Aaaand this one is over.
Mitt Romney announced Friday he will not run for president in 2016, after briefly flirting with a third White House run — a decision that only slightly narrows the crowded field of potential Republican candidates.
And Stephen Kruiser summed up what most people outside of the radical left feel about Romney:
The Romney 2012 story has been rewritten with help from Barack Obama. The Idiot King has proven Romney to have been correct about many things during the campaign, which has led everyone to almost forget how awful he is at connecting with voters. With the campaign riding high after the president phoned in his performance during the first debate, Romney let Candy Crowley defeat him in the second one.
I still think Romney’s 2012 campaign was an amazingly blown opportunity to put someone in office who could have made a real, positive difference in Washington. Some of you may even recall that I suggested that had President Obama been smart, after Kathleen Sebelius’ resignation he should have asked Romney to take over as head of HHS, with Howard Dean as Romney’s deputy – yes, really!
Obviously, all of these opportunities have passed. But Kruiser goes on to bring up what would have been a potentially positive side effect of Romney running:
I haven’t determined if this is a relief yet. Yes, the Mittster is most definitely in need of a reality check. However, if he keeps sniffing around for the nomination it divides what I like to call the octogenarian GOP establishment harumph money between him and Jeb Bush. Add Chris Christie into the mix and it’s a full-on family brawl for the addled elders of the party.
Those of us who didn’t think Romney was the right guy in 2012 certainly don’t want him to be the nominee in 2016.
We might just want him to hang around long enough to make Jeb Bush’s life miserable, however.
Unfortunately, that’s where Kruiser stops, and I think that this point needs to be taken a bit further. In the last three Republican primaries I saw the candidates who I supported get squashed by the GOP establishment. In 2000 it was McCain, in 2008 I was behind Fred Thompson, and in 2012 I watched Herman Cain go down in flames.1 A big factor in the GOP establishment getting their candidates nominated was the fact that they were united behind their guys and could put all of their energy into defeating their primary competitors. If only they could have put the same energy into winning the general election…
But what happens if they’re not united early enough? What if Romney, and to some degree, Christie, were to hang around long enough to prevent the establishment from having a candidate to rally around? Maybe this presents the opportunity for something amazing to happen – maybe the nominee is actually the candidate preferred by the Republican base as opposed to the one selected for us by the establishment? Maybe we end up with a solid nominee, like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, or best of all, Scott Walker.
Let’s face it, in 2016 the presidency is there for the GOP’s taking. The Democrats have no bench depth and will give us a primary where Hilary and Fauxcahontis will see who can out-stupid the other with Marxist tirades.
Even worse, they won’t get the same tailwind support that Obama had and be forced to run on his record. The mainstream press will still be there for them of course, but nowhere to the degree that Obama has enjoyed. Now the Republicans just have to avoid messing up by nominating some lukewarm conservative – like Jeb.
Of course, this could all be avoided if the GOP establishment and its base would simply get behind the one person who would make a truly great president. Longtime readers know that there’s only one man worthy of Brother Bob’s endorsement…. Stannis Baratheon in 2016!
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
You think I’m depressing? RT @emzanotti: Romney isn’t running because GOP donors think Jeb Bush has more appeal. Let that sink in, America.
— Drew McCoy (@DrewMTips) January 30, 2015
Dear Jeb: See what Mitt did there? See?
— Stephen Green (@VodkaPundit) January 30, 2015
1. I don’t know if it mattered at all who the Republicans ran against Obama in 2008, but I’m still annoyed at what a lazy campaign Thompson ran. And sadly Herman Cain was never a serious candidate, as “999” can’t be the answer to every question. But I also have zero doubt that either one would have been a better president than what we have now.
“Am I the Only One Who Thought Romney Running in 2016 Would Be a Good Thing?”
Short answer? Yes.
You must feel very alone, and insecure. Romney a man so qualified he was beaten by this clown. The only thing worse would be the clowns who are currently running like Paul, Bush and Walker. RINOs one and all.
VIDEO:
NBC’s Brian Williams admits lying about Iraq Helicopter incident:
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/02/nbcs-brian-williams-admits-lying-about.html
I had mentioned how the ladies in Mitt and Ann’s ”stake” of the LDS organization say that she is sicker with more symptoms of her MS (IIRC) .
The Romney’s moved to our town (Holladay) specifically because she needed a horse near her home for therapy. (We are zoned to keep horses and other livestock here.)
Still her disease is progressive and has been (according to my LDS neighbors) getting worse.
I was more surprised to hear Mitt go from a firm NO to a short-term MAYBE even for the couple of days he did.
People who know them well were relieved he then said NO again.
A GOOD thing? Maybe, but definitely an alright thing. Romney had already been dragged through the liberal meat grinder and found to be guilty of a) being wealthy and b) once carrying a dog on the roof of his car. What else ya got?
I wonder how, exactly, Romney could have responded to “Too Much” Candy Crowley? Certainly, he SHOULD have told her to shut her mouth and stick to her stop watch and light switches, but what sort of response would not have been characterized as mean and “war on women”-ish? After all, Obama has all of the MSM on his team and Romney had them all opposing his (“binders full of women”? Really?). The optimal result would have been for the media to point out how the floundering Obama had to have Crowley inappropriately come to his aid, then hammer on the answers and falsehoods Obama had already committed to. Romney had already trounced Obama badly in the first debate, then thanks to media support, fought to a draw in the second. But, the MSM was and remains corrupt and it was and remains up to the citizens to seek out the truth rather than to rely on a media that, first, selects the liberal candidate they want then, next, does everything it can to get that person elected.
@Veritas:
By that clown and a media apparatus that would not report on the state of the economy, the actual level of unemployment, the cratering of Obamacare, the failure of foreign policy, Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the embryonic IRS scandal. No, instead they repeated the lies of Romney firing everyone he meets, hating the poor, sending all businesses overseas, and not paying any taxes. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the American public have no other idea about what is going on than what liars like Brian Williams tells them, and many less than that. There was NO coverage of Benghazi outside of Fox News.
Now, it’s up to Scott Walker, probably, and already he is under assault while Hillary and Warren continue to get a free pass.
@Proof: =8^)
@Veritas: Walker a RINO? So exactly who are the conservatives in the GOP?
@Nanny: Hadn’t heard, thanks for that info. I still wouldn’t have minded seeing Mitt stick around long enough to sap some of the establishment’s resources that will now go for Bush
@Bill: I have no desire to see Mitt as our nominee, just to have him suck some establishment resources long enough for Walker to take the nomination.
As for Crowley, all he had to do was correct her on the facts and suggest that she spend more time getting her facts straight for her day job. The media would have assaulted him no matter what he did, but slapping down left wing d-baggery is a sure way to fire up the base, which was his biggest shortcoming.
I support as many establishment candidates running for the GOP presidential primaries as possible. The more establishment candidates there are, the thinner the establishment electoral vote will be for them to share amongst them. And visa-versa I also think that the less Conservative candidates the better so that a greater number of electoral votes will go to a few conservatives, increasing their chances to win the nomination.
@Ditto: Couldn’t agree more!
RE: “Am I the Only One Who Thought Romney Running in 2016 Would Be a Good Thing?”
Yeah, pretty muich.
I don’t the author makes a good case for Gov. Romney running. The best reason put forward is to make Gov. Jebb Bush’s run more difficult. I think that Bush #3 is a loser, and his running is bad for the country as it gives the impression that the GOP is totally out of ideas and desperately in need of fresh blood. However, I also think that Romney is a loser, and his running is bad for the country as it gives the impression that the GOP is totally out of ideas and desperately in need of fresh blood. Not much difference.
Besides, I got the impression from Romney’s last campaign that he wasn’t willing to go all out to win. He could have won the election by being more forceful with his ideas and highlighting differences. If you’re not going to press your advantages, you don’t get my support for a third try.
RE: “Let’s face it, in 2016 the presidency is there for the GOP’s taking.”
Not it isn’t: the GOP has a huge fight on it’s hands, and the Dems are fully prepared to play dirty to win. Get ready for the worst election ever.
Sec. Clinton is the presumptive nominee. Her record is indefensible. Her character is indefensible. Her age, health, and mental status are highly questionable. The only way for liberals to win is to destroy the opposition, and they will do so. The MSM will do what they’ve done for the last several elections: attack and destroy all GOP candidates except the one that they want Hillary to run against. Liberals will flock to the primaries to vote for that person. Once the GOP has been conned into selecting that person, the MSM will destroy him.
A lot of women voters were extremely disturbed when President Obama edged out Hillary. They see this election as “their turn”, and they are determined to put a woman President in the WHite House. Hillary is going to get massive support from women, and a great many leaders of minority groups, many of whom are women, will get behind her. And the MSM will defend the woman against any “attacks”, even if it’s just a discussion of policy.
@kevino:It seems your analysis of politics is as good as your football analysis. Thanks.
Romney run would simply derail Bush,
2016 will be the year of the woman. My hope is Jim Webb can somehow derail HRC. 100-1 longshot.
@Rich+Wheeler:
Unless he runs as a third party candidate. Then perhaps he can derail the corrupt two party system.
@another vet: Think Webb 3rd party run would help Repubs the most. I’m O.K. with a Kasich win but I OR J.W would not want to help a Walker or a Perry.be POTUS.
Like I said he’s positioned to take nom. if HRC doesn’t run– health, major scandal ?? Another longshot.
@Ditto: No electoral vote or college in the primaries. Each state provides so many delegates and a majority of total delegates needed at Convention to secure nom. Who is your Repub. pick to win?
@Rich+Wheeler:
Right. I couldn’t pull the word “delegates” out of my head at the time I wrote that.
It is far too soon to choose which candidate I would support as there are many who haven’t officially announced they are running. Which I select will be the one who closest resembles a Constitutional conservative. I always wait until there have been at least a few debates.
@Kevino: I don’t see how the Dems can be worse in this election than they were in 2008 & 2012. Hopefully the GOP will wise up and be ready this time to counterstrike against the next phony “War on Women”
My point about Romney is not that I wanted him as our nominee, but rather that I’d like the establishment be divided and fighting each other than them being united to crush any real conservatives who may emerge.
@Rich Wheeler & Another Vet: Webb would be a better candidate than Clinton or Warren, but that’s wishful thinking. The radical wing has taken over the Democratic Party and it may be a while before we see any moderate from them on the national stage
Republicans need to stop worrying about who the Democrats will nominate and instead figure out how to nominate a candidate of their own who can win a national election running against a sack of potatoes. In the past two elections they failed to do that. In 2016, the Democrat won’t be any stronger, so the challenge is no greater.
Republicans actually DO have several candidates that can win a national election… at this point.
The challenges will be several:
1. Pick a candidate that CAN win a national election. (Hint: the ones that appeal to the farthest right wing of the GOP CAN’T win a national election. Too many Americans are afraid of that fringe.) And stop with the RINO attacks – you’re killing your best chances.)
2. Don’t pick a clown (Palin) or an idiot (Palin) or a Nazi for his running mate. (No, the GOP isn’t going to nominate a woman.)
3. Make sure he can think while his mouth is in gear (no Perry, no Cain) and teach him the answers to questions BEFORE they get asked.
4. Have him make the point OVER AND OVER AND OVER that he will compromise with Democrats to get things done. It doesn’t matter if he never actually does. What matters is that you will never win another election with just your base voting for your candidate. You need SOME independents and Democrats to vote for your candidate in order to win. And the best way to get SOME of them to vote with you is to make them THINK that they won’t get screwed if they do.
@George: I disagree with you partially over #3 – had Cain or Perry taken their candidacies seriously I think they both could have each done a lot better. As much of a Cainaanite as I was I cringed when “9-9-9” was the answer to every question.
#4 is perfect, since it’s the exact horse hockey that Obama sold this country on. No reason we shouldn’t do the same.
Who do you see as our best chances for 2016?
@Brother Bob:
He’ll never win the Dem primary because as you pointed out, the Dems have been hijacked by the radical left. That is why I think his best bet would be as a third party candidate. If he were to pair up with say Rand Paul, since the two do seem to have some common ground, I think it would raise a lot of eyebrows. That ticket would appeal to independents, the Libertarian faction of the Republican Party, and whatever moderate Democrats that are left, if they even exist anymore. Both parties will probably be hell bent on nominating their respective establishment candidate- Jeb and Hillary (or Warren). Hopefully the Republicans will nominate an outsider who isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo and the PC mentality that has taken over the country. It’s time for someone to return the country back to the principles it was founded on before it’s too late, which may already be the case.
Republicans need to stop thinking about who the political left and the MSM wants them to nominate (and I include George Wells, Rich Wheeler and the plethora of leftist FA trolls in that mix). They need candidates who will focus on fixing the damage the this radical far left Democrat tyrant has done, with real solutions. The establishment GOP leadership has already angered the voters after immediately going back on their campaign promises to put a stop to Obama’s Amnesty and lawlessness, and that will likely hurt establishment GOP candidates in the presidential primary races, as they will have to convince voters that they will really do what they say they will. The Republican base held their nose last November, but after being slapped in the face and burned by Boehner and Mitch with the cronybus bill and week-kneed caving on promises to secure our borders and halt Obama’s unconstitutional royal decrees, the base will be much less likely to again accept establishment promises. This anger could very well get a conservative nominee this cycle The GOP most expressively needs candidates who will appeal to and stand up for the middle class and job creation. The last two GOP nominees were establishment types who only cared about what the Washington political establishment, Wall Street and US Chamber of Commerce wants. That is why the voters stayed home, because too many of the middle class, (who tend to be more conservative) had no dog in the race.
@Ditto: If Navy Cross recipient Jim Webb can get the Dem. nom. he’ll eat any of your candidates for lunch.
@Rich+Wheeler:
I think you are overestimating your chosen candidate and underestimating his opposition. We’re talking about a presidential election not a MMA fight. The far-left machine has taken control of your party, run most of the moderates and all of the conservative Democrats out of office, and they are pushing hard for a far-left candidate. Given that and how much your far-left dislikes (some even despises,) the military, I doubt Webb will get the nomination. Obama’s radical policies and power grabs have done real damage to the Democratic party. The Democrats facilitation of and failure to moderate the administration’s unpopular policies, is going to hurt Democrats for a very long time. For six years the Democrats have refused to address the growing joblessness, and instead pushed the socialist agenda including open borders and amnesty for illegals when an enormous percentage of the US middle class and lower class can not find employment. The actual percentage of unemployed is 36.2% which is worse than during the Great Depression (27.5%) There are less people employed than there were in the 1970’s and wages have remained stagnate while the dollar has been devalued thanks to the policies of the Federal Reserve. Yet the Democrat and RINO position is that they want to let ever more illegal immigrants into our nation to compete for jobs. This a volatile unsustainable situation that can not continue. The Cloward and Piven scenario the Democrats are pursuing and Obama is accelerating just may break the system as it was designed to, but the progressive-socialists in control of the Democrat party are naive in thinking that if they succeed they will be rewarded for the damage they have done. Hard working and unemployed US middle class Americans are being shoved into a corner and they don’t like it one damn bit. Ergo, It is highly possible that moderate voters will reject Democrats and vote GOP in hopes that Republicans in charge of the Congress and the White House will vote to restore balance. Nearly every time the political balance swings far too much in one direction, the voters will respond by voting in the opposition to that imbalance.
@George Wells: #1, Don’t forget the Romney ALMOST DID win, had Obama on the ropes until Sandy. Then, Romney had to go quiet to avoid criticizing the Good President as he pledged aid and comfort (both, ultimately, slow to arrive). Obama got major points for “looking Presidential”… remember “Thank God for Sandy”?
#2, Also remember that this perception of Palin as, as you put it, a “clown” or “idiot” is entirely a left wing and media invention. While ignoring their own accusations of attacks on women, the left piled on Palin with vigor and the left wing audience ate it up like candy.
#3, Perry, beyond any doubt, committed the ultimate “oops”, though, of course and again, it go much more play than the absurd things Biden says (remember, he was the “wisdom” part of the ticket) or Obama’s own gaffes (not to mention his lies and failures). Cain? What was his big sin? Remember, again, that the floundering and suffering economy was the top concern, though on the left side, the media was loathe to cover it.
#4 A good, catchy phrase is always a plus, as we are still dealing with a lot of humans that are not going to do their own due diligence and delve into the facts. However, without the media cheerleading for the candidate that Hillary or Warren is sure to get, Republicans are going to expect something more and of more substance from a candidate. A good, catchy slogan might appeal to those in the middle that could go either way, but conservatives are not susceptible to following a chant. Republicans also cannot count of a good line, zinger, comeback or ever salient point going viral with the media because the media is going to bury it.
Republicans are going to need a candidate that has more “withouts” than anything else. This is why Romney would have been good, because he has already been cleansed. I doubt Palin would ever run (the best she can do it intimate running and draw fire from the other candidates, as the left would concentrate all guns on her, as much fear as she evokes in them), as everyone is aware of her Achilles heel, attacks on her family, which caused her to resign the governorship. To appeal to the general public, without the benefit of MSM cheerleading or willful suppression of negative aspects, he/she has to have some really good ideas and solutions for our problems, which are legion. Unlike Obama running against Bush in ’08, no Republican is going to be able to get away with merely pointing out how bad it was under Obama; they are judged on a higher plane and will have to possess a solution for unemployment, economic doldrums, energy independence, budget, debt, Russian resurgence, the threat of China and Iran and the vast and out-of-control terror threat. For the opponent to the Democrat the media has selected to support, just claiming to stop oceans from rising and “Hope and Change” won’t cut it.
It should be easy (as 2012 should have been) to offer something better than what we have had or are likely to get under the corrupt, insincere and dishonest Hillary or the empty dress Warren (who possesses the same asset Obama did; she’s never done anything, so she has nothing to use against her), but the wild is, once again, the media. Of course, we want the best candidate that can deal with the critical obstacles in the path of the nation, but the candidate must not only fight the opponent but all of the corrupt, left wing media as well. But, it can be done. Romney almost did it.
@Bill:
Speaking of Biden: Biden: ‘The Past 6 Years Have Been Really, Really Hard For This Country’
Even “Uncle Joe” sees that the Democratic party is in trouble.
@Ditto: You better nominate a moderate if you want any chance of winning. There are more Americans that despise far right reactionary politicies than those who oppose liberal politics. I have no clue what this Cloward Piven meme is about??
I said Webb was 100-1 if HRC runs—year of the woman. If hrc and Warren don’t run Webb will get it and beat ANY far right Repub. nominee.
36.2% Unemployment —-that’s nuts.
BTW Repub. nom process very similar to MMA a “sport” that I find ridiculous.
The Cloward Piven strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
*47% of Americans ”on the dole,” is one example under Obama.
*99 weeks worth of unemployment is another of Obama ideas (no done away with and see the jobs bounce back!)
*Green jobs at only $2 million dollars apiece was yet another Obama program.
*Flooding the country with more ”workers,” and ”students” (dreamers) outside the legal process is yet another part of the Cloward Piven strategy under Obama.
You don’t have a clue?
You should buy one.
@Rich+Wheeler:
Define both and then provide sources please.
@Rich+Wheeler:
Not if you can do basic math. The BLS report gives you the numbers. I’m gone over this at least three times now here on FA, so this time either look it upon FA or do your own math. First take the number of citizens eligible to work. That comes from the census and is your starting figure. Ignore the BLS “total workforce” figure as that does not include those who are still unemployed but who are no longer “in the system”. Look up the BLS supplied number of those in the workforce who are “employed” (note that this BLS # is deceiving, as it includes those who are unemployed but are collecting unemployment compensation, but to be generous we will accept that BLS figure.) Using basic math skills, calculate what percentage of the figure of those citizen’s “eligible to work” are “employed”. The leftover percentage is the actual number of unemployed.
To sum up, if you know how many citizens are eligible to work, and subtract how many have jobs, the result is the number of citizens who don’t have jobs, comprende? This is grade school level math that I’m sure you are able to figure out. 36.2% is the result the last time I checked the BLS’s figures over a month ago, although it has recently been reported their number of employed has decreased.
Granted the BLS statistical figures do not differentiate between full time and part time employment, do not take in effect those working “under the table” and considers the rare full time “housewife” as unemployed, but may include as “employed those working under stolen identities or who are working but are here illegally and may not have been documented in the census.
@Nanny: Be my guest if you wanna believe all that B.S. That’s why you are considered reactionary. Take note ANOTHER VET.
Ditto Romney’s 47% ALSO BULLSHIT lets spell it out—- because it includes SSI recipients, kids getting free hot meals in school etc.
Compassion is a dirty word for Conservatives. Sorry, but I’ll never abide by that way of thinking
@Brother Bob #17:
Who has the best chance? If you listen to honest Democrats (I know… they’re oxymorons) you will hear how quite a few Dems are afraid of Bush, and some of Walker. Nothing would make Democrats happier than if the GOP nominated Cruz or Paul, and they view Rubio almost as comic. Candidates like these might well make good presidents, but they have no chance of winning a national election. Period. Nominate them at your own peril.
@Bill #22:
LOL.
Close doesn’t count.
You keep pushing to the right, pumping up the likes of Palin as if she means anything at all, and see where it gets you. Fool. You have too many excuses, you blame too many others. Keep it up, and Democrats will get the free ride that they certainly DON’T deserve.
@another vet: Reactionaries picture Cruz,Palin Liberals picture Cuomo, Booker.
Ditto That’s some kind of voodoo math. I suppose the Dow at 17,700 up 150% in 6 years is a mirage.
Pick and chose, dodge and weave.
Here’s a fact. The turnout in 2014 was historically low. Almost certainly you will lose the Prez. vote in 2016 when voters show up amd reject far right politics. The demographics–the actual electoral college– are totally against Repubs.
@Rich+Wheeler:
It’s a very simple of math problem, I don’t see how it could confuse you so. You are given by the BLS their own figures: The number of citizens eligible for work, as well as the number of Citizens who have jobs. Subtract the second from the first and that gives you how many citizens who are eligible for work but are not employed. Is simple subtraction beyond you?
Given: (US Citizenry over age 16 eligible to work) 100% – 63.7 (Current employed workforce including those unemployed yet collecting unemployment insurance) = 36.3% (workforce eligible yet unemployed citizens).
Do you comprehend the math yet?
100% – 63.7% = 36.3%
or in real numbers
243,284,000 eligible to work
– 154,975,000 employed
= 88,309,000 unemployed
Simple subtraction it’s not hard at all.
The Dow is a a measure of stock trades and has no bearing on how many people have jobs v. how many are unemployed.
Sounds like you know as little about how the electoral collage works as you do about how to do simple math.
@George Wells:
No, close only gets you a red ribbon. However, the point is how close (without Sandy, possibly victory) Romney came when facing all the forces arrayed against him; Democrats, unions, the MSM.
As to Palin, apparently if you are not assailing her with four letter vulgarisms, you are “pumping her up”. If you speak out that it is wrong to call her an “idiot” when that label is an invention of those who fear her, you are cheering her on. No, not hardly. However, I simply think facts and the truth should play a role in discussions.
Remember what he biggest “gaffe” of hers during the campaign? When asked what her favorite magazine was. Who cares? The left’s haste to jump on her statements as “stupid” can backfire, as it did when they pounced on her rendition of Revere’s ride; she veered from the poetic version to use the historical account, which apparently most of her detractors were unaware of. The left fears her so much that when her emails were going to be released, hundreds of people were recruited to pour over them, salivating at the hope of finding that incriminating note; how’d that work out for ya?
No, I’m not pumping her up; I am merely fascinated by the abject fear the left has of such a being and the lengths to which the left will go to in order to destroy one; even attacking them and their family on the most basic personal level, vulgarly and repulsively, as they claim the other side engages in a “war on women”.
@Rich+Wheeler: Apparently, to a liberal, a “reactionary” is someone that has principles and stands up for them. Those principles may be wrong, may be disagreed with, but to stand by principles is reactionary? It may be abnormal in Washington, but hardly reactionary. It should be the norm.
The Dow is certainly up, propped up by 0.0% loans made possible by money printing to keep the economy afloat (in lieu of any economic support from this administration). However, who has received the benefit of this boom? Not the middle class, not those in poverty (whose numbers have grown during that period). Obama’s “income inequality” has benefitted. No wonder he wants more punitive taxes on the wealthy; they are the only ones benefiting from his policies. Probably not by accident, either.
Who didn’t show up, Rich? Why didn’t they show up? Those who at one time were all into “Hope and Change” have given up on Mr. Transparency and all his lofty promises, yet could not vote for Republicans. That IS a vote for Republicans, Rich. That is a vote against failure, lies and corruption.
@Rich+Wheeler: Facts are facts. If you want to believe that Obama is not far left so be it. Instead of calling people names, provide specifics as to why the claims aren’t true. In other words, look at the Cloward Piven strategy and provide specific examples that show that it is not being used in some form, either intentionally or unintentionally, such as a reduction in the number of those on the public dole, a de-emphasis on wealth redistribution, evidence that the deficits have been drastically reduced from pre ’08 levels.
@Rich+Wheeler: You still didn’t provide any evidence to your claims that Americans don’t reject liberal policies like they do right wing reactionary policies (which you also failed to define). As a start, provide evidence that the majority of Americans embrace the following tenants of liberal policies:
1. Obamacare.
2. Taxpayer funded abortion on demand.
3. Taxpayer funded birth control.
4. The re-writing of the First Amendment.
5. The abolishment of the Second Amendment or any other far reaching gun control restrictions.
6. Massive deficit spending which is a cornerstone of Keynesian economic theory.
7. Welfare payments without any avenue to put those recipients to work.
8. Blanket amnesty.
9. Providing illegal immigrants access to free health care, free education, and Social Security.
10. Blind acceptance of AGW.
11. Dividing the country along race, class, and political lines.
12. Wealth redistribution.
13. An increase in middle class taxes (remember, Obamacare is a tax).
@another vet: Lets start with what the Dem Party does not support 2,3,4,5,6,7.8,9,11,13—
I know not of The Cloward Piven Theory other than FA folks ranting about it.
As mentioned I’ve been a Dem. since the days of JFK who inspired me to join The Corps and fight for my country. Since then I’ve seen many pols come and go. Some good, Some bad.
I’ve followed the message of JFK when possible–I’ve quoted him many times previously.
Over 50+ years I’ve believed in the struggle for civil rights (MLK was not a Repub. and supported both Kennedys) women’s rights, human rights,gay rights and most recently, with my wife, I’ve become a staunch advocate for Animal Rights—Mercy For Animals-A Great organization
It’s obvious global warming exists and factory farming is one of the major contributors
Jim Webb for POTUS–Thank you for your service
@Rich+Wheeler:
Ah. That would explain how it works so well among the lesser informed.
@Rich+Wheeler: They most certainly do support all of those.
2. and 3. Which party paraded Sandra Fluke in front of Congress to make a case for both of those?
4. For real? Reid sponsored and brought it up for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate last year.
5. For starters , check out statements made by the likes of Charles Schumer (D), DICK Durbin (D), Dianne Feinstein (D), and the late Howard Metzenbaum (D). In addition check out your buddy Andrew Cuomo’s web site for his position.
6. I guess that explains the reductions in the deficit we’ve had the last 6 years. Make no mistake, the Republicans don’t any slack from me on this either. And yes, research Keynesian economic theory and deficit spending is a key component as is massive government regulation of the economy both of which have been on steroids since ’09.
7. Obama got rid of the welfare to work program that Clinton signed into law and he received much praise from the Democrats for it.
8. Obama’s amnesty program ring a bell?
9. But one example, this one at the state level: http://nypost.com/2014/09/15/democratic-pols-seek-amnesty-rights-under-ny-state-law-for-illegal-immigrants/
10. AGW- manmade global warming. Just Google search that one to find which party blindly accepts it as fact and has proposed numerous pieces of legislation to address the “crisis”. Or of course, you could just Google Al Gore.
11. Check out Obama’s speeches. This is so blatant for anyone to deny it is absolutely mind boggling. You can also Google Mayor DeBlasio, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakahn, Eric Holder, and a host of others.
13. Very simple. Obamacare is a tax. It will impact middle class Americans therefore it increased taxes on the middle class.
As for Cloward Piven, perhaps you should research the topic before claiming it isn’t true. And yes, people other than those at FA are aware of it.
Obviously JFK was a very inspirational figure to you. He is NOT in the same category as the current POTUS. Not even close. JFK served his country and was genuinely concerned with improving it not breaking it down. Perhaps you can provide evidence where JFK said he wanted to make America like the rest of the world as opposed to making it the best. Perhaps you can give us some quotes of an inspirational figure in JFK’s life who said, “Goddamn America”. Perhaps you can provide an example of where JFK promoted Marxist economic policies. Perhaps you can provide an example of where JFK told one group of Americans to get in the faces of another group or that “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring guns”. Also, did he ever tell one group of Americans that another group was their enemy? Finally, his “don’t ask what your country can for you, but rather what you can do for it” is the exact OPPOISTE of what is being preached by the leaders of your party today.
@Bill #33:
Regarding the Democratic Party’s “fear” of Palin… Seriously???? LOL!
You DID hear her last speech, right? Has she had a stroke or something? Psycho-drugged? This is a person to “fear” as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States?
I’d fear for the life of my cat if I left Palin babysitting her, but that’s about as far as “fear” would go. For the sake of the Democratic Party (but NOT, mind you, for the sake of the country) I’d LOVE to see Palin get the GOP nomination for 2016. Tina Fey would come back to Saturday Night Live. Comedy Central would eclipse all the news channels, and every day would be a new laugh-fest. I’d cry so hard I’d need tear transfusions! You keep pushing that dope cart uphill, and see where it gets you.
@Ditto:
Adding to my previous post, I forgot to include the following to my math lesson for Rich:
Remember that the BLS is counting some unemployed as being “in the workforce” so long as their unemployment insurance lasts. Now if we add in those ‘unemployed but receiving unemployment compensation’ unemployed with the rest of the unemployed but eligible to work we get:
5.6% Unemployed getting comp $) + 36.3% (Unemployed not getting comp $) = 41.9% (total unemployed citizens who are eligible to work.)
36.3% + 5.6% = 41.9%
Which gives us a final tally of just how many actual citizens “eligible to work” (by the BLS’s own numbers,) who are “unemployed” .
I can only presume that Rich considers this very basic math to be “voodoo math” because the problems are not presented in “Common Core” format.
@George Wells: Fear of Palin??We love the wacky broad.
@George Wells: So all that makes the obsession with Palin by the left even more confusing. If you write her off as nothing but a fool, why does her every syllable require a full-broadside response from liberals? I guess you just like calling women “idiots” and “clowns”?
@Bill #42:
Everybody loves a clown. “Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and you cry alone.” This is why Palin remains very popular – it is refreshing to have such a bountiful source of comic relief entrenched in the political sphere. Then there is the inescapable fact that most humor ultimately derives from someone’s discomfort – we laugh when the dolt slips on the banana peal. Palin’s psychedelic ramblings bring understandable discomfort to more than a few RATIONAL Republicans – the ones that Democrats are REALLY concerned about – and this elicits the proverbial banana-slip chuckle. And as an unintentional (?) comedian, Palin changes her material often, keeps her delivery fresh and animated, and works hard to position herself in the spotlight. If her self-delusion weren’t so obvious, I’d say that she was the consummate professional. But there’s that nagging suspicion that she really believes her spiel, and like some of comedy’s greatest legends, really needs professional help more than encouragement to sink deeper into her own myth. At this point, she could retire completely from the stage, and still be the butt of jokes for another decade, and I’m sorry for her in that. But she is what she is, and the media couldn’t have made her out to be such a clown or idiot without her generous help. So she’s got what she deserved.
@George Wells: Yeah, that’s a good story. Now, let me un-Brian Williams it for you.
From the moment Palin’s name was announced as the VP candidate, the left has torn into her and her family on a visceral, personal level. OK, that was how the Democrats deal with a candidate. But then, even after she quit the governorship and became just another pundit, the left cannot resist whatever opportunity they perceive to rip into her, usually on a personal level.
You do this because she is a dangerous item; a lovely woman that is articulate, can woo an audience and is NOT a liberal. Just as the left loves to eviscerate a Latino or black that has the temerity to stray from the liberal plantation to which they are supposed to be bound, any woman that dares stray from a leftist, feminist caricature and present an intelligent argument in favor of conservatism scares the Biden out of liberals.
She bested Biden in the VP debate. She showed all the critics of her “Paul Revere” comment to be stupid and ill-informed. She stumped the muckrakers with her squeaky-clean email trove.
The left feels compelled to do this because if women, Latinos or blacks ever start to really listen to the conservative message, they will finally become aware of how the left uses them, like coins, to pay for their political power, how that usage is for the benefit of the political party only and how, despite decades of promises and accusations, they still wallow in poverty or abuse.
In order to make something like the insincere, pathological liar, corrupt Hillary seem like a viable candidate, the competition needs to be destroyed; discredited, abused, torn down and destroyed. For, for a phony, empty-dress Warren. Hillary, who lies about dodging sniper bullets, let 4 Americans die in Benghazi, lied about it and has not a single note-worthy positive achievement as Senator or Secretary of State and Warren, who will tell any lie necessary to be deemed significant and does not, along with Obama and Hillary, believe the individual effort and sacrifice accounts for anything; “you did not build that”. Compared to them, Palin is Churchill. Compared to them, she is Thatcher. Compared to them, she is authentic.
So, whenever even a smell of an opportunity to attack a threat like Palin, someone you leftists can only dream to have an equal to, you have to leap at it with “clown”, “idiot”, “radical”, “stupid”, “c#nt”, etc. Ever think of disagreeing with a policy or concept? Nah, that would reveal a lack of understanding of issues. Better to stick with “bitch” and “whore”. That way, the attacks can all carry the same characteristic.
By the way, while I like what Palin has to say, since she resigned the governorship, she is no longer a viable candidate, in my opinion. For, what gets to her has been revealed and no doubt were she to again run for office, the attacks on her family would commence again, in greater intensity. This might cause her again to drop out of a race, so she should stay out. I respect her protection of her family, but unless she is willing to take the filthy, vulgar, pathetic, personal, false claims made by the left against herself and her family, she should stay out.
@Bill #44:
I’ll give you one paragraph – the last one. You are correct that Palin is unworthy of the GOP nomination. As you point out, like the froth of cotton candy in her head, she can’t take the heat.
But Good GOD, Bill! Her “Freedom Summit” speech – what the Hell was that? Your boy Hannity asked her if her teleprompter was broken. Just about EVERYONE who heard the thing found it bizarre and incoherent. With that lovely piece of work, Palin put the final nails in the lid of the coffin holding her 2016 aspirations better than anything the liberal media could have done.
“She is a dangerous item; a lovely woman that is articulate, can woo an audience and is NOT a liberal.”
“Dangerous”? That’s almost as good a joke as Palin herself.
“Lovely woman”? Uh, yes, but what’s that got to do with anything meaningful?
“Articulate”? I think that you are confusing the ability to run your mouth non-stop with being “articulate.” As well as being ABLE to mindlessly string words together, being “articulate” more or less also implies that there is some sense to what you say. Listen to that Freedom Summit speech again. Listen to the way her mind takes flight again and again, hopping from one disjointed thought to another like a badly-skipping phonograph needle. I don’t know that “articulate” captures the correct sense of what happened there.
“Woo an audience”? That sure doesn’t say much for the intelligence of her audiences, now does it?
“Not a liberal”? You GOT ONE! Though truth-be-known, I’m not really sure WHAT she is. You can’t really tell from her verbal hallucinations, can you?
If you go back and re-read my original comment on this thread, you will notice that my advice was to the GOP on how to win in 2016, and it stands. The Democrats have terrible prospects for 2016. Hillary is empty, nothing more than a barometer measuring the ebb and wane of poll numbers – she has no ideas… yet. She may be strategically holding ideas back for a tactical advantage at the optimum moment, or more likely she simply has nothing left, if she ever had anything. Her husband could think on his feet, but I’m not sure she has that skill, and it’s needed to win the presidency. People who are really smitten with politics know Warren, but there aren’t enough of them to win an election, much less a nomination, unless Hillary stumbles over her own mouth. So 2016 is the GOP’s to lose. Nominate someone who scares everyone EXCEPT the extreme right wing of the party and you WILL lose. Nominate Palin, and you’ll be laughed out of town.
Oh, and Benghazi isn’t the silver bullet you think it is. Keep playing that card, and you might just lose the tournament.
@George Wells: So, how did you react to the Hillary “private business does not create jobs” speech? Brilliance? How did you react to her “What difference, at this point, does it make?” statement about dead Americans in Benghazi? Succinct? How about her statement that we should “respect our enemies”? Determined? How did you view Warren’s revivial of Obama’s meme, “you did not build that”? Genius?
Hillary is a dried up old political hack, riding on her lech husband’s coat tails with nothing at all to offer. Hell, NBC even had to invent a television program to fool their stupid viewers into thinking “Madam Secretary” is Hillary’s life story. Warren is an empty-dress nothing, just like Obama, that would be a horrific disastrous failure, just like Obama. Yet all you worry about is how frightened you are of Palin.
Instead of worrying so much about Palin, requiring the constant, obsessive attacks, you Democrats better be looking for a candidate that is willing to renounce the ruinous past years of the Obama regime.
@Bill:
GW uses the word “Clown”, and yet you fail to remind him of Obama’s court jester Biden, whom the Democrats touted as the wisdom part of the ticket?
Tsk, tsk.
@Bill $46:
So sorry to disappoint you, Bill, but I’m not planning to vote Democrat in 2016. If you’ve been reading me, you’d know I’ve been pushing for gay rights because I’m gay, not because I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I’m Republican in most directions, excepting for the fact that today, the wing-nut extreme right of the GOP is waging the dog, and that isn’t good for the Country. There ARE no good Democratic candidates for 2016, at least not yet, and certainly not Hillary or Joe. Hillary is simply past her expiration date, just like McCain was. And Biden’s too much of a loose cannon with a fair measure of “clown” thrown in. There ARE some decent Republican candidates out there, but y’all seem disinterested in them, and y’all have a habit of eating your own. And if the GOP nominates a nightmare candidate like Cruz, they’ll LOSE! So I give you my honest advice. Take it or leave it. And don’t bother trying to bait me into advocating for a Democratic candidate that I see no value in supporting, because you’ll be wasting your time. In case you haven’t noticed, I got what I wanted. The only reason I’d vote for another liberal would be if the GOP stupidly continues its war against gays. Do that, and you lose my support – I don’t care HOW bad the Dem. candidate is. Like Retire05 complains all the time: I’m a selfish, one-issue voter. Keeping myself out of jail is more important to me than the future of grandchildren I’ll never have.
@George Wells: Yeah, the Republican war on gays. It’s been bloody, hasn’t it? I guess you enjoy being used as a political prop.
@Bill #49:
LOL!
“Used”?
Did you miss that gays WON?
Do you somehow conclude that the SCOTUS is NOT going to grant nation-wide gay marriage at the end of June?
(I’d love to hear the explanation of THAT.)
I sure wish that every time I got taken advantage of in life, I came out so smelling of roses.
“Use” me again, PLEASE!
The “Republican war on gays” has been one of the GOP’s greatest failures. For many years – those years in which the American public did NOT support gay rights – the Republican war on gays energized the evangelical base and filled the coffers, so could be considered to have been a success in those years. But as luck would have it, the winds of public sentiment shifted, and the courts admitted to having been wrong in their collusion with legislatures that denied gays their deserved equal rights. The GOP, so well known for its inability to evolve on ANYTHING, predictably snatched defeat from the jaws of its former victory in a refreshingly principled gesture of self-destructive consistency, steadfastly insisting that gays continue to be persecuted and thus alienating an increasingly gay-approving portion of the voting public. Yes, it continues to be a “Republican war on gays,” at your own peril.