[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 82°F  
High: 82°F ~ Low: 46°F
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014

The Struggling Campaign

Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012, at 11:34 AM

In the last few weeks, the Romney campaign saw it's numbers start dwindling from what would have been a close election into a run away win for Obama.

This should be a cakewalk election for whoever the Republican nominee is considering that unemployment is still relatively high, but the Republicans may have cut their own feet. In 2010, after the party won the House of Representatives their leaders were no so quiet about declaring their intentions of doing whatever it took to make Obama a one term president. People heard this and began to pay attention. So, now, when Romney and other Republicans attempt to damage Obama by talking about the economy and how it is completely his fault, people remembered what they had said previously.

After months (nearly a year) of some of the most negative campaigning against his fellow Republicans and then against Obama, Romney took offense to an Obama Super PAC (you know one of those organizations that are not attached officially to the campaigns but can get all kinds of money from businesses which Romney supports) ad. The ad was, of course, an attack ad, but nothing the Romney campaign or his Super PACs had not done previously. Naturally, the "liberal" media paid little attention when Romney was the one making the attacks, but when one ad popped up in support of the Obama, suddenly the campaign had grown far too toxic. Romney took offense to the ad and demanded an apology. Then in a very strange twist touted that if the family in the ad had been in Romneycare nothing bad would have happened (Romneycare being the basis for most of Obamacare, which Romney now opposes (he initially supported it, it was an odd claim).

So with his campaign struggling and starting to slip further behind Obama, despite the millions being spent on the campaign, Romney finally announced his Vice Presidential pick, Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan's big mark on politics (actually his own mark after being in Congress for over a decade) is his plan for a much smaller government and a balanced budget. His plan, lacking any real numbers really only proposes cutting government agencies and ending Medicare.

For Romney who was already well behind in support in Latinos and women, picked a man whose plan will take away a program that many of the elderly depend on, a program that they paid into their entire working lives.

To this point Romney has received no bounce from his pick of Ryan, which really is no surprise. The only candidate that received any real bounce from announcing a vice president in recent history was Clinton who saw his polling jump by double digits. Even Obama only saw a one point bump from his announcement in 2008.

Romney has long been seen as a candidate that cannot decide which side of a political argument he actually stands. His entire campaign has been filled with moments of him being for something before being against it and then in some cases being for it again. Just in his vice presidential pick, he initially favored Ryan's plan, then backtracked and said that he did not really support the plan, before coming full circle and completely supporting Ryan's plan. That was all within a week.

If the election were held today (actually I hate that phrase so let's go with if the numbers stay where they are) Obama will win in convincing fashion. He would either win by over 100 electoral votes or just under that many. It is not a landslide in the classic sense, but in today's every dividing political spectrum that would be quite the accomplishment.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I like how Ryan is supposed to be the fiscal conservative to whatever Romney is this week. Yet, he helped the spend happy conservatives in Bush, Inc's admin spend us out of a budget surplus and into a recession. Paul Ryan's voting record. Talk about actions betraying thoughts (winks at SWNebr):

$700 billion dollar bailout = yes

TARP = yes

$400 billion dollar prescription drug benefit = yes

Raise the debt limit on 5 different occasions = yes

Auto industry bailouts = yes

Chinese subsidized tax cuts = yes

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/...

http://ivn.us/2012/08/11/a-closer-look-a...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/081...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-r...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 12:36 PM

And this:

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has been one of the harshest critics of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. But months after Congress approved the nearly $800 billion package, the Wisconsin lawmaker was trying to steer money under the program to companies in his home state.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/content...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 12:55 PM

Benevolus, you're trying to seduce me. Aren't you?

But seriously, you're absolutely correct, people who said they were fiscally conservative showed they weren't under Bush and look where that got us.

So if spending got us into a recession, as you say, how will spending get us out?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 2:36 PM

SWNebr,

I don't recall saying or implying that spending will get us out.

But now that you mention it, I think spending on certain things has the potential to be more beneficial to the economy than spending on other things. For example, government incentivizing various industries with tax breaks, subsidies, etc., for doing things like, hiring Americans and keeping factories in the US could help, don't you think?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 3:21 PM

I happen to like Paul Ryan and voiced my opinion in one of your past blogs with biased reaction. My opinion that most politicians and media are nothing more than bottom feeders and ilk seeker's and race baiters. I must admit I'm closer to the conservative side than the liberal side. I had posted this in Sams blog and thought it was to funny to not get a reaction from someone. So chop away!

Democratic Convention Schedule

2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule -- Charlotte , N.C.

4:00 PM -- Opening Flag Burning Ceremony -- sponsored by CNN

4:05 PM -- Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

4:10 PM -- Pledge of Allegiance to Obama.

4:15 PM -- Ceremonial 'I hate America' led by Michelle Obama.

4:30 PM -- Tips on "How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world" -- Hillary Clinton

4:45 PM --Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar "How to have a successful career without having a job."

5:30 PM -- Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite

5:45 PM -- Tribute to All 57 States -- Nancy Pelosi

6:00 PM -- Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat's appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.

8:30 PM -- Airing of Grievances by the Clintons

9:00 PM -- "Bias in Media -- How we can make it work for you" Tutorial -- sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times

9:15 PM -- Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO -- Michael Moore

9:45 PM -- Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle

10:00 PM -- Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers.

10:30 PM -- Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan

11:00 PM -- Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies

11:15 PM -- Free Gov. Blagovich rally

11:30 PM -- Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards

11:45 PM -- Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish Obama Presiding

12:00 AM -- Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris "He sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews

12:01 AM -- Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior

12:05 AM -- Celestial Choirs Sing

3:00 AM -- Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

-- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, a

-- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 9:03 PM

Ryan isn't who you think he is...that's my point, Keda.

Not sure what your point is...silliness? Levity?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 10:51 PM

It is hilarious because of the element of truth to it. Great post Keda46!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 7:23 AM

Here's a good one for ya Chunk...

What's the difference between a Republican and a toilet?

A toilet's only full of crap until you flush.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 8:07 AM

then are we to let liberals, or anyone else, define who Paul Ryan is? Boils down to, whatever your opinion is.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 10:04 AM

if we're going to start/continue hurling invectives, let me add one.

If you run around a tree naked at nearly 186000 mps, there is a distinct chance of s------g yourself. If you vote for Obama, there is also a distinct chance of getting the same result. (paraphrased) Albert Einstein

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 10:12 AM

"then are we to let liberals, or anyone else, define who Paul Ryan is?"

No. His voting record defines who he is...a big spending conservative, just like Romney.

Also, Einstein died in 1955 and Obama was born in '61, so your joke doesn't make sense. Here is one that does...

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, an intelligent conservative and a greedy conservative are walking down the street. They see a $100 bill lying on the ground. Who gets it?

The greedy conservative. The other three are fictional.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 10:33 AM

everyone knows Einstein is not still living. It's a joke re voting for Obama. And to conservatives, its just as funny as denigrating jokes about conservatives are funny to liberals. Depends on your perspective.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 12:23 PM

Interesting that the Obama sycophants are more interested in tearing down the opposition than they are at touting their candidate's positives....Could it be that they ALSO know that their candidate has pretty much already assumed room temperature?

Once the sycophants start in on villification...you know they have run out of intelligent things to say...but that isn't anything new.

Here is some fun entertainment (and kernals of truth) for the conservatives:

http://liberallogic101.com/

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 2:21 PM

I like pretty much any joke that's funny. That's my perspective. Not really feelin' the Einstein/Obama one, sorry.

Here is a good one:

A visitor to an island inhabited entirely by cannibals comes upon thatched hut that appears to be a butcher shop. Upon entering, the visitor realized this shop specialized specifically in the selling of human brains. A sign hung the shop roughly translated to:

Artists' Brains $9/oz

Philosophers' Brains $12/oz

Scientists' Brains $15/oz

Conservatives' Brains $19/oz

Liberals' Brains $2,000/oz

Upon reading the sign, the traveler said, "Wow those liberals' brains must be wonderful!" To which the butcher replied, "Are you kidding!? They taste like crap, you just have to kill a dozen or so to get an ounce of brains!"

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 3:16 PM

Mickel your post is absolute proof that either you aren't actually paying attention to anything not said by a conservative or you are simply ignoring it.

There are webpages stock full touting Obama's successes, Obama himself talks about them constantly. Truthfully the only organization on the Obama side that I have seen attack Romney is a SuperPAC that the Romney campaign actually used to tout Romneycare.

Yet here we have Romney that has attacked anyone and everyone from the beginning of his campaign last year and when people ask him to actually talk about what his policies are he gets very vague and tells people to trust him.

So, actually your post just needs to be changed from Obama to Romney and you are 100% correct.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 3:40 PM

The problem with your Einstein/Obama joke doodle, is your use of "paraphrased" and where you used it. Had you used it closer to Einstein's actual line it would have worked better. Where you have it leads the reader to believe that Einstein actually had said something (but it was being paraphrased) about a man that wasn't born until after he died. It's all about the timing and the wording.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 3:42 PM

@Michael: "Einsteins actual line"? Most folks know Einstein passed years ago; the paraphrasing was mine because I didnt repeat the story verbatim. By the way, I am still waiting for the apology you promised re Bill O'Reilly.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 4:02 PM

@ Benevolus; I have also seen that story directed at repubs/conservtives; I laughed then, too

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 4:05 PM

"Mickel your post is absolute proof that either you aren't actually paying attention to anything not said by a conservative or you are simply ignoring it."

And yet I was talking about the sycophants on this blog...

...wait a sec'....was that some wind up novelty chattering teeth I just heard?

Oh...it was Michael talking about Obama's successes....now that's comedy!!

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 5:26 PM

Gallup poll; Romney 47 - Obama 45.

Rasmussen poll; Obama 46 - Romney 46.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 7:17 PM

When the Bush administration was around I seen a bumber sticker that said "Somewhere in Texas their missing a village idiot"

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 9:51 PM

grandmajo

I am glad you brought up the fact that Tim Geithner was criticized for failing to pay $34,000 in taxes during his 2001-2003 tenure at the International Monetary Fund - which was brought to light during his 2009 confirmation hearing. This indicates that he had released at least 8 years of taxes for review.

During an Jan. 15, 2009 appearance on Fox and Friends former Governor Romney said "I think it's appropriate for the committee to really delve into this matter. If they find it was an honest mistake, then I think he should be confirmed. If, on the other hand, they find that there was deliberate tax evasion, that's a very different matter. Then a person would not be qualified.

Geithner would end up being confirmed, as a number of prominent Republican senators concluded that $34,000 he initially failed to pay (he eventually paid the full amount) was not an egregious enough misstep to leave an important post unoccupied.

Three and a half years later, Romney's words have a decidedly different implication. The presumptive Republican nominee has released only his 2010 tax returns and estimates for 2011, declining to reveal more years' worth of information. Both Democrats and Republicans have called on him to do so, insisting that it is appropriate behavior for a presidential candidate.

While Romney's campaign has repeatedly stressed that he has fully complied with the law and paid all the taxes that he owed, several reports have raised questions about whether or not he or his accountant used loopholes to evade some payments. Were that to be proven true, it would be disqualifying by Romney's own definition.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 6:35 AM

grandmajo

I wasn't talking about what Harry had to say - I was talking about the lack of FBAR forms from the 2010 tax filings he has already submitted.

US citizens who own foreign bank accounts are required to file a seperate form with the IRS that provides additional details on overseas bank holdings. Since his filings indicated a Swiss Bank Account and financial activities in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, these forms should have been released along with other documents required by the IRS.

The 2010 tax releases he made are either not complete or he failed to meet the regulations in the tax code.

The form is known as a "Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts".

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 12:33 PM

Geezer, I know I have said this before, but it bears repeating. I dont always agree with you, but I applaud your reasoned, well thought out, and respectful comments and rebuttals.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 1:16 PM

If there is nothing worth knowing then why not realease them? I dont understand your argument. If obamas people has his tax returns and there is nothing notworthy in them then why would romney not realease them?

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 7:29 AM

Romney is clearly hiding something regarding his taxes. And no, GMa, Obama and Co. do not have his tax records. Talk about "false accusations and innuendos!"

But you are correct about one thing, Obama stated early and often that his would be the most transparent administration to date. Granted, he has made some steps in that direction, but the Fast and Furious cover-up completely tarnishes the rest of his efforts to be forthright about his admins activities. It's of course nothing new, Bush Inc., used executive privileged on a near daily-basis, but at least Bush, Inc made no claims about wanting to be an honest and forthright administration.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 3:07 PM

Benevolus, I need clarification. Could you provide proof that Romney is "hiding something"? Didnt you just chide GMa for "false accusations and innuendos"? He may or may not be hiding something, but until there is proof, how can you make that statement? AND I am not defending GMA; many of her posts are ludicrous.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 4:03 PM

actually, I am a voting member of this country so it is my business. Still scratching my head about that one.

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 5:04 PM

How about seeing Obama's college transcripts! Twenty thousand dollars being offered for information by GOP group.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 7:34 PM

Doodle,

It is customary for presidents and presidential candidates to release their tax information. With the exception of Gerald Ford who only released summary reports, every president (as a candidate and as pres) has released his tax information. Likewise, Gingrich, McCain, Palin, Santorum, etc., as well as the Dem hopefuls over the years have all released their tax information going back several years.

Financial transparency is something that almost every sitting and potential president has deemed important. It's not hard to see why. What does it say about a person's integrity if they have been gaming or even cheating the system they are attempting to be in charge of?

Romney is literally hiding hiding his tax returns before 2010. What more proof do we need? If you have an alternative postulate I would definitely be interested.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 1:02 AM

Gold might be putting in a 4th higher low. If we can make a new swing high look for a "fast move up" in Gold.

S&P 500 has a squaring in time indicating 1430. Top of this range could be mid 1500's.

Mentioned the Leeb effect that has been in place for oil. Stated on one of Mike's blogs that oil could be in store for a 70% run up in June. WTI was trading in the $78 range at the time. The current administration is obviously afraid of a big run up in oil prices as they are talking about a SPR release. Maybe an energy plan would be in order.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 5:59 AM

he wants to be the president of the country I live in so that makes it my business. I have a say in who gets elected so that makes it my business

-- Posted by president obama on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 7:36 AM

Why have an energy plan when all Obama has to do is whine about Mitt Romney's tax returns. Sadly, the media agrees.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 9:15 AM

Or if you are a Republican, why have an alternative healthcare reform bill when you could just whine about Obama's birth certificate. Gotta love American politics.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 2:23 PM

Didn't realize Romney/Ryan was whining about the birth certificate.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 5:00 PM

Didn't realize that R-n-R have an alternative healthcare plan? Likely its the exact same as Obamacare but with a few added tax cuts for drug corporations and the wealthiest 1%.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 5:18 PM

"Didn't realize that R-n-R have an alternative healthcare plan? Likely its the exact same as Obamacare but with a few added tax cuts for drug corporations and the wealthiest 1%."

That's the open-mindedness that Liberals and Moderate Centrists are known for. If you don't know something it must not be worth knowing and is probably evil because it comes from the other side.

Way to make unfounded innuendo and assumptions. Thanks for the chuckle.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 7:26 PM

SWNebr,

"That's the open-mindedness that Liberals and Moderate Centrists are known for."

Not really sure what you mean. The liberal stereotype is typically that of an open-minded person (pro-choice/pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights, etc), and the conservative stereotype is typically constructed as close-minded. Like most generalizations both stereotypes are easily defeated because people are so easily categorized.

I figured you'd be smarter than to throw around generalizations in your juvenile attempts to attack other poster rather than discuss presidential candidates. Is this where I say your actions are betraying your thinking?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 7:51 PM

The President admits to cutting Medicare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Paul Ryan makes the case against hiding spending equals reducing spending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Run, Joe; Run:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

-- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 10:40 PM

Anybody think the SPR talk is in anticipation of an Iranian strike?

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 5:09 AM

Benevolus,

It appears to me you know exactly what I meant. I would say that groups are "known-for" the stereotypes attached to them. I just find it funny that you consider yourself open-minded when you say something as stupid and closed-minded as you did. Sometimes juvenile observations are the most accurate...out of the mouths of babes and whatnot.

I was going with a more literal meaning of open-mindedness as in the ability to open your mind to different thoughts than you already possess. In my opinion both Liberals and Conservatives are remarkably closed-minded and unable to think outside thier own boxes. They are just locked into different positions.

In your own words, liberals are seen as open-minded because they hold tightly to a specific view. But when conservatives hold tightly to a specific view it is closed-minded. I am more interested in the thought process not the thoughts themselves. But that is maybe just an easily defeated stereotype huh? Do you have any examples of those stereotypes being easily defeated? Liberals who are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage or pro-heterosexual rights (I'm struggling with the last one, I can't think of any gay rights that aren't rights for everyone except possibly marriage) perhaps?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 10:47 AM

SWNebr,

First of all, I am not sure what I said specifically that was "stupid and close-minded". Is it that Romney and Ryan want to increase tax cuts for the wealthy and slash medicare? Because that's not stupid or close-minded. That's true.

Regarding juvenile behavior, you have already revealed your childish impulses regarding how you treat Michael. It is extremely adolescent of you to attack him simply because "his responses amuse [you]." I would rather engage others in debate, not engage in petty baiting.

I know plenty of liberals who would personally never have an abortion, but also see that as a personal choice. In that sense, they are both pro-life and pro-choice. I also know two conservative couples who have had abortions, and yet remain pro-life. Certainly there are plenty of Conservatives (see Ron Paul) who are liberal on social issues, and conservative on fiscal issues. Even Clinton counted himself amongst the fiscal conservatives, and his record proves that. Obama, who is often portrayed (hilariously) as far leftwing, has behaved more like Reagan than Stalin.

The point is, people are hard to categorize because not everyone is consistently Liberal or Conservative. Liberals in many cases are extremely close-minded, and in many other cases, Conservatives are very open-minded. It depends on the person though and the specific topic, not the party or ideology.

The bottom line is you implied a very lazy generalization, and you seem like you are a better thinker than that. That's all I will say on the subject. Last word is yours.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 12:19 PM

Wonder if this is the year the winner of the presidential election will have a relatively large win in the electoral college but receive several percentage points less in the popular vote?

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 5:38 PM

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/...

Some of this should sound familiar.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 7:01 AM

This is interesting.

"First, jobs have historically, without exception, been created at a much faster rate under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

Look at the 64-year period from the start of Harry Truman's presidency to the end of that of George W. Bush (1945-2009).

During the 28 years of Democratic administrations in that period, 57.5 million new jobs were created, an average of 2.05 million per year.

During the 36 years of Republican administrations in that period, 36.2 million new jobs were created, an average of 1.0 million per year."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 10:26 AM

I don't owe O'Reilly an apology. If you think what he did was an actual apology, though, I will offer O'Reilly an apology and only he can apologize.

I apologize Bill, that even after you said there was no way the Supreme Court would uphold the AFA and that you would apologize you still managed to look and sound like a bumbling buffoon.

I apologize Bill that you are not honest enough to call yourself Conservative and that you do not attack people who disagree with you.

I apologize Bill that your understanding of History is so horrific (despite your degree) that to this day you still have not corrected your senseless dragging of our military through the mud in order to protect George W. Bush (the incident I am referring to Bill is when you claimed that American soldiers massacred Nazi soldiers during WW2 at Malmedy, that fact that it was the other way around somehow escaped you).

But more than anything Bill I apologize to you personally that you have the need to go on Fox News day in and out and lie about what is going on.

I'm sorry Bill.

Whew! I feel better.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 6:22 PM

I wonder, what is your opinion of the Obama administration/Holder DOJ's lawsuit against the Gallup organization?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Aug 24, 2012, at 9:43 PM

I think the Gold standard talk is about the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. Ron Paul might have just given Obama a gift.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 7:08 AM

I think the gold standard is a great idea. The fed, just like anyone else should have collateral to back up their debt. Gold, unlike any other type of property, is stable.

But on a serious note, we know more about Mitt Romney's tax returns than we do with Obama's birth certificate and his college transcripts.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 7:16 AM

Fact: the birth certificate nonsense has been put to bed by all reasonable (non-Trumpian) humans.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 9:09 AM

Thanks Michael, for the non-apology apology. Apparently it strikes a nerve with you. And I find it wonderful that your knowledge of history is so much more accurate and concise than any one elses. A great big congratulations to you.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 9:09 AM

Based on your Gold Standard logic the most prosperous country in the World is South Africa?

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 9:33 AM

The fed does have collateral. It is the assets of the United States of America. That is land and mineral resources and timber and 20% of the GDP of the country. Our country has over $200 Trillion is assets. Buying gold from a foreign country is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. The United States owns more Natural Gas reserves and Oil reserves than all of the Gold in the World.

Therefore basing our entire monetary system on yellow metal seems foolish to me. It would destroy the country.

Fed Chairman Bernanke is the reason we are as solvent as we are. The last Congress and this President are the biggest impediments to the US that I have lived to see. Paulson and Bernanke saved the day.

I also think selling our debt to foreign countries is genius. If we do default (we will not) who better to stick it to than foreign countries??

The United States dollar is the world currency. We should get a premium for our stability. Where else are you going to go? The Euro is on the brink - Japan is in a 23 year slump with a real energy issue - The Middle East is near more War - You have seen regime change in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria soon.

Despite President Obama and and his sheer lunacy the Federal Reserve has orchestrated the greatest save ever. First they had to deal with a credit collapse then this President.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 2:30 PM

Pretty sure Obama re-nominated Bernanke, Wallis. So he got that right you have to admit. I won't argue with you about gold, you are right. But your condemnation of Obama is not accurate and frankly I find it misinformed.

"The bottom line is that over the 64 years leading up to the inauguration of President Obama, jobs were created more than twice as fast under Democrats as they were under Republicans.

In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect), approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.

Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.

That means that the average monthly job loss during the "difficult situation" before Obama's policies took effect was 417,000. Over the last year-and-a-half, the average monthly job gain has been 155,000."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 2:38 PM

We agree to disagree about Obama. His first two years were wasted in my opinion and his reelection will show that. But you have to admit I am not a yes man to everything Republican. If Romney goes to the Gold standard he is a fool (Ron Paul is a fool).

I am going to start talking about Romney as the presumptive winner of the election. I was just at a kids party and the hosts had pictures of themselves with Obama from 2008. They were very to the point that they were Clinton Democrats - voted for Obama because of the hype and were against him this time. Those Obama Democrats are starting to voice their opinion and it isn't 4 more years.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 5:11 PM

I am afraid that polls say something quite different, Wallis. But it doesn't matter who wins, we will get Obama or Obama light. Those are the choices.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 5:50 PM

The polls show Obama 48% and Romney 52%. At least the poll that is always right shows that. Obama is beaten and he knows it. He is going to start acting desperate and really lose votes. We are going to watch 1980 replay. Carter actually was in the race after the convention but that pesky Iran...................

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 7:17 PM

Which poll is that, Wallis. We'd all like to know. You seem desperate.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 1:49 AM

See Mike's other blog. It was right for the 20th Century

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 9:24 AM

Which other blog Wallis?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 11:54 AM

Gold might be putting in a 4th higher low. If we can make a new swing high look for a "fast move up" in Gold.

From August 20,

Gold has had a fast move up and is consolidating the move - today is a 4th day. If we can have an inside day gold could rally for the next 36 days.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 6:21 AM

What in the world is a Clinton Democrat? I have heard of Reagan Democrats and Obama Republicans, but I have never heard of a Clinton Democrat. Wouldn't a Clinton Democrat be a ... Democrat?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 2:21 PM

I loved Romney's acceptance speech last night where he talked about being a family man but really little else. If that speech was designed to garner the few undecideds towards him it failed miserably.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 2:25 PM

What poll are you talking about Wallis. I have searched and have not found a single poll showing Romney with a 52-48 lead.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 2:25 PM

The job approval poll. It is in every poll that all the polling agencies do.

I know you do not think job approval is important. Only private business values a person jobs performance. Unions fight for the least amount a person has to do to keep a job.

Clinton Democrats today are loyal to Hilary out of their affection for Bill. They also hope that he will rub off on her. Clinton Democrats also believe that the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) really want business to be successful. A lot of that has to do with the Clinton legacy. Bill is a considered a good President because the 90's were so much fun until the stock market collapsed (that was in 2000 and the last year of term 2). Since you have never been a bread winner in a family I can see how you are oblivious to this fact.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Sep 1, 2012, at 4:09 PM

BTW I have had my best run ever in the markets over the last 2 months. Once in a decade moves.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Sep 1, 2012, at 4:10 PM

Just saw the Clinton ad where he is trying to get the Clinton Democrats to vote for Obama.

I find is sick that Obama implied that Clinton was a racist 4 years ago and now is going to Bill. Just show's how Obama has had it handed to him.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 1:39 PM

Ignoring yet again another personal attack for no apparent reason, you still haven't answered my question. What is a Clinton Democrat? Unlike the Republican Party where anyone that isn't a conservative Republican are called RINOs and are pushed to the side Democrats are Democrats.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 9:35 PM

I find is sick that Obama implied that Clinton was a racist 4 years ago and now is going to Bill. Just show's how Obama has had it handed to him.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 1:39 PM

Pearl clutching much Wallis?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 9:36 PM

Speaking of the private sector, wallis. Any response that in four years of Obama there have been more private jobs created than the entire eight year period under Bush?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 9:37 PM

How do you know I don't think job approval is important wallis? Have I ever said that? I don't believe I have. Since you decided to try a bait and switch on not only topics but on blogs I have never discredited job approval as a factor. I was merely pointing out that you were solely basing a prediction on job approval and ignoring (and expecting everyone else to ignore) other factors. Job approval is important but it is not and never has been the sole predictor of how a person was doing.

Bush's approval was horrific in his final years as president and yet you continued to defend him to the hilt and now you act that anyone that defends President Obama despite his approval numbers is somehow stupid and ignoring the facts (so says you).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 9:41 PM

I just have to know on this website what the general feelings are that the there was little mention of the troops or Afghanistan at this past week's RNC and no mention what-so-ever by Romney.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Sep 3, 2012, at 11:30 AM

Even the Politico says you're wrong, Michael. You should scale back the hatred so we can get to healing this country.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091...

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Sep 7, 2012, at 5:48 PM

So your link to prove me wrong is Romney comparing thanking the troops to a laundry list?

What hatred am I spewing Mickel. For years we were treated to the Republican party claiming that anyone that didn't consistently and constantly thanking the troops was somehow un-American or hated America. Their candidate for President doesn't do it but now not only is it not a problem, thanking the troops for their service is akin to a laundry list.

I just simply wanted to know what the feelings of the users of the website were about the fact that Romney virtually omitted any mentions of the troops and the military, when he is trying to convince people that he should be the commander of chief and you accuse me of hatred. You are a strange breed Mickel.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 3:42 PM

Maybe it's you and the Republican Party that should attempt to drop the hatred and focus on helping the American people, Mickel.

For four long years all you could focus on was your absolute hatred for the president and anyone not conservative enough.

I don't hate the other political side Mickel. I don't even hate you. I just want factual explanations about why Romney should be president over Obama, and not the typical spin remarks.

If you actually read the article, Mickel, you will clearly see that that Politico isn't saying I am wrong (nor could they since no one at the Politico knows me). They simply reported Romney's excuse for not mentioning the troops more than he did.

I just want you to be able to respond to why, suddenly, it has become okay not to talk about the troops when the candidate is wanting to be commander in chief. Instead, you are trying to turn it back on me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 3:47 PM

"I just want you to be able to respond to why, suddenly, it has become okay not to talk about the troops when the candidate is wanting to be commander in chief."

So are you saying it isn't ok to not talk about the troops in that situation?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 5:03 PM

I'm saying the man could show a lot more gratitude to the job that our troops are doing since he is wanting to be the Commander in Chief.

I don't really understand your confusion SW.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 12, 2012, at 12:21 PM

Michael,

I'm not confused, just trying to get you to stick to a position. Not surprised you couldn't do it.

This: "I just want you to be able to respond to why, suddenly, it has become okay not to talk about the troops when the candidate is wanting to be commander in chief. Instead, you are trying to turn it back on me."

Doesn't indicate that a candidate could show more gratitude to me. If that were the case it would be much easier to simply say sometihng like: "Why didn't he show more gratitude towards the troops?" Instead it indicates that previously it was not okay to not talk about the troops but now it is according to some. I just wanted to know if you were in that some.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM

Please point out to me SW where in my criticizing of Romney seemingly forgetting about the military did I change my position?

Instead it indicates that previously it was not okay to not talk about the troops but now it is according to some. I just wanted to know if you were in that some.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant

That is so typical of you SW. You take a fairly simple comment and attempt to blow it out of proportion and then for the coupe de gras you determine that it must mean that I am changing my position on something. Just more of you changing the narrative or the meaning of what I have said.

I wish over the years your tactics would have changed even a bit, but nope

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 9:29 PM

I realize that the post of this blog is "The Struggling Campaign" but it should really be changed to "The Bungling Campaign".

I have a strong suspicion that his gaffe on attacking the president for something never uttered by the president will go down as defining as McCain's bungling of the financial meltdown of 2008.

We shall see, but point of notice. How Romney handled the last two days was just absolutely horrible. And that smirk, like he had just hit one out of the ballpark. None of what he did was presidential.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 9:35 PM

Neither candidate is acting "Presidential".

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Sep 16, 2012, at 8:29 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)