a 50 page itemized action plan is a WASTE of time and not constructive. Unless you want to make Chris Matthew’s happy.

            Now I have another question for you. Would you vote for a President who said we have to raise taxes substantially on ALL AMERICANS? Not just the Rich but ALL Americans. That we need to DOUBLE our tax revenue in order to meet our current obligations?

            • JAC,

              First, I am not convinced there is not a consistent narrative.

              This is where I see Romney’s problem. He’s a “moderate,” which by its very nature is kind of “flip-floppy”. He’s not a die-hard right or left winger, so he doesn’t have a set-in-stone ideology to always control his message. To win the primary he had to go to the right, and now he’s having hard time consistently and smoothly moving back towards the middle. Every step towards the middle is met with rightwing trying to pull him back, and the leftwing calling him a flip-flopper. So he back-tracks a little and then tries again.

              This is where his leadership needs to shine thru (he does have at least some!), but this is also where business leadership doesn’t always transfer well to political leadership. In business, he could set the direction and everyone gets on board – or leaves. As time goes by you adjust the direction as needed, and everyone follows. But in politics, every little change of direction is jumped on. This is why he needs a clear direction (narrative) that is mapped out to get from “A” (primary) to “B” (general election), and he needs to stick to it, explain any little negatives, and keep moving forward.

              I think his general election strategy was “not Obama”, and just wasn’t enough to pull in the numbers he needs, and the campaign is having a hard time transitioning to “vote Romney”.

              The Obama campaign used this strategy against McCain pretty well.

              I agree. And I think it drove Palin nuts. They did get more negative near the end, and I didn’t think that was good – or needed.

              The “middle” don’t want more fighting they want to see how someone is going to get the two sides to do something.

              I agree, but by their very nature they don’t make much noise, so they get “ignored,” even though they are the ones both side are really trying to court. It’s the “squeaky wheels” (on both sides) that get the grease.

              Second, I think that all politicians who are not PRO’s at running for office, ie. career types, become victim to their “experts”. This is where good leadership can hurt for a period of time, when the candidate follows the advice and gives the person a chance to fix it or fail. Unfortunately, in a campaign this can be deadly depending on when it happens.

              Right now it is not fatal. But if the “perception” of this continues it will be fatal.

              I agree. I think the Republicans thought “not Obama” was enough, and Romney followed that advice. Now he has to use his “leadership” to get the “vote Romney” message clear and concise.

              The media picked Romney way back as their preferred. Now it is tear down time.

              Well, it’s also a Republican standard that the “next in line” gets the nomination. It was just bad timing for Romney in 2012 – a moderate candidate when the right-wing of the party is flying high. Romney would have done much better in 2008. And so would have McCain without Palin dragging him to the right fringe.

              Part of the media influence is the nature of media coverage over all. I think we could agree it is getting ever more partisan and PETTY. So you don’t just have a “few negatives” in the narrative to deal with. You can have constant negatives or at least the sense they are somehow negative because of the tone the Media sets. Many people will form opinions based on the tone they hear and not listen to a technical explanation.

              I think the mainstream media has been driven to the “sound bite reporting” because the alternate media is much more partisan and thrives on “exciting” headlines. People get used to that excitement, and the mainstream media sounds boring if they don’t follow. Just look who’s getting the ratings.

              his sticking to the same old rhetoric as last time. No change. If he has offered up something new I am unaware and I am guessing nobody else is either.

              And that consistent narrative is working…you don’t want to confuse the voters!

              Fourth, Romney is still being forced to run a “primary” WHILE running a “general” election. The Factions within the Republican Party are adding to his problems building narratives. Just look at the talking heads who are criticizing his campaign. These self proclaimed “conservatives” were the ones who helped hand pick him. Now they complain he is NOT THEM. So they bitch in public and threaten his base.

              I agree!

              The Republican Party does NOT have its act together nearly as much as the DNC and affiliate groups. Any Presidential candidate needs the party “machine” to be hitting on all cylinders. Otherwise Romney can get rolling and somebody else can torpedo him by creating distractions. Like some Senate candidate discussing “legitimate rape”. For the last 4 to 6 years the Dems have been much better at this, although it was done by pushing the moderates away.

              I agree here too. But it used to be the opposite, but the Tea Party has really shaken up the Republicans. It used to be the Democrats who were always fractioned by the many diverse groups – and they still are. But now the Republicans make the Dems look organized!

              This goes to what I said months ago. The Republican Leadership seems pretty much STUPID. They are completely capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

              Hey wait a minute – whose arguing for who here???? 😉

              NOW, Given all that the challenges are not insurmountable. I think the middle is still available. I am not sure the middle control the swing states, however. It may be that Romney could capture the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.

              It is up to Romney to figure out where they are and what is needed and to kick some back side inside the campaign to get the final push. We will see what he has left. Three years is a long time to campaign. But remember how many times the pundits thought he was toast during the primaries and he came roaring back.

              Yup – Romney needs to step up and lead his campaign. Not only to right-the-ship, but show his leadership.

              Then again it may turn out he would make a great President but we won’t know because he turns out to be a poor campaigner.

              I just wonder if he would be “caught in the headlights” like Obama has been so often. Trying to find solutions, but getting pulled to one extreme by his party and pounced on by his opposition. I think it will take a cycle or two for the vitriol to die down (if Obama wins, the right will continue to obstruct, and if Romney wins, the left will obstruct as payback).

              Here is the ONE place where I think he needs to exert his Leadership and push back against all the experts. Because of all this advice and the need to deal with the factions within the R party, he has tied himself in knots, creating a caricature of the guy with his finger in the wind. I think I have a good idea of who he is, that being the “moderate” Progressive Republican. This is the time to simply let that hang out there and take a chance on his base leaving him. If they do, he loses. If they don’t, he wins going away.

              Yup – trying to please everyone isn’t working. Be yourself – lay out your plan – and sell it because it’s really YOU!

              Now I have a question for you. Should he continue with the attacks on Obama or should he go Totally Positive and Ignore Obama from here on out?

              I’d like to see them both do this. There will always be some “pointing out what the other guy is doing wrong”, but that needs to be followed with a strong “here’s how I’m going to do it better/right.”

              This is the danger zone for a politician. Instinct is to go positive because people say that is what they want. But history shows that positive LOSES to the negative. It is a conundrum of American politics for sure.

              Yup – because it’s easier to go negative – and it’s easier for people to relate to “Obama’s bad” than it is for them to relate to some…oh I don’t know… 50 page itemized action plan?? 😉

              If Romney was to ask me for advice it would be KISS. And KISS over and over and over and over, until November. Only a handful of critical program initiatives that can be easily explained and that connect with most people at the gut level. Stick to it and keep quiet on everything else. Putting out a 50 page itemized action plan is a WASTE of time and not constructive. Unless you want to make Chris Matthew’s happy.

              Who do you want Romney to KISS??

              This has been my whole point – a clean, clear narrative – Keep It Simple Stupid! 😉

              But of course we all want to keep Chris happy!

              Now I have another question for you. Would you vote for a President who said we have to raise taxes substantially on ALL AMERICANS? Not just the Rich but ALL Americans. That we need to DOUBLE our tax revenue in order to meet our current obligations?

              Yes, in general (Double would be a little extreme). But first Romney’s (the “rich”) effective tax rate has to catch up to the middle class. And it has to be very clear the revenue will be used to pay our existing obligations and get rid of the deficit. And SPEND some serious money to stop fraud, get rid of duplication and excessive regulation, and make government effective.

              The one additional thing – get rid of Super Pacs. They drive the major negative aspects of the campaigns, and they allow the candidates to deny responsibility.

              • Just to throw it in here because it sort of fits. Kristian Gilibrand, candidate for re-election to the US Senate from NY used to be a very conservative Democratic congresswomen. Once she became Senator, she became a very liberal Democratic Senator. When asked why the switch, she actually explained that she was now representing the feelings of the “whole” of NY State rather than a small upstate congressional district. It seemed appropriate to her to adopt the positions she felt the majority held.

                One might say that Romney’s positions might just be the same. Reflective of the Party as a whole and what he perceives of the American people. As Governor of Mass. The ONLY state to vote for George McGovern in 1972, to get elected, to accomplish something, one would have to color their own opinions to fit the feelings of the electorate.

                The big question then becomes, have you compromised away your intrinsic values? To use a military aphorism, “Sometimes, high diddle diddle, right down the middle” is not the way to go. Ask Bill Clinton, the president who now has a reputation because and only because he was willing to swing to the side the people favored.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                I agree, completely. I would add only one little clarification or additional comment. As you said, a business background does not necessarily prepare you for politics because you are able to control more. Although much less in a big business than many realize. In Romney’s case, however, he does have political experience so I am a little baffled by his reactions at times. Which leads to one possibility. As a “moderate Progressive” Republican who was elected in a State DOMINATED by Democrats, it may be that he was not subjected to the intense push/pull you get with a more “divided” State.

                I saw this happen in Idaho as it went to such a Red State that the R’s forgot how to work with anyone or deal with dissent. They got used to simply getting their way, with no serious debate. There is was same party, but in Mass, it would be basically same philosophy. They only really argued over the details.

                Perhaps the two of us should offer our services to the Romney campaign. What do ya think? 😉

                Did you ever see his elaborate proposals for “improving” Govt during the 08 primary race?

              • JAC,
                Yes, it’s the Right Wing that is causing Romney’s problems. He knows how to work with the middle and the left, but not the right wing, because their demands are irrational.

  45. I found this funny-Would Putin make a better President than Obama, Hee Hee Hee 🙂

    Is Putin the Russian Reagan?

    Rachel Marsden

    Sep 11, 2012

    It would seem that we’re now at the stage of global economic lunacy where the worldwide socialist slide is so far gone that the president of Russia is lecturing the world, and particularly Europe, about the risks of socialism.

    Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Vladivostok, Russia, Vladimir Putin promoted the merits of free-market economics. He said that by pulling the former Soviet satellite states into its sphere after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Europe chose to take responsibility for subsidizing their economic well-being. And now the eurozone model is on the verge of collapse itself, seemingly destined to follow in the footsteps of the old Soviet Union.

    Putin’s solution is to create and build influence — and restore the lost power of the Soviet era — through trade, without taking on the responsibility for other countries’ debts or internal problems. Russia’s Gazprom, for example, supplies an estimated 36 percent of Europe’s gas, with that figure skyrocketing to over 80 percent in former Soviet states like Poland. The European Commission launched an investigation into Gazprom last week, threatening up to $1.4 billion in fines for unfair competition practices. Putin responded by lecturing Europe on what he portrayed as a desperate cash grab by changing the rules midgame, long after the contracts were signed and prices set.

    “It seems now that someone in the European Commission has decided that we are going to share this subsidizing burden,” Putin said at the conference. “That means the united Europe wants to keep political influence while we would be paying for this a little bit. This is a non-constructive approach. … In our times we have shifted to market relations with these countries and market formation of prices. Let’s stay on the ground of today realities.”

    Yes, let’s keep this free-market show moving along unimpeded, says the president of the part of the world previously synonymous with communism.

    Putin didn’t stop there, either. Continuing his transformation into some kind of Russian Ronald Reagan, he lectured the world on the perils of protectionism. Admitting he wasn’t blameless in sometimes taking measures to protect the sectors most vulnerable to global economic turbulence, he confessed that “addiction to the medicine of protectionism may temporarily relieve the pain, the acute symptoms, but it slows down the recovery of the global economy, hampers trade and investments.”

    Only time will tell to what degree Putin’s actions come to match his words, but those words already stand in stark contrast to the rhetoric emanating from much of Europe and the rest of the world.

    In France, socialist President Francois Hollande had an opportunity to back down from a campaign promise to slap a 75 percent income tax on any personal income over 1 million euros. Unfortunately, Hollande has reiterated that he’s the kind of socialist who keeps his promises. What France desperately needs right now is a socialist who reneges on everything that comes out of his mouth and spends most of his term on vacation, but apparently Hollande is determined not to be that kind of guy.

    France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the multibillionaire CEO of LVMH (the parent company for brands such as Louis Vuitton, Dior, Moet & Chandon, Guerlain and Sephora), who sits in fourth place on the list of the world’s richest people, has already applied for Belgian citizenship and has reportedly been spending much of his time in the neighboring country, where, incidentally, his tax rate would be 50 percent. Despite Arnault’s denials that he’d move either jobs or his own tax burden out of France, the left-leaning Liberation newspaper ran a front-page story featuring Arnault’s photo and a headline that translates to: “Screw off, rich idiot!” Arnault promptly sued the newspaper for “public injury,” noting that he has created more than 20,000 jobs in the country.

    But really, why should Arnault be condemned to give away 75 percent of his personal income to a government that does nothing but fritter it away on free health care and entitlements for illegal immigrants, on various whiners who refuse to leave the block on which they grew up in an effort to procure gainful employment, on unproductive bureaucratic leeches, and on a trough full of political fat cats? Apparently some people feel better about their lot in life when socialist policies are perceived as forcing people such as Arnault to share in their misery.

    That’s not a country — it’s an economic gulag. I have a feeling that Putin would be only too happy these days to lecture you on the difference. Incidentally, how much would Arnault, or anyone else, pay in income tax in Putin’s Russia?

    Answer: Russia has a 13 percent flat tax for all personal income, and a 20 percent rate for corporate taxes. It used to be much higher, but apparently Putin was pretty sure that cutting taxes would stimulate economic growth. Go figure.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelmarsden/2012/09/11/is_putin_the_russian_reagan/page/full/

    • Interesting program on C-Span over the weekend on Russian Orthodoxy. There were three guests, all Russians and all speaking regarding the resurgence of the religion. Made some excellent points about Russia seeking its “identity” and possibly finding it. It is 21 years now since Communism fell and despite most US politicians still managing to call the place the Soviet Union on a regular basis, most Russians under 30 have no experience with the Soviet State.

      These three men, all I would say in their 50’s or 60’s see an interesting future for “mother Russia”. All agree that Europe is dead, doesn’t even believe in itself anymore and that the US is running a close second. All are “compromised” by their secularism and their unwillingness to even define the difference between right and wrong. All see the growth of the Russian Church and the coming alliance with Poland (!) as being the only future the West has.

      If I were to sum it all up, I would say it goes something like this, “You can’t fight an enemy who operates on a belief system based on religious faith, no matter how wrong, with a system that believes in nothing”. Last time around, a thousand years ago, it was the Western Empire that was supposed to save the Byzantine but didn’t. This time around, it may be the East trying. An interesting premise to say the least.

      From a purely psychological standpoint, it fits in with that concept that repression/hard times tend to make people a lot stronger. The Russian people, an educated people, had seventy years, almost four generations of repression. Wonder what will bloom?

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    I saw the Stossel breakdown of the DNC convention the other night. It was as good as the one they did on the RNC.

    I just love how the “libertarians” stick to rational discussion and leave all the silly rhetoric out.

    At the end each person made their case for who to vote for in the election.

    Gillespie, of Reason TV, took the principled stance of voting for Gary Johnson. So did the Tea Party guy. But the young girl who runs a group for “independent women” made a different case. The one for Romney.

    I bring it up because it IS the essence of the usual, least of two evils, argument and how we never get real change. Not by JUST participating via voting.

    Her case: In REALITY this is a two person race. Obama is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Romney is a close second but would take a much slower approach down the path of more govt. He might in fact halt Govt progression in some areas. So the ONLY choice is Romney.

    That is if you subscribe to this type of argument. Given that I and others argue for the use of reason and logic, it is a hard argument to stand against. After all, reason or rationale thinking is living according to the rules of REALITY.

    TODAY, THIS YEAR, that reality is that this IS IN FACT a two man race.

    But I am voting for Gary Johnson anyway. I’m taking the principled coward’s way out. Two years from now, regardless of the outcome, I can claim legitimately that “IT IS NOT MY FAULT, I DIDN’T VOTE FOR THE GUY!!!!”

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Interesting JAC.

      It seems to me the “Republicans/The Right/Whatever you want to call it” used to be the party of “personal responsibility” and “take charge” attitude (at least that’s what they claimed).

      More and more, it seems like The Right is the party of “not my fault” or “they started it.”

      When did this change occur?

      • What change Todd…what did I miss?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Not sure what you are thinking of in particular but in the world of politics, when one side sees the other side be effective with a particular tactic, they will eventually adopt that tactic.

        Seems to me that is basic human behavior.

        Now do you have something specific in mind we could look at?

        • Now do you have something specific in mind we could look at?

          Yes…but I’m interested in your take first!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            I don’t necessarily see the R’s abandoning “personal responsibility” in a general sense. Just look how they hang their own so quickly over stupid things and indiscretions.

            Right now I can’t think of anything that leans in the direction you are proposing. So you’ll have to help me out with this one and give me a direction to look.

            Wait, wait, maybe I got it. Is it the ECONOMY and the effect of the BUSH TAX CUTS????

            • JAC,
              It’s Sarah Palin.

              She made being stupid popular & acceptable.
              She made blaming other’s popular & acceptable.
              She made being a victim popular & acceptable.
              She made constant attacks popular & acceptable.

              She’s dumbed down the debate and the discourse to a 3rd grade level.

              But I don’t blame Sarah Palin. That’s all she knows.

              I blame John McCain for putting her on display in the national spotlight.

  47. Egypt mob tore down the US flag at our embassy, no one hurt (yet). Anyone seen our “leader?” The genius at foreign affairs?

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88A11N20120911?irpc=932

  48. charlieopera says:

    Turn out the lights, the party’s over …

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    I can’t wait to hear crazy Mark Levin on the way home tonight …

  49. I think this will back-fire for Romney, as the Fox News article leaves out some important facts…

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/romney-calls-obama-administration-early-response-to-attacks-disgrace/#ixzz26Dvwl700

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I agree. This is a perfect example of what we were talking about yesterday.

      Feeling compelled to comment on everything simply creates opportunities for the other side to ridicule you, and it takes away from a focused message.

      I just listened to Hillary’s comments and I must say they were better than both Romney and the White House comments thus far.

      I would NEVER vote for her as POTUS but I have gained much respect for her as Sec of State. My son was telling me this morning about people he knows who have recently left State and had nothing but good things to say about her “administrative” skills.

      She has a different problem than Romney. He thinks he has to comment on everything. Hillary doesn’t BUT her husband does. If he really wants her career to continue he should RETIRE and stay RETIRED.

  50. charlieopera says:

    Much more important than Obama’s rectum and/or Romney’s flip-flopping himself into oblvion is this capitalist venture … Shakedown for kindle, two starred reviews (Kirkus & Booklist) … for $.99 cents? I feel like crazy Eddie …

    http://www.amazon.com/Shakedown-ebook/dp/B0099D9VD6/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1347447058&sr=1-1&keywords=Shakedown%2C+charlie+stella

  51. Hey JAC, Just came across this article and thought you might like it. You seem to understand “labels” and especially the historical nature of such. Comments are very good too.

    http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/09/10/barack-obama-is-a-dangerous-leftist-of-a-new-kind-not-a-communist-muslim-marxist-or-socialist/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Great find, thanks for sharing.

      Here is the guy I would tend to agree with though, instead of the author. From the comments section:

      ” Racerdad

      I disagree with this attempt to nuance a pseudo-modern definition of Obama from thin air. He is in fact a Fascist, nothing more nothing less. There are only two categories of populist tyrannical collectivism. Communism and fascism. The only substantive difference between the two is the method of acquiring absolute power and the ownership of the means of production. European Socialism as it is called is merely fascism that has not yet become totalitarian. America is in fact a fascist country and has been steadily trending toward totalitarianism (as has Europe) since the Woodrow Wilson administration. Wilson invented fascism, Mussolini named it, and Hitler Militarized it for world conquest.”

      The only thing I disagree with here is that Teddy Roosevelt should be the beginning.

  52. Back here in Obama’s rectum, we’re smiling ear to ear (although it’s a little tight) … the morning polls have our guy 7 pts ahead of your doofus. I suggest the following: Relax with a kindle book or two … http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Opera-ebook/dp/B0044KMO3S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1347528783&sr=1-1&keywords=charlie+stella

    Go Bills!

%d bloggers like this: