Ann Romney told CNN this morning that women want their President to be a grown up.
“I’m hearing from so many women that may not have considered voting for a Republican before that said it’s time for the grown-up to come,” Romney told CNN. “The man that’s going to take this very seriously. And take the future of our children very, very seriously. I very much believe it’s going to be an economic election.”
“And I think a lot of women may be voting this cycle around in a different way than they usually are,” she added. “And that is thinking about the economy. Thinking about their own jobs, their husbands jobs, but also thinking about the future.”
Wait! They don’t want a child like this President who gets his widdle bitty feelings hurt over a Clint Eastwood speech?
Woops….calling him an immature little twit is racist also I suppose eh?
See author page
Do you remember how San Fran Nan said, after the 2006 elections, said that the speaker’s gavel was firmly in the hands of America’s children?
Truer words were never spoken. And now playtime is over, and the grown-ups have to clean up the mess.
The “grown ups” that you are referring to made the mess. Not the people who have spent the last 45 months attempting to clean up after the binge.
Worse still, the “grown ups” you’re referring to want to set up another such party for themselves. Irresponsible tax cuts, thoughtless deregulation, and empty promises about controlling federal deficits are exactly what set the stage on the previous occasion.
If we’re going to have spending cuts and tax increases–and there’s really no question that we must have both to balance the budget–who should the average American most trust to keep the interests of the majority front and center when they’re made? The GOP?
How can anyone possibly believe that some of the lowest high-end tax rates since the 1950s are suddenly to blame for the nation’s slow economic growth, and consequently must be pushed lower still? The most rapid growth in U.S. history and the most prosperous years for the American middle class came during an era when tax rates for the highest earners were far higher than today. The same can be said of capital gains rates. Ronald Reagan himself opposed making capital gains rates lower than ordinary income rates.
It’s long past time for people to start asking themselves what’s really going on with the current republican agenda.
@Greg:
Odd, isn’t it? Four years ago, the financial meltdown was clearly Bush’s because he was president. Now that Obama is president and has seen worse unemployment in that time, it’s clearly… not his fault… somehow. *cough*
And attempting to clean up the binge? Is that why unemployment is higher now and has been higher since Bush left office? Also, at what point did “the real grown-ups” try to clean up the binge? Was it when they were pushing through Porkulus, which curiously devoted very little money to the private sector and instead rewarded those who donated to Democrats? Or was it when Democrats were busy pushing through Obamacare against the will of angry voters? Or perhaps it was when Boehner agreed to Obama’s debt ceiling demands, but President Grown Up walked out just so he could claim House Republicans weren’t trying to work out a deal? Certainly not at the golf course or fundraisers. Now I know it wasn’t when Obama crowed loudly, got asked a difficult question by Paul Ryan and stormed out like a whiny child, so tell me when was it.
By the by, wasn’t Obama in federal office before the great 2008 meltdown, as well as Pelosi, Reid and more? And weren’t Democrats in charge of Congress in 2007 and 2008? But I guess you wouldn’t want to talk about that.
Oh, I thought it was because of Democrats protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – y’know, the outfits that Democrats curiously didn’t want to regulate. And irresponsible tax cuts? Oh, yeah, I remember how those “irresponsible tax cuts” coincided with 5% unemployment. I also remember how Democrats curiously renewed said “irresponsible tax cuts” instead of replacing them with their ill-defined plans. And empty promises about federal deficits? Totally tuned out Obama’s run, didn’t you? Guess you missed the whole credit downgrade that S&P specifically attributed to Obama’s policies.
I realize this is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp, but face it: Obama screwed up royally. He did not fix the economic problems that began under Bush, he made them worse. That’s why unemployment is higher now than in 2009. That’s why the debt and deficit are out of control. That’s why America no longer has a AAA credit rating.
Let’s never forget that the least experienced individual ever to get the top job bought the hype that sycophantic shills built up – that he could fix such problems with the snap of his fingers. Obviously not, as evidenced by Porkulus and the constant insistence of “Recovery Summer.”
All of that alone is reason enough to throw Obama out of office. His petulant and child-like behavior is just a small part of the package.
@SpideyTerry, #2:
The economic train wreck of 2008 has the same causes today that it had in 2008. History doesn’t retroactively change just because republican revisionists want it to. Nor do the negative effects that linger into the present automatically became the fault of the current president. They become his responsibility to deal with. Which, in my opinion, he has done as well as anyone could have.
Republicans can claim they could have done better. No one can prove that one way or the other, so it’s just something that they’re saying. Like Obama, they have no power over the past. What people should pay attention to is what they say they’re going to do in the immediate future–mainly, exactly what they’ve done before, only more so, with added measures that will fundamentally change Medicare, Social Security, education, environmental protections, and the ability of regular people to work their way up in the world and attain their reasonable and modest American dream. They will favor those who are already most favored, and leave the rest to sink or swim. If the philosophy behind all of that appeals to you, then the GOP is definitely your best bet. Note, however, that there may be some very negative personal consequences. And note also that the real prospects of the GOP achieving a balanced budget are minimal. Spending reductions will simply cover part of the tax cuts, and likely fall short of covering things like defense spending increases. Balancing the budget is just part of the sales pitch. It’s always part of the sales pitch. The devil is in the details–which–as usual–are conspicuous by their absence.
GREG
BALANCE THE BUDGET? WHAT BUDGET? HE DID NOT MAKE A BUDGET ALL THESE 4 YEARS,
AND OBAMA SPEND WITHOUT KNOWING THE LIMIT, HE SPEND THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED THEIR ASS TO PAY FOR HIS EXTRAVAGANZA
What’s this thoughtless deregulation that I see mentioned here? GWB didn’t deregulate anything from what I recall. He GREW gov’t. A president has basically two ways to do things. One is by signing legislation into law. Which means there is a trail of votes in congress we can look at. The other is by executive order. There is also a record of that. So which one is it? Where’s the record of all this single handed GWB deregulation? Where was the outcry at the time by DEMS?
Fact is the housing mess had it’s roots in the 1990’s. There are several books and numerous articles to support that from the late 1990’s and into the early 2000’s.
Try the Great American Bank Robbery or Architects of Ruin or Reckless Endangerment.
Try Howard Husocks year 2000 article The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
@ilovebeeswarzone, #5:
He has proposed budgets exactly as every other president has done. Passing a budget that is acceptable to both side of the aisle and to the president who must sign it is one of the jobs of Congress.
@Mully, #6:
People keep going back to Bush. I haven’t mentioned Bush. There were 12 straight years of republican House and Senate control, the final 6 of which coincided with the first 6 years of the Bush administration. Apparently you feel some specific need to defend Bush. I blame what was done on the people who controlled those 12 straight years, when republicans were pretty much free to do any damn thing they wanted. Including taking serious measures to balance the budget, fix Medicare, etc. They didn’t. They deregulated the financial industry. They turned regulatory agencies over to representatives of the industries they were intended to regulate. They cut taxes in a way that heavily favored the richest. They agreed to two off budget wars, paid for with money borrowed from China. They suggested that Americans do the patriot thing and go out and buy a car on credit. They knowingly saddled Medicare with the woefully underfunded, revenue sucking black hole that is the prescription drug insurance program. They engaged in unscrupulous lobbying activities that originally gave rise to the phrase, “the culture of corruption.” Bush? Bush was a man with a pen in his hand. Bush didn’t think all of this stuff up. I doubt if Bush thought any of this stuff up. My guess is that much of it was handed to him.
Every election year, it’s the same damn pitch, fine tuned for the political climate of the moment, and used as cover for the same damn agenda: Deregulation and more tax cuts–regardless of the economic situation, regardless of the deficit, and regardless of the larger consequences of the previous go around. This year, the Tea Party people believe they’re having an actual influence on the true agenda. Are they really? I think they’re just being used, along with other assorted factions. Mr. Romney is the guy who can most convincingly look reasonably acceptable to the most republican audiences–provided none of them check the historical record, or closely compare notes. That’s his primary qualification. If you get Mr. Romney, what you actually get is the unstated republican agenda, along with a few unpredictable side effects.
“He has proposed budgets exactly as every other president has done.”
Yes, a couple of them – that each got zero votes. The house, with an R majority, has passed budgets. The Senate, with a D majority, won’t even bring them up for a vote.
” They become his responsibility to deal with. Which, in my opinion, he has done as well as anyone could have. ”
Then your opinion is not worth listening to, or your expectations were pretty low to begin with. I demand better.
Are the R’s perfect? No. Of course, they weren’t the ones shielding Fannie and Freddie, the twin triggers of the financial meltdown, either.
“Republicans can claim they could have done better.” Frankly, Obama and the other D’s have set the bar so low my 15-year-old, arthritic, deaf and blind dog could clear it. I’ll admit they did not do as well as they could have from 2000-2006, but even so, Obama has done worse.
They’ll change Medicare and Social Security? My dear child, they are going to change if they continue as is. The only question is will it be catastrophic or intentional.
They’ll change education? Good God, I hope so. The present system accomplishes less and less every year, ever more expensively.
Environmental protections? We have passed the point of payoff already. More regulation is unnecessary expense. The EPA’s job has been accomplished. If you disagree, you weren’t around in the 70’s.
The ability of regular people to work their way up in the world and attain their reasonable and modest American dream? Obama’s done his best to get rid of that option.
Greg, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Freddie and Fannie were used by the private financial sector to make enormous amounts of money, with the most of the risk shifted to buyers and the taxpayers.
That would be nice, wouldn’t it? I’m working hard to resist the conclusion that a significant percentage of republicans are exactly the sort of people that P. T. Barnum was talking about.
Curt, you say:
Yes, ANY criticism of Obama is now considered racist.
Greg
A common theme of many on the left is GWB degregulation by Bush caused the housing mess. Your comments alluded to that as well. If it was congress then GWB had to sign it. You never gave any examples of this deregulation. Where are your specific examples as it relates to housing during the Bush years?
Yes banks did use Fannie and Freddie to bankroll mortgages. The gov’t forced that relationship in an effort to get people into home ownership. As I mentioned the start was back in the 1990’s there is ample evidence of that if you’d try reading and researching it. The Bush problem in all of this is not being able to stop it. He actually did try to reign in Fan and Fred but was met with calls of racism and Bush hates poor people because according to them he didn’t want them to own a home. There is also ample video evidence of that on youtube of congressional hearings .
I am seriously beginning to wonder if the liberals are physically able of carrying on an intelligent conversation and analyses of the issues. Are they so brain washed by their government mandated DEA curriculums that they are no longer able to reason?
Does anybody remember the childhood story of the Pied Piper? Are we there yet?
Just wondering.
@Mulligan22: Greggie never backs up anything he says.
@Greg: You said:
I take that to mean that you won’t trot out the tired old argument that things would have been worse had not Obama been there… I mean, by your own words, it can’t be proven one way or the other.
If Obama were running a serious administration…there’d be federal grand juries sitting all over Washington and New York City looking into the Wall Street-government complex that has existed for decades. We’d have indictments flying…people like John Corzine, Barry Frank, and Chris Dodd would be lawyering up.
That there’s not indicates that Obama is just another politician…covering for his financial base.
@Greg:
Everyone needs to see the Documentary 2016:the movie
@SpideyTerry:
Well stated and so true.
@anticsrocks:
Perhaps so. You see I’ve got a stack of data on this mess. I’m just trying to learn as I go. If he can provide information to better inform me then I want to see it. I don’t mind being wrong, been wrong before, will be wrong again. During the housing run up I was telling people we were in a bubble. I just didn’t know why at the time. Now I do.
But to the best of my knowledge and research the deregulation meme is just false. There were those warning of a housing mess as far back as 2000. Clinton worked hard to get the walls to lending dropped for the lesser credit group in this country. Who remembers the first too big to fail bailout being in the 1990’s when Bill Clinton bailed out Mexico to the benefit of his buddies in the big banks? Robert Rubin is a familiar name in this mess. It’s easy to make a quick blanket statement, unwinding it takes time.
It’s almost comical how republicans can ignore any reminder that they controlled both houses of congress for 12 straight years, and had George W in the White House for half of them.