Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.
It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.
Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
That’s my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina’s—sorry, Callista’s—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.
Then there is Mitt Romney, even now the presumptive nominee. If Mr. Gingrich demonstrated his unfitness to be a serious Republican nominee with his destructive attacks on private equity (a prime legacy of the Reagan years), Mr. Romney has demonstrated his unfitness by—where to start?
Oh, yes, the moment in last week’s debate when Mr. Romney equivocated about releasing his tax returns. The former Massachusetts governor is nothing if not a scripted politician, and the least one can ask of such people is that they should know their lines by heart. Did nobody in Mr. Romney’s expensive campaign shop tell him that this question was sure to come, and that a decision had to be made, in advance, as to what the answer would be? Great CEOs don’t just surround themselves with consultants and advance men. They also hire contrarians, alter egos and at least someone who isn’t afraid to poke a finger in their chest. On the evidence of his campaign, Mr. Romney is a lousy CEO.
But it’s worse than that. The usual rap on Mr. Romney is that he’s robotic, but the real reason he can’t gain traction with voters is that they suspect he’s concealing some unnameable private doubt. Al Gore and George Bush Sr. were like that, too, and not just because they were all to the proverbial manor born. It’s that they were basically hollow men.
Gingrich is not a loser. Romney is.
On 2011 income of around $20.9 million, Mitt Romney will be paying an effective tax rate of slightly over 15%.
That’s essentially the same 2011 tax rate that would apply to a single worker with taxable income ranging from $8,500 to $34,000 per year.
Why should any working or middle class American vote for the candidate of a party that believes taxes on the wealthiest should be lower still?
Call posing such a question class warfare if you wish. The question remains.
It is class warfare. I am no Romney fan by any means, however Romney paid taxes on that very income when he first made the origianal money probably at 35%. He invested it and is paying taxes on what the already taxed money earns. If you do not have skin in the game and almost half of the populace does not, you should not be able to play. Freedom is not free. Money aside, why should anyone get a free ride? Men spilt their blood for our freedom. All you have to do is pay some tax to support those men.
Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
(edit): and lol at anyone who thinks that Haley Barbour is part of the GOP ‘A-Team’. The other guys on the list are good, but what the hell prompted Stephens to include him? John Hoeven would be more plausible if you want to reach deep into the bench.
Good to see you come over to the “right” side, Curt. Welcome, the water is fine.
@Greg demonstrates exactly why Obama is desperate to run against Romney.
No amount of logic INRE recycled/twice taxed income will penetrate the socialist mind. Simply not capable of absorbing that complexity of economics 101. They only see those they envy, and wish to cut down to their own size (or outright rob blind).
On the flip side, none of the wealthy who are rich and savvy will ever take taxable salaries at a higher income tax rate when they can live on their capital gains. And Romney did himself no favors in last night’s debate when he said no one in American would want a President who paid a dime more in taxes than he owed…
Really? I’d have no problem with that. Absurd statement.
Does this mean we should increase capital gains? Nope… since history shows that when capital gains are higher, they invest less, share values go down – all of which thwarts injected private capital and hurts almost half of working Americans that are also invested in the market.
And when we are in recessions and/or depressions, the wealthy are the one’s taking the largest fiscal bath. This is easily show with the “distribution of wealth” shifts to the so called “middle class” during the previous recessions. Do we trade a healthy economy just to make the “middle class” feel more vindicated?
Not in my opinion.
If you don’t take risks, you won’t attain any financial goals you have set for yourself. A good bet pays off. Make a bad one, and you lose. The stock market is a gamble and the key word is “risk”.
Romney – who apparently hates lobbyists, but adores lobbyist Chris Christie and uses him as his surrogate attack dog – was invested in Fannie/Freddie. For how long, we don’t know since he’s only released a couple of years. But he has enjoyed the benefits of the housing boom, along with the protections the GSE’s offer with treasury backed guarantee, and bailouts from taxpayers.
Obama will use this as well, and thus the reason they are desperate for the GOP to anoint Romney. Perfect “capitalist pig” target, as Greg so aptly demonstrates.
So far, doesn’t look like the conservative/tea party/Republican voters are cooperating with the Romney bid, tho. Pity… /sarc
@MataHarley, #6:
Contrary to prevailing local opinions, I suspect that Obama would much prefer to run against Newt Gingrich.  Romney  actually represents a potentially electable opponent.
If a progressive tax rate represents socialist thinking, America has been a socialist country since before my parents were born. Â I’m nearly 62 myself. Â I’ve liked the America that I’ve lived in for all of those years.
Yeah, Greg. That’s why he made an issue in his campaign speech in prime time on the taxpayers dime (aka the SOTU) to target Buffett’s secretary and Buffett’s similar taxes via just a capital gains income.
Think he was calling Romney out early? naw… couldn’t be… LOL
You certainly are gullible, and carry the water well. You just need to find a dumber audience to be appreciated for your O’efforts, Greg.
@MataHarley: Romney – who apparently hates lobbyists, but adores lobbyist Chris Christie and uses him as his surrogate attack dog – was invested in Fannie/Freddie.
And don’t you love, I mean absolutely ADORE, how TEA PARTY DARLING Marc Rubio is supporting ROMNEY???
I mean you can’t make this bovine fecal matter up. Of course, no one wants to talk about this.
Actually many of us have made mention of the political treason of Nikki Haley, Scott Brown and Chris Christie, furiously backing Obama’lite. You just choose not to see it.
Therefore it’s not that no one “wants to talk about this.” Just that no one wants to talk to you.
“Gaius Gingrich delivering prime time speeches in purple Toga while holding tight to darling Messalina er Callista’s bejewelled fingers” BEAUTIFUL
I think that Greg continues to not understand economic realities. Apparently, he believes that ALL money a person makes over the course of a year is equal. Not a surprising stance by someone whose liberal beliefs are like his, however, it IS a surprising stance by someone as old as he is.