Category Archives: Elections 2012

I Hope This Means They’re Scared

Another rumor floated by the Obama White House:

The White House spokesman was referring to a banner story on The Drudge Report that said Obama told a supporter that Romney would select Petraeus for the role.

It’s clear Obama needs to change the narrative.  If we focus on the economy he loses.  Not wanting to lose he is directing Reid to claim that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in 10 years and now he’s leaking that Romney will select the general.

In an absolute delicious dose of irony, here is the White House spokesman:

“Be mindful of your sources,” Carney said.

 

Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

Ted Cruz

‘nough said.

Romney, Taxes And Cabinet Positions

A certain Mr. Harry Reid has set off a kerfuffle with his statement that Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years:

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid.

After reading the article, I’ve found this claim by Harry Reid to be only the SECOND most amazing thing he mentioned.  I mean, forget that I could say  that my buddy saw Dale Earnhardt Jr. giving Michelle Obama the business while she was here on a campaign stop, “Now, do  I know that that’s true?  Well, I’m not certain.”

The MOST amazing claim from the Majority Leader was this:

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn’t make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

Are you kidding me?  Let’s look:

  • Kathleen Sebelius
  • Tom Daschle
  • Tim Geithner
  • Eric Holder
  • Hillary Clinton

All members or nominees of Obama’s cabinet.  THIS President clearly doesn’t care if members of the Cabinet pay or not pay their taxes.

 

The Art Of Politics

One of the reason I’ve never been high on Obama is that I don’t think he’s capable.  He’s certainly never demonstrated excellence at running an organization.  And by organization, I mean an organization of directors.  That is, a team of managers who themselves manage managers who AGAIN, have a team of people.

Obama has never been held responsible for meeting organizational milestones.  Of urging teams of people with competing priorities and views of success.  Obama hasn’t managed money, a bottom line or deadlines.

I manage people.  And I can’t imagine Barack Obama being  hired as a 2nd or 3rd level manager.  He simply doesn’t bring any experience to the table.

Romney, of course, has this in spades.

But THIS is frustrating:

Mitt Romney on Tuesday accused the media of looking to protect President Obama by focusing on the GOP candidate’s high-profile gaffes during his week-long foreign tour rather than more substantive policy issues he discussed.

“I realize that there will be some in the fourth estate or in whichever estate who are far more interested in finding something to write about that is unrelated to the economy, to geo-politics, to the threat of war, to the reality of conflict in Afghanistan today, to a nuclearization of Iran,” Romney told Fox News. “They’ll instead try to find anything else to divert from the fact that these last four years have been tough years for our country.”

Even if true, and I’m sympathetic to the claim, complaining about it is nonsensical.  It’s a tactic that doesn’t get anything done, weakens the candidate and takes away from the real message.

It’s Jobs And The Economy Stupid

I’m not sure that Obama will be able to get from his time fighting inequality as a community organizer in the city of Chicago.  I’m not sure he knows HOW to get away from his time fighting inequality.

But America wants him to focus on fixing the economy and bringing more jobs:

Nearly every major poll indicates that the top issues for voters are jobs and the economy. Making the wealthy pay more in income taxes? Not so much, at least according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.

An excerpt from Gallup:

“Creating good jobs, reducing corruption in the federal government, and reducing the federal budget deficit score highest when Americans rate 12 issues as priorities for the next president to address. Americans assign much less importance to increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and dealing with environmental concerns.”

In fact, higher taxes for the rich was given the lowest priority of the dozen issues, Gallup reports.

Respondents rated “extremely important” the following issues: “creating good jobs” (48 percent of respondents); “reducing corruption in the federal government” (45 percent); “reducing the federal budget deficit” (44 percent); “dealing with terrorism and other international threats” (42 percent).

After a number of other issues, it jumps down to “dealing with environmental concerns, such as global warming,” (21 percent). The same percentage — 21 percent — cited “increasing taxes on wealthy Americans” as an extremely important issue.

The poll would seem to indicate that the fairness arguments made by President Obama and his campaign aren’t top concerns for voters.

I think this is spot on for two reasons:

  1. People don’t think there is a fairness in taxation issue
  2. In so far as there is, no one really cares.  People compare their wealth to those around them and few see the excesses of the very wealthy.  But what they DO want is to regain some confidence in the job markets.

But that’s probably just me talking, not the folks who support our President:

What’s really striking about the poll results is that not only was this true of voters in the aggregate but of self-identified Obama voters, too.

Among Obama supporters, only 32 percent said raising taxes on the wealthy should be a top priority of the next president. That also put it dead last on the list of 12 issues among that demographic.

Well, maybe America HAS got it right.

Barack Obama: Giving Something Back

At that small little firehouse in Virginia, Mr. Obama gave us a very real look into his philosophy.  Key among that is how success is built.  Let’s look at his words more carefully:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

So, from his words we see that Obama feels that our success is not ours alone:

They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.

So, why are we successful?

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

And that help was?

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

And because of all this help, what are we expecting the successful among us to do?

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.

But I’m struck….how did all that help get there in the first place?  I’ll leave that to Thomas Sowell via Mark Perry:

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”? Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Why should they have to pay for it twice?  Indeed.

“You Didn’t Build That” – Out Of Context

Obama is taking a lot of heat for his comments in Virgina.  It was in that speech that he made the now infamous, “If you have a business, you didn’t build that.”  The republicans are going crazy with the clip, using it in every ad they can put on TV or the radio.  They’ve got it on Facebook and Twitter.  Obama saying that business owners didn’t build “that.”

And the left is going nuts over context.

First, I’ve always said that the remark IS out of context.  The president clearly was referring to roads and bridges when he mentioned “that.”

Second, this is politics.  These same people who are now fainting over context were no where to be seen when Romney was quoted as saying, “I like to fire people.”  No one was complaining about context when Romney’s comments on self-check out lines was doctored.  It is what it is.

Third, and this is the biggie for me, Obama BELIEVES the message that the republicans are pushing in the out of context quote.  Two months ago, if you were to ask Obama if he felt that businesses were built by their owners or with help from the government, he’d tell you that of COURSE it was built with the help of the government.  Heck, he’s saying that in the speech.

So, here are his remarks:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.

I’ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.  (Applause.)  Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.  (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

And now, finally, the press is getting around to going after Romney over the context of the quote that he’s using.  And his response?  Just like I’ve been saying.

LARRY KUDLOW: “Why do you think President Obama, what did he mean, if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build it, someone else made that happen? He claims it’s being taken out of context. What do you think it means? Do you think this is Obama anti-business, anti-entrepreneur? Or do you think maybe he has been treated unfairly?”

GOV. ROMNEY: “Well, just read the whole speech. I found the speech even more disconcerting than just that particular line. The context is worse than the quote. The context, he says, you know, you think you’ve been successful because you’re smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think you’ve been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard. This is an ideology which says hey, we’re all the same here, we ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past. It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy. We have always been a nation that has celebrated success of various kinds. The kid that gets the honor roll, the individual worker that gets a promotion, the person that gets a better job. And in fact, the person that builds a business. And by the way, if you have a business and you started it, you did build it. And you deserve credit for that. It was not built for you by government. And by the way, we pay for government. Government doesn’t come free. The people who begin enterprises, the people who work in enterprises, they’re the ones paying for government. So his whole philosophy is an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. And if we want to get people working again–and that’s my priority–if we want to get people working again, we have to celebrate success and achievement and not demonize it and denigrate the people who have worked hard, who are smart, who have made the kinds of investments to build a brighter future.”

The context of the quote is worse than the quote.  Obama’s using the success of the business owner as a lever to force him to pay more taxes.  And he hides behind “they wanna give something back.”

Obama’s View Of Government And Business

It’s long been a narrative that Obama doesn’t like the free market.  Titles such as socialist and statist have been thrown at him.  Pages and pages have been written that Obama is a lover of big government, more regulations and higher and higher taxes.  He’s been a target for not understanding how the economy, or even just business, really works.

He’s had to fight the continual drum beat from the right that he’s not friendly to small business and prefers the government to provide.  That’s he’s anti-capitalist and more for ideals of fairness and equality for all.

But I have to ask you, if you owned your own business, worked hard to get it to where it is today, sacrificed soccer games, vacations and new cars.  Set aside the addition to the living room or gave up on the new boat, how do you think you’d feel if you heard this:

You didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.

 

President Obama: How Effective Has He Been

As summer is in full swing, how do voters feel Obama has impacted the nation in his first 3.5 years in the Oval Office?

In some ways, I don’t like polls like this.  I mean, how do people gauge how a president has done, or should have done?  How do they know if he’s doing well or poorly?  In some cases, it may be some social cause that they champion; gay rights or women’s health.  Perhaps for others, it’s military accomplishments; ending Iraq or killing Bin Laden.  But in terms of the economy, I’m not sure how people reach their conclusion.

To be sure, this swings both ways.  Obama is hammering Romney for his time at Bain when jobs were lost and even outsourced to low wage nations.  The idea being that you don’t have to show that in some cases, this move actually CREATED jobs.  All you have to do is throw the stigma of the evil corporate master who only cares for his own bottom line; worker be damned.

So, it is what it is.  And for Obama, the news is bleak:

A new poll says President Obama has changed things for the worse in the United States.

A survey by The Hill, a Washington, D.C., newspaper, says that 56% of likely voters believe Obama has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared with 35% who believe the country has changed for the better on his watch.

“The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks re-election this fall,” reports The Hill.

I’m fairly certain I would have guessed an unease at the president’s job so far.  People are beginning to recognize that while we’ve added jobs, we haven’t added enough.  People are beginning to understand that each spring we seem to get better only to stall in the summer.  Unemployment remains uncomfortably high, people are fleeing the job market and Obama doesn’t have a plan.

There is significant reason to believe that, if elected, we would see another 4 years of stagnant growth, if that, with growing numbers of people taking advantage of an ever increasing federal entitlement system.

The question is, can Romney capitalize?

The Romney Vice President

I don’t know how important a VP pick really is.  Can anyone really say that Biden did or didn’t play a role in getting Obama elected?  Palin certainly drew attention when she was selected by McCain, but McCain could have chosen Reagan and he still would ave lost.

I’m not sure that the pick will really truly matter.  However, it WILL provide gigabits of data for those of us junkies out there.

With that said, I really would like the pick to be someone who has “done” something.  A governor, the head of an agency, a director of this or that, anything.  Anything but another senator or congressman.  It’s for these reasons that I don’t like any talk of a Rubio or a Ryan.  The role of an executive should be filled by someone qualified to be an executive.

My favorite pick to date has been Condi Rice.  And the rumors are flying today:

Political observers are asking whether Mitt Romney could pick Condoleezza Rice as his running mate a day after a story on the Drudge Report said she has emerged as the front-runner.

I think the pick would be perfect.  Rice is an accomplished statesman on her own right.  She’s gifted intellectually, has a resume a mile long and is well liked among conservatives:

Strategists acknowledge picking the former Bush administration secretary of State would be a bold, unconventional choice that could broaden support for Romney among independents.

Romney may wait until the convention to name his choice.  We might be weeks away.  And this may just be a tactic to change the narrative from Bain to something/anything else.

Who knows.  But I think Ms. Rice would be a fantastic choice.