Why can’t Obama get off the mat? He’s outspending Romney at a fever clip. The race is still even. He been on offense for weeks attacking Romney’s Bain tenure and tax returns. The race is still even…
As a Presidential candidate, Romney is serviceable thus far. He’s hitting his marks, as we say in the movie business. There’s been no major flubs, little self-inflicted controversy. He occasionally hits it out of the park…and is dutifully ignored by much of the media. Romney is not defeating Obama.
The race is close because Obama is defeating Obama. The Obama we were sold in 2008 is giving Obama 2012 fits. Obama cannot attack the one person in the race that is holding him back: The hologram Obama of 2008. There’s no magic left, only residue and habit. Obama 08 has not been forgotten. The President himself seems determined to resurrect that earlier creation – to run a large, TV driven, stadium campaign. As he does, everyone is reminded of who they thought he was. Disappointment is the result, not excitement.
I suspect Obama polling in the mid forties out of habit. (He may get a small boost given the events in Colorado. Presidents usually do in these moments.) Then what? Obama returns to bombast buttressed – this time – by overt negativity.
If this alone were going to work we’d see some solid movement in polls toward the President. Subtly the case for Romney is being built. Much of it emerging from Obama’s focus on Bain. The positive case for a Obama second term, warts and all, is nowhere to be found.
I’ve wondered here if Romney understood how brutal the Obama campaign would be. I now wonder if Obama is capable of getting away from his 2008 creation. Or even if he understands that he needs to. 2012 is not 2008. We don’t ache for hope again. We ache for competence.
Related articles
- Why Romney Will Win (realclearpolitics.com)
- Romney closes 12-point gap to tie Obama in Virginia, poll finds (politico.com)
Is there anything that Obama could say or do at this point that would change your opinion of him for the better?
“I am not running for a second term. Oh, and we need a new Secretary of State because she’s campaigning now.”
“Obama is defeating Obama.”
I don’t know if I said it here or over at TCH, but Obama is oversaturating the market. Voters don’t want more of his celebrity propaganda. They want competence. But, I’m guessing that since competence is in short supply in ObamaNation, they’re going with what they know. They’re gonna drag out this one trick pony well after the crowd’s gone home.
but Obama is oversaturating the market
Exactly…and if I see one more contest ad to have a meal with this mug like it’s
some orgasmic inducing huge deal.. oy/lol/sob
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/david-gelernter-what-keeps-this-failed-president-above-water.php
A variation on a theme above:
Obama is hanging in there by his fingernails, only because of the media, which is starting to hang at best, by a small rope.
Anderson Cooper has a new show coming, “Keeping them Honest” aimed at Democrat politicians, evidently CNN is starting to feel our pain. The bottom of the barrel is a dank and smelly place, still, let’s give the show three weeks at best. CNN’s fourteen viewers will throw a hissy.
Excellent post ….
Obama cannot attack the one person in the race that is holding him back: The hologram Obama of 2008.
Indeed. This is what happens when you shoot hoops and golf for 3 1/2 years….you got nothing to talk about when it comes to what you actully did and the funny part about attacking Mittens over business practices, real or imagine, is AGAIN, it’s not like Obama would try and counter must less stop, any of the actions his campaine point to as evil.
My marketing & promotion professor in college always said, “advertising is a really good way to spend money.”
Also, it’s a trait of human nature to even things out in conflicts. If you attack someone too harshly for too long, people will say ‘OK, that’s enough.’ If you still keep it up, they turn on you.
But gently mock someone with humor & satire, and you can keep at that until the cows come home.
The O ad campaign IS transparent in its’ elitist assumption of the ignorance and gullibility of the voters. This is probably true of his base, and of some Undecideds. What should be transparent to all of us here, is that he has written us off. The largely White middle class, most of whom have been able to drag themselves past tenth grade will not be fooled this time around. The intelligentsia are in another realm, and he rightly takes their vote for granted .
Re: why can’t he get off the mat ? That’s an easy one, his ego will not allow him to take any responsibility for anything, and it’s too late to Blame Bush. So he has to keep pounding on things the average voter doesn’t care about, Bain and income tax returns.. We, here, with the possible exception of Zal, and his knowledge of finance, most likely know that plowing through all that will not inform us, because Mitt’s type of return is not written in normal language and numbers. And Bain, is more or less the same situation as above. The Bots are positive R’s tax returns will be signed with “M. Romney, Crook”……or something equally simplistic. Not endorsing anyone, but I do admire his charity, and I even like his public awkwardness, one smooth operator was enough for this generation.
What Obama’s pounding at, with Bain and income tax returns, is not obscure language or numbers, it’s a very simple attack: Romney is the 1%.
Romney is by far the wealthiest person ever to run for the White House, worth about $230 Million now (he’d be worth a lot more but he set aside $100 Million in tax free trust for his sons). He pays an income tax rate of 15%, all on unearned income. Us mere mortals in a high income bracket, paying on earned income, fork over 35%. The total he gives to charity is far less than the 20% difference, and the vast majority of what he gives goes to the Mormon church. Meanwhile, he paid $12 Million for a villa in La Jolla (San Diego) that he plans to tear down so he can build one four times the size (which will obstruct neighbor’s views).
I’m not saying he doesn’t have every right to spend his money as he wants, but I’m not sure what’s admirable about having so much more than anybody needs, especially in times like today, and, aside from what he’s required to give to the Mormon church, giving away such a relative pittance.
“He pays an income tax rate of 15%, all on unearned income.”
Do you think he should pay more than the law requires? I don’t understand comments like this.
Of course not.
First of all, the law should be changed. But Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2009 or 2010 should’ve done that because a President Romney sure won’t. It really is outrageous that if you earn $500,000 this year working at a job you’ll pay a 35% income tax rate, but if you receive $500,000 in unearned interest from stocks and bonds you’ll pay 15% in income tax.
But my point is whether or not one’s charity is admirable, IMO, is more complicated than looking at a simple dollar amount. There’s net worth/income/giving ratio and there’s the other amounts one contributes to the public good like in income taxes. IMO it’s fine and dandy that Romney gives 10% of his income to the Mormon church and a few percent to other assorted charities, but with the hundreds of millions he has socked away, the tens of millions he collects in unearned income every year, and the millions less than working schmucks he contributes to the public good by way of income taxes, coupled with what he spends on luxuries, I don’t see the few percentage points he gives to charity as admirable. It’s fine, but I’d list it as the least he can do.
I completely agree with you about the tax laws needing to be addressed. I just don’t think it’s fair to criticize a candidate for doing what the law allows them to do. Now, if they support those laws — have at the policy angle by all means.
I don’t pay taxes, because I don’t make any money.
Jay, I haven’t criticized him for doing what the law allows; paying taxes that the law requires, and no more, is reasonable and, IMO, the right thing to do. I applaud him for not being a tax cheat, as Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Treasury was.
My point was that the law allows him to pay a fraction of what earned incomers pay in income tax, which is our forced contribution to the public good, and could be counted toward what each of us contributes to charitable giving. Romney having to pay only 15% when other high earners pay 35% (even the 35% is, IMO, way too low a contribution, and I hardly think I’m alone in that opinion as many here have repeatedly said the super rich should pay more in taxes), coupled with living in excessive luxury with plenty left over, makes his small percentage level of non-Mormon charity paltry and less than worthy of admiration.
I’m not saying it’s wrong for anybody to admire his charity; no doubt Mormons, the primary beneficiaries of his giving, admire it and that’s understandable. I don’t begrudge them that. I said I don’t see what’s admirable about the amount he gives and I then explained why. And I stand by my reasoning that to merely match the percentage an average working person making $300,000 a year contributes to the public good in income tax alone, he’d have to give more than he gives to charity now — many millions more if you don’t count the required 10% to the Mormon church; further, he can easily give considerably more and still not feel it, still maintain every element of a very luxurious life. In my book, only if he ponied up to the percentage the rest of us pay, and better yet if he felt it by sacrificing something for himself in order to give to others, would I then admire his charity.
Did Romney not pay taxes on his income before he invested it? I think he did. The 15% tax is on capital gains. So this whole argument is a bit moot, since he did pay more than 15% before he paid his capital gains tax. Simple, really. I personally don’t have a problem with someone doing well for themselves. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with earning a lot of money. Even as much as Romney has earned. Being wealthy is not anything to be ashamed of
I referred to the income he’s collecting now and for the past 12 years.
If you want to discuss 1999 and prior to that, how much did he give in charitable donations during those years? Otherwise what you wrote is moot.
the income he’s collecting now is interest earned income. It was taxed already when it was earned, and now taxed 15% per the current tax code.
I haven’t seen anybody here say they have a problem with that. I certainly haven’t.
My point has been about unearned income, not earned income, how one acquires it and what one does with it, and what that reveals about character and thought process and the kinds of choices one makes in private life, in private industry and in public policy, and the ramifications of those choices.
Interest is unearned income.
His earned income was taxed when he earned it; from what I understand that was prior to 2000. What he’s paying income tax on now is capital gains. Your sentence structure is confusing but in case you think he’s being taxed twice on the same income, he is not.
Actually, you have seen someone here say that. I said it. Not everything revolves around you, sir. We could continue this game of semantics and parse each others every word even though the intent is clear despite the haste with which we type, or we could simply agree to disagree.
I’m going for the latter choice. It’s just not worth the time, and I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I wanted to state my opinion and I did. That’s enough for me. If you wish to continue denying my opinion to stick in your craw, go right ahead. I’m over it.
And BTW, you imply here that Romney paid a much higher income tax rate when he earned the money he now has invested. Private equity specialists, especially partners, collect a share of fund profits as a portion of their compensation, and when they’re as successful as Romney it’s a substantial portion of their compensation. This compensation is categorized as carried interest, not ordinary income, and is taxed at the same rate as capital gains. Some of us have for many years criticized this element of the tax code and insisted it should be changed to ordinary income; Romney’s on record saying it should be kept as is, but has danced around the question so far in this campaign. I could be wrong but I think I read early this year that Romney still collects millions a year in carried interest income.
When did you say you have a problem with that? In the post I responded to you wrote [emphasis added by me], “I personally don’t have a problem with someone doing well for themselves. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with earning a lot of money. Even as much as Romney has earned. Being wealthy is not anything to be ashamed of”
Did you at one time say you do have a problem with that?
Having amassed an additional ten million dollars since becoming president, really should deter O from complaining about Romney’s wealth. Romney seems to have actually worked for at least some of it. I did not know Mitt was so miserly, maybe it depends who you ask.
Nothing deters a psychopath from complaining about what others have. I believe that envy and frustration over what others have is at the core of their rage. Even if they finally acquire what they’ve envied, they still envy it because they can’t feel having it.
My comments about Mitt Romney have nothing to do with, are not a comment about, nor certainly not an endorsement of, Obama.
Why ask anyone if someone is miserly? Or believe anyone who claims someone else is or is not? Isn’t it better to determine for yourself by assessing factual information against your own life standards?
Don’t be swayed by seducers and deceivers; the only standard they have is figuring out who can be conned, who can be used to further the con, and how to do it.
R.I.P. Sally Ride,
Zal, I appreciate that you keep me on my toes. That’s why you and John are writers, and I am far from one. Of course, I haven’t Asked anyone about Mitt, who would I ask ? I used a lazy colloquial expression, instead of defining how I came to my opinion. He has been called ‘generous’ by his minions and on some websites., Lib websites obviously don’t want to talk about his charity, because his giving Sounds like a lot, but likely isn’t much compared to his over all wealth..
This conversation reminds me of the time we took a friend of the family on a boat ride on the Intracoastal in Palm Beach. She was a retired Asst D.A. in Manhattan. As we glided by mansion after mansion this tiny bird-like woman threw up her arms and yelled, “This can’t possibly all be legal.”
Exactly, sophie!
Inside the foundations of those grand mansions (one of which was probably the Kennedy’s, and another of which Mitt Romney is about to build on the West Coast) one will find tragic ghosts of ordinary souls whose lives and families had to be dispensable in order to build those temples of greed.
Generosity and greed do not coexist.
I believe in capitalism and I’m all in for success and wealth and the wonderful things they can provide. But, like erotica to pornography, there is a point at which the line is crossed, art is abandoned, and what’s left is only obscenity.
Long ago, when I was dating a gorgeous loser, {Paul Newman gorgeous}, my mother voiced misgivings, As a liberal dreamer twerp, I replied, “money can’t buy happiness”. She replied, “neither can poverty.”
Moderation in all things, gives balance, thanks Mom
Hi! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and
tell you I genuinely enjoy reading through your blog posts.
Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same subjects?
Thank you!