August 30, 2011

Romney having trouble raising money from Jewish donors who say they prefer "the Jewish candidate" — Michele Bachmann.

What's going on here? Republican fund raisers are exploiting Obama's weak support for Israel, but Mitt Romney is not doing so well with Jewish donors. If these donors aren't responding to Romney, and if they are indeed calling Bachmann "the Jewish candidate," are they really making a mistake, as the NY Post puts it, not realizing that she's Christian? I doubt it! Bachmann flaunts her Christianity, and her critics critique her for it. And a mere mistake could simply be corrected.
[S]ome in Romney's camp have been wondering whether Bachmann and her allies are pushing the "Jewish" rumor to help their own fund-raising, sources said.
Some! The dreaded some! Sources said. Maybe some in Romney's camp are pushing the Jewish rumor rumor to to help their own fund-raising!

The NY Post article goes on to say:
[Bachmann] has enjoyed strong popularity among Jewish voters and often talks about her stay on a kibbutz during the summer of 1974, when she was a teenager.
In a speech to the American Israel Political Action Committee last year, Bachmann recalled being guarded by soldiers while working on the kibbutz.

"While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines," she said. "I really learned a lot in Israel."

She went on to say, "I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian."

Bachmann also told an AIPAC gathering earlier this year that she and her family make sure each year to attend at least one Jewish-theme play or movie.
I think if any of these donors are calling Michele Bachmann "the Jewish candidate" they mean it in the figurative and satirical sense that Toni Morrison used when she called Bill Clinton the first black President.
People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
There's a somewhat common phrase "honorary jew." It's noted in the Urban Dictionary. It turns up over 20,000 Google hits, and, on the first page, we see discussion of whether Sarah Palin and, elsewhere, Hillary Clinton should be counted as "honorary Jews." Here's a cute blog post about Sarah Palin, noting 10 reasons why Palin counts as a Jew. You get the idea. The big one is support for Israel.

What might have motivated the Romney people to get the idea out there that Michele Bachmann is really Jewish? It could be to generate unease among voters who have some anti-Semitism.Think of the rumor that Barack Obama is really Muslim. The Romney people should not want people to think they meant to ignite that kind of suspicion about Bachmann. Oddly, Romney himself has to deal with the antagonism toward his religion — the religion he actually follows. You'd think his campaign folk would be more sensitive. It's almost as if they're trying to generate a rumor that Bachmann's not Christian at all to deal with his problem with some people thinking Mormons aren't Christian enough (or at all).

But what was the point of saying that the prospective donors are mistaken about such a basic fact about Bachmann? If you're trying to warm people up to your candidate, you don't normally insult them!

UPDATE: I'm told this proves she's not Jewish:

236 comments:

1 – 200 of 236   Newer›   Newest»
Tommy said...

What might motivated the Romney people to get the idea out there that BarbaraBachmann is really Jewish?

should that be Michele

glam1931 said...

Ann, in your penultimate paragraph you call her "Barbara" Bachmann.

AllenS said...

I'll withhold commenting, until I hear from Cedarford.

Pogo said...

Is it possible, really possible, after all this time, that Jewish voters might not support the Democrat?

Naaah. They will be in lockstep with blacks, gays, gubmint unions, and those dependent on gubmint money.

Which, added together, trends greater than 50%, so it'll be a race for the electoral college.

When push comes to shove, are Jews or any of the core Democrat groups actually going to pull the GOP lever?

No. I wish I were wrong, but other people's money is as addictive as meth.

Carol_Herman said...

Oy. Bernie Madoff is in prison.

And, why would Mittens be getting money from "the tribe" that works on Wall Street, or runs law firms?

Doctors aren't going to be pitching in, either. Of all groups ripped by the swindles ... doctors have lost obscene amounts of money.

And, their practices cost them fortunes to run! Gone are the days a doctor only needed his wife and a nurse to run his office.

And, what about the unions? Are these folks flush with funds?

But if Bachmann is getting money? Then she's a spoiler ... and maybe the money flows from Soros? It would take a good sense of humor to stack this deck.

While there are too many horses jockeying for the same set of Christian voters. Tea Party? Evangelicals? They haven't really been trend-setting, yet.

And, in Dole's case back in 1996, they sat on their hands.

Besides. How do you know the religion, race, or sexual orientations of your donors? Are you asking them to fill out questionnaires? REALLY?

X said...

WWC4D?

Scott M said...

Is there a Jewish donor "one drop of blood" rule? That would 'splain the whole thing.

CJinPA said...

People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp.

He was treated accurately, as it turns out. Ouch. Morrison may want to retract that analogy.

E.M. Davis said...

It's Barbara Bach, man!

At least Ringo Starr would vote for her,

Bob said...

Maybe Jews just have a problem with the way that Mormons (Romney's faith) baptize dead Jews into the Mormon faith, whether the Jew in question was inclined to give consent beforehand or not.

And most Jews vote Democrat to begin with, anyway.

Carol_Herman said...

Whatever happened to the line "I gave at the office?"

traditionalguy said...

The Jew bloodhounds are onto the scent and pointing at Michelle Bachmann. Is that like a dog whistle that only some can hear.

It does mean that Bachmann will be attacked from unexpected sources.

As for Romney, he just never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

AllenS said...

Bob @ 9:25 AM, nails it.

DADvocate said...

There's a somewhat common phrase "honorary jew." It's noted in the Urban Dictionary. It turns up over 20,000 Google hits,...

20,000 Google hits is the definition of OBSCURE. "Ann Althouse" (in quotes to make it more specific) gets over 1.1 MILLION. And, nobody I've ever talked with knows who Ann Althouse is, including a young woman I work with who attended UW-Madison.

m stone said...

"I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian."

Jews understand that. Increasingly fewer Jews are even having a problem with Christ as messiah.

Bachmann is reinforcing her position as a Christian, something the other candidates, except Perry, can't do. Perry will.

Pogo said...

The issue is less one of their tolerance of Christians than their preference for socialists.

ndspinelli said...

The big money Jewish donors are Hollywood. They care less about Israel than they do about liberalism. This is akin to feminists caring more about liberalism than women. And, there's no way Hollywood Jews would ever donate to a Republican..even if they really were a Jew

Tank said...

Pogo said...

The issue is less one of their tolerance of Christians than their preference for socialists.


Touche' my friend.

As a Jew, I am disgusted by my brethren's political choices.

Quayle said...

Maybe Jews just have a problem with the way that Mormons (Romney's faith) baptize dead Jews into the Mormon faith, whether the Jew in question was inclined to give consent beforehand or not.

To be precise Mormons don't consider that they are baptizing anyone dead into the Mormon faith.

They consider that They do a baptism for the person as a proxy - which baptism is required as Christ said - and which, Mormons believe, can be accepted by the dead person (who is not dead in the afterlife) or not accepted.

And yes, that is a sore spot between some Jews and the Mormon church.

But there are also a lot of strong ties.

You may or may not have seen BYU's Jerusalem BYU's Jerusalem Center on a very choice spot on Mt. of Olives overlooking the old city, which didn't get there without approval born of cordiality.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, in your penultimate paragraph you call her "Barbara" Bachmann."

Weird! Sorry. Fixed.

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, I think Ringo's wife got in there somehow!

Pogo said...

Tank,

As a Catholic, I note that the Jesuits spread the odious liberation theology, and our Bishops have long supported the 'Progressive' agenda.

Jesus was a socialist, as the Very Loud Guy screamed at Althouse.

Freder Frederson said...

Jews understand that. Increasingly fewer Jews are even having a problem with Christ as messiah.

Say what. If a Jew thinks Christ is the Messiah, then they are Christian, not Jewish.

edutcher said...

Fundamentalists have for some time been extremely supportive of Israel, as it is evocative of Moses and the trails of the Children of Israel, something the Lefties really on't get.

They assume the bitter clingers are as anti-Semitic as they are.

PS Is Marcus Bachmann of Jewish descent?

Triangle Man said...

Jesus was a socialist, as the Very Loud Guy screamed at Althouse.

That's as stupid as saying that Jesus Christ is a political philosopher.

J said...

For the traditional views of the LDS cult regarding jews and judaism, google up some vintage Brigham Dung. (not to say the trad. mormonic views on blacks, natives, non-mormons, etc)

Not quite Mein Kampf, but ....not so far.

Holy salamanders of Fire, ratman

Curious George said...

"Pogo said...
Is it possible, really possible, after all this time, that Jewish voters might not support the Democrat?

Naaah. They will be in lockstep with blacks, gays, gubmint unions, and those dependent on gubmint money.

Which, added together, trends greater than 50%, so it'll be a race for the electoral college.

When push comes to shove, are Jews or any of the core Democrat groups actually going to pull the GOP lever?

No. I wish I were wrong, but other people's money is as addictive as meth."

Those that vote will vote for Obama. His problem isn't that...but will they vote or just stay home.

richard mcenroe said...

"I think if any of these donors are calling Michele Bachmann "the Jewish candidate" they mean it in the figurative and satirical sense that Toni Morrison used when she called Bill Clinton the first black President."

I agree, and it's a sign of either the illiteracy or the dishonesty of both the NYT and the Romney campaign that they don't pick up on that.

jimbino said...

Ann needs to read some history. All of Jesus' Jewish disciples were "Christian" and there have been numerous Jewish Christians throughout history, of course.

J said...

Romneytoid's received a few hundred thousand shekels from Goldman-Sachs, so he can't be that much of a ...meshugginah

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Some! The dreaded some! Sources said.

Unless the media provide evidence to the contrary, that slimy SOME should be understood to be their own editors talking.

madAsHell said...

What is it about "Never Forget" they can never remember!!

John said...

They will be in lockstep with blacks, gays, gubmint unions, and those dependent on gubmint money.

Just for the record, nearly 1/3 of gay voters voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

The gay vote isn't quite as monolithic as people think.

Scott M said...

Monolithic votes aren't fabulous enough and, frankly, they're slightly phallic when you really think about it.

MadisonMan said...

What's going on here?

It's unsourced "News" Article time, that's what's going on here.

Raul said...

Whether you're Jwish, CHristian or hey...maybe even an Athiest...here's some great news for the local teabagger dolts:

"Never-fail prediction system shows 2012 win for Obama"

American University professor Allan Lichtman is on a winning streak spanning nearly three decades — one that President Barack Obama might have an interest in seeing Lichtman extend.

Lichtman created a formula that has correctly predicted the winner of each election since 1984, beginning with the reelection of President Ronald Reagan, U.S. News and World Report reported. The formula that predicted Obama's 2008 win is again showing that the incumbent president will win the election, despite the term-low approval rating Obama has been maintaining for past weeks.

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” Lichtman said.

His model, described in his book The Keys to the White House, relies on 13 "keys" that gauge the performance of the sitting president's party. If six or more of these aspects are in the party's favor, the candidate they present will win.

Nine of the keys fall in Obama's favor, Lichtman said — more than enough for reelection.

Created in 1981 and first tested against the 1984 election, Lichtman's model hasn't failed yet.

Even in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush was riding a wave of popularity and widely expected to win, Lichtman thought otherwise.

Scott M said...

"dolt"? You start out with name calling and expect anyone to take you seriously?

widely expected to win

I was just a lowly early-twenty-something at the time, but with Perot in the race, I don't recall anyone thinking that he was "widely expected to win". In point of fact, I remember quite a few people pointing out exactly what happened...Perot split the vote and we got Der Schlickmeister.

Tristram said...

"Jesus was a socialist, as the Very Loud Guy screamed at Althouse."

Yeah, but very loud guy was wrong. First, Jesus was a Monarchist (Kingdom of God, anyone?). At the same time, he was also decidedly non-political ('Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's').

Not sure how we get to socialist from his teaching of 'Love the thy God with all thy Heart' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'.

Mostly, socialist want to fear, hate and envy your neighbor.

J said...

'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's').

CAESAR?? Sounds like a stinkin' lib-rall Statist, thar. And what about the Golden Rule, or "lilies of the valley," and whatnot? Like some peacenik freak.

At any rate, JC was no cigar- chomping capitalist or fan of the Rush Limbozos of the time (that would have been the romans and judeans).

Pragmatist said...

Please, please let Michelle B get the nomination! Maybe Mitt can have the number two spot. Then all of the racist, anti-semitic and anti-mormons can begin chasing their tails. Who O who to vote for!

raf said...

If a Jew thinks Christ is the Messiah, then they are Christian, not Jewish.

Perhaps not. "Messiah" can be interpreted as "rightful king of Israel" without any hint of "Son of God." I believe it is the latter interpretation which would define a Christian.

WV:gread. Great or greed, depending.

Lincolntf said...

Richard, show me anything in this post that indicates Romney's campaign has acted dishonestly.

Jeremy said...

Tristram - "Mostly, socialist want to fear, hate and envy your neighbor."

What would you possibly be basing such a ridiculous statement on?

Other than your own political leanings?

Scott M said...

Tristram - "Mostly, socialist want to fear, hate and envy your neighbor."

What would you possibly be basing such a ridiculous statement on?

Other than your own political leanings?


Absolutely correct. Socialists do not want to fear, hate, and envy their neighbors.

Shanna said...

Bachmann also told an AIPAC gathering earlier this year that she and her family make sure each year to attend at least one Jewish-theme play or movie.

That is a weird thing to say.

David said...

Maybe "some" means "none" and they are just making it up?

Maybe we will finally learn what a crypto jew really is.

Jeremy said...

Scott - Your comment is rather strange.

Lincolntf said...

If the Madison mob scene isn't all about fear, hatred and envy then what is?

Carol_Herman said...

Mittens is going about it the WRONG way! First, he needs his volunteers to carry "pish-kahz." Those round container boxes with a slit on top.

You'd be surprised what you could collect ... as people pour out of the subways around 6PM.

Mitt should also say he's collecting money to buy trees.

Everybody gives ya money if you say you're going to plant trees!

It's a green thumb business.

Tristram said...

"What would you possibly be basing such a ridiculous statement on?

Other than your own political leanings?"

Mostly the experience of
Stalinist Russia (Ukraine Famine)
National Socialist Germany (Jews, duh)
Maoist China (Cultural Slaughter...err Revolution)
Killing Fields Cambodia (Killing Fields, duh)
Mugabe's Zimbabwe
Castro's Cuba


Add up the total death's due to enemies living in the F'ING country of the socialist and tell me they don't hate their neighbors...

And if you are telling me that none of those are socialist, I'll respond that they are a lot more true socialist than communist.

Oh, and while you may find the the occasional Swedish Socialist Paradise, they are so far out numbered as to be irrelevant.

ricpic said...

Hillary Clinton's earned her stripes many times over as an Honorary Palestinian.

Jim at Polimerican.com said...

Raul -

You should take Lichtmann's prediction with a VERY VERY VERY big grain of salt.

Link to it here


7. Policy Change. Yes Obama instituted policy change, but both of the policy changes he cites are NEGATIVES - they both poll badly. Counting this FOR Obama and not AGAINST Obama is pure partisanship, not actual objective analysis.

8. Social Unrest. This is just stupid. The TEA Party is "sustained social unrest." Just ask all those Democrats on the unemployment line if the TEA Party counts. And the TEA Party is specifically against Obama, so it's not an unrelated social development. Again,this is just partisanship, not analysis, in counting it FOR Obama rather than AGAINST.

9. Scandal. I guess neither he nor you have ever heard of "Fast & Furious?" Ditto on the partisanship.

13. If that candidate is Perry, then Obama loses this one as well. Every analysis of Perry says the same thing: his retail politicking skills rival Bill Clinton's.

Lichtmann already awarded #1, #6, and #12 to the opposition.

So between an objective view of events and Lichtmann's own analysis, that's SEVEN of 13 that go AGAINST Obama.

And that's assuming that #5 - Short Term Economy, is a net neutral for Obama - which it is highly unlikely to be. More likely it will be a negative. That makes EIGHT out of 13.

Obama's a loser in 2012 - according to objective analysis.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... The gay vote isn't quite as monolithic as people think..."

It is if the dimensions are 1 by 4 by 9.

Jeremy said...

Lincolntf - "If the Madison mob scene isn't all about fear, hatred and envy then what is?"

The "mob" scene you refer to is related to a group of people who are exercising their rights as Americans to protest.

Do you assign the same to those who stand outside of abortion clinics or scream and protest at our own soldier's funerals?

Disagreeing with the protesters is one thing; trying to say that their protests have anything to do with fear, hate and envy is just plain stupid.

And tying "socialism" into it any of it is even more ridiculous.

Coketown said...

Bachmann is a closet Jew, in the same way Obama is a closet Muslim. Ergo, she's an atheist.

Shanna said...

Say what. If a Jew thinks Christ is the Messiah, then they are Christian, not Jewish.

Someone has never heard of “Jews for Jesus”!

Christian said...

Strangely enough, Romney the candidate who is accused by opponents of being a panderer, will lose, precisely because he does not think to pander in all situations and even when he does, he does not pander well enough.

We see the occasional semi-phony pandering from Romney and consider him inauthentic.


Those who pander frequently and naturally are more likely to win.

Raul said...

Jim at Polimerican.com "Raul - You should take Lichtmann's prediction with a VERY VERY VERY big grain of salt.

I have no idea if he'll be correct once again, but are you saying he hasn't been correct in predicting the winner of each election since 1984?

traditionalguy said...

In Atlanta there are several Messianic Jewish Synagogues that say they are completed Jews and easily accept the Jew Jeshua as Adonai.

I helped the earliest one incorporate and qualify as 501(c)(3). back in the 1970's.

These precious folks never ceased to be Jews. They are practicing Jews who observe the Feasts and believe in the Torah of Moses as well as the first coming of their Messiah Jeshua.

Gentile Christians are the later engrafted branches. We only got admitted to Jeshua's Church after Peter and a Roman Centurion had an encounter arranged by the Spirit of Holiness.

Lincolntf said...

They have no right to issue threats, occupy buildings, abandon their sworn duties, walk out of their classrooms, or to throw any of the other tantrums they've been throwing in order to stir up fear, hatred and envy. You should listen to what the mobsters say, they don't hide it one bit.

Chuck66 said...

I heard Michelle Bachmann speak at the Stand With Israel rally at the Jewish community center in Minneapolis a few months ago. An excellent speach that even had liberal Minneapolis Jews praising her (from converstation I overheard there).

Both Republicans and Democrats spoke there. The only goofy speach? Crazy Al Franken did some goofy-ass rant about how bad Republicans are. It was very uncomfortablty odd. Perhaps he is back on cocaine.

Carol_Herman said...

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH:

Republicans are now welcome in Wausau's parade. So, perhaps, Mittens can make a visit? Why just Duffy?

Chuck66 said...

Jeremy, generally those outside abortion clinics are there to offer aid and whatever help then can to a woman thinking of getting rid of her child. Even if you are pro-choice, you have to see the compassion in the pro-life crowd.

I don't see any compassion in the Madison left. Unless you consider screaming "you are scum" to a teacher at a Catholic school in Milwaukee to be compassion.

Lamar63 said...

Interesting that Toni Morrison is walking back her Clinton is first black president.

If I remember the article, she said that Clinton had all the hallmarks of a black male. Single parent, poverty, junk food loving, prosecuted for his sexuality, etc. If a white person described a black man in those terms Morrison would be screaming racism.

The final bit of irony was her statement that Clinton is the closest that America would come to electing a black man for many generations.

Lincolntf said...

And we all know that swastikas and nooses are not meant to inspire fear or hatred. Such a peaceful violent mob.

J said...

Tristram, like many teabugs, commits the fallacy of "illicit conversion"--
Something like, "Stalinists were socialists, so all socialists are stalinists." Invalid.


And nazis were not socialists in the traditional sense--Der Fuhrer finally had the support of the junkers and industrialists anyway (merely having some statist aspects--then the US govt is socialist as well). The Jonah Goldberg fallacy

Chuck66 said...

Carol on Wausau....I checked some Wausau news sites yesterday and the decision to exclude Republicans seems to be very unpopular.

I think the big thing was that it wasn't a private party even if Big Labor was the sponser. The city provided various resources for the parade, and I believe Marathon County is either split or leans slightly Repubican.

It just made Big Labor look like stupid vindictive jerks.

Chuck66 said...

J, so if a big corporation, say like GE or Warren Buffett, supports the current government, is that similiar to how Hitler had close ties to Big Industry in Germany?

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"Someone has never heard of “Jews for Jesus”!"


Christians who don't eat pork are still Christians.

ic said...

Someone is desperate, a la Pawlenty.

Mistake: Romney punches down. Romney should punch up, like the current occupant in the White House; or sideway, like current Republican top dog Perry.

Seems Republican establishment candidates have a hard time running against a woman.

On the other hand, Dems would rather nominate an inexperienced untested male than a female Senator who was known to work really hard in her relatively short career in the Senate.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... And nazis were not socialists in the traditional sense...."

Quote of the year.

Lincolntf said...

That should be the Madison mob's rallying cry...
"We're non-traditional Nazis!"

Scott M said...

Dems would rather nominate an inexperienced untested male than a female Senator who was known to work really hard in her relatively short career in the Senate

And use an institutionalized aristocracy within the party to make it happen. Party of the people indeed.

Quayle said...

google up some vintage Brigham Dung.

Let's see, J, you mean the leader that led or organized the westward movement of tens of thousands of people, colonized the west as far south as San Bernadino and as far north as Edmonton, that provided significant amounts of labor to finish the transcontinental railroad;

who established several hundred cooperative retail, wholesale, and manufacturing enterprises;

who established the first university west of the Mississippi University of Utah) and several others, all the time while sustaining a running battle with the federal government over religious and political freedom.

Of whom, including his associates, Horace Greeley once said "very few rural congregations would exhibit more heads evincing decided ability."

Is that the Brigham Dung of which you refer? I just want to be clear.

Oh, and you, J, have done exactly what in your life?

Scott M said...

Oh, and you, J, have done exactly what in your life?

He says he can bench 400 pounds. That's got to count for something.

J said...

Id say that's a negative, Chuckie.

For one the big US corporation however corrupt is not nationalist, or promoting German militarism, supporting a Hitler, etc. Sort of a ..libertarian lie--"Google's part of the one world socialist gubbmint as well!" BS.

Anyway, P-> Q does not entail Q -> P. The teabugger fallacy! (aka conversion) "Hitler loved Mozart; ergo, Mozart-lovers love/support Hitler"--Invalid. No shit. But forgotten in TP bunkers everyday.

ricpic said...

If this is a rumor started by Romney's camp it's one more example of the uncanny propensity Republicans have for shooting themselves in the foot. Whatever the effect on Bachmann, the Left now has ammunition to say to Jews, "You see! You see! We told you the Republican Party is the home of bigots."

J said...

Quayle--fuck off, mormon swine.

I get my info on Brigham Dung from Sam Clemens, who considered BY a fat seditionist poltroon. The Book of Mormon's a load of shit, in technical terms, concocted by a shoe salesman and horse thief, Joseph Smith. (not to say blasphemous)

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gerry said...

Something like, "Stalinists were socialists, so all socialists are stalinists."

It's not that all socialists are Stalinists, it's just that they usually are.

Tim said...

Aside from the theological, ethnic and social debates, all of which have been rehearsed to death, the question Althouse posed was why Romney's people seem to be doing stupid things.

I have an answer.

It's because Romney is not a very good politician.

He won his only elected office, a one-term governorship of Massachusetts, against an odious female hack out of Central Casting, cringeworthy to even diehard Democrats, and enough to drive anyone with the slightest political independence into the arms of the Republicans. We had, before Romney, two Republican governors starting with the semi-beloved Bill Weld, so people were used to an R-word in the Corner Office.

Romney was okay. But he did not inspire the slightest enthusiasm. And he did not attempt a second term. He gave every vibe of only wanting the office to burnish his resumé to run for President. That made a lot of people even cooler toward him, including me.

I've been in the same room with Romney a couple of times, and the turkey club sandwich I just finished has more charisma. He may be intelligent and decent, but he is no politician. Look for more gaffes and inexplicable behavior from both him and his campaign as they encounter the big time.

Romney is a wealthy diletante. He's a very decent, intelligent guy, but his ego has blinded him to his weaknesses. He's the man on the wedding cake. If he's nominated, I'm afraid he will suffer the same fate as the last Republican to stand on that slippery surface in 1948, "President" Thomas E. Dewey, the inevitable winner against an unpopular Democrat.

traditionalguy said...

J is correct again. Too bad he is often rude to people.

The Nazi Party was violently anti-communist and worshiped only at the myths of Germanic Blood and Soil ruled over by a strong man Cesar (a/k/a Fuhrer).

Collectivism was no part of Nazi life, except for a group oath of allegiance to a single man Superman/Christ figure.

The fascist economic system was the same as the current Re-Elect god-Obama Campaign Or Else the Feds Will Destroy You system.

We now call that Crony Capitalism.

William said...

Blacks, when they could vote, usually voted for Republicans. This changed with Roosevelt, but as late as Eisenhower, Repubicans were winning a significant portion of the black vote. Ethnic Catholics were part of the New Deal coalition, but they no longer vote Democtratic on a reliable schedule. Over time, rivers move from their banks and change their course. Eventually Republicans will join shellfish as something Jews can partake in without violating their identity......The human race is a sad piece of work. The fact is that those who have been discriminated against are more, not less likely to discriminate against others. That said, I object to the double reverse twist that Althouse puts on Romney's objections. It could just as easily be a bald description of the facts as "some" Romney supporters underswtand them.

Jim at Polimerican.com said...

Raul -

I have no idea if he'll be correct once again, but are you saying he hasn't been correct in predicting the winner of each election since 1984?

I'm saying that HIS SYSTEM has been correct; however, the manner in which those "keys" are interpreted is what is incorrect.

If you can CORRECTLY answer those 13 "keys," then you can CORRECTLY predict the outcome of the election. However, as I have shown, Lichtman has not applied an objective standard to THIS election.

Show me an equivalent "social unrest" to the TEA Party which led to record numbers of Republicans being elected in 2010, and then go ahead and try to argue OBJECTIVELY that you can't count that as "social unrest."

Show me a "policy change" which has been as historically unpopular which actually led to an INCREASE in popular support for its proponent rather than a decrease. A wide majority of people regard Stimulus as either harmful or completely ineffective. A majority of Americans support repeal of ObamaCare. On what planet, can EITHER of them be regarded as plusses for Obama? Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama is going to be able to campaign effectively on either of these "accomplishments?"

And so on...what I'm saying is the MODEL is useful, Lichtman's interpretation of it is not. If you use an OBJECTIVE interpretation of his model, then Obama loses according to the model.

Lincolntf said...

Tim, there is zero evidence Romney has anything to do with this unsourced faux story. Your turkey sandwich probably had enough intellectual wherewithal to see that.

Chuck66 said...

"The fact is that those who have been discriminated against are more, not less likely to discriminate against others."

Interesting. And the reverse.....could tie that into why Norwegian/German Christian male Americans from Wisconsin are not good at pandering. Until some more recent anti-Christian bigotry, we really haven't been discriminated against, so we don't feel the need to discriminate against others either.

When I see an African-American or Hispanic, I don't think "gosh, I need to give this person special favors as he/she can't succeed otherwise".

But Democrats do think that way. I am friends with a couple of minority types who live conservative lifestyles, but vote Democrat because they like the free stuff and afirmative action type advantages.

Joanna said...

Disagreeing with the protesters is one thing; trying to say that their protests have anything to do with fear, hate and envy is just plain stupid.

And tying "socialism" into it any of it is even more ridiculous.


What part of Tax the Rich goes against "socialism"?

rocketeer67 said...

The Nazi Party was violently anti-communist and worshiped only at the myths of Germanic Blood and Soil ruled over by a strong man Cesar (a/k/a Fuhrer).

Sigh.

For the thousandth time, and likely not the last:

Hitler and Stalin hated each other vehemently precisely because they were fighting over the same slice of the ideological pie. Hitler wasn't "anti-communist." He wasn't "anti-socilaist" (hint: "Nazi" is an abbreviation for something...hmm...wonder what? And please - I beg you - READ THE FASCIST MANIFESTO AS WELL). He was anti-"international" socialist.

So, yes, J is both rude AND stupid.

Usually you're neither, TradGuy. I'll give you a mulligan on this one.

Tim said...

Lincolnf: Could be. But Althouse asked the question, and I know turkeys when I see them.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... He says he can bench 400 pounds. That's got to count for something..."

It's possible he did once but dropped the bar on his head which would explain his postings.

ricpic said...

Eventually Republicans will join shellfish as something Jews can partake in without violating their identity.

I can testify that for my parents' generation at least, not only was a shrimp cocktail delicious, there was the added thrill of partaking of "the forbidden."

OK, it's not deep but it's...something.

J said...

Hoosier sodbuster--maybe you or one of the other AA tough guys come out to Ellay and find out, eh? POP

Hitler wasn't "anti-communist."

BS. They were adamantly anti-bolshevik --that was a rallying cry of the brownshirts--and the pro-labor nazis were purged ( google Night of the Long Knives for starters). Maybe like finish a real history on WWII instead of Goldberg's horsecrap.

Raising taxes is socialist--. Wow, so Nixon was socialist! wrong

Chuck66 said...

"Raising taxes is socialist--. Wow, so Nixon was socialist! wrong"

Nixon, like Hoover, was a Quaker. They have socialist impulses.

-EPA
-Amtrak
-price controls
-And a ton of other goverment programs were started or expanded under President Nixon.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Hoosier sodbuster--maybe you or one of the other AA tough guys come out to Ellay and find out, eh? POP..."

Is that a city in the US?

Oh wait do you mean LA, as in Los Angelas?

Sorry I flunked idiotese 101

DADvocate said...

Republicans are now welcome in Wausau's parade.

Maybe, I'll show up. Wait, I'm so sick of the liberal fascist shit in Wisconsin, I gave up eating cheese and drinking any beer brewed in Milwaukee. Besides, Samuel Adams brews most of its beer (80-90%) right here in Cincinnati.

rocketeer67 said...

They were adamantly anti-bolshevik --that was a rallying cry of the brownshirts--and the pro-labor nazis were purged ( google Night of the Long Knives for starters). Maybe like finish a real history on WWII instead of Goldberg's horsecrap.

Read carefully J. Anti-"international" socialist. Anti-bolshevik. They are the same thing. Вы понимаете? Of course you don't.

PS - I've never read Goldberg's book, but your strange interest in it strikes me as the interest a sqealing pig has in the knife that just stuck it. I might have to check it out.

Dustin said...

I'm getting tired of Romney's bullshit.

J said...

What about all those health and labor laws from like 20s and 30s??
Reds. Businesses should be able to sell like .....rotten food, or have unsafe workplaces, put children to work for 14 hours a day. Caveat Emptor, as Mr Ayn-Rand would say.

Steven said...

Well, from a Mormon perspective, Michelle Bachmann and Benjamin Netanyahu are both gentiles, so . . .

J said...

Hey Hoosier punk--you're the white trash here, garbage hick. As in "Hoosier" = trash, like yr mama's snatch

Ah poor Rand-housers being humiliated again! eazy as machine gunning fish in a barrel.

Matt said...

I see some here are critical of people because they want 'gubmint money'.

Well let's just admit that Israel indeed gets 'gubmint money'.

I don't see that as a problem. But if you are going to criticize one segment of the world for getting 'gubmint money'. Then you should be consistent.

That said, the amount of 'gubmint money' is less for most folks than it used to be. So claiming that these people vote for Democrats because of the money is a tad absurd because they money has always been there despite which party was in charge. And oh yeah the American South gets a lot of that 'gubmint money' and they vote lockstep with the GOP.

Oclarki said...

I showed up looking to fight J, he wimped out.

J said...

No rocketeer the dumbass--nationalists are not socialists. Unlike the bolsheviks, the nazis kept capitalism, businesses, banks, churches, and allowed aristocrats to live etc. Here's the problem: you're just tooo stupid for politics, like the rest of the Smurfhouse.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... That said, the amount of 'gubmint money' is less for most folks than it used to be...."

You wouldn't know it by our record spending levels.

J said...

You're lying OClarki--you were told to respond, and never did.
still waiting frat boy scum. 405 Roscoe

Now, here's the real lowdown on Mormons--they' blasphemers and heretics, masonic trash. Like Alt-tards. Garbage thinks alike!

Raul said...

Joanna - "What part of Tax the Rich goes against "socialism"?

So the rich shouldn't be taxed?

rocketeer67 said...

Yeah, J. I'm stupid. At least I can read plain words - like "National Socialist" and " International" Socialists - well enough to be awarded degrees in poli sci (concentration in Comparative Political Systems, by the way) and history. That's where I learned about the Deutsche Arbeitsfront too, which you apparently missed in all your "reading." Now granted, I can't bench 400 lbs, but then I don't need to bench that much just to get up out of my bed in mom's basement and shower.

Quayle said...

The Book of Mormon's a load of shit, in technical terms, concocted by a shoe salesman and horse thief, Joseph Smith.

Let's see, Joseph Smith, an uneducated hick farmer on the western edge of the United States, publishes The Book of Mormon when he's 24 years old, which book goes on to over 150 million copies printed.

And with it, the Mormons have a message so simple and so compelling that they can grow a worldwide church principally on the backs of 19 year old boy missionaries.

And in comparison, you've done what in your life, J, that qualifies your comments to be important?

You typed some swear words and made faces in front of your computer screen? That's it?

You really have no sense of embarrassment do you J?

Trooper York said...

It is unfortunate that most Jews don't realize they have Lemrick Nelson in the White House.

More fool them.

Pogo said...

"So the rich shouldn't be taxed?"

Raul wins today's red herring award.

traditionalguy said...

In one way the Nazi Party was collectivist.

The collected the loot for themselves, and spent enough to let the middle class feel that they had a good financial future again

They liked the Jews's gold, diamonds, pearls, art works, silver Banks and Businesses; and since the Jews weren't going to need them anymore, who better to take them.

But the theory behind Nazi Party actions was not to own everything collectively. It was to send out serious death threats to businesses who did pay off the Party. (Obama's style)

The Nazi goal was never a new society, it was a national mobilization for an Army of World Conquest ordered on Medieval fealty to one man practicing Norse Paganism.

Trooper York said...

Does a red herring count as shell fish?

Scott M said...

But if you are going to criticize one segment of the world for getting 'gubmint money'. Then you should be consistent.

Okay, let's do. IF you assume that Israel's dependence on American foreign aid is one of the main reasons they are able to defend themselves, you could say that it's consistent to be fine with giving 'gubmint' money to all countries which are surrounded by enemies that want to see them wiped out and who also have both sizable religious and ethnic ties to the US. I'd be more than willing to hear those arguments as worthy of foreign gubmint money.

Raul said...

Pogo "Raul wins today's red herring award."

I merely responded to Joanna's comment.

Are you also implying that anyone who feels the rich should be taxed is a "socialist?"

*"On average, the wealthiest Americans pay only 17 percent of their income in taxes, a dramatic decline from the 26 percent they paid in 1992."

Scott M said...

"nationalists are not socialists"

Hysterical.

Raul said...

traditional - "But the theory behind Nazi Party actions was not to own everything collectively. It was to send out serious death threats to businesses who did pay off the Party. (Obama's style)"

So Obama threatens those who pay the party?

What does that even mean?

William said...

There was a sotto voce alliance between the Bosheviks and the Nazis right up until the time Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Those German pilots who bombed Guernicia did their flight training in the USSR. Despite the vitriol they hurled at each other, both Hitler and Stalin found many areas of agreement and cooperation. They had more things in common with each other than they did with the bourgeoise democracies, and their leaders knew it. We can be thankful to Hitler's megalomania and not Stalin's sagacity that the entire world is not some kind of totalitarian work camp......Hitler found it expedient to appropriate the wealth of the German Jews and distribute it to the masses. I suppose this differs in important ways than the Bolsheviks' appropriation of the wealth of the white Russians. It is wrong to appropriate the wealth of the rich based on anti-Semitism but to do so on the basis of class is a form of idealism.

Raul said...

Scott - You think nationalism and socialism are the same?

Based on what?

Scott M said...

Scott - You think nationalism and socialism are the same?

Based on what?


I didn't say that. Please show me where I did. I hold they are not mutually exclusive. To say they are is, to quote a wise man, hysterical.

Matt said...

Scott M

My comment was mainly aimed toward Pogo who took an incorrect view that government money is both a bad thing and something that makes people vote for Democrats.

We ALL depend on government money. So what? It is our government is it not? It just drives me crazy when I hear conservative [Southern states especially] pretend like they survive and flourish without government money.

traditionalguy said...

Raul...Sorry for the missing NOT in that sentence about private companies paying off The Obama Party's eternal re-election funraising.

I bet Government Motors and General Electric, understood what I meant.

Only Gibson Guitars misunderstood me.

Pogo said...

Raul: "Scott - You think nationalism and socialism are the same?


...Are you also implying that anyone who feels the rich should be taxed is a "socialist?"


Raul's Random Question Generator is a marvelous device, but of questionable utility.

Raul said...

Scott M didn't you just say "Hysterical" in response to this?

"nationalists are not socialists"

What were you implying?

Raul said...

Pogo you evidently feel the wealthy are being overtaxed.

What are you basing that on?

Once again: *"On average, the wealthiest Americans pay only 17 percent of their income in taxes, a dramatic decline from the 26 percent they paid in 1992."

As to Scott's response of "hysterical" to a previous comment that "nationalists are not socialists," what exactly do you think he was implying?

Pogo said...

Matt said...
"My comment was mainly aimed toward Pogo who took an incorrect view that government money is both a bad thing and something that makes people vote for Democrats.

We ALL depend on government money.
"

Precisely why a gubmint with too much money and regulatory control is a bad thing.

It makes people dependent.
Dependent people vote Democrat, enslaving them to dependency forever.

Scott M said...

Any government action whatsoever = government money. There's no getting around that. It's axiomatic. Also axiomatic is that government derives its operating funds from taxing it's people either directly or indirectly. Thus, any and all government actions of any kind are taxes either directly or indirectly on the people.

This government has been engaged in extremely irrational actions for the better part of forty years. Many rational people, of any income bracket, who have sliced open a vein to supply irrational government actions with the ability to continue have decided that they've had enough.

Hatred of more taxes does not = hate of government. Rational people accept that government is inevitable and that taxes are part of that. However, we've reached a point where we simply cannot continue on the path we've been on. So, when someone rails against increased taxes, it doesn't = hatred of taxes, it, in all likelihood, is a hatred of wasteful government spending.

Raul said...

traditional - your comment still make little if any sense.

Unless of course, you feel that Bush paid off the banks with the 700 billion dollar bailout bill he signed.

Is that the case?

Matt said...

pretend like they survive and flourish without government money.

Just to clarify [I hit publish too fast] it is fine if a State can completely get along without Federal funds. But ALL states rely on government money that mainly comes from taxes. It has been that way in America for a long long time. I see no problem with this.

But all too often we hear politicians getting up on the populist [usually naive as hell] bandwagon and rail against 'that damn government' - meanwhile they are getting money from the government all the time to create jobs.

Case in point Rick Perry whose grand Texas employment numbers are actually bolstered by government jobs.

Raul said...

Scott - Government spending aside, Americans pay less taxes today than they have in decades.

When Reagan realized the treasury needed more dough, he didn't hesitate to raise taxes at least four times.

Research it.

traditionalguy said...

Raul...The Rich may pay 17% because of tax sheltered arrangements , but the Rich could go to 26% and we would collect only 3 more days worth of the Budget.

It is, and always has been, the 200K to 1M annual earners that pay for everything else taxed at 40%+.

The Warren Buffett's fear them the most.

That rabble could horn in on the being rich investors games of the "Players." So Buffett says bomb the rich position and do away with the Rabble.

You will NEVER hear of taxing the rich as taxing the over 1M annual earners. Never!

Pogo said...

"Pogo you evidently feel the wealthy are being overtaxed."


No, I think the Federal gubmint spends too much money, the regulatory system is strangling business, and the tax system is destructive.

And your questions are overly simplistic, false readings, or entirely random.

Pogo said...

Raul, read closely;

The proble ain't insufficient taxation.

We. Spend. Too. Much. Fucking. Money.

Matt said...

Pogo

Here is a list of states that receive the most Federal money:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

How many are what you would call 'Democratic states'? I see two.

Here is a list of states that receive the least Federal money:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

How many would you call 'Republican' states? I'd call them moderate to Democratic leaning.

85% of states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.

Your view clearly is propagating a myth.

Raul said...

Perry's impact on the Texas economy?

"Ten reasons why the Texas economy is growing that have nothing to do with Rick Perry" (Houston Chronical)

1. Rising oil prices. (Based on Dallas Fed research, a 10 percent increase in oil prices leads to a 0.3 percent rise in employment and a 0.5 percent rise in GDP for the state of Texas.)

2. Government growth. (Texas has added more than one in five of the public-sector jobs nationwide at local, state and federal levels.)

3. Military spending. (According to a fact sheet issued in August of 2009 by the Fort Hood Public Affairs Office, “Fort Hood is the largest single site employer in Texas, directly inserting nearly $3 billion annually into the Texas economy.”)

4. No housing bubble. (Because housing prices never rose during the housing boom, partly because Texas has cheap, open land for building, they also didn’t crash during the recession.)

5. Cheap immigrant labor. (Statistics support the states’ trend toward low pay, as many of the jobs Texas has added since the recession are low-wage.)

6. A young, consumer-oriented population (Texas is one of the youngest U.S. states, with a median age of 33, almost four years below the national average. That means it is blessed with a consumption-driven economy, full of young adults renting their first apartments.)

7. High-Tech industries (Texas — home to many high tech industries — has benefited from high-tech industries that weathered the recession better than other sectors of the economy.)

8. Fracking. (According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2000, 1 percent of the U.S. gas supplies were from shale, but now the figure is 25 percent. And as a result of the new technology, Texas is home to some of the most prosperous new oil fields in the country.)

9. Texas Exports (Texas is a big producer of products that either weathered the recession well or have rebounded quickly, including high-tech goods and oil and gas.)

10. Drug Trafficking - MY PERSONAL FAVORITE. (Half the drug shipments coming from Mexico stop and offload in Texas, where it is repackaged for sale elsewhere. That means the money that comes with the drug trade also flows through Texas, driving consumption and investment in the state and possibly contributing substantially to the state’s economy.)

Scott M said...

Scott - Government spending aside, Americans pay less taxes today than they have in decades.

What difference does that make and what does it have to do with rampant government waste, redundancy, and taking on powers they're not supposed to have?

Raul said...

Pogo - I understand we spend too much money, but where were you and others during the eight previous years to the current administration?

Were you screaming to high heaven about a wasted surplus or those two nasty and expensive wars?

The federal government expanded at a greater rate during the Bush years than any previous administration yet, to hear you and other now, it's all about Obama.

Scott M said...

I understand we spend too much money, but where were you and others during the eight previous years to the current administration?

Leaving the GOP over runaway spending and deficits.

Raul said...

Scott M "What difference does that make and what does it have to do with rampant government waste, redundancy, and taking on powers they're not supposed to have?"

Well, anyone who's ever taken a business course would tell you that you can indeed "spend more" if you have adequate "income" to cover the costs.

Wasteful spending is not good for any government or business, but to imply that this is some kind of new situation is disingenuous at best. (Do you think the Bush administration handled "spending" in a reasonable manner?)

As an example: The instant Reagan realized his massive lowering of taxes would create a gigantic problem, he immediately began raising taxes to cover spending and the lack of income to the treasury. (Research it)

Was he also wrong or is this just all about Obama?

Raul said...

Scott - You've left the GOP?

Who the hell are you voting for then?

Hoosier Daddy said...

".... It just drives me crazy when I hear conservative [Southern states especially] pretend like they survive and flourish without government money...."

It drives me crazy when all government spending is views as productive and good. As if federal highway construction is on par with ethanol subsidies or the stellar job done by the Board of Education.

I'm opposed to dumb spending and regulation.

Scott M said...

For someone that doesn't inhabit these parts much and for someone that doesn't know one thing about me, you certainly are bringing a lot of preconceived notions to the table, sir (or ma'am, whatever works for you).

Matt said...

Raul

Thanks for the Perry facts. But, face it, do you think the average conservative voter is going to read that much info and digest it all?

All Perry has to do is walk on stage with cowboy boots and speak loudly with his Texas twang against all things related to the government and Obama and he will have the crowd [his crowd] going wild.

[Not to say a few Democrats don't play this same game. Politicians....]

Pogo said...

"but where were you and others during the eight previous years to the current administration?

Standing without anywhere to turn.

You think you are pointing out something novel here?
Hilarious.

It ain't like Democrats offered anything to solve it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The previous administration added five trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added another four in less than 3. The previous administration wasn't running 1.5 trillion deficits.

It's a matter is degrees. Like when the missus charges $500 on the credit card and next month charges $5000. Most husbands would understandably go from mildy upset to fucking pissed off.

I thought libs were all about nuance.

Pogo said...

MatT said: "face it, do you think the average conservative voter is going to read that much info and digest it all?"

Yes, Matt, that must explain why all the blue states are losing population.

Except california, which is only losing its tax producers, while gaining more tax-eaters.

Hoosier Daddy said...

In other words Raul, Obama is spending $1 trillion more than in 2008 and no one is asking where in the hell all that money is going?

Except those racist tea partiers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Matt.

You mean like Obama with his hope and change and its all Bush's fault?

Please

Raul said...

Scott M "For someone that doesn't inhabit these parts much and for someone that doesn't know one thing about me, you certainly are bringing a lot of preconceived notions to the table, sir (or ma'am, whatever works for you)."

I assume you're referring to me?

You said you left the GOP, and all I asked was who the hell you're voting for.

Dustin said...

"no one is asking where in the hell all that money is going?"

Did you know that Obama's gleaming buses for his job tour were loaded into huge airplanes and flown from spot to spot?

Even though there were two buses and easily they could have been driven from spot to spot keeping up with a reasonable tour. Even though Obama easily could have... ridden on the damn bus for his bus tour instead of flying on AF1 from airport to airport and taking the flown in bus to the event and then back to the airport?

Right there we've got a waste of enormous sums of money and manpower.

And with the time Obama saved he was able to get back to his critical work in DC. Oh wait, he actually went straight to golfing at Martha's Vineyard. He saved a tiny amount of time, if any, so he could add a day of vacation.

It's as though he is specifically setting out to waste as much money as possible. Do people out there really believe in Cloward Piven? Seriously believe? I think Obama does.

Jewish donors, Christian donors, Buddhist donors... it doesn't matter. If they care about our financial system or their family getting jobs, they will reject Obama.

Raul said...

Hoosier Daddy "In other words Raul, Obama is spending $1 trillion more than in 2008 and no one is asking where in the hell all that money is going?"

What are you basing your comment that "no one is asking where in the hell all that money is going" on?

Are you saying there is no oversight whatsoever?

Can you provide any evidence of such?

*And, as for where money is going: can you tell us where the billions of dollars that are unaccounted for, that flowed through Iraq over the course of the first five years we were there are right now?

Scott M said...

Did you know that Obama's gleaming buses for his job tour were loaded into huge airplanes and flown from spot to spot?

Cite please.

Chuck66 said...

Matt, here are ways to reduce fed'l gov't spending in red states:

Privatize the interstate hwy system (it costs alot to run several interstates across North and South Dakota).

Break up the natinal parks. Many (privatize).

Sell and tax other gov't lands.

End farm subsidizes.

End social security (many red states have an aging population).

Break up Indian reservations and tax their land (most large rezes are in red states).

Close military bases. During the cold war, I bet you were happy we had bases in Grand Forks and Minot.

Raul said...

Dustin "Did you know that Obama's gleaming buses for his job tour were loaded into huge airplanes and flown from spot to spot?"

Is that the best you can come up with?

What do you suppose this cost?

George W. Bush spent 490 Days At Texas Ranch. (And you can also throw those 487 Days At Camp David for good measure.)

Dustin said...

Just think about it. The average American is doing well to earn $1.5 million in their lifetime. If half of that is taxed, it's $750K obviously.

This bus tour had to cost tens of millions of dollars.

The entire lifetime contribution of 50 people... 100% of their taxes for their entire lifetime, was squandered for absolutely nothing.

And that's just one decision out of hundreds every day.

And it's Michelle Bachmann who is crazy?

Our leaders right now act as though all that matters is making a self serving show and winning election. They know this means ruin.

Pogo said...

Gosh, Raul is all about teh spending.


Whoda thunk Raul would join the TEA party.

Welcome to the dark side, dude.

Dustin said...

"George W. Bush spent 490 Days At Texas Ranch. (And you can also throw those 487 Days At Camp David for good measure.)"

So? He was working. It's manifestly quite different from Barack and Michelle's vacations on beaches and golf courses. We know that Bush was working at his ranch. We know that Obama is not working on the golf course.

"Is that the best you can come up with?"

Maybe you should read my comment more slowly. I don't know if you understood. As I noted, this is one example out of many, many choices each day in the Obama administration. There are so many strange choices by Obama that are unbelievably expensive.

He had a bus tour, but flew from airport to airport and had the buses flown in. He's an idiot. Period. You can't overcome the fact Obama is stupid. Why would any intelligent person operate a bus tour that way? As I said, he wasn't saving time to get back to work. He was wasting all that money so he could get to the freaking golf course. That's a fact.

If you want my best example, I think I'd chose Obamacare, which killed job growth instantly. They went down 90% exactly when Obamacare became the law, and haven't recovered. The regulatory change is just too severe. It's basically a penalty for hiring an American worker.

That's the best I can do, since you asked. Obama ruined the job outlook for this country.

But loading brand new buses onto C-17s repeatedly is wonderful little illustration of one of countless unpatriotic decisions Obama made.

Comparing that to Bush working from Texas is pathetic.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If all you have going for your argument is tu quoque then don't waste my time. I'm talking about the here and now and the President who was decrying about the reckless spending of the previous administration and is on course to exceed that recklessness within his first term.

Again, if you can rationalize a $500 billion deficit as the same as a $1.5 trillion deficit then we can just agree to disagree and I'll remain in the world of reality and leave you to your unicorns.

Matt said...

Chuck66

I'm not sure if you are joking or being serious?

I have no problem with Federal funds being put into Red States. What I have a problem with is that many people in Red States seem unaware of how much Federal funding helps there state.

But, yes, I will agree with many comments here that government waste should be reigned in.

I'll also add that while Obama has certainly added to the deficit and the debt he has also proposed ways to earn revenue, which have been rejected by the GOP. Revenue has to be raised if we expect to get out of this debt. Ending the tax cuts for the wealthy would be a start. And it is not 'socialist' to do so.

Dustin said...

Another great point is that Bush isn't running for election, and I don't know anyone who claims Bush is the ideal on spending.

Why bring him up? What's the point?

Sure, he compared very favorably to Obama. His average deficit was like a tenth.

But it was still terrible. That the right was angry at Bush's deficit only underlines how horrible it is that Obama has done so much worse than Bush. I see no other relevance of bringing him up.

Whining about Bush's work at his ranch is simply BDS. It's completely unlike Obama's vacations, from which I know of no accomplishments. When Bush was in Texas there was a steady stream of things being accomplished. Even when he was a governor, he did a lot of work there. He still works from there to some extent.

Raul said...

Hoosier - "Again, if you can rationalize a $500 billion deficit as the same as a $1.5 trillion deficit then we can just agree to disagree and I'll remain in the world of reality and leave you to your unicorns."

I have no idea where you get the 500 billion dollar number...do you? (Unicorns?)

The increase in the deficit is directly related to the economic situation that was left behind.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion.

Oh, and the unemployment rate the day president Bush left office was 7.6% and over 8% within weeks.

Raul said...

Dustin - "Why bring him up? What's the point?"

So if you buy a business that the previous owner ran into the ground, left behind a massive debt that would run on for years...

You can just tell the new investors that it doesn't really matter?

Really?

AllenS said...

Raul,

Do you realize that we are spending an even greater amount of money that we don't have, than the previous administration?

Are you aware of that fact?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It just occured to me that Raul's consistent 'but look at what Bush did!!!!!' line of argument tells me that Jeremy has a new sockpuppet.

Guess Jeremy is going for the diversity angle now.

J said...

Hey rocketeer the dumbass --ah strongly doubt you passed euro history 101 because had you claimed the nazis were the same as bolsheviks, you would have failed immediately. Your cheap distinction between nationalism and socialism is crap as well--the nazis supported industrial capitalists (ie the Krupps, for one), kept banks, aristos, etc.unlike the bolshi.

As far as your pathetic ad hominems and lies go--fuck yourself perp

------

"Raul"'s a phony and perp as well--or rather he's a Romneytoid pretending to be a liberal --and WASP--but really a right wing mormonic POS (ain't that right, BUbba B). We';ll link to his quack scientology-LDS site pronto.

traditionalguy said...

Ah ha. Perry's secret is "Crowds Gone Wild."

So everything that has any connection to Perry is now deemed Out Of Controlness and VERY SCARY!

That man may even say publicly that the long march Global Warming Hoax is over. Horrors!

Raul said...

Dustin - "So? He was working."

He was "working" at the ranch over the course of 490 days?

Then what's the complaint about Obama "working" while wherever he is?

Maguro said...

So if you buy a business that the previous owner ran into the ground, left behind a massive debt that would run on for years...

Then you should go out and triple that debt within a few years? That is what your analogy implies, assuming you believe that Obama's doing a good job.

Raul said...

tradional - Would you vote for Perry?

AllenS said...

Raul - Would you vote for obama?

chickenlittle said...

Thanks to Matt's disingenuity at 1:50 PM, I learned a few things:

(1) The data he linked can be found here. There's a link to the original Tax Foundation date there.

(2) Because so much time has passed since those data were published, countervaling analyses have appeared. See the comments at the link above.

(3) More recently, the Tax Foundation published this map showing the growth in $200k incomes. Because the numbers linked in (1) also correlate with the least taxed red states, the newer statistics seem to support the notion that less tax leads to individual wealth creation, as evidenced by the "new" wealthy in many of those red states disparged by Matt.

Raul said...

Maguro - I'm not "implying" anything.

My comment relates to someone taking over a "failing" business and what is necessary to right the ship.

Bush signed a 700 billion dollar bank bailout on the way out.

I don't remember reading anything from you complaining about that.

Anybody who think any president, left or right, with the worldwide economic situation as it was, could get things under control over such a short period of time is either not very well educated or just spouting political crap.

Pogo said...

"[Obama] has also proposed ways to earn revenue"

Governments do not earn revenue.
They tax people.
They earn nothing.
They take.
And take and take.

The problem right now is not that they aren't taking enough.

Scott M said...

Then what's the complaint about Obama "working" while wherever he is?

I asked for a cite showing that the buses were airlifted to a city and then driven to the speaking engagements because I had not heard hide nor hair of that prior. If it is indeed true, I, and any other rational person, should have a real problem with that regardless of who the president is or what party he happens to be from.

Dustin said...

"He was "working" at the ranch over the course of 490 days?"

Yes.

And anyone who is reasonably informed knows this. It's a fact.

You just can't compare this to Barack or Michelle's vacations. Bush traveling to his ranch and meeting dignitaries and having meetings and briefings and discussions was simply working. Sure, it was more pleasant and probably much more relaxed, but he was on the job.

It's so unlike Obama's unprecedented obsession with golf that I fail to see how you compare them.

Also note Bush's superiority in performance. 5% unemployment and an average deficit of $150 billion before the democrats took the house and senate and used the Iraq war as leverage for a much larger government.

Whatever Bush was doing, however imperfect, he was doing a better job than Obama. Not that I think Bush is the gold standard. I think Bush left a lot to be desired, but the idea he was simply vacationing in Crawford is Kucinich grade BDS. It's not a serious analysis.

Frankly, anyone who seriously believes that is stupid.

Raul said...

Allen - Based on the alternatives, yes, I would.

Right now the only reasonable, experienced and rational candidate on the right is Romney and I could actually live with him.

Perry, Bachmann, Paul and others are not qualified to be president.

Matt said...

Dustin & Raul

The argument about Presidents taking vacation days is an argument that is tired and absurd. I don't care who the President is - they deserce the semblence of time off. Begrudging them because they take a leave from the White House is petty to say the least. It is also incorrect to call their time off is a 'restful vacation'.

When a President takes a vacation it is not the same as when most Americans take a vacation. It is always a working vacation. Obama on the golf course is more of a symbolic issue than a real one. As was Bush at the Ranch. If they sit down to read a book or watch a movie would you be as critical? What about having dinner?

It's time for the argument about President's and vacations to be put to rest.

chickenlittle said...

P.S. (that's "countervailing" and "disparaged" for the spelling nazis)

Maguro said...

My comment relates to someone taking over a "failing" business and what is necessary to right the ship.

Well, if you believe that the Federal government was 'failing' in 2008 under Bush due to a budget deficit of $459B, how would describe Obama's Federal government with its 2011 deficit of $1.5T?

Superduper failtastic?

Raul said...

Dustin - At the same point in his tenure, Bush had taken 280 days of vacation.

Obama has taken 70.

Raul said...

Maguro - "Well, if you believe that the Federal government was 'failing' in 2008 under Bush due to a budget deficit of $459B, how would describe Obama's Federal government with its 2011 deficit of $1.5T?"

Once again; you need to get your facts straight before posting:

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion.

Dustin said...

"I asked for a cite showing that the buses were airlifted to a city and then driven to the speaking engagements because I had not heard hide nor hair of that prior. If it is indeed true, I, and any other rational person, should have a real problem with that regardless of who the president is or what party he happens to be from."

I apologize, I didn't see that.

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/08/29/president-obama-has-tour-buses-flown-to-stump-speeches/

The picture speaks 1000 words in this case. It wasn't a bus tour. It was a bus-prop at ENORMOUS cost to the taxpayers, when Obama simply could have taken his limo. There is no sane reason why he needed a bus, since he was only riding in it for a few miles from the airport. It was a disgusting prop.

Scott M said...

I don't carry water for any of the three you mentioned, but, pray, please tell me what President Obama's qualifications for president were before he ran in 2008. You set the bar by making the statement above so you obviously have qualifications in mind. Please tell me how POTUS met them.

J said...

Wow, Raul trying to do his centrist pro-Romney schtick again. Even Perry preferable to Romney (tho ...still f-ed up). Don't you have some tee-shirts to sell, trash?

And the Smurfhousers again forget that taxes are still at historical lows. Small wonder there's a record deficit--they're still at BushCo rates.

Maguro said...

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion.

So he's failing even worse than Bush did.

chickenlittle said...

It's time for the argument about President's and vacations to be put to rest.

It's my casual observation that those who bitch about those bitching about long vacations themselves take long vacations. :)

As noted before, I think the perception is being driven by POTUS (and perhaps FLOTUS) and a fellating media in order to build resentment against the wealthy to support confiscatory tax plans.

Dustin said...

"On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion."

Raul, you need to get YOUR facts straight. Bush promised to veto that bill, and never signed it. The GOP voted against it. The democrats larded up Bush's proposal with tons of crap and Obama signed it and praised it.

You're blaming Bush for that? Sounds like BDS. I'm sure Bush's proposal would have left a large deficit, since he always did that, but this wasn't Bush's budget. FY2009 belongs to the party that passed it, the democrats, and the president who signed it, Obama. 100% it is the democrat party's fault.

Raul said...

Scott - Obama is quite a bit more intelligent than Perry (2.22 GPA / Animal Science) and Bachmann (graduate of the Pat Robertson Law School.)

Neither of whom buy even believe in evolution. (That should be a clue, even for the GOP)

I could live with Romney, but, much like Reagan, I don't know if he could get elected today as a Republican.

Dustin said...

And remember, as Obama actually flew his buses around merely to have a grand and stupid prop, he sent his EPA to Texas to stifle our job growth in the name of global warming.

It's ridiculous.

Raul said...

Dustin - You comment relates to the CBO report relating to deficits.

But if you're referring to the bank bailout bill, George w. Bush signed it.

If it's another bill you're referring to, tell us what it is.

Dustin said...

"Scott - Obama is quite a bit more intelligent than Perry"

I don't believe you, Raul.

Do you know what Obama's GPA was? I read Obama's book where he explains he was a terrible student and on the road towards becoming a junky. He never showed us his undergraduate grades and is reasonable to suspect his accomplishments at Harvard were given to him on the basis of race.

Also, I'm not sure a GPA is the only metric of intelligence. But you don't have Obama's GPA or transcript, so your claim you have proven his intelligence on that basis proves bad faith on your part.

Perry has been a successful governor. Anyone saying he's an idiot has to explain why he was able to do so. He's been a lot better than Romney was as governor. And there's no doubt Obama has been an abject failure.

But then, they say Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were our two smartest presidents. I think this only goes to show that we do not evaluate intelligence accurately.

Perry's job performance over the past decade is sufficient to dismiss your accusation, but you still need to back up your claim about Obama's smarts.

Dustin said...

"If it's another bill you're referring to, tell us what it is."

The FY 2009 budget, of course.

It's obvious what I'm talking about, too. If you're seriously claiming you didn't know I was talking about the FY 2009 budget, re-read my comment.

Matt said...

Dustin
Yeah, it's a shame the government wants to protect the environment.

Eliminating air and water pollution regulations will create jobs - in health care and mortuaries.

Dustin said...

Raul says "Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion."

And I note that Obama signed the budget for that year, and it was passed by democrats.

Raul replies that he wasn't even talking about the FY 2009 budget.

This makes no sense from his context.

Raul said...

Dustin - I just took the time to visit your blog site and found this from you:

"Accounts are conflicting. Don't assume Qaddafi is dead or captured until hard proof surfaces."

Anybody, at this stage of the game, that is still debating that he is indeed dead, makes it fairly clear you're not worth the time of day.

Dustin said...

"Yeah, it's a shame the government wants to protect the environment.

Eliminating air and water pollution regulations will create jobs - in health care and mortuaries."

That's a strawman argument.

The EPA's intrusion into Texas makes no sense, and it's accompanied by ridiculous use of aircraft by the administration, proving their insincerity.

The idea that I'm arguing for the environment to be polluted is nonsense.

Maguro said...

Quaddafi is dead? News to me.

J said...

Wait, you don't believe in Darwinian evolution either Raulonius! Your preacher's against it. Except like a few times during the week when trying your liberal schtick with the teabugs.

No real demos support Romney, assclown. He's the most pro-capitalist pro-biz candidate in the running. Now, run back to the tee-shirt sweatshoppe, "Raul" (A white trash, mormon thug from Sac).

Dustin said...

"Anybody, at this stage of the game, that is still debating that he is indeed dead, makes it fairly clear you're not worth the time of day."

Huh?

What in the world?

What day did I post that? Tell me, did you know Qaddafi was dead that day?

You blamed Bush for a budget Obama signed, I explained that, and you reply by an ad hom that is totally irrelevant and also completely irrational.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I wasn't aware Obama disclosed his GPA.

chickenlittle said...

Matt wrote: All Perry has to do is walk on stage with cowboy boots and speak loudly with his Texas twang against all things related to the government and Obama and he will have the crowd [his crowd] going wild.

That's just pure anti-Texas bigotry. It's the flip side of disparging liberals by winking and saying "San Francisco values."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 236   Newer› Newest»