Althouse: Evidence that Romney is winning.

October 27, 2012

Evidence that Romney is winning.

Paul Krugman has gone desperately juvenile.

98 comments:

PatCA said...: "Foreign policy hasn’t been a big issue in this election"

Burning embassies? What burning embassies?; 10/27/12, 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I VOTED FOR ROMNEY YESTERDAY AT 4 PM.

I voted due to one word: Benghazi.

" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "

(from, These Boots Are Made for Walkin', by Nancy Sinatra, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww); 10/27/12, 1:25 PM
Known Unknown said...: Obama has been almost flawless on defense and foreign relations.

A commenter from WISCONSIN.; 10/27/12, 1:27 PM
harrogate said...: These are legitimate points he makes. It is juvenile to call the article juvenile. The auto rescue is, and, ought to be, regarded as a brave move and certainly one that Romney not only would not have done, but criticized very harshly at the time. The continued existence of those jobs ought to matter in Ohio; it is juvenile to argue otherwise.; 10/27/12, 1:32 PM
chuckR said...: Moe Howard would be a better President and leader than Obama. And he's been dead for a while.....; 10/27/12, 1:34 PM
theribbonguy said...: "Paul Krugman has gone desperately juvenile."

We haven't seen 'nuttin yet dear lady..the Krugster and his fellow travellers are just winding up.

The electorate at large are all going to be "stupid poopey pants" come Nov.7 and beyond.

Popcorn.; 10/27/12, 1:36 PM
clint said...: Does anyone really believe that it was courageous and gutsy of Obama to authorize the killing of bin Laden?; 10/27/12, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: It's interesting how people can read the polls either way. Today Nate Silver has 3:1 odds for Obama to win!

But when you compare the campaigns' body language, it sure looks like Romney is confident and knows what he is doing, while Obama is fighting a disorganized, losing battle.; 10/27/12, 1:38 PM
Seeing Red said...: It's too bad the Delphi non-union workers who were screwed out of their pensions by the Obama admin YT ad won't make it to OH TV, that would also matter in Ohio.

Cos they're coming for our 401ks.; 10/27/12, 1:39 PM
Seeing Red said...: --Obama has been almost flawless on defense and foreign relations.--

Flawlessly wrong.; 10/27/12, 1:40 PM
chuckR said...: The auto bailout has been extensively discussed elsewhere. Letting GM and Chryco go through a standard BK would have worked also. It wasn't terribly brave to transfer money from the taxpayers to the UAW and leave the same old management structure at GM in place to boot. GM makes some great vehicles, but they just aren't nimble enough to respond to changing market conditions and shorter product cycles. GM will be back sooner or later for more bailout bux.; 10/27/12, 1:42 PM
greenlantern said...: @harrogate:
If only there was a way to actually read what Romney said instead of making up and repeating lies about it! Oh, wait...
"The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0; 10/27/12, 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Nate is a smart guy. He wants a pulitzer. He wants to be accepted by every-one. He wants his book to be sold and sold.

He has to show Obama will win. If this happens, he will be an instant hero. Expect a regular column. A tv-show.

He is playing the right card.

Others have played this card: Example: David Brooks.; 10/27/12, 1:43 PM
Henry said...: @harrogate - I partially agree about the auto bailout. I'm not sure if I would call it "brave" as opposed to "opportunistic" (you know -- crisis, not wasted). But it did have the quality of being dynamic, targeted, and of (somewhat) quantifiable outcome. All things the stimulus wasn't.

One point to remember -- one that Obama White House has done much to erase -- is that the advance work on the auto bailout was done by the Bush White House. See the last paragraph of the "context" section of this Politifact article:

Keith Hennessey, a former Bush administration official, wrote on his blog in June 2009 about the many restrictions tied to the loans, including that the car companies pay down debt, limits on executive compensation and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. And remember the companies’ viability plans reviewed by Obama’s task force? They were required under the terms of the Bush loans.

Here, let me put this ball on the tee for you. Big swing. Be brave.

Still, for anyone in favor of activist government, it's a clear Obama win.

As for the bravery of taking out Obama, all I can say is give me a fucking break.; 10/27/12, 1:46 PM
SteveR said...: The "auto rescue" (to the extent it happened) can hardly be attributed solely to Obama and Krugman knows that. But he's not honest. Killing OBL is it? Really? How about Gitmo, drones, Iran, Syria? oh nevermind; 10/27/12, 1:47 PM
cubanbob said...: harrogate said...
These are legitimate points he makes. It is juvenile to call the article juvenile. The auto rescue is, and, ought to be, regarded as a brave move and certainly one that Romney not only would not have done, but criticized very harshly at the time. The continued existence of those jobs ought to matter in Ohio; it is juvenile to argue otherwise.

10/27/12 1:32 PM

You seem to confuse a legitimate bailout which what was Bush was doing (TARP) followed by a chapter 11 reorganization with the government providing debtor-in-possion financing (which would ultimately cost the taxpayers nothing) with a payoff to the UAW which is what Obama and democrats did which at today's share prices would cost the taxpayers a net loss of $50bn. But that would require some knowledge of business and finance.

The only thing keeping GM alive or rather continue as a reanimated corpse is the special deal GM received in letting it carry forward all of its pre-bankruptcy tax losses to offset any profits they may make along with large government purchases. As for Chrysler, palming it off on an Italian company that now plans to shift Jeep production to China. Smart guys those democrats.

Krugman was once an economist but stopped being one when he became a shill for Enron. All he is now is a shill for another set of crooks.

In the meantime American cars are made with American steel that is made with American coal that the democrats want to kill. No coal, no coalminers, no domestic steel, no domestic steel makers, no domestic auto production, no domestic auto workers.
I would not assume that everyone in Ohio and and Western PA is unaware of this. Being green has its price.; 10/27/12, 1:55 PM
Tim said...: The best part of Romney winning, and Obama losing, is that for the hard-core, committed liberal Democrats, all their foolish dreams will turn into pumpkins.

But after that, a tremendous amount of smart thinking, hard work remain.

I have no illusions Romney is a savior.

Electing him is no where near sufficient.

But it is so very clearly a necessary first step.; 10/27/12, 2:00 PM
edutcher said...: "Or there could be a game-changing event, even in these waning days."

He wants a game-changer?

How 'bout the CO of Africom gave the green light to a rescue op and was relieved of command withing a minute?; 10/27/12, 2:01 PM
harrogate said...: Given the content of her thread commentary, what other sorts of posts and value judgments can Althouse possibly construct? How can she not dismiss any substantive argument in favor of supporting Obama? The only positive things she ever said about Obama even in the past had more to do with persona and even the hope that somehow, the GOP foreign and economic policies would infect the Dems writ large (which mostly, they have).

So shocker. She dismisses and/or ignores these sorts of arguments and the comment threads go into usual mode. The occasional swipe at Romney or the GOP on social issues (how they treat race, etc) is her version of "bravery" and "independence." Big fucking deal. And even that sets off wailing and gnashing of teeth around here.

Upshot: mutual reinforcement can be a fascinating thing to watch unfold.; 10/27/12, 2:01 PM
Tim said...: "The auto rescue is, and, ought to be, regarded as a brave move and certainly one that Romney not only would not have done, but criticized very harshly at the time. The continued existence of those jobs ought to matter in Ohio; it is juvenile to argue otherwise."

Well, that's why you are a liberal.

In the long run (yeah, I know, so save it...), we are better off not subsidizing failure.

We have, very effectively, developed efficient, working bankruptcy laws for a reason, a very good reason.

Taking shortcuts in life, re-writing long established rules to change outcomes for artificial reasons never works out.

But, as a liberal, I know you disagree with this.

Maybe, eventually, you will learn it.

I hope you do.; 10/27/12, 2:03 PM
harrogate said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/27/12, 2:03 PM
harrogate said...: (But then, let's be honest. Mutual reinforcement of this kind, though "interesting," IS sort of "desperately juvenile."); 10/27/12, 2:04 PM
Tim said...: "How can she not dismiss any substantive argument in favor of supporting Obama?"

So make one, if you can.

Everything from your side is about how bad Romney is.

What are Obama's accomplishments, that are working and will continue to work, that make him more qualified, better suited, for the presidency than Romney?; 10/27/12, 2:05 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: harrogate,

Were you around here when Ann announced her decision to vote for Obama in 2008, and laid out at considerable length her reasons why?; 10/27/12, 2:09 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Edutcher,
I saw that, too.

I already wanted jail time for the top leaders in the administration if all the indications panned out that they hung Stevens and the operatives out t dry, and told people to stand down.

If this rumor that Gen Ham was relieved for trying to ignore an order to stand down n order to rescue American personnel, then they should get even worse.

No one should be above the law, not even the President.; 10/27/12, 2:09 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Harrogate,
I'm always honest. It is interesting that for our, that represents such a break from the norm that you feel compelled to announce it.; 10/27/12, 2:12 PM
Clyde said...: The liberal commenters there are all in full-throated Pauline Kael mode. I suspect that there are going to be a lot of flabbergasted New York Times readers come November 7th.

Or, as the Tortoise and the Hedgehog would put it, "Won't Painted Jaguar be surprised!"; 10/27/12, 2:14 PM
harrogate said...: Michelle,

You mean like the whole "now the Dems will 'own' the GOP foreign policy" garbage? I don't recall a single endorsement of economic policies that differ from Bush or McCain or Romney. What I do recall was lots of snark against McCain and lots of embrace for Obama on the level of persona (ohhhhh and let's never forget, Althouse is a "social liberal." really!!!")

Ideologically? She endorsed Obama because he had much to share with the GOP policy. And of course he still does,however much some idiots want to paint him as a leftist.; 10/27/12, 2:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: Vote for Barry because he's Mitt or Mitt-lite?

That's the best you got?; 10/27/12, 2:16 PM
harrogate said...: Seeing Red,

No, it's not the best I've got. It's the best Althouse had in 2008 and the best she's had since, whenever she has deigned to say something positive about Obama at all. Read more closely.; 10/27/12, 2:18 PM
Wince said...: Momentum implies an asymmetry in enthusiasm in the face of adversity, and the competing campaign narratives reveal it.

The Romney momentum is due to supporters, most of them newcomers, recognizing that he was behind and being motivated to do something to change it.

Obama partisans can't admit Obama is behind because, rather than rally enthusiastic troops, old or new, it's more likely to result in more of their voters not showing up.; 10/27/12, 2:19 PM
Clyde said...: Re: the General Carter Ham rumor (and the fact that he was replaced at AFRICOM a week later by General David Rodriguez):

I saw all the preview trailers for the new TV show Last Resort, about a nuclear submarine crew that refuses orders to launch nukes at Pakistan and then has to go rogue when attacked by our own government. I thought that the whole premise was ridiculous, that our own government wouldn't fuck over our people like that. It appears that I was wrong.; 10/27/12, 2:21 PM
Seeing Red said...: --Upshot: mutual reinforcement can be a fascinating thing to watch unfold.---

It's revulsion at the Benghazi cover-up.

It might be fascinating for you if they can pull this off, tho.; 10/27/12, 2:22 PM
Chip S. said...: Yes, the "Mo" joke was incredibly lame, tho the column itself is mostly Krugman being Krugman.

The comments, however, are terrifying, unless they're all meant to be ironic. NYT readers aren't just in a bubble or a cocoon--they're in an alternate reality, and incredibly smug about it.

F'rinstance,

We anticipate that sensible people will re-elect President Obama in a landslide...330 electoral votes...something like that.

We may also anticipate a torrent of abuse in the form of television commercials against the President

Presumably, that "abuse" is something that should be shut down as hate speech. Dissent is abusive!!; 10/27/12, 2:23 PM
Seeing Red said...: I did read it. Closely. You might not like my interpretation of it, but I did read it closely.; 10/27/12, 2:26 PM
victoria said...: I actually thought it was funny.

Vicki from Pasadena; 10/27/12, 2:27 PM
harrogate said...: Seeing Red, well then obviously you know that I do not praise Obama for sharing so much ground with the GOP, nor was I praising Althouse for celebrating these qualities in him.

If you read so closely as you say. Heh.; 10/27/12, 2:28 PM
cubanbob said...: harrogate said...
Given the content of her thread commentary, what other sorts of posts and value judgments can Althouse possibly construct? How can she not dismiss any substantive argument in favor of supporting Obama?

Because there is no substantive argument to support Obama.; 10/27/12, 2:37 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Ah, more nonsense about how Obama deserves another term because he made the "gutsy call" to kill UBL. Whatevs.; 10/27/12, 2:37 PM
harrogate said...: "Because there is no substantive argument to support Obama."

Ahhh, vintage rhetoric from the digital province. Such depth.; 10/27/12, 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's see - Lena Dunham, Leslie Gore, Dan Savage, Krugman...I'm sensing a theme here.

The unbearable lameness of leftists?; 10/27/12, 2:49 PM
Chip S. said...: The unbearable lameness of leftists?

The ubiquity of stupidity

Ideocracy.; 10/27/12, 2:51 PM
Seeing Red said...: Make the substantive case to support, Harro. You always could in any thread where we point out why we don't or shouldn't support Barry.; 10/27/12, 2:54 PM
Wally Kalbacken said...: I had the privilege of speaking with Moe Howard (Moses Horowitz) about 2 months before he passed in 1975. I knew Moe Howard, and Mitt Romney is no Moe Howard. But Paul Krugman might be an Emil Sitka.; 10/27/12, 3:07 PM
harrogate said...: Seeing Red,

Nice, as we approach Thanksgiving it is important to try Lucy's placeholder approach. One who reads here for any length of time knows the drill well.

I mean seriously. If the proprietress and the vast lion's share of her commenters can think of "no substantive reason," isn't that itself evidence that to provide such reasons to this audience would only reflect a severe lack of audience awareness?; 10/27/12, 3:08 PM
Chip S. said...: to provide such reasons to this audience would only reflect a severe lack of audience awareness?

I've got to tip my cap to you for this one. You've provided an airtight defense of the lack of any arguments in Obama's favor here.

OTOH, you've also implicitly conceded that you're only here to stir up shit.; 10/27/12, 3:21 PM
harrogate said...: Chip,

So because it is silly to argue in a sustained way to committed GOP voters, in favor of voting for Obama.... because of that the arguments aren't there to be made? That's the implicit connection between my comment and yours. Either you didn't read carefully or you didn't read carefully, on that front. Which is it?

As for the "stir up shit" charge, that has more teeth and merits a response. I do feel that there is still ground to have real discussion on these boards between the few liberals that appear here, and the rest. Though the ground grows ever more narrow. Again, it is a matter of knowing what the ground is and what it isn't.

But maybe you are right. Maybe I should stop coming here at all.; 10/27/12, 3:27 PM
Baron Zemo said...: My dear fellow you are quite the funny chap.

Please throw your pearls before the swine and enlighten us!
What has the Jug Eared Jesus done except not interfere with justice being done to Osama Bin Laden?

And please don't tell me that was "gusty call" because even the Dali Lama signed off on that one.; 10/27/12, 3:32 PM
Chip S. said...: harrogate, on a couple of occasions I've been in the minority here, and I'll grant that it can be rough. But your comment didn't make that argument; you basically said that minds here can't be changed by logic and evidence.

I think you'd find a much more hospitable response to solid arguments than you seem to expect. My impression is that the righties here are relatively welcoming to lefties who don't just post talking points they picked up from Kos or HuffPo.; 10/27/12, 3:34 PM
Seeing Red said...: Typical, I want to be taxed more.

Write a check.

No one ever stopped you, Harro.

You say there are substantive arguments, what are they?

We defend all the time. Why won't you?; 10/27/12, 3:41 PM
harrogate said...: Chip S.,

I've been on these boards a while and sometimes I reiterate things that are going around, i.e. talking points, and sometimes I go off on my own to try and make points, and sometimes I talk about baseball or sometimes even, Kate Winslet.

I have found that this is as rigid ideologically and politically, of a space, as DailyKos or TownHall comment boards. I do find some of the personae here write very well and I prize that a great deal. hell, I think that Ann Althouse on a sentence level, is one of the best writers on the blogosphere. It is, "interestingly," one of the reasons I read Sullivan as well (though readers of these two have real animus towards one another, it seems).

Quibbling over rhetoric and framing issues is actually one of those pieces of "shared ground" I alluded to before.; 10/27/12, 3:45 PM
Baron Zemo said...: There are so many substantive arguments you can cite that will cause us to slap our foreheads and shout "Eureka!"

Perhaps it is his pursuit of clean green energy that threw millions upon billions of dollars down a rat-hole to enrich his cronies and contributors?

Perhaps it is attempt to destroy drilling and exploration in the United States and end the use of coal so as to destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign oil?

Perhaps it is the destruction of stable governments in the Middle East in favor of radical Islamist terror regimes that do nothing while our Ambassadors are murdered and dragged in the street?

Perhaps it is the far-sighted budget he proposed and passed the past few years?

Perhaps it is his success in fighting unemployment and creating jobs?

Perhaps it is the confidence he creates in the business community?

Perhaps it is the way he serves as a racial healer and not jumping into local issues to inflame already dangerous situations by his wonderful beer summits where he can school those foolish racist dumb cops?

Perhaps it is the sense of comity and cooperation he engenders in the opposition by such soothing words as "I won" and "Bitter Clingers"?

Perhaps it is the sense of history he displays when he talks so emotionally about how much he love all 57 states?

But then again....perhaps not.; 10/27/12, 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Just remember if Obama wins and gets impeached over Benghazi, we have President Biden.; 10/27/12, 3:51 PM
Chip S. said...: ...if Obama wins and gets impeached over Benghazi...

Nate Silver and Dean Wormer both rate the probability of this at Zero Point Zero.; 10/27/12, 3:55 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Why do people think the auto bailout was a success? Cubanbob nicely details upthread why it wasn't, and still isn't.; 10/27/12, 4:10 PM
Anthony said...: I knew i would be voting against Obama in this election back in November 2008. That said,i don't find Krugman's column terribly juvenile. He tries to make a joke, and it falls flat, but overall, it's not juvenile, just lame. Obama's foreign policy hasn't been that bad, because it's mostly a continuation of Bush's.

If the General Ham story is true, he deserved to be relieved of command. Disobeying an order at that level s very serious, and should not be tolerated.; 10/27/12, 4:13 PM
Seeing Red said...: You're not making your case to me, you're making your case to those who read but do not post here.

Not all of The Professor's readers lean right.; 10/27/12, 4:15 PM
Henry said...: Evidence that Paul Krugman is breathing:
"Paul Krugman has gone desperately juvenile."; 10/27/12, 4:28 PM
Seeing Red said...: Via Rantburg:

The Hill] The head of the House Democratic campaign arm this week proposed a constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) did not offer an explanation in the joint resolution filed in the House for why he was proposing to change the way elections in the U.S. are decided....; 10/27/12, 4:38 PM
Gahrie said...: If the General Ham story is true, he deserved to be relieved of command. Disobeying an order at that level s very serious, and should not be tolerated.

OK, but it is also true that if the General ham story is true, President Obama deserves to be relieved of command, and thankfully the American people will do just that on election day.; 10/27/12, 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Who's Paul Krugman?; 10/27/12, 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Who's Paul Krugman?; 10/27/12, 4:41 PM
David said...: Krugman points out that Obama leads in electoral college votes. In other words the lefties are praying for an electoral college win even if behind in the popular vote. Obama truly is like Bush.; 10/27/12, 4:42 PM
Chip S. said...: Obama continues to go desperately juvenile, big time.

I truly hope that video's a parody, but I fear it's not.

Who the hell is it aimed at?; 10/27/12, 4:52 PM
Tully said...: I'm trying to remember a time when Krugman wasn't both desperate and juvenile.; 10/27/12, 5:13 PM
Paul said...: Krugman?

One day that name will be a slur used on those considered to stupid to see what is in front of their face.

Yea call'em a Krugman. Or maybe a Biden.

Dunno both of them are stupid as a post.

Oh, and I voted TODAY. Romney of course.; 10/27/12, 5:25 PM
roesch/voltaire said...: slowly folks are getting it; this from the TRib:
The right-leaning paper admitted that Mitt Romney's policies should have made him a more obvious choice for their endorsement, but they described the GOP nominee as "astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on health care."; 10/27/12, 5:34 PM
Portia said...: I went to the NYT to read the column and then looked at the comments. Had to check the URL as the comments sounded like DU or the Kos kids. Whew, the NYT has really slipped as has Krugman.; 10/27/12, 5:43 PM
PatCA said...: I don't fault him on "bending" on such things as abortion and health care. I feel the same way; I never would have thought we would be arguing about whether to let a 9-mo-old fetus be aborted or about whether a 2700-page bill with now 10,000 pages of rules and regs shoved down the Congress' throat is a step forward.

So I have hardened my views too because the argument has moved so far beyond what I ever imagined.; 10/27/12, 5:43 PM
Seeing Red said...: Since when is the Tribune "right-leaning?" They haven't been for years if not a decade or 2 and they sound like the WaPo.; 10/27/12, 6:01 PM
Seeing Red said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/27/12, 6:02 PM
Rusty said...: roesch/voltaire said...
slowly folks are getting it; this from the TRib:
The right-leaning paper admitted that Mitt Romney's policies should have made him a more obvious choice for their endorsement, but they described the GOP nominee as "astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on health care."

The Chicago Tribune?
right leaning. Way to load a statement.
The trib is no more right leaning than you are.
Besides those same traits you decry in Romney is what made you vote for Obama in 2008.
You're inconsistents are piling up.; 10/27/12, 6:03 PM
wyo sis said...: Flip flopping is now called evolving.
It's one of the best things Obama has given us. This new softer language about flip flopping.; 10/27/12, 6:04 PM
Seeing Red said...: I find it interesting that RV thinks Obama's hometown paper would endorse Romney in the 1st place.

The WSJ isn't "right-leaning" either. The editorial page isn't the rest of the paper.; 10/27/12, 6:05 PM
Seeing Red said...: I thought we want people's positions to evolve. Who wants a president who is intransigeant?; 10/27/12, 6:08 PM
cubanbob said...: harrogate said...
"Because there is no substantive argument to support Obama."

Ahhh, vintage rhetoric from the digital province. Such depth.

10/27/12 2:43 PM

Oh brilliant one please enlighten us unwashed rubes from the digital provinces why we shouldn't believe our lying eyes and vote for The One. Please make your case. Enlighten us with your profundity.; 10/27/12, 6:25 PM
RecChief said...: I long to see the Krugman meltdown if/when Romney wins decisively; 10/27/12, 6:32 PM
Mark said...: No one should be above the law, not even the President.

Make that "especially the President" please. Someone with that much power has to be subject to the rule of law, otherwise you effectively have despotism as opposed to democracy.; 10/27/12, 6:51 PM
kcom said...: Now would be a good time to renew the civility pledge. Before the election. If Romney wins, will all of you who oppose him acknowledge that the people have spoken and congratulate him on victory and wish him and the country the best? Or will you trash, and complain, and whine?

If you're not willing to make that pledge, now, don't expect any corresponding civility from the other side. Either it's a principle to be applied across the board, or it's meaningless posturing for political advantage. Take your pick.; 10/27/12, 7:02 PM
Mark said...: If the Ham story is true, I'm sure he knew when he decided to disobey that it would cost him his career.

I would like to think in the same situation I would make the same decision.; 10/27/12, 7:04 PM
Cosmic Conservative said...: I have no idea who is going to win this election. But I'm pretty sure it's going to be close, very close. And based on what I've seen from most liberals I know, that alone will surprise the bejeezus out of them.

If Romney wins by a decisive electoral majority, I'm convinced the Left will suffer massive brain aneurysms.

But let's assume that Romney does win. I will make some predictions based on a Romney victory.

If we go back to 2008, after the Obama election, America came together. Obama began his Presidential term with nearly 90% approval ratings from the American people.

I predict that if Romney wins, he will begin his first term with no more than 65% approval ratings. If that turns out to be true (and I am absolutely certain that it will be), and we assume that there are roughly as many Republicans as Democrats in the nation, then that would mean that Republicans are apparently five times as likely to be willing to accept a loss and work with the other side than Democrats.

I will make another prediction. If Romney wins, he will immediately, just as Bush did, reach out to Democrats on the hill and attempt to pull together a bipartisan agenda. Just as Bush did. You will see no arrogant pronouncements of "mandates" and "I won" and "I don't need Democrats" which we saw from Obama. I will further predict that Democrats on the hill will once again embark on a scorched earth policy of absolute obstructionism as they try to make a Romney term a repeat of the GW Bush Presidency.

Why not? It worked for them last time.

Finally, I predict that the press will go full-on rabidly anti-voter, running stories for months about how the nation has become more racist, more heartless, more selfish and, of course, much, much more stupid.

My only real question about a Mitt Romney administration is whether he can manage to overcome the Left's vicious obstructive hatred of not being in power, or if he will end up dealing with the same derangement from the Left and the media that Bush did.

I'm pretty sure we'll end up seeing similar Romney-derangement as we saw with Bush.

Because that's pretty much all the Left has left anymore. It's a bankrupt ideology that is reduced to nothing but the pursuit of raw power. Which is why they are enraged when they are not in power.; 10/27/12, 7:21 PM
Astro said...: GM got to be GM by buying up many smaller auto and aircraft companies and bringing them in under the GM umbrella. Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Pontiac, Fokker, North American Aviation... the list goes on for a while.
Instead of buying GM the gov't could have used that same money as an inducement to have Toyota, Hyundai, Boeing, Nissan... or some other company buy GM and save the tens of thousands of jobs that were lost along with the stock that private investors held.
(What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.)

There was nothing 'brave' about Obama's decision; he just wanted to protect unions jobs. The union members were the only ones who came out on top in that bungled mess.; 10/27/12, 7:44 PM
alan markus said...: Des Moines Register endorsed Romney. The last time they endorsed a Republican was 40 years ago (Nixon - 1972).

The Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision; 10/27/12, 7:56 PM
SukieTawdry said...: Judging from the comments (which are fairly typical for the NYT), Krugman, and Times, readers are largely delusional. When the paper finally folds, they won't be missed.; 10/27/12, 7:58 PM
Michael K said...: " harrogate said...
These are legitimate points he makes. It is juvenile to call the article juvenile. The auto rescue is, and, ought to be, regarded as a brave move and certainly one that Romney not only would not have done, but criticized very harshly at the time. The continued existence of those jobs ought to matter in Ohio; it is juvenile to argue otherwise."

The auto bailout, not rescue, was an assault on the taxpayer, plus some Chrysler bond holders who were mostly pension plans for retirees.

We have a long history of successful bankruptcies in this country, including airlines among others. The key fact is that a bankruptcy offers to potential for the company to get out of unaffordable union contracts. What Obama did was transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to union health plans and pensions.

GM will never recover and is poised to move more car manufacturing to China. Chrysler is transferring billions to Fiat.

I don't expect economic dunces to understand this so I wonder the purpose of trying to explain. The jobs would still be in Ohio if Romney had been president instead of Obama in 2009. They won't be there much longer and dopes will probably blame president Romney.; 10/27/12, 8:09 PM
JohnJ said...: Unbelievable!

The Des Moines Register just endorsed…Romney!

First endorsement of a Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in ’72!; 10/27/12, 8:13 PM
JohnJ said...: Ooops…, sorry Alan, I see you scooped me on the DSM Register endorsement.

I guess I was just too stunned to notice your post.

I was all set to cancel my subscription, but now I’ll be adding a tip for the delivery guy each month.; 10/27/12, 8:17 PM
Unknown said...: It's pretty amazing what people do not understand about bankruptcy. This claim that without the bailout GM and Chrysler would have filed directly to 7 instead of going through 13 is basically ludicrous. At a certainty GM would have gone through 13. And it is certainly probably that even Chrysler would have tried the 13 route before even thinking about going through 7. You have to understand that the senior bond holders and jr creditors would have simply swapped their debt for equity as they both have going concern value if you reduce their liabilities, which is exactly the point of 13.

Why the bailout? To save the UAW. Not to save the workers, no, to save the UAW.

You have to understand, the reduction of liabilities would have occurred under a chapter 13 proceeding, so it isn't a question of cash. The bankruptcy filing itself would have stayed all claims up to the date of the bankruptcy. What the bailout was about was stopping the first legal brief that would have been filed by the senior creditor committee - that would have been a request to the US BK judge to tear up the UAW contracts. That is perferctly legal and what scared the democratic party to no end.; 10/27/12, 8:19 PM
alan markus said...: Ooops…, sorry Alan, I see you scooped me on the DSM Register endorsement.

I guess I was just too stunned to notice your post.

If you are like me, what happens is by the time I finish typing the comment, make a clickable link, and check for some semblance of accuracy, about 5 minutes have elapsed & someone else has gotten a comment in ahead of me.; 10/27/12, 8:30 PM
Seeing Red said...: All together now, via Insty:

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don't have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we're kinda blaming you

We haven't killed all the polar bears
But it's not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early

They did their best we know
You can't cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it's welfare dough

We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we're kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It's a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term's kind of a drag

We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we're blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We're blaming you!; 10/27/12, 8:43 PM
Issob Morocco said...: At least Romney is winning Wisconsin unlike the Badgers.; 10/27/12, 9:24 PM
furious_a said...: Does anyone believe it was courageous and gutsy to bail out the UAW pension fund with taxpayer money (still $30/share in the hole) at GMN while sticking it to white-collar retirees at Delphi?; 10/27/12, 9:42 PM
Revenant said...: Paul Krugman has gone desperately juvenile.

Is it 2001 again already?; 10/27/12, 9:52 PM
Unknown said...: ---GM will never recover and is poised to move more car manufacturing to China.

Not just China. Here's a half-billion investment in Argentina.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/gm-invest-450m-argentina-114208/

Argentina a country whose economy is (#** an is run by a unthinking socialist veering it into economic collapse.

http://moneymorning.com/2012/10/17/which-one-of-these-losers-will-run-out-of-money-first/

Just the place for Obama to spread more of our wealth around.; 10/27/12, 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: "The auto rescue is, and, ought to be, regarded as a brave move"

Robbing (mostly Republican) bondholders to reward the UAW is "brave"?

That's an interesting universe you live in. What color is the sky on your planet?

You are correct Romney wouldn't have carried out the kind of violating bankruptcy law "bankruptcy" that the Obama Administration pushed through. OTOH, GM after a Romney supervised bankruptcy wouldn't be headed for a second bankruptcy, when is what Obama's GM is heading for.; 10/28/12, 12:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Romney's not winning. I'm from CA so my view is skewed at a ground level, but I'd be very surprised. The demographics are just too different now. Neither one of them can relate, but Obama and Michele are at least closer in time to being able to relate to what most people are going through - competence be damned. I'm willing to be surprised, but I'll believe it when I see it.; 10/28/12, 2:10 AM
Jason said...: The commander of the USS John C. Stennis carrier strike force, on station in the middle east, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, has been relieved of command.

Apparently, he and GEN Ham must have refused to fire Archibald Cox or something.; 10/28/12, 2:26 PM
Sam L. said...: The pic of Moe was cute. But seriously, Ann,"gone"?

The word is "been", expanded by "for a long time".

The auto "bailout" was not brave; it was a sellout of the bond holders to the UAW.; 10/28/12, 5:51 PM