It bothered me in 2008 when McCain refused to go after Obama’s character.
I also find annoying Romney’s penchant for repeating that Obama is a “nice guy” just before claiming he’s incompetent. I didn’t vote for McCain and thus far see no reason to vote for either Romney or Obama. Nevertheless, I don’t understand this impulse to treat Obama with kid gloves. One thing Obama is not is nice. The record from Alice Palmer forward is clear as the Death Valley summer sky on this. The man is perfectly happy to trash anyone who stands in his way. One would think the party that birthed Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wouldn’t choose such demur nominees.
Romney, having received the gift of the “you didn’t build that” moment, may be turning a corner on this – finally. A Buzzfeed post says as much. It’s patently foolish to believe civility is the answer when confronting Chicago thugs. The Obamas don’t do civil. Ask Jack Ryan.
Obama’s alleged life is a cornucopia of attack ads waiting to happen. He ought to be vetted – finally. The pre-fascist American media won’t do it. That the job must fall to Republicans is sad (and alarming) but we are where we are.
The media and Obama are vetting Romney. No matter who one supports, it would be good for all of us if Obama is vetted this time as well. This process need not be “fair” and it won’t be. American Presidential elections have been ugly since 1800. They are not pretty or civil. They have, however, produced a surprising number of good and great Presidents. Perhaps more than we deserved. What often emerges from this vetting is a measure of the person being attacked. We came to know what we were getting with Bill Clinton because the GOP went to town on him early. He turned out to be what those paying attention in 1992 thought he was: A brilliant man with a deep character flaw. Pluralities twice opted to go with the former and accept the latter. He turned out to be a solid choice for the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. He’d probably be a solid choice in any era.
Just because I’m not voting for Romney doesn’t mean I think he should let Obama skate. Both men need to be vetted. If this vetting is harsh, so be it. Obama needs to be taken to the woodshed for his broken promises, his weird, shifting and oblique history, his divisiveness, and his general failure on the economy. Romney needs a better answer on his tax returns and he ought to forcefully explain what Bain does and why it does it. If people see the real Obama (not the OFA/media hologram) and choose him – fine. If everything about Romney that causes discomfort is made plain and he still wins – fine.
The big lie that needs to cease now is that Obama, the man, is “nice”. He’s not nice. His campaigns have never been nice. Obama’s vetting can’t fully commence until this particular piece of bullshit ends. Obama needs to be vetted for all our sakes. So does Romney.
Related articles
- Romney Takes the Gloves Off (politicalwire.com)
- Why Romney deleted the line “He’s a nice guy.” (althouse.blogspot.com)
Obama never says or does anything nasty or underhanded.
He hires people to do it for him.
Yes, indeed. Let the bullshite on Obama end; let the games begin.
Obama is “nice” the way this whole generation is nice. By generation I mean the prevailing behavior of Americans right now and the past decade or longer. Mitt Romney’s the same way; it presents differently because his needs are different, but he’s nice the same way Obama and this generation as a whole is nice. There’s an unspoken agreement that these “nice” people acknowledge each other’s niceness while attacking, which supposedly affirms the attacker’s niceness.
Throughout our society today there’s a thin veneer of being nice while underneath lives a nasty cruelty. But I’ve written about this dozens of times before and how the ramifications of the truth of the nastiness and the lie of the niceness is going to become more and more apparent. And here we are.
Oh, child, I grew up in the South where this has been the standard way of being since I can remember.
My take on Romney’s “Pres. Obama’s a nice guy but he’s in over his head” has always been that he was appealing to those voters who aren’t tribal Dems (no getting through to them anyway) but who voted for Obama last time due to (1) Bush fatigue; (2) giving the “hope and change” new guy a chance and (3) didn’t become engaged in the election until after the primaries, etc (like most people who aren’t political junkies do) so they missed all the times Obama revealed himself for the pr*ck he is (but which we all caught) and have since that vote become disenchanted with him. People can be persuaded to change their mind, but not if you shove it in their faces that they were fools to have fallen for him. The “he’s a nice guy but he’s in over his head” absolves any negligence/foolishness/responsibility from those voters who we all know *should have known better” than to vote for Obama in 2008. Also — and this is important — it undercuts any “white guilt” Team Obama might play, as it tells them “I can think Obama hasn’t done a good job as President, but that doesn’t make me a racist, because I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, just a bad President.” I actually think the tack was pretty brilliant on Romney’s part.
As far as “No More Mr. Nice Guy” goes — Team Obama did go too far with the Romney “might be a felon” charge because they know for a *fact* that those SEC documents were properly signed with Romney as CEO of Bain VI because he still owned his ownership share of Bain VI after he left the management of Bain Capital. Note, I’m using “Bain VI” and “Bain Capital” on purpose here because they are two different things — although you certainly do not see Team Obama or the MSM making that distinction to clarify the matter for people. And if anyone thinks I’m trying to “champion Romney” he/she can kiss my grits — the fact that I actually understand what those SEC docs are about & I actually understand how Bain Capital is formed & I refuse to lie about it doesn’t equate to me “championing Romney.” Those SEC docs where he is listed as “President, CEO and Sole Shareholder” is for Bain VI — all the partners in Bain Capital had their investment shares formed into their “own” company (hence, the Roman numerals to distinguish them). I’m not asking anyone to study business law, but just think about this — if Romney was “President, CEO and Sole Shareholder” of Bain Capital — as the MSM is allowing people to infer by not clarifying between Bain Capital & Bain VI (they just say “Bain”) how did he have partners? ‘Cause it is pretty much impossible for the Sole Shareholder of a company to have “partners.” And that alleged “salary” of $100,000 people are saying Romney received after he left the management of Bain Capital in 1999? Romney drew his *own* money from his *own* company. Bain VI had nothing to do with “running Bain” (Capital) other than Romney’s funds were used for the investments Bain Capital made. That is why he is also listed as the “sole shareholder” in Bain VI. An analogy would be if you withdrew money from your 401(k) — that is *your* money in there that you have invested. If you withdraw it, you are not being paid a *salary* from your 401(k). Romney didn’t remain as the “nominal CEO” of Bain Capital — he remained the *owner* of his investment in Bain Capital (i.e, Bain VI). You would not take his name off of that investment until he actually sold his share in Bain Capital. Team Obama and the MSM know all this — they know it such that even the Washington Post, The NY Times & CNN all had to admit that Team Obama was “blowing smoke” (don’t forget, a bipartisan MA state panel investigated the matter in 2002 when Romney ran for governor & they found he left Bain Capital in 1999 as he says, too) but the MSM doesn’t really explain it well to people and they left room for doubt (using words like “murky” and “muddled paperwork” etc) to give Obama as much cover as they could, which is still bullsh!t. And I repeat: anyone who takes offense because I actually did look at the SEC docs in question & understand legal principles such as — I don’t know — “property rights” — and I refuse to lie about it and thus concludes that I’m “championing Romney” — don’t bother to let me know how you feel — I don’t care. You’re on par with the right’s “birthers” as far as I’m concerned (arguably worse –because there is a *ton* of evidence proving that Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999).
Anyway, back to the point of this thread — IMO, Obama made a mistake backing up Cutter & LaBolt’s statements that Romney “might have committed a felony” by saying it was “appropriate” in that *now* Romney can say exactly what he is saying — you set the rules, you can’t hold me to a different set (and, in fact, he did say pretty much those words earlier this year after the Solyndra press conference/Boston Axelrod heckling — the MSM asked him to “condemn” his supporters heckling Axelrod & Romney said “We’ve had people at everyone of my stops heckling” — unsaid was the MSM’s failure to report it — “And we don’t have to play by a different set of rules than Pres. Obama does. It’s sauce for the goose.”) Now, because Obama didn’t take the high road with the “felon” lie (which Romney knew he wouldn’t — I always said Romney wasn’t actually expecting or even really *asking* for an apology –he was laying the trap) no matter what Romney says or does to Obama, when Team Obama & the MSM cry for him to “condemn” it, Romney can say “it’s appropriate.” They, of course, will not like that — but as the Obots were so fond of saying during the 2008 primary “Them’s the RULZ!” The MSM will howl at how wrong Romney is & they will give Obama as much cover as they can — but this time around people are going to be more apt to notice the disparate treatment/vetting Romney is getting compared to what Obama got in 2008. Even Howard Kurtz — idiot that he is — commented on it on Blitzer’s show last Friday. Wolfe & the other woman who was on poo-poo’d it (they went with the “Romney needs to be vetted! This is the Presidency we’re talking about!” argument, not realizing they were actually making Kurtz’s point).
As to the tax return issue in particular — it’s a sideshow. The only requirements to be POTUS are spelled out clearly in Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 of the US Constitution: natural born citizen, 35 years of age and minimum of 14 years residency within the US. That’s it — if people want releasing tax returns to be a *requirement* to be POTUS, then they need to tell their reps to get on drafting an Amendment — but that will have no legal bearing on this election. As for as the “custom” of candidates for POTUS releasing them — ever since it started (Nixon ’68) the number of returns released by candidates has been between 0 (Reagan) and 12 (Clinton). The Republican candidates have always released fewer than the Dem candidates — McCain, for example, released 2 years. So, Romney releasing 2 years is right in line with the “custom.” Anyone saying differently now is full of it. Again: just the facts that I refuse to lie about. Doesn’t mean I’m “championing” Romney. If you feel I am “championing Romney” that’s fine — but I don’t care.
“like” button enthusiastically!
Angie, your posts are so informative thank you.. Speaking of ‘vetting’, Romney making a pile ot tax returns public is akin to giving assault weapons to the enemy in a war zone.. Additionally, why does a couple worth 12 million dollars keep pretending to be poor, and act as if they even remotely ‘get’ the Black experience, and why do their audiences keep falling for it ?
First, thank you sophie.
Second, honestly, if they hadn’t intentionally lied about the SEC docs/Bain Capital/Bain VI stuff I might not think there was a nefarious purpose to the tax returns demand (beyond plain old distraction from the economy) — but they did intentionally lie about that, and they are trying to make completely legit investments for someone of Romney’s wealth — like Swiss Bank accounts — “sinister” (and never mind that Obama appointed Chief Counsel for the IRS Wilkins is a former lobbyist for the Swiss Bankers Association — surprise! not only a lobbyist in the Obama admin., contrary to campaign promises, but a lobbyist for the allegedly big, bad Swiss banks!), so I have to agree — this is a fishing expedition to get ammo against Romney because they have demonstrated that they will take things and distort them & flat out lie about them. Under that standard, I’m sure there is *plenty* they could find to exploit in his tax returns. Pfft. It’s not required so I think he is smart not to do it — besides, it seems his “standing up to Obama & the MSM” is giving him “street cred” with the so-called tru-cons who he had trouble winning over in the primaries, so it’s a win-win for him.
And you know, there is nothing wrong with arranging your affairs to lessen the income tax you pay — especially for a guy who paid almost $6 million in taxes in 2010 (he gave that same amount to charity, btw, so that also lessened his tax rate). But anyone who owns a house, for example, and takes the mortgage interest deduction or who is paying student loans & takes the student loan interest deduction, is using so-called “loopholes” to lessen their tax rate. Romney’s 2010 returns numbered 207 pages (4 separate returns — his, Ann’s, the family trust & a charitable trust) – this *is* complex stuff for most of us & it can be made to *look* bad if not explained properly, and that is *exactly* what Team Obama is exploiting. But Romney’s taxes look well documented & legit. (A post on taxpolitics.com had a nice overview/synopsis — it even explained how because of the tax laws Romney actually paid taxes on an extra one million in “phantom income,” i.e., money he doesn’t *actually* have — but strangely, that post has been scrubbed). And not only is there nothing wrong with that — it is longstanding case law that it is proper, as no one owes a duty to pay more than the law demands. My favorite quote from the highly esteemed Judge Learned Hand (and I’ve been quoting it a lot lately):
Speaking of ill gotten gains, Someone who made money from a made up autobiography in an almost surely ghost written book….pot meet kettle.
No kidding, Sophie. The “voice” of Dreams from My Father almost sounds like it belongs in a 1940s detective novel. The feel and tone of that book have absolutely no similarity to anything else we have ever seen or heard from Obama. No way did he write it.
They sold the bogus “Clintons are racist” in 2008
May 2008:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.
Clinton said she didn’t understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.
Clinton later said that she regretted the comment if it was “in any way offensive.”
Somebody deliberately unleashed this tsunami of hate on Senator Clinton today. I want to know who first twisted her simple RFK comment into a threat on Obama’s life. Who?
Who could not foresee that we now have hundreds of thousands of enraged Obama supporters who think Senator Clinton is responsible for planting an idea about assassinating Obama? Could anybody not foresee that Senator Clinton would become the direct object of that rage?
Does anybody doubt how at-risk Hillary must feel tonight? Not for her political future, but for her life itself.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/23/213914/479
Riverdaughter at The Confluence: RFK and the 1968 primary - she ends with:
The reaction of the Obamasphere and the media is totally indefensible. The HuffingtonPost is taking a very matter-of-fact discussion of primary history and twisting it into a vile insinuation that Hillary can’t wait until someone takes Obama out. It is time they stopped behaving like the Orwellians during a two minutes hate.
FrenchDoc at Correntewire:
And I would also include in this hall of shame the Democratic National Committee who has had its collective thumb on the scale for Senator Obama, as well as anyone involved in the Democratic party leadership. They are actively complicit in the character assassination and blatant misogyny and race-baiting used against Senator Clinton.
So, what do we know now?
Senator Obama, the DNC, the Obama Fan Base have alienated more and more of the Clinton voters, who happen to be the core of the Democratic voting block.
Senator Obama has benefited from the free help from the media, the so-called progressive blogs and all levels of the Democratic party
[…]
The so-called progressive blogosphere has shown its true colors and they ain’t pretty: misogyny, mob behavior, mass hysteria, character assassination, disloyalty to progressive and liberal principles and I am being kind.
The new democratic party that Senator Obama wants to own and control quasi-exclusively is one with a very narrow and exclusive base, after the abuse, insult and ultimate rejection of the core Democratic base. Core Democratic voters and supporters have now to find a new political structure for themselves because if Senator Obama has his way, this is no longer a party where women, working class folks, and generally anyone unprivileged are welcome.
There is still time to stop this insanity and I hope that there are still some adults who can read electoral data at the DNC, rather than go with groupthink and crowd behavior and just the cheer cravenness of the ATM and coolness that Senator Obama represents.
Excellent post… God ,was that only 4 years ago? seems alot longer…I think Hill still fears for her life…and why she wants out after this term. Really there comes a point where both Left and Right elite meet and are one….we are there
You only touched on a very tiny portion of the 2008 BS used by the progressive hostage takers of the democrat party. There were layers upon layers of layers of pre-meditated character attacks against Hillary Clinton.
On top of that, and just as fierce of a blow, there were many prominent women in 2008 that did not want their charisma reduced by a Hillary Clinton presidency, women such as Oprah Winfrey, Maria Shriver, Arrianna Huffington, Donna Brazile, and Nancy Pelosi.
Each was more concerned about losing power and prominence by a Hillary Clinton presidency, and each PREMATURELY supported Barack Obama before the democrat voters had voted. (although Brazile gets a pass since she was directly involved in Obama’s campaign as a paid political operative, however, Brazile did invect charges of racism and threats of rioting based on how super delegates voted).
fwiw: I wouldn’t give Donna Brazile a pass if she did public penance for the next 10 years. (call it my counter-transference).
It bothered me in 2008 when McCain refused to go after Obama’s character.
Indeed , and it bothered me more that the whole GOP elite laid down and then started a loud whispering campaign against Palin and I’m no fan …but one doesn’t have to be to wish fairness.
OT but I’m gonna be pissed if they make Hillary go to the UN and do a Colin Powell , pimping the need for war in Syria even harder than she has ….or maybe they are saving that for Iran, and not the runs ups? …and please let no one confuse my horror of the violence the West and Saudi Arabia are importing into Syria with any love of Assad ..again you don’t have to be a fan , just be sick of lies…and the same damn script.
We want a convoy road between Turkey and Iran , Syria is in the way. That’s what this is about , The end . It’s like a landlord of a rent controlled building, who wants it emptied out ….you give armed thugs for hire an apt and let nature take its course.
“Nice Guy”, Academic, Intellectual, Scholar, etc. , are verbal talismans used by critics of the “ONE” to somehow magically avoid being labeled as a racist. Hasn’t worked, won’t work; so it’s time to suck it up and expose the corrupt, sociopathic fraud.
John, if you linked to DailyPUMA, and every now and then used it as a time saving way to see what other bloggers were writing about, it might cause you to wonder why Obama’s relationship with his mother AFTER she told him she had terminal cancer has not been vetted.
Obama just finished writing a book in Bali about his deadbeat dad, then less than a year later his mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer, did Obama spend any time with her before she died? What is more important, writing a book about the memory of a dead father unknown, or a mother who is dying and a son with one final chance to harvest a relationship with her before it is too late.
DailyPuma… I’m a man of habit. Your note is welcome as I’ll put the Dailypuma on my daily rotation.
Cool.
Just when you think you’ve seen it all: from wedding gifts to Christmas cards…pathetic
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/19/obama-campaign-raffling-off-chance-for-obama-to-star-in-your-holiday-card/
The best part is the reminder to us rubes to make sure we comb our hair & put on a clean shirt for our picture with the President!
… and don’t forget to iron your “Bro’s before Ho’s” t-shirt!
I will, if he will.
Just caught this Romney ad…it’s a good ad as these things go. Of interest to me is the influence of Friday Night Lights. It’s way off topic but i remain convinced that Mad Men, Breaking Bad, the character of Brenda Lee Johnson and the show Friday Night Lights will be influences on popular culture for a long time to come…
I am just a simple man, working on the land
Oh it ain’t easy
I am just a simple man, working with my hands
Oh believe me
Freedom is the only thing means a damn to me
Oh you can’t fake it
The torn down line at the end of the commercial could be a lead in into Obama’s plan to tear down neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates.
Watching the ad again – it’s very powerful. The first 30 seconds are skilled cinema and editing – and apparently speedy too…a story we all know the rest of – the story of getting up early to go to work….
and the ad uses another part of the rant that bothered me. The “people think they are so smart” riff. Let it sink in a bit – it’s deeply insulting. Not only are people not responsible for their hard work – they also are not that smart.
The iconography in the first 30 seconds before our “star” says a word – is directed at the people we keep coming back to on the show as the deciders: those from the NC mountains north thru WV, into Ohio, western PA, and, of course, into NH – note the Red Sox tee. It’s also an ad for Michigan and Wisconsin. I suspect MR will re-introduce this ad in October.