Forget that Obama has saddled the economy with trillions in new taxes and regulations. Forget that he wants to shove Obamacare on the nation’s employers and terrorize the medical community. Forget that he’s adding more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Forget that he’s allowed too big to fail to get even bigger, that he’s done nothing to stabilize the housing market, and that inflation is out of control. Yeah, forget all that. The real reason the economy sucks is because. . .
(1) Corporate America is “sitting on vast piles of cash.” Yep. Although conditions are clearly right for Corporate America to be out there starting new businesses, launching new products, hiring like crazy, and making America the economic powerhouse it was meant to be, this cabal of Romney supporters simply refuse to do any of that.
Politico notes that according to the Fed, private companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Reuters puts the number closer to $5 trillion. So why aren’t they spending that money on hiring people? Well, apparently, these evil business types site uncertainly, which Politico defines as there being “no guarantee there will be enough consumer demand to buy the product because not enough jobs are being created to put more money in people’s wallets.” Politico calls this a real “chicken and egg problem.”
Now think about this. What Politico is saying is that it is impossible to break out of a recession because business can’t hire people until they know the recession is over, but the recession can’t end until business starts hiring. If this is true, then how did we overcome the dozens of prior recessions the country faced? The fact of the matter is that the real uncertainty which bothers business is that Obama has imposed an incredible amount of new costs on businesses and consumers, and those costs aren’t known yet because of the way he did it, i.e. they are uncertain. No one in their right mind would commit to expanding their business if their costs could double any day or if consumers might find themselves socked with dramatically higher taxes and healthcare costs at any minute. That’s the real heart of the problem.
(2) Evil Congress wants to raise everyone’s taxes! They also want to slash spending, especially military spending. Yeah, right. Forget that Obama has been the one pushing for both things. Forget that the Democrats refused to negotiate the budget deal in good faith. Forget that Obama is the one who demanded the military cuts as part of the budget deal. Yeah, forget all of that and then you can blame the Congress because they have been unable to overcome the Democrats to stop these things.
It’s funny how Politico can miss the obvious. They actually worry that the nation is headed toward a “fiscal cliff” when these trillions in tax hikes and spending cuts will kick in on January 1, 2013 and they attack the Republicans for playing politics with this and for now leaving town on recess. They go back to the old MSM canard of calling the Congress “dysfunctional.” Yeah, ok, and who is to blame here? Nothing the House does gets passed in the Senate. Harry Reid won’t even bring Republican bills to a vote. Heck, he wouldn’t even allow Obama’s budget to be brought to a vote. And it was Reid and Obama who have been playing politics on the Bush tax cuts, first refusing to extend them long term and now using them for class warfare purposes. And it was Reid and Obama who pushed the idea of automatic spending cuts as part of the debt deal because they refused to agree to any responsible cuts. So if this is bad for Obama, it’s a problem of his own making.
(3) The evil central bankers around the world have refused to print more money! This gets rich. Politico notes that the Fed has a dual mandate to fight inflation and to “do whatever it can to boost employment” -- that’s actually not true, the dual mandate is to fight inflation and encourage growth, which is not the same thing as employment. Then they whine that all the Fed is doing is fighting inflation “despite no signs of any inflation.” Wow. First, inflation is soaring. Food and fuel inflation has run anywhere from 12% to 25% under Obama, not to mention that quality and quantity has been cut to try to mask price increases. It’s only if you look at official inflation, which excludes the things which inflate that you get to around 2%. Secondly, the Fed has done amazing amounts to promote growth. For one thing, it’s kept interest rates near historic lows since 2008. For another, it’s pumped vast amounts of new money into the economy through several rounds of quantitative easing. So what exactly hasn’t the Fed done?
Politico also blames Europe for being a drag on the world economy and the European Central bank for doing nothing to help. Total ignorance. They also specifically blame the Germans for not bailing out the other European countries, as if Germany was obligated to pay off the debts of Greece. Should we be paying Mexico’s debts?
ConclusionThis is low-grade economic idiocy and it’s premised on “facts” that are simply untrue. What interests me the most, however, is the attitude. The economy is bad because those evil capitalist who need to be put up against the wall have consciously tried to make us look bad and didn’t continue to do the things capitalists do when we started attacking them. The Fed owes us jobs and needs to keep spending to help Obama. Those lousy Europeans have sabotaged us by not fixing their damn problems and paying off debt that doesn’t belong to them. And that Congress. . . damn them, they didn’t overcome Obama’s policies enough to prevent Obama from being bitten in the ass by them.
Talk about whiny and talk about having NO grasp on reality. Do we really ever want to implement a policy put in place by people who think like this?
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
110 comments:
Andrew:
More proof that the Democrats and their allies in the MSM are desperate, and yet don't have a clue as to the real reasons they are in trouble. The only thing they're sure of is that it isn't their fault.
Andrew,
When Rush first said that there was a media bias, I didn't believe him. It took me a long while to finally understand. Now that I understand, it still manages to catch me unawares.
I had thought that Politico was bad, but this is expecting me to accept a plate of vomit all the while saying it would be Cordon Bleu except for (insert excuse de jure). I guess they really don't care for their audience.
"Do we really ever want to implement a policy put in place by people who think like this?" HELL NO!
Blame, blame, blame. Lie, lie, lie. Spin, spin, spin. It's a wonder these morons ain't dizzy yet.
this has always been the case with liberals, and the coverage of liberals by their adoring fans in the media. Since "intelligent" people cannot possibly disagree with liberalism, when it fails (which is pretty much every time it has ever been tried) the rationale for the blame has to be shifted elsewhere.
The other thing that strikes me, is how particularly biased liberal media outlets get a reputation for being good. Politico, to me, is a perfect example. It gets mentioned on television by talking heads so it tends to become "legitimized" as an important news outlet. Yet once one checks it out and sees bias worthy of the New York Times, some act surprised. Interesting to me is Drudge. It throws a lot of stuff out there. It has been viewed by liberals as pushing rumor over fact as as well as conservative bias. I think liberals consider anything that actually criticizes liberalism or at least mentions negative stories about it as "biased."
Lawhawk, They've always been very sure that nothing is ever their fault and this aligns perfectly with that.
Joel, I have always felt there was media bias ever since I was little because they always asked me to believe things that I knew made no sense.
On this particular article, I think they honestly believe this. I don't think this is spin on their parts, I think they honestly believe that this is the reason their policies have failed. It's nonsense, but they believe it.
Jen, Whether they are lying or spinning, either way we don't want to implement their policies. I have no doubt about that.
Jed, I agree on all points. Whenever liberalism fails (which I would say is always) they start casting about for blame, but they want to blame anything other than the policies themselves. The "we were betrayed" bit is usually where it ends up, either by outside evil forces or eventually by the people who implemented the policy who will always turn out not to have been "true liberals."
And you're right about the legitimization. When a place gets mentioned enough at other places (especially on television) it starts to get noticed as being a legitimate source, no matter how biased it is. At the same time, liberals are very careful to always smear conservative sources they mention. Conservatives need to learn to do the same thing.
Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and all the other bootlick liberals surrounding them? Because if not, let me reiterate--I LOATHE them.
T-Rav, No, I don't think you've ever mentioned it. In fact, I think we all viewed you as an Obama supporter. ;)
Pay off Mexico's debt? Way to give Commentarama's newly minted trolls ideas, Andrew.
Hmm. Good point. Sorry about that Eric!
The US is evil because Romney is RICH and won't pay OFF Mexico's deficit!!!
the only reason I so charitably couched my comment as "pretty much all of the time" is that even I would grant sometimes Keynesian stimulus can temporarily appear to have worked.
Speaking of ripping the legitimacy of liberal media, I don't know if you saw Dick Morris' column about the liberal polls. We have discussed them here, of course, but I wish the highest exposure conservative sources would be more vocal in exposing them for the shameful sham they are. Guys like Krauthammer and Steve Hayes need to do a better job of raising the visibility of that issue.
I'm fine with media bias. Call me a cynic, but I doubt there was ever a time during which reporters for any news source covered all subjects without fear or favor and with no particular agenda in mind(on a related note, yellow journalism is an old term).
With the proliferation of news sources out there, IMHO people aren't looking for vanilla reporting, they are looking for news sources whose biases match theirs. Nothing wrong with that.
I am shocked...SHOCKED, I say, by what T-Rav just confessed about his untoward feelings about Obama et al. Who could have ever guessed that he would feel that way.
Andrew, I sought out the Politico article for myself. Here’s what jumped out at me.
The premise is wrong. The very first line of the article suggests that Obama could fix the economy if he only had cooperation. This is the classic “anything will work as long as we all do it together” fallacy. For one, it’s an impossible goal (ObamaCare anyone?). Second, it supposes we all could fly like birds if we all just flapped our arms hard enough at once. If it weren’t for Commentarama, I wouldn’t even keep reading after this horrible beginning.
Politico chimes in on the jobs report as good news. But just yesterday I discovered this handy jobs calculator that shows we won’t return to pre-recession employment until 2025 at the current rate. To be fair, there’s almost nothing that could have brought all those jobs back by now, but an aggressive pro-growth policy would have us seeing light.
They just flit right over Obama’s proposal to spend federal $$$ on teachers and police officers. This is a classic example of government nosing into issues not its own. Besides, if the goal is to create jobs, why narrow assistance to industries least affected by economic recession?
The criticism of the fed amounts to complaining that they didn’t do more of what isn’t working and the criticism of Europe is pretty much identical. In other words, this is some very obvious scrounging for scapegoats.
However, the real chicken-and-egg conundrum that isn’t in the article is the one Politico participates in itself. They actively promote and defend failure while being always consternated for having to prop up failures.
Anthony, I agree completely. As far as I can tell, the concept of "unbiased journalism" started as a marketing ploy in the Pulitzer/Hearst days in order to sell more ad space.
Nice try Minty. But you can't pay off a deficit.
Jed, That's true, sometimes liberalism appears to work for one reason or another in the short term, but long term is always fails.
I did see that Morris article. That was a definite pick me up and, like you, I wish conservatives would be pushing these things harder. They need to work to expose this false polling idea so people stop buying into the polls.
yellow journalism goes back to the days of Pulitzer and Hearst. All people have bias, of course, and Anthony's comments that most people don't want to see objectivity as much as see news from people whose bias matches there own. It is less important today than it was, say, 50 years ago because there are so many alternative sources available.
What may be a bit different today from the era of Hearst and Pulitzer, is the ability of television and the internet to make stories available too so many so fast. I honestly believe the internet has played a part in Arab spring, and even the fall of the Berlin Wall happened, in part, because the whole world was watching. Even if the term "going viral" is a cliche, there is some truth.
Anthony, I think you're right that people want news which confirms their own bias. I also think you're right that the news has never been without bias.
What I object two, however, are three things. First, I object to the MSM pretending that they are without bias when they are so very clearly biased.
Secondly, I object to the way it was until recently where the only news sources were all biased toward the left.
Third, I object to distortions and lies. I don't care about spin, that's understood, but when a "news" organization presents facts which aren't true or ignores facts which contradict their position just to maintain their spin, then that is propaganda.
Bev, I know. Shocking isn't it? I had no idea anyone felt that way, much less our very own Mr. Rav!
tryanmax, That's my understanding of the media as well. That's why so many newspapers even have partisan names -- like the Arkansas Democrat. But I think they real did strive to be mostly bias free around the time of Edward R. Murrow.
(I'll get to your other comment in a moment.)
Jed, I agree with that. I think the internet has made it impossible to hide things anymore, which was very easy in the past when there was effectively one monolithic news provider. That's why I'm not as bothered by bias today as I was twenty years ago when I knew that the MSM was hiding the truth whenever it suited their ideological desires.
I am still troubled by the lies and distortions (not the spin), but that's a different matter.
So Obama only failed because everyone else failed him. Amazing. Such horsepoop.
Hey Minty, you don't happen to know a stanchaz by chance, do you? If you do, tell him I said he sucks.
I admit that I prefer news from people I trust. I just don't trust leftists to tell me the truth. But is the truth I want, not a happy fantasy.
Andrew and Bev, what can I say? I just can't get that warmth of feeling in my heart for those people. I guess I just don't understand how wonderful they really are.
No evil RICh T-Rav. I am NOT familiar WITH the GREAT stanchaz!!!
tryanmax, Excellent analysis.
You are correct about the intro. Right out of the gates, they start with an absurd proposition -- if we all work together, we can do anything, including overcoming the laws of economics.
The idea that this jobs report was good news is simply false. The number is below the number of jobs needed to keep up with the growth of the population. So even though the number is better than it was, we are still slowly falling behind at this rate. Moreover, they are wrong about the average number of jobs created during Obama's term. The real number is closer to 77,000 per month. I suspect they are using gross jobs rather than net jobs.
Next, you've put your finger on the greatest criticism of Keynesian thinking: if it works, why not do it all the time? For some reason, liberals only advocate this during bad times. But if it really worked, why wouldn't every country just spend their way to prosperity all the time?
You are correct about the Fed. They basically are saying do more of what didn't work because we know it will work eventually... very liberal mindset. Moreover, they really do couch it in terms of "the Fed has done nothing," which just simply isn't true. They've pumped trillions into the economy and none of it worked.
I think there is no chicken and egg problem. Paradoxes don't really exist. When you find one, it just means you've made a mistake in your reasoning.
DUQ, That's standard liberal reasoning -- our ideas didn't fail, it was special circumstances or evil opponents who made us fail. They do this every single time.
T-Rav, Somehow, I doubt Minty and stanchaz know each other. But let us hope he passes on the message nevertheless! :)
DUQ, That makes sense. I don't think people actively seek out bias because that would mean they are looking to be lied to. I don't think that's the case. I think it's more likely that they think someone with their same biases is more likely to tell them the truth and to tell them what is important.
It's just phase two of virtually every socialist revolution: the hunting of the saboteurs and wreckers after the economy fails to produce a "socialist miracle". Fortunately, Holder is too busy going after Romney contributors to really come to grips with the capitalist slackers. I'm sure that will be rectified in Obama's second term and look forward to the show trials.
See you in the re-education camp, comrades.
T-Rav, I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you need genuine reeducation so that you learn why you should love our Kenyan overlord?
Minty, LOL! Nice. I love how you capitalize WITH. That's a nice touch.
Partially in response to the yellow journalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, journalism schools attempted to replace "news reporters" with "journalists." Reporters learned from the bottom up, moving up the ladder of success largely because of their ability to bring sensational stories to the fore (the early version of "if it bleeds, it leads.)" Journalists learned the trade in school rather than by starting at the bottom selling papers on street corners. They were supposed to be professionals.
One thing that emerged from the "journalistic movement" was the concept of news services (AP, UPI) which provided the "news flashes," the reporters who provided the color, and the largely separate editorial departments. As a result, for decades it became necessary for the reader to go to the editorial pages to see the overt political leanings of the paper. Obviously, it was impossible entirely to separate opinion from news, and most people knew which way their metropolitan paper leaned. But in large part, the news pages provided news, with minimal spin. That was reserved for the editorial pages.
Over the years, the liberals became the dominant force in the schools of journalism, just as they have in almost every college and university department. As family-owned and operated papers became corporations, the liberal editorial stance bled over on to the news pages. The Otises and Chandlers who founded the Los Angeles Times wouldn't even recognize their news pages today as being news pages.
The only difference between the paleo-yellow journalists and today's news reporters is the current pretense of impartiality and the sophistication of the word-smithing learned at journalism school. News services, formerly devoted solely to reporting news (like AP and Reuters) have been infected with the same disease.
K, Well said. This is absolutely standard procedure for leftists. Once their policies begin to cause problems, they look for saboteurs and other various scapegoats. After you eliminate them, then you look for more when things still don't go right. Then, finally, you tolerate an underground economy to prop up the official economy, all the while continuing to blame your enemies for holding you down.
That is obscene that DOJ and the IRS are going after Romney supporters (and Tea Party groups). I honestly think conservatives need to do the same to the left when they take power this time. This needs to end and the only way to end it is to use these tools against them so they cry uncle.
Lawhawk, I think that's absolutely right. There was a time -- 20 years ago, for example -- when you could read any paper in the country without fear that the "news" section would be biased. The editorials absolutely were, but the news was just straight news.
Then that began to change under the guise of providing "analysis" with the news. Soon the analysis became the news. And the analysis became more and more leftwing. Now you can't trust anything you read in a paper like the New York Times or the Washington Post because the "news" is all spin and the facts are cherry picked.
I honestly think conservatives need to do the same to the left when they take power this time. This needs to end and the only way to end it is to use these tools against them so they cry uncle."
I've been thinking about this for a while now, and besides making them cry uncle, I'd also like them to squeal like stuck pigs. My fantasy is that I'd like to take every bit of crap they've done to us, and turn it back on them.
Jen, The only way to stop the left from using a weapon they have invented in the government is to use that weapon against them harshly. That's the only time they suddenly learn respect for rule of law.
Andrew, I couldn't agree with you more on that. I've been wanting to do that for a long time now. I want them to know what it feels like. Harshly? LOL!!!
Jen, I agree. The question is, will they do it? I have my doubts because I think the Republicans don't understand the math on that.
Andrew: One thing (among many) that the liberals in the journalism schools learn is how to skew an entire article with a simple headline.
For example: If the New York Times does a front page (but not top-of-the-page) headline that reads "President Obama says the economy is on the move," they count on the fact that the majority of readers, who are not policy wonks, won't read the article past the first or second paragraphs, which will be largely opinion.
By the time the article continues on with its exposition (on page 17, below the fold), some of the true facts will actually be presented, in the name of journalistic honesty. Those will be the parts where the Office of Management and the Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both declare the economy stagnant, unemployment up, and new business startups at a standstill. And at that point, just in case, the article will finish by pointing out that XXXXXX (name your favorite evil corporation) reported windfall profits.
Lawhawk, Yep, that's become standard operating procedure. I see that all the time now where they frontload articles with an amazing amount of spin and then on page two, where few people probably keep reading, they drop the bad news.
Wow, what a load! So Obama's policies aren't to blame, even though he got to fully implement them. No, it's everyone else who is to blame. Liberals are amazing.
See Minty, now I know you're someone's sockpuppet, because you spelled everything correctly. The mismatched caps lock was a nice touch, though. ;-)
Andrew, I'll wait until November to decide on the reprogramming. It would be a shame to go to the expense if TOTUS won't even be President anymore.
The only thing left for Obama to do is to cry crocodile tears on television, followed by stamping his loafers in a tantrum. No doubt that's coming.
Loafers? I thought Obama always wore sensible shoes in keeping with his mom jeans.
Ellen, That's the way liberals are. They put their policies in place. Things blow up. They look for an excuse and usually they reach right for the "we were betrayed" excuse.
T-Rav, That's a sure sign of a fake-troll: good spelling.
Good idea to wait on the reprogramming. :)
Writer X, Now that you've said it, I imagine it's coming. He'll probably go on the View or something and weep about all the people he wasn't able to help yet. And they'll wale that if only he had four more years!!!
Joel, I don't even want to know what Obama wears with his mom jeans.
The "chicken-and-egg" thing was maily to turn it around on Politico. Besides, the problem is already solved. Dinosaurs came before chickens, and dinosaurs laid eggs. So clearly the egg came first. LOL!
For the first time ever, I have hope that conservatives and Republican are willing to throw the gloves off. "Elevating the conversation" doesn't work unless both sides agree to do so, and Dems and libs have never had any intention of it. It's like speaking calmly to a person who is screaming so loud they can only hear themselves. In the past, if a Republican raised his voice to be heard, the Democrat response was a whinging "don't yell at me" followed immediately by Republican appologies. This is the first time I've seen the Republican response be to keep on yelling. I love it!
What about CNBC? From what I've heard they seem a bit more fair than the rest.
Isn't Minty one of the Pac-Man ghosts? I think their names are Flinty, Squinty, Minty, and stanchaz.
tryanmax, I threw down the other day with a college friend of mine over a school issue in which he called some middle-class suburban districts racist because they didn't want to merge with poor, urban, and minority schools. I snarked about it, and then he went on a long spiel about how this was offensive to him and his values and everything he believed in. Before specifically blowing up his racism claim, I called bull@#$% on that and reminded him of the two years he and everyone else spent mocking conservatives, Christians, and Southerners in my presence when they knew very well how I felt about such things. I have a feeling our friendship may be strained for the near future. So, long story short, the double standard you allude to is well past its prime, and I hope we see more conservatives start puncturing it.
T-Rav, out of curiosity, what did you say to blow up the racism claim?
tryanmax, I agree. The Republicans seem to have changed. For the first time in my life, they seem to be willing to take off the gloves. Let's hope that they follow through.
Kit, CNBC is typically more fair, but they still have some people with definite bias (in both directions) and they aren't particularly reliable as a news source. They are more cheerleaders for the stock market.
tryanmax, That could be. I think stanchaz was definitely the name of one of the Pac-Man ghosts.
T-Rav, They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
AndrewPrice said...
Jen, The only way to stop the left from using a weapon they have invented in the government is to use that weapon against them harshly. That's the only time they suddenly learn respect for rule of law.
-----
Or at least call a cease fire. After Ken Starr, I thought it was pretty funny that both parties (who of course, both had hopes of winning the next election) agreed that banishing the independent counsel was the wisest course of action.
Anthony, That's exactly what happens. Ken Starr made them give up on a law they used against Reagan and Bush I. Bush II's use of the Department of Education to push conservatism got them to rediscover a respect for state's rights and local control of education. That's the only way to stop the Democrats from doing these things, use their weapons against them. Then they will abandon them.
Here is a fine example of a big problem with so-called unbiased journalism: The big story today is the Romney ad claiming Obama has eliminated the work requirement for welfare by executive order. The news goes on to report the White House's denial of that claim. Both sides of the argument, sure. But what is the truth of the matter? If all you hear is the news, it's anyone's guess.
tryanmax, Except that there is one more fact which can be reported on -- does it or does it not do that. That's something which can again be objectively determined and stated (or explained if the answer is slightly more complex).
tryanmax, of course there wasn't any specific act of racism he could point to, so he dubbed it "soft racism": i.e., if you want to stay within your own community and not be thrown together with an urban minority population with a bad reputation, you are internally racist, they just can't prove it. That sort of thing. He kept referring me to books such-and-such had written, detailing this mental pattern, so I pointed out that he didn't seem to have done much of his own research about this. He obviously didn't know any of these evil middle-class whites, so he just ascribed to them whatever qualities he wanted, which is okay since they're a politically acceptable target. I also said that in light of American history, racism is one of the most serious charges you can throw around, and as someone who has actually seen real examples of it growing up, it infuriates me when people do it to score political points. That, in a nutshell, is what I said.
Andrew, yep, that was precisely my point. There is an objective aspect to the story that goes completely unreported, and never will if the story loses steam too quickly. I suppose since the facts favor one side of the argument over the other, they must be left out, because including them would be "biased."
T-Rav, It sounds to me like your friend had a prejudice looking for an outlet to exercise it.
tryanmax, That goes to the other problem with the MSM these days -- they're lazy. They just report what people tell them without any thought.
Hey, the Missouri primary is tonight. That should be interesting.
Another reason to be grateful for Commentarama: I just got an invite to a new website called BanterIt. Supposedly their aim is to foster non-partisan debate to find political solutions. (No Labels, anyone?) I checked it out and, of course, it is a bunch of leftists masquerading as concerned independents "above the fray" in order to push their ideology. Gawd, that $#!+ makes me mad!
tryanmax, That's an old leftist tactic. They draw people in by talking about being independents and then when you get there, you discover it's a den of leftists.
tryanmax,
What is interesting is how BanterIt has jumped into twitter, facebook, and blogs. Full blown. It isn't a grassroots website like Breitbart's Big Hollywood. It is an astroturf operation.
Doing it that quick means that there is a serious effort to get their message out. It also shows that a bunch of leftists are convinced the reason Obama and all liberal concepts and policies are losing strength is because they have been muzzled. They don't realize the problem actually is that all liberal concepts and policies are being exposed.
It will be interesting how long it sticks around. BanterIt doesn't roll of the tongue easily like Twitchy or Commentarama.
Joel, Commentarama totally rolls of the tongue! :)
I've noticed several times now where these leftist sites spring up all at once, fully formed with all kinds of marketing going on and we're supposed to believe it was just something that came about naturally. Yeah, right. Totally astroturf.
Sheesh, I think liberals deliberately set the rake out on the lawn to whack someone in the face. The problem is that they end up whacking themselves.
The latest Pro-Obama ad has been taken up by Twitchy. Now, #RomneyKilled is being used to diss Obama at every turn. Is this worth a Double Face Palm?
I especially like the one where
#RomneyKilled a puppy, then Obama ate said puppy.
Joel, Isn't that an amazingly shameless ad? Did you know the woman died 4 years after Romney left Bain?
Andrew,
It is truly a despicable ad. Not only did the woman die 4 years after Romney officially left Bain, but the woman's husband actually believes that Romney's actions killed her. His argument is also factually challenged since she received health care in order to be diagnosed with cancer.
Joel, I looked up the WHOIS info on banterit.com and it was registered by a marketing firm in NYC. That pretty much tells me all I need to know. There are website development firms in every major and minor city, and these days almost every town on the map. A true grassroots operation would spring up out of almost anyplace BUT NYC, LA, or Chicago.
Also, I think the Obama campaign is having trouble finding people from _ who really hold Romney and Bain responsible for it shutting down. The man in the #RomneyKilled my Wife ad is Joe Soptic and he has appeared in another Obama ad attacking Romney and Bain.
Joel, I think the whole thing is shameful. It's false, it's below the belt and it's exploitative.
tryanmax, That's true. This sounds to me like an organization created by some leftist group with a good deal of funds, and I'll bet you find one of the bigger law firms was involved in their formation as well.
tryanmax, That's interesting. Using the same guy in different ads is a bad idea precisely because people will reach the same conclusion you just did.
Ugh!
Republicans always put me on a diet when they get in charge. Obama is Ice Scream with chocalate caramel and sprinkles on top.
Oops, that blank was meant to say GST Steel after I checked the name. LOL!
Dear Deficit, Diets are good for you.
tryanmax, You would think there would be hundreds ready to line up, but I guess not. Strange.
Andrew,
Oh, you know that woman that Romney supposedly killed through losing the husband's insurance? She had insurance through her own job. When she quit her job because of injury she lost her own insurance. This is a complete lie, exposed by CNN no less.
Joel, Do you have a link? I mention that commercial briefly in tomorrow's article and would like to include that.
Andrew,
This is from Legal Insurection.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/woman-in-anti-romney-superpac-death-ad-actually-had-insurance/
It includes the CNN video.
Thanks Joel!
Hmmm, maybe that was a hint for me to provide updates, only I was gone and didn't see it. OH WELL!
Congressman Todd Akin won the GOP primary for Senate a little while ago, and will be facing McCaskill in November. In my opinion, this is a good thing, as I didn't care a great deal for the other two. We also passed by an overwhelming margin a state constitutional amendment affirming the right to pray in school and in public, etc. Oh, and given how one or two races turned out, it's likely Missouri will have a 6-2 pro-GOP delegation in the House next year (it was 5-4 our favor until the 2010 elections and redistricting). Those are about the only things worth mentioning.
T-Rav, I think the even more interesting aspect was that Palin's endorsement failed. A state like Missouri should have been Palin country and I thought when she endorsed Steel, that she would have run away with it. This is a fascinating result.
Well, now there is speculation that Romney is going to pick Paul Ryan as his running mate. Hot Air daily quotes. Okay for the next VP speculation, Sarah Palin. Any takers? How about Rick Santourim? Huckabee?
Maybe we should create a list of people who have rejected the VP position after speculation. Condi Rice is the first. I think David Petraus is the second or possibly the third. I haven't been following the VEEP stakes too closely. Is there another one?
T-Rav, RE: Palin -- I am forced to concede that Missourians are smarter than Nebraskans. Twice in one day, how'dya like that! But hey, at least I ain't in Iowa!
Andrew, I frankly am surprised that Akin won it, though he did appear to have momentum going into today. As for Palin/Steelman, I think it's proof that a lot of politics is, in fact, local, and that Palin should have done her homework a bit more before endorsing Steelman. I think she might have fallen in love with her "mama grizzly" archetype a bit--having met her, I find the idea of that label being attached to Steelman simply laughable--in any case, it didn't work out here.
tryanmax, I attribute it to superior breeding and our preference for soybeans over corn. ;-)
Whew! You had me worried for a minute, T-Rav. We do grow more corn than soy, but ultimately we're a beef state up here. You know who really grows some corn? Iowa!
As to breeding, what can I say? Nebraska was settled by folks who managed to cross a mountain range and two major rivers, but when they heard there were bigger mountains coming up, they said "F*** That!"
Joel, The genius of Romney's VP search is that he's helping all these princelings get massive amounts of media exposure. He's basically created an entire class of high-profile candidates for the future.
T-Rav and tryanmax, I think Palin has never done her homework on these picks. They almost seem random when they happen and I'm not sure what her motives are. In any event, based on what I've read, I'm glad Akin won.
tryanmax, LOL! So you're saying Nebraskans are quitters?
Andrew,
Still it is interesting that Paul Ryan is floating to the top almost like Romney did during the primaries.
Andrew, quitters, yes. But only of the most tenacious sort.
Joel, That's true. And I certainly can't rule him out. I would rather it was Rubio, but I like Ryan a lot.
tryanmax, LOL! Yes, tenacious quitters.
UPDATE: My suspicions about BanterIt are confirmed. I left a handful of responses to tweets that were either factually wrong (corrections) or were peddling old tropes (calling out). I missed it yesterday, but a pack of attack-dogs pounced all over me calling me a crazy RWNJ (right wing nut job). That pretty much settles the question.
tryanmax, I'm not surprised. I get the sense that so much of what is out there on the left right now is astroturf. They have a ton of money from groups like Media Matters and no shame about hiding who they are.
I remember when the "No Labels" thing came out. We were supposed to believe it was spontaneous, yet they had all kinds of intellectual property form the get go, including dozens of labels, professionally done websites, etc. And they had instant publicity from all kinds of leftist groups and the AP the moment they launched. That sounds like astroturf to me!
Post a Comment