Lawn sign: Romney/someone 2012 Around Town, posted by Emerle, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:15 am
Now that Newt Gingrich has fallen off a cliff in Iowa, only days prior to their voting, it clears the way for Mitt Romney to storm through the primaries and run as the Republican nominee in the general election.
Who's name will appear with Mitt's on our lawn signs?
The shift to the middle is inevitable - Mitch Daniels or Jon Huntsman as running mate.
Posted by Hand, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:35 am
Not over yet. 2 weeks to Iowa. Maybe Ron Paul wins. Mitt beats Huntsman in NH. Big deal is in South Carolina - Mitt can't win in SC, so is there ANYONE that can compete with Mitt for longer than amonth at a time?
The shooting stars that only lasted a month each - Trump Bachmann Perry Cain Gingrich - can anyone beat Mitt?
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:58 am
It's the flipflopper vs Obama.
Willard Mittens, I mean, not Leroy Newton. Hard to keep track with those two flipping all over the place - mandates, global warming, tax cuts/hikes, big government solutions, calling each other insider/outsider, calling each other rich, etc..
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:25 pm
With Governor Romney's campaign moving the focus this week from the economy to foreign policy, I feel the Governor should pick a strong veep candidate such as General Patreus or someone with similar credentials. How about that Admiral in Pennsylvania - Sestak? He defeated Arlen Spector.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2012 at 8:19 am
I can't believe the liberal media. This is insane to be writing this
Why would anyone ever trust the washington post?
> No fewer than three Romney claims in that one speech merited PolitiFact’s “Pants on Fire” rating: that Obama led “a government takeover of health care,” has been “apologizing for America abroad” and is ending “Medicare as we know it.” Romney’s assertions that Obama “is the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare” and that eliminating Obamacare saves “about $100 billion” were rated false.
> That Romney resorts to such gratuitous falsehoods discredits his leadership more than his opponent’s.
Might as well be the washington democrat national post
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 9, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Mitt has the nomination sewn up.
Or does he?
AP reports GOP Super Delegates are holding out for a brokered convention. Over 2/3rds of the Super Delegates STILL do NOT support Romney. Romney only has 35 of 120 GOP Super Delegates Web Link
That comes close to the percentage of Republican voters that do NOT support Romney - 59% still do not like Mitt. Web Link Look at the mainstream media method of reporting that 59% of republicans do NOT SUPPORT Mitt - "Romney lead continues to grow" Talk about burying the headline!
Is there hope for conservatives to avoid the Etch-A-Sketch?
In VP news, it was revealed that Mitt himself gave John McCain 23 years of tax returns during the VP vetting process in 2008. The returns presented so many problems, McCain went with the safer choice, Gov Palin. Based on that, the Romney campaign says they will not release the names of VP candidates they intend to vet. Or is it a way to hide the fact that conservatives are not exactly lining up to be on Romney's losing team? Web Link
Conservatives will reject the Massachusetts Moderate and turn to a candidate with consistent credentials.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 12, 2012 at 10:57 am
The rare (for anyone not named Mitt) triple flip flop. Today from the moderate, on VP consideration: Web Link
“Everybody is on my list,” said Romney in answer to a voter who asked whether he would consider former presidential candidate Rick Santorum as his running mate. “Everybody is on my list. I’m not taking anybody off the list, alright?”
To be refuted a moment later-
“I actually don’t, I don’t have a list, yet,” said Romney. “So I can’t say someone is on or off my list.”
And the hat trick - he DOES have a list, that he doesn't have, that has people on the list-
“But I can tell you that the people who I had the privilege of running against would surely be among those I would consider,” said Romney. [...] “So of course they’d be on that list — and he, among others,” Romney said of Santorum.
Well done, sir. It takes a moderate to flip every which way. The GOP is going to get a McCain size crushing again, unless we can get a real conservative.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Those who support President Obama's re-election shouldn't get overconfident, much less smug. This is probably going to be a very close election and come down to a few thousand votes in one or two swing states.
Mr. Romney's car elevator won't be particularly relevant if the Euro fails, gas hits $6, unemployment starts trending up, or the Supreme Court declares the new healthcare law unconstitutional. And if there's some major activity in North Korea or the Middle East, all bet's are off.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm
If an 'October Surprise' happens, then sure, all bets are off. Most the likely Oct scenarios are not going to help the President.
Failing any of the 'ifs' listed above, Myth Moderate might get creamed.
SCOTUS - probably will void the mandate, but not guaranteed, just my read so far. Not sure how either campaign is going to capitalize, as Obama probably has plans to run on an overturn, and the Moderate can't say much about his own plan.
* Korea - wildcard, new leader is probably an idiot, but may want to feed his people with US wheat. The missile failure was something.
* If Euro fails, a Euro financial crisis or a US crisis, then Obama's toast. As is our economy.
* Gas won't hit $6. Look at the gas price charts from 2008.
Best VP considerations:
1. Patreus or someone with a strong security background in case Korea or the Mideast blowup. If Myth places his chips on that bet and hits, he wins big.
2. Defend a state. Pick Rubio to try and retain Florida; if Myth loses Florida, it's the first step to a landslide like McCain's loss. Alternative - Pawlenty to make the democrat party play defense in TP's home state.
I still can't believe it's Romney representing conservatives.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2012 at 7:44 pm
We don't get to pick ANY candidate in an election. We only get to pick the ones on the ballot.
You don't have to love - even like - a candidate to vote for them. Those on the left won't vote for Mr. Romney, regardless of their disappointment in President Obama. Those on the right won't vote for President Obama regardless of their discontent with Mr. Romney. That accounts for about two-thirds of the voting public.
So, as in all elections, the independent third will decide. If the economy is perceived as improving, President Obama's chances for re-election improve. If not, Mr. Romney has a slightly better than 50-50 chance.
The "October Surprise" won't be of President Obama's making. International events are always a wild card and you simply cannot predict if they will galvanize a nation or polarize it.
An while this may prove to be upsetting you can take solace in Obame winning California. Fly-over Country will carry the day for Romney. He will win Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida all of which went for Obama in 2008. And with his approval rating above 50% in only 10 states
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
Romney fan - you're well aware of gordon, why would you fall into the trap of responding to him?
re: the Gallup poll, both Gallup and Fox/Rasmussen have Romney up, the rest have Obama up -
-(CNN/Opinion Research): Obama d. Romney (52-43)
-(Gallup Tracking): Romney d. Obama (47-45)
-(Ipsos/Reuters): Obama d. Romney (47-43)
-(Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (47-44)
re: independents and DTS; Romney's problem is too many of those are women and Latinos, and he's getting clobbered in both groups, 60/40 and almost 70/15
re: Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida; national polls are misleading, one needs to look at the swingstate polls, and that's where Romney is in trouble. Of the four, the aggregate polls in each state only show Romney close in NC
- Romney has to win Florida's 29 or he loses, right now he's down in Florida
- Romney almost has to win Ohio's 18, hard to see a path otherwise but possible, Romney's down depending on the specific poll in Ohio
- Romney's down in aggregate polls for VA's 13, Romney might win NC's 15, if he doesn't he's probably in the middle of a landslide that will result in the following sign on your lawn in a couple years....
And the ads showing Myth talking out of both sides of his mouth haven't even started yet. Nor has the public realized that Mitt gave McCain 23 years of tax returns, that's why McCain went with Sarah Palin.
Obama has released ten years (despite Mitt's lie yesterday about only two,) and Romney's FATHER released 12 years of tax returns.
How many Caymen Island and Swiss bank accounts is Mitt hiding? How much in taxes did the presidential candidate avoid paying in the last ten years by hiding money overseas?
Your hubris about "fly-over country" is misplaced, the swing states have large airports in them. Heck, I've landed in all of them except Indiana (11 ev), Iowa (6 ev),and New Hampshire (4 ev).
Posted by Independent, a member of the Woodside School community, on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Read the book Confidence Men to see why you shouldn't want Obama as President a second term. So many missed opportunities to clean up the country's problems - the White House was hijacked by Larry Summers and Tim Geitner. If Obama wins again he lacks leadership ability (still), so that someone else (Summers is gone and Geitner announced he will not continue next term)will hijack the White House. Let's learn from the first term.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Govenor Romney should prevail in the upcoming presdential election.
First Governor Romney has to win the states that McCain won in 2008. If Obama could not win these states in a year where he had every advantage, the chances of him winning them now as his popularity has sunk precipitously are rather slim. McCain carried 22 states overall, and this offers a solid foundation for Governor Romney.
Additionally, the McCain states actually gained six electoral votes from the last election cycle due to census changes, while solid Obama states lost the same amount.
The states in the “should win” category are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The only state in the list that the Obama campaign will probably wage a serious effort is Missouri, a state McCain won by less than 1%. Winning these conservative leaning states will give Governor Romney 180 of the required 270 electoral votes.
With only 90 electoral votes to go, the next goal is to win states that typically vote Republican, but went with Obama in 2008. Indiana (11 electoral votes) and North Carolina (15 electoral votes) should be the low hanging fruit for Governor Romney. Obama won both by less than 1% and are states George W. Bush carried by wide margins. Virginia (13 electoral votes), which was carried by Bush with 54% and has had a recent GOP resurgence, is a probable win for Governor Romney.
The next two states are winnable with a good ground campaigh. Florida (29 electoral votes) is probably the singularly most important state for Governor Romney. Obama carried the state by less than 3% in 2008, one of his weaker showings. Bush won Florida twice, including by 5% in 2004. Since Obama’s election, the GOP has swept nearly every political race in Florida. The GOP has greater than two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers. Marco Rubio, a potential vice-presidential pick, easily won his Senate race while Rick Scott won the governorship. Republicans also hold 19 of 25 congressional seats. Florida should go in the win column for Governor Romney”.
After Florida, Ohio (18) is probably the second most important state. Ohio went for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 before tilting Obama’s way in 2008. All three races were decided by fewer than 5%. In 2010, Ohio saw a a Republican resurgence as John Kasich upset an incumbent Democrat in the gubernatorial election and Rob Portman scored a huge victory in the US Senate race.
The race essentially comes down to needing a single victory in any number of states. At this point, the Republican nominee could have 266 of the needed 270 delegates for victory. Of course, should Governor Romney lose one or more of the above states, they could easily be substituted with the states listed below.
Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5) Pennsylvania (20), and Wisconsin (10) all provide ample opportunity for victories. With the exception of Colorado, all of these states saw big victories for tea party and conservative candidates during the 2010 GOP comeback. These are also states where Bush had either won or was very competitive in both 2000 and 2004.
The Obama advantages of 2008 hav evaporated. His signature achievement Obamacare is widely unpopular and will most likely be struck down by the SCOTUS. The unemployment rate is still higher than when he took office and the number of people in the workforce is dropping dramatically. Gas prices have doubled. Unable to talk about his accomplishments, Obama's plan for victory is to launch class, gender, and racial attacks against Governor Romney. If the electoral trends of the last three years continue to hold then Governor Romney Should be taking his oath of office on January 20, 2013
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2012 at 2:37 pm
"If the electoral trends of the last three years continue to hold then Governor Romney Should be taking his oath of office on January 20, 2013" Funny, Romney already thinks he's going to do it twice, look at his fundraising email for "Founding Members of 'Romney Victory'" - "have preferred status at the first Presidential Inaugural retreat". No arrogance there, eh?
Pretty big "if", depending on 2010 levels of republican support and democratic party apathy in a presidential. Look at the popularity of the GOP governors in the states you talk about - Kasich on OH, Scott in FL, etc... those guys couldn't win a dog catcher seat with their current numbers.
Pennsylvania is not a swing state. If Obama loses that (and the aggregate polls don't show that) then it's a landslide, but lets get back to reality.
Obama won by carrying the blue base states (2004 states) plus the ten swing states - the base states are California 55 ev's, Connecticut 7, Delaware 3, District of Columbia 3, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maine 4, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, Michigan 16, Minnesota 10, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Oregon 7, Pennsylvania 20, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, Washington 12, Wisconsin 10
That's already 242 ev's. Romney doesn't pick up any of those as things currently stand, assuming things don't fall apart.
Leaves the 10 swing states: Colorado 9 ev's, Florida 29, Indiana 11, Iowa 6, Nevada 6, New Hampshire 4, New Mexico 5, North Carolina 15, Ohio 18, Virginia 13. Obama needs just 29 of that swing total 116 to add to his base 242.
Romney HAS to win the big three swing states Florida, Ohio and N Carolina or it's effectively game over.
Just the blue base states plus Florida and Romney's done: 242 + 29 = 271
Florida - Rubio just said AGAIN that he isn't going onto a potentially losing ticket and ruin his rep going into 2016; Romney will not campaign with Rick Scott because he's toxic. Florida will see fifty million in ads from both sides. Obama is up roughly 6 in the aggregate polls (includes Rasmussen) as of last week. Be a good time to be selling TV ad time on Florida stations this summer!
Besides Florida, the GOP has to play defense in any number of combos: Ohio/Virginia (Obama leads both right now); a Western strategy NM CO NV & IN, a plains plan CO IN IO etc...
Romney can do it, it's just really bad math unless he breaks the lock on the blue base states and the 242 votes they represent.
IMO, Romney can't do it with his unfavorables, which will not get better once the advertising starts. "Mitt Romney has emerged from the Republican primary season with the weakest favorability rating on record for a presumptive presidential nominee in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 1984, trailing a resurgent Barack Obama in personal popularity by 21 percentage points." ABC has him at 35%, Gallup at 42%.
Bad favorables, even worse than McCain. There was a reason McCain lost 365 - 173.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm
just to follow, Romney's already spent $100 Million, mostly on negative ads, that's why his unfavorables are where they are.
His post primary bounce has him up in the Gallup mentioned above, but it's the state polls that will matter. We'll see a bunch of post-primary state polls in the next couple weeks. Should be interesting reading for the gearheads among us that love the minutiae....
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 7:34 am
Most Polls show a liberal bias. They "salt" the samples by interviewing in geographic locations that are heavily democratic. The sample polling is neither random, or representative--two key criteria for objective polling. Consequently, you get misleading results.
For example, the day the Democratic convention ended in San Francisco in 1984, the Newsweek poll showed Walter Mondale 18 points ahead of President Ronald Reagan. Mondale ended up getting eviscerated, 49 states to one plus Washington D.C. with President Reagan garnering 525 electoral votes and Walter Mondale 13.
The 2012 electoral vote should be in the vicinity of 301 votes for Governor Romney and 237 votes for President Obama. Of course the West Coast, Illinois and New England, with the exception of New Hampshire will be in Obama's Column. But common sense will prevail and people will judge President Obama by his disastrous record of non-accomplishment and will not be fooled by his beguiling and disingenuous rhetoric.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 9:39 am
"Most Polls show a liberal bias." blah blah blah... a blanket statement without substantiation, or you just don't know how credible polls are documented, or you don't want to know.
If they 'salt' a specific poll as you say, it's obvious in the crosstabs.
The best example you have is from almost 3 decades ago, and without substantiation, or a link. The story notes two unrelated facts - one is a poll in June, another is the result in November.
Once I hear such a disregard for polls, numbers, results, etc.. on open forums, I'm always interested in what math or science the poster DOES believe in - Romney Fan, do you believe in evolution?
re: 301 votes for Romney - are you claiming Romney will win all the swing states to get that total? all these: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia?
Also: can you discuss an election without rhetoric? For example: "disastrous record of non-accomplishment" indicates you are either a lying surrogate or a Fox viewer. To not acknowledge what is obvious even to Romney himself is a bit frightening; it also means I should not likely find any discussion with someone who denies reality (polls, science, economic facts) to be a fruitful discussion.
Lastly: who do you think will accept being his veep candidate?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 am
Polls are usually remarkably accurate - but as of the date they are taken. People often cite how "wrong" a poll taken in April was about the November results. Yes, things change.
But there is no such thing as a perfectly objective poll. All polls have selection bias and question bias... and they readily admit it. Some polls canvass "citizens," some "registered voters," some "likely voters" (and how they define "likely voters" differs dramatically!). And each poll has a cost - likely voters are much harder to poll than citizens because there are fewer of them.
One thing is clear, however. The polls are incredibly close. Mr. Romney leads in some, President Obama others. Here's a pretty good summary from RealClearPolitics.com Web Link
Anyone who thinks November will be a blow out - either way - is probably mistaken. This one is gonna be close and it will probably be determined by a few thousand people in a few swing states.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:08 am
I meant to add that there is a "question" bias also.
If I ask you, are we on the right track or wrong track, that will indicate one thing. But if I ask you, do you agree with the way President Obama's policies - strongly? mostly? somewhat? a little? not one bit? - I've provided the respondent with four answers that would still support President Obama and only one answer - and one that is highly negative and requires very decisive disagreement - that does not. Then, the pollster gleefully reports that only a few percent of respondents "disagreed" with the President's policies!
This happens a lot more than you might think. Unless you take the time to read the details of the survey, you'll never know.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 11:44 am
Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.
During the full eight years that George W. Bush served as president, the federal government's debt increased by $4.899 Trillion (Rising from $5.728 Trillion to $10.627 Trillion.)
Governor Romney has a lot of ammunition to throw against the Obama Administration, e.g., the deficit growing from 1.6 billion dollars a day under Bush, to 4.2 billion dollars a day under Obama. That's 2.6 times faster in a little over three years. So far, the strongest attacks against Romney have been personal or ad hominem, obviously diversionary in intent. That likely won't be enough to cut it.
So the question is do you really think that people are that gullible to vote a second term for Obama so that he can increase our budget deficit by another $5 Trillion?
California will not decide the election. Independents in swing states will decide and they are, understandably, very disappointed with Obama's moribund performance on the economy, unemployment, lack of energy policy, continuing the unwinnable war in Afghanistan, and appointing terrible people to high office (Van Jones, Martha Johnson, Tim Geithner among others)
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 3:47 pm
"So the question is do you really think that people are that gullible to vote a second term for Obama so that he can increase our budget deficit by another $5 Trillion? "
Do you really think people are gullible enough to vote for Romney, who will repeat all the same policies that put our economy in the same mess again?
'Romney fan' conveniently neglects to mention that Bush was handed a SURPLUS and left Obama our first trillion dollar DEFICIT, on top of an economy shrinking at -8% GDP a quarter while hemorrhaging half a million jobs a month. Romney is using Bush advisers, offering more tax cuts for billionaires, nothing for job creation, won't hold press conferences to answer questions, won't release the same tax returns as his father did, etc...
I'm not going to get 'Romney fan' to admit those facts, but am interested in getting him back on topic or to perhaps answer the questions I asked.
- veep choice? (Rubio just said again this week he won't risk being with romney)
- which swing states does he include in his 301 vote prediction (almost needs all of them for 301) and why does he think Romney will get those states (can RF answer without regurgitating Fox talking points and falsehoods?)
- don't believe in math and polls, do you believe in evolution, or is it just a theory to you?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 4:17 pm
ECR asks: "...can you discuss the election without rhetoric?"
...right after making this statement: "'Romney fan' conveniently neglects to mention that Bush was handed a SURPLUS and left Obama our first trillion dollar DEFICIT, on top of an economy shrinking at -8% GDP a quarter while hemorrhaging half a million jobs a month. Romney is using Bush advisers, offering more tax cuts for billionaires, nothing for job creation, won't hold press conferences to answer questions, won't release the same tax returns as his father did, etc...
Talk about rhetoric. Everyone seems to be guilty of the very charges they are leveling at others.
Suggestion: take a very long look in the mirror...
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
rhetoric: "appointing terrible people" "moribund performance" "disappointed " "are that gullible" "most Polls show a liberal bias" "plan for victory is to launch class, gender, and racial attacks" "the Obama Malaise" etc...
Of course the "disastrous record of non-accomplishment" quote isn't rhetoric, it's a falsehood. Example - turning Bush job losses of 500,000 a month into 23 months of consecutive private sector job growth is hardly a 'non-accomplishment'.
I stand by the facts in "Bush was handed a SURPLUS and left Obama our first trillion dollar DEFICIT, on top of an economy shrinking at -8% GDP a quarter while hemorrhaging half a million jobs a month. Romney is using Bush advisers, offering more tax cuts for billionaires, nothing for job creation, won't hold press conferences to answer questions, won't release the same tax returns as his father did, etc..."
What do you dispute? You can argue that Romney's tax cuts for billionaires will have a small trickle down effect on jobs, unfortunately the Bush tax cuts proved that a fallacy.
Do you dispute the Bush advisers working for Romney?
When was the last time the presumptive GOP nominee held a press conference and answered more than a couple questions?
Romney's dad released 12 years of tax returns. Obama has released 10 years. Romney gave McCain 22 years of tax returns. What was in them that forced McCain to choose Palin over Romney?
Romney has released two. Even those two sanitized returns (he's been running for 7 years, ferchrisssakes!) showed the evidence of Cayman Island and Swiss bank accounts.
Posted by Independent, a member of the Woodside School community, on Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was Gov. I'm not a republican but thought Romney was good. My democrat friends in Mass respected him. He was fair and had excellent leadership skills. If he was able to be a successful gov. in a blue state like MA than he can be a fair leader of the country.
We need a woman VP. There are many qualified women out there.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 19, 2012 at 9:15 am
"Anyone who thinks this gonna be a cake walk for President Obama is sadly mistaken."
Either way, per 'Romney fan's' insistence of a rout.
Primaries had little negative advertising by anyone other than Romney, Mitt spent $100 million, more than the rest combined, over half of it attack ads. Even so, his unfavorables are the worst in history for a candidate.
It'll be interesting. As I said above, Romney's post primary bounce has him up this week, it will be most telling in the next couple weeks to see how that translates to the swing state polls. Is he picking up votes there, or just the straggling Republicans in red states or deep blue states who have not supported him as the moderate flip flopper.
Go past the CBS/NYT poll headline and check out the 'vision of government' questions. Shows a lot of upside for a particular candidate.
Posted by Raging Moderate, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 19, 2012 at 9:28 am
I saw one name on the Veep list yesterday that made me think "hmm, that could be a darn good choice for Mitt"
Much more experience than Rubio. More game-changing than Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. And unlikely any cringe-worthy interview moments during the campaign ala Sarah Palin.
Besides the obvious: African-American, Woman; she is also very smart and has strong foreign policy experience which Mitt lacks. She also meets the test (IMHO) of being able to fill in if the Mitt wins and is somehow incapacitated.
That won't move CA or NJ over into the "R" column in November, but it might prove enough to swing a couple key states like OH or NC.
Yes, she was known as the "dragon lady" at Stanford, but she could hold her own in a debate against Joe Biden and she would get the attention of many moderates, which is where the race will be decided.
The question is, will she scare even more conservatives away?
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 19, 2012 at 10:04 am
"Much more experience than Rubio. More game-changing than Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie."
Those guys won't touch the veep slot on what has looked until recently to be a losing ticket. They're all angling to be fresh in 2016. Quit dreaming.
Rice is the most popular on the GOP list, as I was surprised to see yesterday also. Funny that the GOP thinks of itself as a national security party and would consider Condi.
Small little problem: "Kindaliesalot" (ask the 9/11 widows) Rice and 9/11
This Web Link makes Condi a political non-starter, a complete liability, especially running against the team that actually killed Bin Ladin.
The President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, was headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." Former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice continues to insist that the brief did not amount to a real warning.
Over 50 warnings about an imminent attack and our NSA tells us the PDB titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" was somehow just a historical backgrounder! Then, one month later.....
Such failure, and conservatives want her on a ticket OVER THE GUY WHO GOT BIN LADIN?!?!?!?!?!? Seems like the party of national security is clearly the Democratic Party!
Here's a great candidate for Romney - women love him by a 20 point margin, he can get the Latino vote required in over half the swing states, has the experience to take over, proven success at creating jobs in a terrible economy, great wife and kids, great foreign policy success, just the guy, I can see the lawn sign already.......
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 19, 2012 at 10:34 am
I still recall watching the experts and pundits who were in full-sweat panic as those unexpected results started coming in after the November 2010 election.
This election isn't about dogs on roofs of cars or roofs of mouths, it's going to be about the economy. If the economic trends are good, that will bode well for President Obama. If not, he'll probably have a one term presidency - as even he predicted.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 20, 2012 at 11:51 am
Maybe Romney has the guts to fight, after all. Hope to see more of this side:
"NRO: Are you following the GSA scandal? How pervasive is a culture of waste within the federal bureaucracy — is it endemic or a few bad apples?
Romney: I think the example starts at the top. People have to see that the president is not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of the overall economy and the state of the American family."
Wish the reporter could have got a few hints on VP choice.
Posted by oh please, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Oh this is just too rich. This jerk of a GSA bureaucrat decides to have a grand stinking party on the taxpayer and it's because the president takes elaborate vacations and is an extravagant spender? JML, are you for real?
We have become an anything-goes culture in terms of ethics: Anything goes as long as we don't get caught. It has unfortunately and destructively become the American Way.
Take a look at the front page of this morning's Chronicle: The story about this GSA official's outrageous behavior is just above a story about students at Berkeley High being suspended for hacking into the computer system to alter -- for pay -- other students' attendance records. In both cases, the offenders were wallowing in the cheaters/ liars/anything-goes culture. They just got caught.
To blame bad behavior on the president's example is just too ridiculous to consider legitimate by any thinking person. Romney just proves over and over again that he's anything but a thinking person and is utterly ill-equipped for the job of president.
Posted by oh please, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm
POGO, you surprise me. Your posts are usually so reasonable, yet somehow you presume to know my opinions on matters I didn't address. Opinions I offered no hint about.
I commented on 1) Mitt Romney's idiotic comment, and 2) what I believe is a culture that encourages and accepts cheating, lying, and other bad behavior for personal gain, as long as the culprit can get away with it.
For all you know, I voted for George W. Bush, yet you presume to know my opinion about his vacation habits -- which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Perhaps you'd like to address the subject at hand: Mitt Romney's statement as quoted by JML. Was Romney's statement OK in your mind? Did it have substance, display logic, offer anything useful to the discussion? I don't presume to know your opinion about it, even though you presume to know my thoughts. So what do you think?
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:36 am
Romney actually had the guts to say that??
Romney: I think the example starts at the top. People have to see that the president is not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of the overall economy and the state of the American family."
Since Pogo brought up Bush vacations, let's count the days... uh-oh! Appears old Dubya spent THREE times as much time on vacation as Obama. Bush spent so much time on vacation, he shattered Reagan's long held record.
But, of course, it is about Romney statement about "elaborate vacations". First of all Mitt, one can't have a vacation unless one is working, and Mitt's been on a 7 year vacation.
Being unemployed, as Mitt told some real unemployed people on the trail, is a tough job. So empathetic!
So Mitt hangs out at home instead of "elaborate vacations". Mitt just sold his $4 million ski chalet a couple years ago, so no vacations there. So Mitt is down to the ten million dollar 'cabin' at Lake Winipasaukeewhatever, the multimillion dollar beachfront dive in La Jolla, soon to be remodeled with a car elevator, sheesh, he was really slumming there, wasn't he? How many other places do you 'hang out' at, Mitt?
Mitt and McCain - two peas in a pod. When they talk about Americans discussing the economy around their kitchen tables, they speak from experience - between the two of them, they own so many kitchens, they can't keep track of them all!!
At least McCain has been able to keep a job.
Noted: Mitt said that the same day he gave a speech at a closed down factory with a banner implying blame on Obama.
The factory actually closed under Bush.
Great advance work by the team.
Are we done with the 'PDB-VP' Rice suggestions already?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Sorry for the late reply. I don't spend all of my waking hours monitoring The Almanac's website.
Mr. Romney said that the President should set an example. As the head of several companies during my career, I completely agree. Now, beyond that, there is clearly a disconnect with his comment that the President of the United States should refrain from "elaborate vacations" because EVERY vacation that a President takes is an elaborate vacation. So Mr. Romney said something that wasn't perfectly constructed or thought out? And that's supposed to be newsworthy? So has Mr. Obama (and I'll spare you the list so you don't have to accuse me of repeating talking points).
The reason I "jumped" on oh please was this statement: "Romney just proves over and over again that he's anything but a thinking person and is utterly ill-equipped for the job of president." Based on this thread and the comment at hand, that was quite a revealing statement.
Regardless of how you feel about his politics, Mr. Romney gave away his entire inheritance, was an incredibly successful businessman, the Governor of a major state, organized a very troubled and problematic Olympics into a major success and a generous philanthropist.
Even those who know and oppose Mr. Romney have never asserted that.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Sorry, I hit the submit button just a little too quickly.
My final word...
You may not agree with his politics - I don't agree with all of his positions either - but Mr. Romney is anything but a lightweight. He has a remarkable resume, a terrific organization, has raised a ton of money and won more delegates than all of his rivals combined.
The New York Times published a story TODAY about how Mr. Obama's fundraising efforts have fallen well short of expectations. On the other hand, Mr. Romney's have exceeded expectations by a wide margin.
As I've said before, I think this will be an extremely close contest. If I supported President Obama, I would worry why he doesn't enjoy a far more significant lead after Mr. Romney's battering during the very long and painful Republican primaries. Just wait until the focus turns to Mr. Obama's performance...
Posted by Fool me once shame on you, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2012 at 10:18 am
President Obama promised a fresh approach to Government and all we got was ineptness and bungling not to mention scandals. In retrospect Secretary of State Clinton should have got the nomination. She is far better qualified and would have done a wonderful job. Now we are in a pickle.
Romney will present a real challenge and frankly I am considering voting for him. Although I am more closely aligned to President Obama's values he has, not at all, been able to execute. At least Romney gets things done. He is by far not perfect; but considering President Obama's abysmal record I feel I have no choice.
Obama lines up with your values but you may consider the guy who doesn't share your values because he may 'execute' his values (that don't match yours) better.
Right. Makes perfect sense.
You also gave it away with the your first two lines. So called "ineptness and bungling " that took job losses of 700,000 per month and has given us 23 consecutive months of job growth. GDP growth turned around from negative to positive. Out of Iraq. Lilly Ledbetter fair pay for women. ACA cuts waste and fraud in Medicare, prevents insurers from dropping you when you get sick, etc...
Romney wants to force more debt on our children and grandchildren by giving a trillion dollar tax cut to millionaires and billionaires in this time of great deficit, supports medically unnecessary forced probes on women, wants to restrict hormonal contraceptives, eliminate Planned Parenthood, hires Bush advisers to run his campaign AND foreign policy (because they did so well the first time!)
Yup. Lots of shared values there.
Independent: want me to stick to the topic of VP choice? Already addressed the VP choices offered, even gave a suggestion. As far as sticking to the topic, you must mean like your first post on "Apr 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm" bashing Obama.
Or maybe when you falsely claimed that Massachusetts loves Romney. You seemed to scroll right past my response "They loved mittens - how many relections did he win? I forgot, how many terms did he serve after he beat Teddy for senator? Yeah, they love him. Think he will win his home state - nope."
Latest name floated - Jeb Bush.
Oh, puuuuuuh-lease. Ain't happening. Wish it would.
Indy - is that topical enough for you?
Romney is already tied to Bush more than enough to give Americans enough discomfort to start popping Tums by the handful.
Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community, on Apr 22, 2012 at 11:37 am
He should find someone who thinks as he does.
A person who has an elevator for his car(cars) at his beach house.
Actually, Romney would be wise to begin creating jobs BEFORE the election. It would show the world that he has that power and he needn't stray from his attacks on Obama in the process. With all of his business advisors, he could be setting up jobs not involving politics and in the business sector for ordinary citizens, and show his capabilities and influence as a civilian. He would be smart to get thousands of homeless and jobless veterans work. Romney never stops reminding us what a terrible job our President is doing.
Posted by Disappointed & Hopeful, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm
In 2008 the press and the superdelegates were taken in my Obama's charisma and threw the far better qaulified Senator Clinton under the proverbial bus.
Just compare the first 3 years of the moribund Obama Administration with the great accomplishments and fiscal restraint of the 8 year Clinton administration which, by the president William Clinton's own admission, was a co-presidency. No one in his or her right mind would even argue that the Obama Admistration was better then the Clintion' administration.
Unless the delegates in Charlotte give Obama a graceful exit and draft the woman who should have been the nominee in 2008 we are setting ourselves up for a Romney victory in November.
Obama had 3 1/4 years to fix the Bush mess and all he did was make it worse. He has not even come close to earning a second term. It is time, for the survival of the Democratic Party, to give Obama the heave-ho in Charlotte and have Hillary Rodham Clinton declared the nominee. Then she can take the reigns and show the world what real leaderhsip is.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm
"Unless the delegates in Charlotte give Obama a graceful exit and draft the woman who should have been the nominee in 2008 we are setting ourselves up for a Romney victory in November."
I would love the more conservative Clinton to be the nominee against Governor Romney!
Is there any chance? I haven't seen a poll or any discussion on it other than a couple boards here.
re your: "all he did was make it worse"
The [portion removed. please don't label or characterize other posters] above keeps posting job creation numbers and all sorts of other lib lies like the 700 thousand jobs lost. Can you prove him/her wrong for me?
Governor Romney needs to choose General Patreaus. He needs foreign policy experts. Or Condi. The lib lies about her and Sept 11, too.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 10:41 am
'Independent' and 'Hand':
Just to settle the false 'Massachusetts loves Mitt' meme.... Mitt chose not be run for a 2nd term in order to pursue his life long dream of losing to John McCain and the embarrassment of being passed over by an unknown for VP.
Mitt abandoned the reelection to governor effort and allowed a democrat to take over - Duvall Patrick.
Way to take one for the team, Mitt.
Oct 5 2005
"A new University of Massachusetts poll shows Governor Mitt Romney (R) trailing any of his potential 2006 re-election opponents. Romney trails Attorney General Tom Reilly — the Dem frontrunner — by 15%. Secretary of State Bill Galvin and former USDOJ official Deval Patrick (D), by contrast, only leads Romney by single-digits. However, if Romney passes on the race to focus on a likely 2008 Presidential campaign, GOP chances of holding the Governor’s Mansion fade even further. The poll showed Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R) trails any of the Dems by wider margins than Romney. Healey trails Reilly by 25%, trails Galvin by 13%, and trails Patrick by 4%."
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 11:14 am
back to topic:
Who are we missing on the list below?
I'm thinking Portman or Ayyotte.
All the bigger names will decline to part of the Romney disaster, or don't want to be tainted by Romney's shift to the middle when they run in 2016 (Rubio, Jeb, Christie.) I left Daniels on the list, but he won't do it - family kept him out this cycle. Thune left on the list, but I think he's looking at 2016 also.
Condi is a moderates' fantasy. That's as close as she gets.... she's literally said 'hell no!' Okay, not literally.... but you get it.
Rand has his big government dada trying to trade delegates, but since Newt and Santorum imploded, delegates aren't an issue.
Ryan's toxic - look at Mitt's speech last night - the foodstamp comment, with lil' Eddie Munster cutting stamps in half? No way that flies. Mitt wass just dancing with him last week to keep everyone happy.
McDonnell was a clear early favorite until his trans-vaginal transgressions. Medically unnecessary forced probes will do that to a campaign. Romeny/mCDonnell would lose women by 35 points.
Santorum has too much at stake in the future to be tarred with the Romney stain he detests.
Haley, Martinez, Thune, Rand, Jindal - none of them deliver a state that Romney isn't going to get anyway.
Portman probably helps in critical Ohio.
Ayotte is probably the best woman for the ticket.
- New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte
- Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
- New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez
- North Dakota Sen. John Thune
- Wisconson Rep. Paul Ryan
- Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell
- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
- Former Sen. Rick Santorum
- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels
- South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
Vanquished foes? Pawlenty's said no. Huntsman was mentioned above. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich?
Hopefully Pogo didn't snort his coffee at that last group...
That, and a dollar, will help replace Pogo's coffee.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I'm still betting on Rubio... and we'll see soon enough. As Charles Krauthammer noted, if Rubio refuses, he will wake up with a horse's head in his bed and accept immediately.
The last thing President Obama and apparently his supporters want to talk about is our incredible and uncontrolled debt, the crown jewel of his legislative agenda about to be declared unconstitutional, taxpayers being hit with an enormous tax increase at year end, yet another looming debt showdown, North Korea and Pakistan testing ICBMs, Iran's development of the bomb, the recession in Europe, and our own stubborn economic recovery. Why do that when we can talk about important issues like dogs in car carriers?
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2012 at 11:01 am
Hadn't noticed I wasn't using titles for women. I'll watch that. Former NSA and Secretary of State Rice is well known for her classical piano. She is multitalented. Besides, the libs are always harping about Obama's basketball skills are him singing some song.
If she won't take it, I prefer Patreaus, although I should look at Senator Ayotte. I just feel that the moderate (not my 1st 2nd or 3rd choice) needs help in the security arena more than women.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:25 am
Romney is giving up on the 'likability' issue after months of polls that show Mitt's unfavorables as too difficult an issue to campaign on.
So it's on to the 'Experience' campaign! (according to Rupert Murdoch's WSJ Web Link )
Mitt's experience as a CEO, slash-n-burn vulture capitalist (according to Santorum, Perry and Gingrich) isn't relevant for a president. Most Americans agree - we were burned once with the Bush 'CEO Presidency'. There's already enough angst that Romney is hiring the Bush team and there isn't any daylight between Mitt policies and Bush.
What's that leave left as experience?
1. Olympics: Mitt bragged about bleeding millions of taxpayer dollars to get the show off the ground. He even bragged about hiring a lobbyist to grab federal money. Is that relevant experience?
2. Governor: Mitt had the 47th worst job creation numbers during his tenure, added large debt to the state and was so unpopular that he couldn't run for a 2nd term. He did have a couple notable achievements...
- Mitt fathered ObamaCare
- Mitt told us he was better for 'the gay' than Ted Kennedy
Maybe Mitt is better off talking about dogs and slow-jamming the news, even when Mitt ends up back on Letterman in a couple weeks.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 9:10 am
Romney fan - are you saying we've had 25% inflation? Can you show me the link to that evidence, please. I want to show my friends.
"With Obama ... a Buck that is only worth 75% of what it was when he took office."
I agree it was not President Bush's fault. The guy up there who says President Bush ran a $1 Trillion Deficit is crazy, he also claims Bush had a Negative GDP of -8% or something, losing 500,000 jobs a month, it's all crazy talk.
Made up by some government bureaucrat mathematician.
Mr Pogo challenged him (the ECR guy) on it as rhetoric.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:28 am
He also did not like the Governor saying this Web Link
The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.
That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on. The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.
The Governor also said "We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains." so Obama listened to him I guess, because I think the stimulus has middle class tax cuts. When are Obama's tax cuts going away?
Posted by Hand, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19 am
A bunch of made up numbers about planes and ships copied from redstate and freeperville without documentation. America still spends more on war than the rest of the world combined. As far as intelligence, Clinton left agencies that gave Bush/Cheney 50 warnings on 9/11.
Including the famous Condi PDB of 6 Aug titled "BinLaden determined to strike in US"
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Romney Fan -
think again. President Obama has so far:
1) supported as many as 3.5 million jobs by cutting taxes; investing in clean energy, roads and bridges; keeping teachers in the classroom; and protecting unemployment benefits. The private sector has now created nearly 3 million jobs during 21 straight months of private-sector growth
2) Kept his word: he brought the war in Iraq to a responsible end and brought home our troops.
3) passed the landmark Affordable Care Act to restore health care as a basic cornerstone of middle-class security in America, making health care more affordable for families and small businesses and bringing much-needed transparency and accountability to the insurance industry
4) has made developing clean energy and protecting the environment a priority, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, investing in clean-energy jobs, and taking steps to improve the quality of our air and water.
And he's just getting started. Given another 4 years and a Congress less ideologically divided, Obama may yet rank among the the best presidents we've ever had.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Romney fan, now you are confusing me. My friend sent me the Governor Romney article I posted above with the Governor supporting stimulus a year before Obama passed the stimulus
Governor Mitt Romney - "That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on. "
Then you say "floundering like a beached whale engorged with stimulus money riding on an oil slick created under Obama's watch." Are you relating that to the recently increased oil production in America? Or the BP oil slick? Or Governor Romneys stimulus idea?
I am very confused, can you stay on one subject and use facts, not Mr Pogo's rhetoric so I can figure it out.
Please stop using the word stupid, it's offensive, I am just trying to understand.
Posted by Hand, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm
"Romney fan" keeps misleading about Bush's job losses, look at the chart -we are digging out -25 months of private sector job growth creating4 million jobs Web Link images/chartbook_images/1.2-monthly-change-OPT.jpg
Over the last two years, the private sector has added 4 million jobs while the public sector has
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Romney fan, what happened to your posts, are you using multiple names again?
Your numbers, President Bush had only a 1% job growth over 8 years. Clinton had 21%. That can't be correct. Look at the chart that Mr Hand was trying to show us Web Link it lists President Bush's last year and the first half year of Obama as really really really bad, but then it gets better.
Can you show me some of the "Libs love to flat out lie about the facts."
I am glad you are staying with one subject at a time and not using the word stupid.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Under Obama's stewardship, we have lost 3.1 million jobs. He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.
Obamacare will most likely be overturned by the SCOTUS. The Government doesn'ht have the right to make people buy insurance. Of Couse The Clinton appointees Breyer and Ginsberg and the Obama Appointees Sotomayor and Kagan will vote to affirm. While Scalia , Kennedy (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41) Roberts and Alito (Bush 43) will vote to overturn.
Clean Energy. Just look at Solyndra's toxic waste dump. How can you call that clean energy.
With Obama it will be 4 years and out. The American Public will resoundingly vote him out of office. But you can take solace in Obama winning California's 55 electors.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Romney fan, I see you found some of the deleted posts, it looks the same as the one you posted this morning. You keep copies, don't you. You are back to multiple themes, it makes it a bit hard to follow and you seem disjointed, kind of like those people outside the stores.
3.1 million jobs lost. 25 months of job growth for 4 million private sector jobs with some public sector losses. You did not comment on the chart but I guess I see how it adds up, lots of losses from President Bush when Obama took over, then the stimulus that Governor Romney and Obama wanted and then the job growth.
Romney fan, isn't it easier to just point people at the chart that describes it all, you use too many numbers when a picture says a thousand words. Do you have any more charts?
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2012 at 8:26 pm
'Romney fan' will never comment on that chart, or any chart that sows the disastrous job situation Bush left, and that Obama has slowly brought back without any GOP help.
Real conservatives, and especially those fringies like 'Romney fan' who are not part of the reality based community, will never acknowledge the chart because it shows too clearly whom is responsible for this recession and resultant job loss.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 7:35 am
Governor Romney is running for President not George Bush. I know Obama will try to make it about Bush and we will focus on Obama's dreary record and his scandals and Governor Romney's record of success. But ultimately it will be Obama's whining and refusal to take responsibility that will do him in. People are getting tired of Obama's Broken Record of 3 1/2 years of blaming Bush.
However, that is not the worst. Obama is driving our country over an economic cliff
Federal spending has escalated by 27 percent since Obama took office. Federal spending in the last year of Bush’s presidency was $2.982 trillion. Spending would rise by $820 billion, or 27 percent, if President Obama’s $3.803 trillion proposed 2013 budget were to become law.
The National Debt under Obama has increased from 10.627 Trillion Dollars to 16.638 Trillion Dollars or over 5 trillion dollars in just a little bit over 3 years and 3 months. This is astounding.
1. Fast & Furious
4. Secret Service
5. Over 5 Trillion acccumulation of debt
6. 39 Months of unemployment over 8%. The worst since the Great Depression
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 10:47 am
Romney Fan -
You clearly have your Republican blinders on very firmly.
You can't seem to recognize that the reason debt has continued to climb under Obama is that the economy, driven off the cliff by policies of George W. Bush, has slashed federal tax revenues by about $800 Billion per year (no taxes from the 8% unemployed and idled businesses) while increasing federal expenditures by about $300 Billion per year for social programs that support those unemployed (mainly food stamps and unemployment insurance). Simple math shows that the revenue loss plus social outlays add up to about $1.1 Trillion per year or about $4.5 Trillion over 4 years.
Blame it on Obama if you will but it's obvious to most rational folks that this unsustainable budget imbalance is almost entirely due to the near depression brought on by Bush's failed policies and failure to regulate Wall Street.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 11:17 am
Romney Fan -
The other reason we need to look beyond the past four years in evaluating the Republican candidate vs the Democratic candidate is that history shows different patterns of behavior that are instructive.
Under Reagan and HW Bush, tax cuts for the wealthy led to an increase in the national debt of about $9 Trillion. Remember how well trickle-down worked? NOT! Web Link
Facing the ballooning deficit left by his Republican predecessors Clinton brought spending under control by pushing through the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that increased income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% by 36 and 39.6 percent. Of course no Republicans voted for it but the added revenue and reduced spending brought the deficit under control such that the government was running actual surpluses from 1997 to 2001!
Had GW Bush continued these policies, the national debt would have been largely eliminated by now. Instead, he passed tax cuts for the rich, started two unfunded wars and passed an unfunded Medicare drug benefit. The reduced revenue and increased spending ballooned the deficit and Bush left office having increased the National Debt by another $3.8 Trillion.
Of course, as I pointed out above, Bush's biggest failure was neglecting to oversee Wall Street, leading to the near depression we're still in now. It's this depression that is largely responsible for the increased debt that has continued under Obama.
Given the profligate history of the last 3 Republican administrations, how can you expect us to support Romney who seems to be promising a continuation of the same failed policies of GW Bush? We already know that if he'd been president 3 years ago, General Motors and Chrysler would be bankrupt and unemployment that much worse.
Of course, if you're already rich, I can see why he might appeal.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 11:26 am
It is the liberals who have the blinders on. Obama is an abject failure by any reasonable measurement. He had dug us into a huge financial hole and has 39 months of straight unemployment, yet you rationalize his every ill advised action as being beneficial to our country.
Fortunately saner minds will prevail outside of California. Yet it will be tough the first year of the Romney Administration because he will have to undo the great harm Obama has caused us. But like President Reagan he won't make excuses. He will roll up his sleeves and gradually put our great nation on the road to recovery.
Socialism just does not work in America or anywhere! It is an antiquated economic system better suited to agrarian economies where outputs are similar. Howver, in a Robust Manufacturing and Services economy Capitalism with Government oversight only to prevent abuses is the way to go. As Winston Churchill said
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 11:44 am
Romney Fan -
The graph you refuse to look at - or at least respond to - doesn't seem to support your claim that Obama is an abject failure. Web Link
Since you can't respond to the objective facts, you resort to name calling. You should at least provide a little evidence for your claim that Obama is a socialist. He might accurately be called a Social liberal, though the progressives might want to argue. But a Socialist? Only in your fevered imagination.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Romney Fan -
Perhaps some will hold Obama fully responsible but I think most voters have a broader perspective and understand that Obama inherited this mess from the previous administration. Polling done last summer when unemployment was still over 9% supports my optimism:
"While Republicans have pushed to cast the sputtering economy as Obama’s fault, Americans place their blame elsewhere. Fifty-one percent say George W. Bush deserves “almost all,” or “a lot but not all” of the blame, while 31 percent said the same of Obama." Web Link
Fear of having to admit he's been wrong about the entire job and economy fairy tale he's been peddling. It's okay though, he is used to the fear, after all, that's most of what they sell on Fox and Rush.
Fear. Be afraid, very afraid. Don't look at the numbers that tell a different story, just be afraid and cower like a frightened.......
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 6:38 am
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the March unemployment rate was 8.2 & our country experienced the 38th consecutive month where unemployment was above 8%. This is the worst unemployment record since the great recession.
Now Libs listen up. Obama has a net jobs loss! I repeat Obama has a net jobs loss! Do you get that?
* 4,317,000 jobs were LOST in TOTAL from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010. That's a decrease of 3.2%.
* 3,577,000 jobs were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until March 2012. That's an increase of 2.77%.
* In total, 740,000 jobs were LOST from the time Obama took office until March 2012.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs under Bush (43).
Obama is trending upward after cratering. But the bottom line is that during the Obama presidency America has a net loss of jobs and under the Bush Presidency America had a net gain of jobs.
But not to worry Liberals will continue to distort the truth in the vain hope that Obama will somehow get re-elected. But it is the vast heartland of America that will repudiate Obama Socialism and vote in Governor Romney who will lead our great country out of the economic quagmire Obama has created.
Obama's legacy will be "Whaaa it is all Bush's fault". Now that is what I call a real mensch!
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 9:56 am
"Now Libs listen up. Obama has a net jobs loss! I repeat Obama has a net jobs loss! Do you get that?"
I am scared for the Right when someone like 'Romney fan' is masquerading as a Conservative and making false claims.
Why don't you comment on the chart posted by others, instead of using disingenuous numbers?
And I don't respect someone who lies about facts, and then claims to be a Romney fan: "out of the economic quagmire Obama has created"
That's makes it easy for everyone to see you are a liar.
Obama did not create this bad economy. Governor Romney said it, McCain's people said it - Obama did not create this mess.
Look at any chart of GDP growth by quarter. My friend sent me this one and it seems clear Web Link
President Bush's recession had a 8% GDP decline in his last quarter; since Obama took over, it rose every quarter where it got into positive territory in 2009.
I am very confused as to why Romney fan feels the need to lie about history to make a compelling case to vote for the conservative choice for president.
It is called Bush's Recession because it was created by George Bush. I thought everyone knew that.
Even Governor Romney flipflopped on Obama making it better. Governor Romney was going around saying Obama made it worse, when confronted, he said "I don't blame the president for the downturn, he didn't cause it. "
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior adviser to McCain's 2008 campaign, concedes that the economy has rebounded. "Let's face it, GDP growth is now positive, not negative. So ... did it get better? Of course."
This is Bush's recession. Why lie about it, when someone lies, it makes the rest of their argument toxic and unbelievable.
There are solid reasons to vote conservative, making up lies just diminishes the choice for too many people.
Now please stop your funny numbers. Let's get back to the topic.
I feel that this weekend's anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Ladan highlights the need for a VP with solid foreign policy and security credentials.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 9:58 am
Romney Fan -
Well, I have to give you credit. From what you just wrote, it looks like you may have actually looked at the graph. However, it's pretty clear you didn't read it correctly. Web Link
You say the trough of the recession was in early 2010. Actually, a trough is the low point in the graph. The graph shows the trough for this recession was the period between Nov 2008 and April or May of 2009 when we were losing jobs at a rate of 600,000 to 800,000 a month. Obama didn't take office until late January so there's no way you an pin this rate of job loss on his policies. This is a recession that began on Bush's watch - due in large part to his failed policies and poor regulation of Wall Street - and that continued into Obama's first year. No way you can pin the economic collapse and those lost jobs on Obama - the graph makes that crystal clear.
What you might have mentioned, if you honestly studied the graph, is that the rate of job loss began to slow in May of 2008, about the time Obama's stimulus plan was beginning to take effect. Probably it was stimulus plus the effect of the TARP and the GM & Chrysler buyouts that began to stabilize the economy and keep things from getting even worse.
I think the American people are smart enough to understand what the data is really saying.
"Mitt Romney on Tuesday ate cheese pizza with firefighters and held a news conference to declare that he would be a tough commander in chief.
At the same moment, President Obama was aboard Air Force One on a secret trip to Kabul, putting the finishing touches on an address to the nation marking the first anniversary of the Osama bin Laden raid he oversaw.
The contrast was both a testament to the power of incumbency and a fresh illustration of one of the more difficult challenges Romney confronts as the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee: to press the case that Obama is weak abroad despite having ordered the raid that killed the world’s most-hunted terrorist."
Governor Romney needs to stay away from Rudy G, he would be the worst choice for VP.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 11:00 am
Jose Rodrigues, the former head of CIA Clandestine Operations with the approval of President Bush authorized enhanced interrogation techniques in limited circumstances and only with close oversight that produced the actionable intelligence.
There would have been no successful capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden if President Bush had not authorized the CIA to employ enhanced interrogation techniques under special circumstances with vigilant oversight. It is only because of enhanced interrogation techniques that we were able to finally locate Osama Bin Laden. These are the techniques that Obama excoriated yet are what ultimately led him to be able to get Bin Laden.
Anyone President (except for Bill CLinton) would have had the courage to do that. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights and failed to act. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is quoted as saying "We can't do that! Muslims will hate us!" Ah, the naiveté of the Clinton Administration.
And there are plenty of Al Qaeda leaders left. What kind of liberal nonsense is it to believe because you got the leader that the terrorist organization would just simply collapse? What have you been smoking? Al Qaeda has a well documented succession plan and other Muslim extremists have filled the "vacant" positions. And hopefully we will continue to create more vacancies.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 11:33 am
Romney fan, did you have trouble concentrating while you were a child in school?
You tell Steve and others above to not blame President Bush yet you go back and give Bush credit for killing Ladan even after someone posted Bush's 'I don't care about him' comment.
Again, after chastising others for going back and blaming things on President Bush, you then yourself go back and blame Clinton.
I am saddened that you have an inability to discuss a given topic without jolting to another issue, as well as using the same tactics you chastise others for using. You swerved into Albright, torture etc..., what do you think of Governor Romney's foreign policy decisions this week, such as firing the adviser?
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Apparently you have an attention deficit disorder. I never gave Bush credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. I only gave him credit for developing the intelligence, which Obama has condemned, to make Seal Team's 6 mission possible. Vice Admiral William McRaven planned the mission and Obama made the obviously correct decision by approving VADM McRaven's plan. Obama is more courageous than Bill Clinton; but no more courageous than any other President.
Posted by JML, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Your words, Romney fan "There would have been no successful capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden if President Bush had not authorized..."
Did not give credit?
Just a tip - the longer you try to belittle Obama over binLadan, the better Obama looks, only the people on the extreme believe what you are saying about the execution, read the polls about bin Ladan. That's why Governor Romney needs a strong VP pick.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm
You are not a logician. Jose Rodriguez developed the intelligence to let Obama know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. If we did not know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding how could we get him? Rodriguez drew the map and Obama, unlike Clinton, followed the map.
The credit should be shared by Rodriguez, VADM McRaven, Seal Team 6, and to a much lesser extent Obama. Giving permission do do the right thing is not hard. Developing intelligence, planning the mission and executing the mission is. The CIA Cladestine Operations and USSOCOM did all the heavy lifting. Obama just gave approval to what any person with a modicum of intelligence would do. So we should applaud Obama for not screwing up?
Don't you love it when liberals, who disdain the military and the intelligence community, will step in with great gusto and take credit for their hard work?
Posted by Bravo, a resident of another community, on May 2, 2012 at 1:49 pm
After all this yapping, I am, as a Republican, with interest in the voting the right president in for not our area, but for the country,
think Romney is just such a bad choice and his running mate will have to be a saint or sinner and nothing in between.
I just cannot picture Romney taking trips abroad to heal our collapsing credibility.I have no problem in letting Obama finish with winning the next four years, all the work he has not been credited for doing.
Romney has aged just during the time to get the nomination. Imagine him in Syria after the hibernation.....more war.
I am a Republican because of my parent's upbringing and I have spent two of my college years traveling the world.
The dinner table discussions now sounds like this one.
Younger people do not want to be left with your mistakes and perilous debt future for the sake of greed.
The gap in just our County is so broad and that is because of most of my peers who do not harbor only goals of riches.We've had them and see what it does to you.
Posted by Romney Fan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 9:04 am
There will be no glee when Obama is defeated in November. Just relief that he was not rewarded for his incompetence. I know he tried but his socialist tendencies handicapped him too much to have anything other than a failed outcome.
Obama is a very personable man. However, he is just way too inexperienced and has an ideology that conflicts with most Americans'. I know that in California people like to flirt with socialism. But to summarize Churchill with Capitalism you have an uneven sharing of wealth and in socialism you have an equal sharing of misery.
Posted by ECR, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 am
"he is just way too inexperienced and has an ideology that conflicts with most Americans"
Romney is too inexperienced - one failed term as governor, unable to be reelected, 47th worst record on jobs, created Rmoneycare; career spent outsourcing jobs and vulture capitalism bankrupting of companies for profit. Spent the last 7 years running for president; his 23 years of tax returns made him unable to be the VP pick in 2008 and he lost out to Sarah Palin.
Romney has the ideology that conflicts with most Americans: in a time of great deficit, Romney wants to give tax cuts to himself and other millionaires and billionaires. Wants to cut aid to poor and eviscerate Medicare.
Completely unqualified inexperience to run against the experienced President who got Bin Ladin, turned around job losses and put our GDP onto positive footing, signed fair pay for women, saved 3 million American jobs in the auto industry, etc...
Obama currently carries swing states Ohio, New Mexico, Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania - if he gets those ones, he wins by over a hundred EV's. Florida is a coin toss, if Obama gets that too, it's another landslide.
Obama has the experience and has the tools to support the American working class, not Romney's millionaires.
Biden said it best: "bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive"