I’ve been baffled by the Romney campaign’s response to the Bain barrage from Obama. Commenters here pointed out some solid counter points. It is too early to say how useful the attacks have been for Obama. Reputable polls will tell the tale soon enough. Until Sunday I assumed the attacks would hurt Romney and help Obama. And they may. As I said, we’ll see. However, my takeaway from this and this is pretty simple:
Barack Obama is an asshole. Anyone who reads this blog regularly won’t find my opinion surprising. But I chose the word specifically. Obama’s struck me as a lot of things these past few years. A prick, a brat, a goofball, an Chicago alderman who somehow became President, a Soros mole, a racist, a tool, a narcissistic sociopath. After reviewing the links above all the other modifiers fell away for me. He’s simply an asshole.
There’s something truly ass-holey about a frontal assault on people who create and run businesses. I know, I know, he tried to back pedal and make us all get sentimental about this mentor or that teacher. The obvious answer is that many people had wonderful teachers. Not everyone creates succesful businesses. It does actually take a Bill Gates sometimes….most times. I’ll go ahead and assume Gates feels gratitude for his good teachers, the community he grew up in….Many people do. Not all change the way we live.
The most important sentence in Obama’s rant is: ‘If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen’ Please tell that to Thomas Edison or even Debbie Fields. Nah, it was the highway commissioner who approved paving – yea, that’s why we got the lightbulb! As for all those delicious cookies…Debbie Fields’ smarts and labor are not so important. She didn’t do anything, build anything. In fact, it’s people like her we need to attack!
Is there anything Obama hates more than individual initiative? Obama’s remark is Obama speaking about himself, of course. He’s projecting once again. He entire life was created by others. His entire life is a concoction. On some level he knows this.
The Romney bashing ad may well be useful to Obama. I don’t know. To me it’s mostly just cringe inducing. Using the other guy’s horrible singing voice against him – while he’s singing a patriotic song no less – is something an asshole does. There are a thousand ways to attack alleged outsourcing. The Obama Campaign made the asshole’s choice. After watching the ad all I thought was: Wow, Obama is an asshole.
What I want to know about Bain — because it does matter to me — is whether companies were guided to outsourcing because otherwise they would fail, or if the outsourcing was a mechanism to protect executive compensation. Haven’t seen those facts anywhere — just the circus.
Excellent point, Jay, which gets overlooked by the politics because neither Romney nor Obama are honest about what Bain does or how Romney’s experience would translate to Presidential policy addressing joblessness and a failing national economy.
Bottom line: Bain Capital is a private equity firm and the point of private equity, the primary goal of the whole business, is to create wealth for its investors, not to build or even save businesses or create jobs. And they do this by any means necessary, including outsourcing as part of a plan that breaks apart a business into two or more entities with one taking the assets and jobs (now outsourced) and the other taking the liability (including pensions and other benefit obligations) then going into bankruptcy, disgorging itself from those obligations, stiffing the employees and shifting that obligation to taxpayers while shifting the jobs overseas.
So the answer to your question is, Bain Capital guided outsourcing for neither reason you list; it wasn’t to keep the businesses from failing and it wasn’t to protect those business’ executive compensation; private equity firms are unconcerned with those things — but if the executive compensation you’re talking about is Bain’s executives then the answer is the latter.
If Romney becomes President, his economic policy will have the same effect Obama’s has: create more wealth for the wealthy, and a sickening disinterest in the damage done to millions, and ultimately our nation, to achieve that goal.
Romney is every bit as bad as Obama; if not in the same ways, the difference isn’t noticeable in the result. The only difference is that with Obama in the White House Democrats don’t fight these policies; but at this point if rank and file Democrats really railed about these policies it’d only be more noise in the tower of babel. We turned a corner in 2008 and Democrats, even many former Hillary supporters, are no longer fighting the good fight, they’re just flailing about in madness. Look at the former Hillary supporters fighting Obama by championing Romney as if a President Romney might actually be good for us or our economy, it’s stunning really; they’re not fighting the good fight, they’re destructive and deceitful and they’re after revenge, not a healthy alternative.
@ zaladonis:
I’ve got to give you props: You really did your best with this, but its a load of BS. Good “concern trolling” though…..
As a lifelong Independent who voted Dem (with the exception of 2008) and a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I speak for myself, but I’m sure many others feel similarly: Of the two candidates, Romney has shown himself to be more competent, experienced and interested in leading this country toward a more stable economic future.
Does he have the “rock star” quality that team Obama created around their chosen one in 2008? Absolutely not, but I’m not going to trust a rock star to govern the U.S. I am going to trust someone that I believe can look at a spreadsheet and know what to fund and what to cut. I also like the idea that a Republican Governor of a strong blue state like Mass. could successfully work with the state legislature in a bi-partisan fashion, while the Obama White House has only deepened the political divide among our elected representatives and extended that divisive spirit into the general populace.
It seems to me (after reading a number of your comments over the past several weeks/months) that you take particular exception to Romney because of his tenure at Bain Capital, and by default have given me the impression that you have a problem with someone who knows how to take a company that is already on the skids and try to turn it around. Bain’s stats indicate more than 80% success in doing so, and I would trust someone to take our defunct system and turn it around.
There is no shame in creating or resurrecting businesses that turn a profit. There is no shame in working hard to improve the quality of ones own life, and it is The American Dream of achieving reward from a hard days work that keeps many of us getting out of bed in the morning and working up a sweat.
Maybe OFA feels differently about this, but the majority of Americans do not
Hey Zal –
Thanks for elucidating the nature of ‘private equity’ firms. I vaguely know about them, but in no meaningful way. It’s not my world AT ALL and doesn’t really interest me — which is probably a liability these days.
Couple of things:
1) Are you speaking from first hand knowledge about Bain or are you painting them with a broad brush because of the industry they’re in? Either way you’re probably right, but I just wanted to know if you happened to have info specifically about Bain.
2) I am considering voting for Romney, but not for the reasons you’ve suggested. I do not think he’d be ‘better for the country’ than Obama — not at all. I think there’s five degrees of difference between them, if that. I’d vote for Romney to try to get Obama out of there, because I think that would be better in the long run for many liberal ideals that are dear to me (a concept that I know you eluded to as well). The next four years aren’t about progress in my mind. They’re about damage control. Progress is not on the menu, but a girl’s gotta eat.
@ zaladonis:
“Look at the former Hillary supporters fighting Obama by championing Romney as if a President Romney might actually be good for us or our economy, it’s stunning really; they’re not fighting the good fight, they’re destructive and deceitful and they’re after revenge, not a healthy alternative.”
you generalize way too much. some of us are picking romney simply because that is the only path to get obama out! it has nothing to do with revenge for some of us, IT IS JUST A STRATEGY!!!. then in 4 years maybe the dems will pick a real democrat to run instead of a celebrity in chief. that dude doesn’t and never did deserve to be a president. he is the most lazy president we ever had since 1776! i think he got the job description of crown of a european country with president of the united states. i hate how he finds scapegoats and doesn’t take any responsibilities for his screw ups. basically he just sucks and romney is more qualified than he is period! has nothing to do with revenge, just practical thinking to get the dope head out of office!
and it does seem like trolling when you generalize about what other people on this site are thinking and feeling and our motivations. maybe some hillary supporters think that way, but most of us probably not because in the first place we were smarter for having voted for her, the real democrat, the workhorse, in the first place. give us some credit that we have some brains and that we vote with our brains first.
and talking about some of your past comments, you seem to think everyone would fall for goebbels in this day in age, but many of us wouldn’t because we know propaganda when we see it, we learned from history, and don’t ever want to go down that path again.
for instance this whole scapegoating businesses thing that obama and warren are doing right now painting it like businesses aren’t paying any taxes for fire police, roads etc., that is pure propoganda trying to get people to believe it. businesses do pay taxes, they also provide jobs so that people can pay taxes too. their argument is so full of shit and yes some people will fall for it, but some of us see right through it. he is an a-hole just like the article says. he thinks he can say things enough times and we will all believe it, but he really is the emporer with no clothes in the end.
i would rather vote for the guy who will get this guy out of office if i have too because he is a total loser, more of a loser than mitt because at least mitt ran some things in his life. strategy! and in four years maybe the dem leadership will have learned their lesson and recruited someone who actually gives a damn about our country and is a true dem and actually frickin works for a living instead of golfs and campaigns!
Zal, I’m a former HRC supporter who now supports Jill Stein. But, IMHO, if one is going to vote uni-party, Romney is the lesser of two evils. I can totally understand the ABO voters. Wish more of them would climb aboard the Green bus with me, but I get where they’re coming from. What I don’t get are the former PUMAs who are suddenly all sauced up on kool-aid.
First of all, Anthony, before I respond, I want to reiterate something I’ve said many times here and elsewhere. Regulars here will affirm this has always been my position. I don’t trust Obama, I think he’s a psychopath, and I will never vote for him for anything. The first and most important thing a competent expert in the field of psychology will tell you about psychopaths (or sociopaths) is to get them as far away from your life as fast as you possibly can. You can’t fix them, you can’t outsmart them, they will bring damage and destruction, and that certainly includes psychopaths we don’t know personally whose actions impact our lives. The sooner Barack Obama is out of the White House, the better. Now, that said, the only viable alternative we have is another problem; a different kind of problem but a big problem.
Assuming that’s true, it doesn’t necessarily translate to policies that will result in a more stable economic future for America’s middle class. Romney doesn’t understand or care about the middle class, their only function in his thinking is as millions of worker bees he needs to keep him and his buddies rich. That’s understandable because of his life experience; however, it’s important we recognize that Romney’s way of thinking of the middle class is the context in which he’ll formulate or approve and support economic, and all, policy. Saying he’s “interested in leading this country toward a more stable economic future” is nothing but a campaign talking point; understanding what a stable economic future means to him, assessing what Romney would do as President is more complex.
What do you think a man who’s been wealthy from birth and then amassed his own mega fortune through running a successful private equity firm, will fund and what will he cut? That’s a serious question.
I like the idea of working together and bipartisanship as well; it’s lovely. It’s another talking point. Obama and his bots used it in 2008 and, if anything, it’s even more ridiculous today. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the tribalism and divisiveness that’s tearing at America today. The general populace didn’t take on a divisive spirit from our elected representatives; the general populace extended it to our elected representatives. Obama made it worse, no question; in 2008 he divided the Democratic Party, and since then he’s created further divides among those who at one time would’ve been on the same side. But it wasn’t only Obama, it was (and is) Americans, the general populace. The Us versus Them mentality has deepened over the years to a point that no Democrat or Republican is going to improve the situation from the White House. The only way to bring Americans together at this point would be to identify a common enemy (Bush got that on 9/11) or usher in a new era of broad based prosperity.
Romney doesn’t know anything about taking a company on the skids and turning it around into a viable business again. That’s not what private equity firms do. It’s sometimes a nice result of the actions a private equity firm takes, but it’s not what the firm is focused on, not what makes a private equity firm or its managers successful. Successful private equity firms create wealth for investors, that’s it; the companies they buy (on the skids, as you put it) are merely pawns in that and everyone and everything about those companies is expendable, including the business itself. Translated to public policy, the pawns are the middle class and the investors are the 1%. You can vote for Romney if you want, I might do so myself, but it’s foolish to expect him to concentrate on any economic policy except that which helps the rich get richer. And because of how big a portion of our riches the rich already have, and how little we have, that’s problematic. Big time.
My point about Romney and Bain is that what he did successfully at a private equity firm, coupled with a conservative ideology, does not translate to public policies that’ll do anything at all to help create middle class jobs or improve the financial prospects of the middle class, or address concerns of the middle class from energy to food quality enforcement and on and on. I don’t think Romney’s a bad guy (as I think Obama is), I think he’d be very happy to see the middle class do well; I just see nothing in his experience or demonstrated intention that indicates he’d use Presidential power to help that along. And that’s a problem that merits attention.
So you won’t vote for Obama, but you think Romney could be worse. One of those two men is going to be President on January 20, 2013. So are you waffling on who you’re going to vote for, are you going to punt and make whoever wins be someone else’s fault, or as Anthony suggests, are you concern trolling for Obama? Because “I agree with you that Obama is awful, but are you sure that Romney wouldn’t be a worse choice”, is a classic concern troll comment.
Where did I write what you put in quotes? That doesn’t sound like a sentence I’d write unless there’s more to it and the context changes it from what you present. Please link to it or tell me where I can find it.
@ zaladonis-
Talking points? That’s the pot calling the kettle black…….
I’m not going to “feed” you with a line by line analysis/response to what you replied to my comment. I stand fully behind what I first posted, and all the “concern” in your rebuttal amounts to just so much Obama campaign spin (imo).
Peace out
Zal,
I agree that Obama is awful I won’t ever vote for him. I also agree with you about Romney. Anyone who was a venture capitalist is not going to do much for the middle class. He simply does not care to craft policy that will help us. He’s going to continue to send the wealth to his wealthy buddies and continue to deregulate and make the situation worse in many ways. Of course so would Zero.
I’m also going to vote third party, Jill Stein, and wish more of us would see that as an option. Voting for the status quo or more “shock doctrine” is not going to do much for any of us except continue to privatize the commons and embed that kind of mentality into the of collective consciousness.
Jay – I wrote about private equity firms in general; I know very little about Bain specifically, and what little I know is from public news reports.
I’m, as you’ve probably gathered, veering away from voting for Romney. I never was comfortable with it and doing so just strikes me as being part of the problem, and even if my one little vote doesn’t create a solution my tendency is to add my voice to what could be a solution rather than what I’m convinced will contribute to what’s bringing us down. The only thing I know for sure at this point is I won’t vote for Obama.
kanaughty:
You quoted what I wrote: “Look at the former Hillary supporters fighting Obama by championing Romney as if a President Romney might actually be good for us or our economy, it’s stunning really; they’re not fighting the good fight, they’re destructive and deceitful and they’re after revenge, not a healthy alternative.”
then commented:
No I don’t generalize too much. At least not in that sentence.
If you read what I wrote as written, you’ll know the only Hillary supporters I referred to were those who are “fighting Obama by championing Romney as if a President Romney might actually be good for us and our economy.” That’s a very specific group of people. And if they believed in Hillary’s principles and ideology in 2008, they have either completely changed their beliefs or turned into fools or tools.
Mitt Romney will not fight for or formulate policy that advantages the middle class or working class. He will, like Obama, be on the side of corporations and the very wealthy, who’ll continue to manipulate and steal from us. He’ll be on the side of Monsanto and the rest of the poisonous crowd. A President Romney would not be good for us and our economy. He may be good for top Wall Street bankers and their economy, but that’s something else entirely.
I’ve been reading and listening to a lot about and by Jill Stein the past couple of weeks and am veering in that direction. A couple of times, as I drift off to sleep, I’ve fantasized she wins and what that’d mean. It’s a little on the order of John Lennon’s Imagine but, hey, it’s my private dream time so why not indulge?
Well said; the last part especially resonates.
Zal,
I dream about Stein winning as well and hope more and more people will vote for her rather than for the status quo.
Zal is showing a complete lack of knowledge about private equity firms. He’s regurgitating news reports – written by people who also don’t know about private equity firms – as “this is what these firms do and so this is not what Bain or Romney is about.” There are as many different types of private equity firms as their are absolute #s of those firms. Some specialize in buy-outs (like flipping houses but with businesses); some specialize in identifiying and investing in early stage technology or other products (building companies from the ground up); some invest only in commodities.
Some – LIKE BAIN – SPECIALIZE IN TURNING AROUND TROUBLED COMPANIES who they identify as having great core business models but for some reason – bad management, lack of networks to right suppliers, etc – haven’t realized their potential. Some specialize in a diverse array of kinds of investment models. Bain started out very much in the turnaround business – this is the time period when Romney built his career there. It is now in a much more diversified field, but it is a pure objective fact understood by anyone who actually knows the PE field that Romney learned his craft as a turnaround investor.
You can ignore all of Zal’s comments in reply to this first comment, based as they are on a complete lack of understanding of Bain or Romney’s background.
Run_dmc, you are wrong again. I support my description that’s posted above with links to two pieces, the first published this past Sunday and the second one today, at Bloomberg. The second piece takes issue with the first one, accusing the author of “conflat[ing]some effects of Bain’s investments that were problematic with others that were not,” so clearly these two writers have opposing viewpoints about the issues they’re addressing in the news. However, I invite anyone to read both articles in their entirety because in discussing their takes on these issues, both writers describe the private equity business, and Bain’s in particular, the way I did, not the way you do.
The first is by Anthony Luzzatto Gardner published by Bloomberg on July 15; here’s a brief clip from it:
The second is written by Josh Barrow, lead writer for Bloomberg’s the Ticker; again, I’ll paste four paragraphs [emphasis mine] but again invite you to click in and read the whole piece:
Jesus H Christ, Zal. You take snippets from 2 articles from incredibly biased people to portray 3 DECADES of work at a company. Zal – you are wrong again. There are literally scores of companies that Bain and then Bain Capital turned around that flatly contradicts the opinion pieces you, frankly don’t understand and just flung like monkey feces into the comment space.
Plus, not only did you not address the fact that you clearly don’t know about the diversity of private equity, but also won’t address the question as to who exactly you are going to vote for given there are only 2 people who have a chance to win. I believe wholeheartedly that you are going to vote for Obama but just don’t want to admit it in here because you know for a fact that saying you will vote for that fraudulent asshole will lose any little credibility you think you have here.
Run_dmc, if you have articles or opinion pieces from credible sources that support your version of the private equity business, post links to them. Merely dismissing the support I provide for my characterization is weak to say the least. If a lead writer for Bloomberg and a managing director of a private equity firm are biased in any way, it’s to see the private equity business in what they consider a positive light, and the second piece in particular defends Bain Capital and yet still characterizes its private equity business exactly as I did. It’s not like I posted links to Mother Jones attacking Wall Street or something.
As for my vote, I’ve said repeatedly since 2008 I will never vote for Obama and I will stand by that. It really makes me smile that I’ve lost long time friends over my consistent and very harsh criticism of Obama, and some here don’t believe I oppose him. Maybe you’re so accustomed to deceitfulness today you simply aren’t capable of recognizing an honest broker when you come upon one like me.
I know I won’t vote for Obama but I’m not sure at this point who’ll get my vote. I’m leaning toward Dr. Stein, the Green Party candidate.
Ha! Totally. Asshole, dick, take your pick. Hey, did I just write a new nursery rhyme?
On a serious note, I really hope you like what I’m offering at P&L in the morning. I’m still rock steady, baby, and have more Obama failing and flailing to share with you.
I think I understand the point that Obama was making badly. And when I say badly I mean abominably. A lot of new tech, research, innovation has come from government scientists and researchers but business has found the application for it to create jobs, money, and make our lives easier and more productive. Teflon, thereaputic drugs, GPS and stuff like that came from government research labs. I think he was talking to his own moneyed supporters who are getting nasty with him and won’t fork over the money as fast as he needs it to burn through in his campaign. His green tech bundlers from 2008 got their stimulus funds and now he needs his cut. His pharmaceutical buddies got their ObamaTax and he needs the kickback NOW. I think his mindset is he delivered on handing over the keys to the federal government to Wall St and the aforementioned stimulus buddies and he is crudely reminding them that they OWE him. He is the Chicago godfather and they better pay up.
And he is a dick and an asshole personally. But he and the political culture of the city that spawned him are worse. They are parasitic. He is a tapeworm and that is how he thinks.
He keeps saying his campaign and his presidency has a communication problem. That’s because his big ass foot is always in his mouth.
Abominably is right. IF this was Obama’s secret remark to those industries, he just insulted a huge subset of companies who have contracts with the government in some capacity (whether local or federal) who are quasi-public entities once they enter into a government contract of usually about 30% (depending upon the locality and federal agency). If your point is correct, Lulu, then he’s reminding them that he will cut off their funding if they don’t support him.
Until we somehow force Congress to pass campaign finance reform, this is what we will get, a president who is a sort of Super Lobbyist for the interests he or she represents.
This isn’t brain surgery, each of us will have to do our part to elect representatives who pledge to do this. I wish the Tea Party would get on this, because the mainstream never will.
I would expect there to be cheating, even if CFR were passed, but anything would be an improvement over the status quo, especially if the cheaters were treated as law breakers. Sorry for being a broken record on this, but it’s so obvious to me that this is the only way out of the cesspool.
As for Romney and Zero, the shark was indeed jumped, in calling Romney a felon and a demand for records from one who has spent millions to conceal his, defines hypocrisy.
All a Romney election might bring, in this age of visuals and ‘feelings’ is just enough confidence in our country to keep us from the abyss.. I am not sure this is true, it’s just my ‘feeling.’
I am also tired of watching O play games with Bibi, he is too dumb to realize that Bibi will never be outfoxed by such an amateur. We have one ally in that part of the world that is civilized, and O disrespects them at every turn, how clever is that ?
Another tidbit: http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/15/obama-campaign-took-cash-from-bain-outsourcing-execs/
“Until we somehow force Congress to pass campaign finance reform, ”
Congress is a stygian stable of corruption. We need a constitutional amendment to address campaign finance reform. Then we can elect honest people.
Which not only requires the approval of 2/3 of that stygian (Augean?) stable of corruption, but also 3/4 of the uncleaned catboxes of corruption, the state legislatures.
My Greek allusions are off today. The WH “transparency” is Stygian, the Congress is full of shit like the Augean stables.
Congress is compelled to call a Const. Convention if 2/3 of the state legislatures demand one. Or, 3/4 of the state leg. can pass an amendment. The occupants of the several state leg.’s are also corrupt, but easier to get at.
Failing all else, we’ll simply have to have a revolution.
Tamer,
As far as I’m concerned, a Convention is the nightmare scenario I’d really prefer not to even think about. That puts the whole document up for grabs: Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, the works. Unless you can point out a Madison among our contemporary political class, I think I’d rather not find out what’s hiding under that particular rock.
I’m not convinced campaign finance reform is the way to go. I think a constitutional amendment for term limits would rein in the money enough by denying career pol opportunities and limiting the time the money train could be exploited. Plus it would have the effect of draining the swamp in Washington. Nobody should be getting rich selling out their constituents, and that is currently the root of our troubles. Plus, there’s already precedent for term limits with the presidency.
This emperor/president has already shredded most of the Constitution, in collusion with the whores in Congress. A convention can be managed if we get our ducks in a row. All peaceable avenues must be exhausted before we take up arms.
If you complain about Soros and refer to Soros moles, you are a Republican. I thought this blog was about Dems or liberals or progressives disappointed in Obama and preferring Hillary. I didn’t think this blog was conservatives pretending to be liberal in order to pick off support for Dem candidates. Clearly, I was mistaken.
“If you complain about Soros and refer to Soros moles, you are a Republican.” Are you joking, with this remark, Sally? Surely, you must be. I did not know complaining about _____ at any given moment meant one was a ______. So when i mocked Donald Trump…said the B.C. issue was closed in my book… what was I then?
Here’s what this blog is and has been for some time. It’s a – “The GOP bothers but is acting more or less like it’s acted for my entire life, the majority of the current Democratic party is empty, dishonest, and possibly insane” – blog. And I’m not joking about ‘insane’.
On another note, I do wish people would stop saying the GOP/TP is something awful and new. It’s neither. The real TP…or the one created in MSNBC ‘s head is not new. It’s as old as the Republic. Random tags in my lifetime alone indicating this: Goldwater, Prop 13, Morning in America… the TP under various names is a regular occurrence on the American scene. The GOP is also saying NOTHING now it hasn’t said since Goldwater at least. And many of the pro-business policies go back to the 1870s. The GOP fought an internal war over this stuff in the first decade of the 20th century…T. Roosevelt ditched the party at the time. Harding and Coolidge espoused earlier versions of the “lessen regulations” mantra we hear now. What the GOP is saying now is NOT NEW. I’m tired of hearing this misdirect.
Self-policing at it’s best. You can’t talk about Soros, but Koch, Koch, Koch is alright. And OWS is alright. Fight the rich, except the ones who fund us.
Thank you for that, JWS.
As an Independent, I don’t get the obsession with party labels and purity checks, and am always mystified by commenters dropping by to accuse you of turning Red. In the same vein, I’ll never understand why people think it’s OK to drop in to insult the blog-host.
1) I’m a liberal disappointed in — no, disgusted by — the Democratic Party as a whole. Soros helps bankroll that foul enterprise;
2) I’m not stupid enough to suddenly think the GOP is fine & dandy. Both major parties are evil;
3) Name me one Dem candidate running this year that deserves our support or vote.
I believe it is perfectly legitimate to question Soros. A man who is of Jewish heritage and during WWII was forced to live as a Christian working for an enterprise that liquidated Jewish assets, including the gold from their teeth. He has a disturbing psychological disconnect whereby he has refused to apologize for his collaboration with the Nazis & has shown no remorse for what he has done. Let’s not forget his involvement with the destabilization of European economies. His heavy involvement with the Democratic Party in particular and shadow funding of numerous progressive groups has certainly given me pause over the years. Why doesn’t it you?
We have to burn the village to save it, Sally.
The Democratic party is corrupt. It is anti-”little d” democratic and thinks the voters should just shut up, sit down and swallow whatever they want to dish out. They control who gets to run as a Democrat so no one can come in and challenge them or clean it up. That leaves the ballot box as the only way to flush it out. In old fashioned political parlance it is called a “whip-saw” election. The other party is used to clean them out of office. Then in the next cycles the “whip-saw” comes in from the other direction again from the electorate until one or both parties understand that their ignoring the electorate will not be tolerated. 2010 was just the start and until Obama Democrats are basically gone the party is going nowhere. We’re still Democrats in all but name but the party is all name and no Democratic principals.
Sally, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am having an identity crisis, perhaps others here are as well.. Ideals that were almost taken for granted, due to being held so long, no longer seem to apply here.The white hats and the black hats, in this time of world crisis all look gray now. As for the usual issues, women, abortion etc, I have never cared a whit about what people do in their personal lives, the only personal life I have is my own, and I try to remain true to that.
Most of the issues that Dems ran up the flagpole are no longer relevant, if we can’t keep food on the table. We have to learn arithmetic before we can focus on calculus.
I’m just tired of have a thug and a crook representing our country, no matter what party he represents. Did I mention he is, imo, a war criminal ? The Dem party has been his enablers, now they are jumping ship, as they see the tide seeping in, not much to admire about that.
The R’s are just as bad, both parties are pretty much detestable. When asked ‘who would you like to have dinner with, Pelosi or Boehner?” The only reply that comes to mind is that eating out of the dumpster behind McDonald’s sounds preferable to either choice.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t say I’m having an identity crisis; i’d say I’ve realized that many people and groups I identified with before are not who they pretended to be.
Well said, Sophie. I also agree that imo he is a war criminal, much like GWB. BTW I don’t like Soros I don’t care who he gives his money to. I also don’t like the Koch brothers. Both are despicable.
John, I’ve always thought Obama is at least a dick. For the life of me, I can’t understand why people think he’s likable.
I think the ad will backfire on O — he looks like an a-hole and Middle America can’t be thrilled that he’s using this beloved song in a political attack ad. What is it with his and OFA’s political tone-deafness this election cycle?!?
I think it’s that the American people were tone-deaf in 2008 that’s Obama’s problem. He’s singing the same tune, but now it’s grating on our ears.
At least Romney isn’t running because he wants to become wealthy, that motive would go to Zero. Since he has gained more than ten million in net worth in the last three years, it seems to have worked.
“Is there anything Obama hates more than individual initiative?”
This is the crucial point to me, and with his direct attacks on American small businesses and now using Romney’s voice against him, he’s really opened the floodgates. All of Obama’s transcripts and job history aside from policy becomes more relevant as republicans venture to prove WHY Obama hates individual initiative. This will be the nastiest campaign season ever. And Obama deserves every bit that’s coming to him. There are many many small businesses that are owned by Liberals/Progressives. It is simply baffling to me that Obama doesn’t get this. Instead he buys into the whole meme that to be a small business owner you must be a republican. What about all those tattoo artists and fair trade coffee owners, the owners of Whole Foods and other organic food producers, or those in the alternative health industry? These people are mostly of a liberal/progressive bent and now he’s insulted them on a major personal level, in effect saying — YOU don’t deserve it. Wouldn’t you think that as a small business owner who has integrity that not only are Obama’s policies not beneficial towards your business, they might even be more punitive because of his personal feelings toward your like? IF Obama’s intent was to show that it takes a village to sustain strong entrepreneurship endeavors and nurture the risk and hard work that a business owner takes on, often sacrificing a personal/social life, he FAILED.
BTW, lest not forget family farms, which are there own separate microcosm of entrepreneurship.
i am finding his new war against business disturbing. this is america, we are a capitalist nation. businesses pay taxes, they create jobs so that people can pay more taxes to the government so they can go and spend it foolishly. basically if he hates business so much, then he should stop spending and raising money, he should close his facebook account, stop making ads, and flyers, tshirts, posters, email letters, because all those produced things comes out of businesses. basically he is really showing himself for what he truly is for this new war he is having against business which is a HYPOCRIT! if no one worked, the government would get none of our money from taxes so they couldn’t run, so why the hell would he have a war against business at this time… all i see is a flailing campaign. they are totally desperate, and these fights look desperate. and personally, i don’t know who they are appealing towards because a lot of the middle class have small businesses, it’s what makes america work, so obviously he isn’t trying to get the business owner maybe independent vote with this idiotic war on business he just started.
In O’s warped mind, we’re all potential gov’t dependent welfare queens, except for his donors, of course. It just shows how little he understands or likes the American spirit, or at least what the American spirit used to be..
It is just the progression of this particular ideology. Everyone is to do as they say ’cause they are smart and know best. The fact that they have utterly f’ed up everything they touch does not seem to phase them. Shaking their delusional self confidence in their own abilities is difficult because it is, well, delusional. Eventually you have to shake a stick at them to go away or break out the straight-jackets. Or Xanax.
ps it also underscores his ignorance of finances.
Oh good grief, what’s next ?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/city-orders-firefighters-to-remove-us-flags-from-trucks-theyre-offensive-video/
It could have been that the firefighters weren’t following the rules for properly displaying the flag, and the “flag police” complained. Because we can’t trust the “news media” to accurately report the news anymore, we really don’t know what happened. While my dad would have been supportive of the firefighters’ displaying the flag, as an unofficial member of the flag police, he might have written a conniption to the city council asking them to have the firefighters properly display the flag or take it down. He had a conniption when he saw that a boyfriend of mine in college was using a large American flag as a bedspread. Didn’t matter that the flag had flown over the guy’s company headquarters in Vietnam, and the company commander had given it to him for “acts of valor”. “The American flag isn’t a bedspread.”
“That leaves the ballot box as the only way to flush it out. In old fashioned political parlance it is called a “whip-saw” election. The other party is used to clean them out of office. Then in the next cycles the “whip-saw” comes in from the other direction again from the electorate ….”
************
IMO, the “whip saw” was a feature of the 2008 election. A Dem was going to win, what could be better than to give a sh*t load of Wall Street, Health Industry, Bank, etc. money to a corrupt, sociopathic, corporate shill then after he wins, label his multi-trillion dollar bail-out policy and Obamacare, etc. SOCIALISM.
If 08 was a ‘whipsaw’ ’10 was an ‘oh no you don’t’ year, which O managed to ignore and blur with executive orders. The fact that he learned Nothing from ’10, seems to indicate a bull headedness, that should preclude him from leading anything larger than a church choir, and a small church at that.
OK, I finally got the courage to watch the America The Beautiful ad. OMG — they thought it was gonna be their DAISY ad! OFA is flailing.
Hard to know which way to vote. If Rmoney wins, will that spark a wave of fighting Dems? And evn if it does, will they be real Dems or Odems?
I used to think an Obama win would be best as 4 more years of him would diisillusion everyone and collapse the Dems altogether. Now I think there are enough gullibles out there to prevent this much-needed collapse.
What to do, what to do?
Four more years of obama, and we will be living in a police state.
Pingback: You Bitter Clingers Didn’t Build That! | John W Smart