The Romney File

[Tiassa]

Rand Paul Backs ... Mitt Romney

Rand Paul Backs ... Mitt Romney

A couple months ago, I heard the slightest conspiratorial swirl beneath the murmur and buzz of presidential politics. The idea was that Rep. Ron Paul was attacking other Republican candidates, but giving Mitt Romney a pass. The underlying idea here is that the Texas Congressman wants his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, to be on the ticket as Romney's vice presidential candidate.

The idea never has pushed its way to the surface, but we can expect to hear more about it in coming days.

• Budowsky, Brent. "Hypocrites: Ron Paul's 'alliance' with Mitt Romney, and the right's double standard on Gingrich and adultery". Pundits Blog. January 20, 2012. TheHill.com. June 9, 2012. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ghts-double-standard-on-gingrich-and-adultery

• America, Mark. "Ron Paul Won't Touch Romney in Debate – Now We Know Why". February 22, 2012. MarkAmerica.com. June 9, 2012. http://markamerica.com/2012/02/22/ron-paul-wont-touch-romney-in-debate-now-we-know-why/

• Berman, Patrick. "Ron Paul, Easy on Romney?" The Corner. February 23, 2012. NationalReview.com. June 9, 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291849/ron-paul-easy-romney-patrick-brennan

• Gwyn-Williams, Gregory. "Rush: 'There Is An Alliance Between Ron Paul And Mitt Romney'". CNS News. February 23, 2012. CNSNews.com. June 9, 2012. http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...ere-alliance-between-ron-paul-and-mitt-romney ​

Libertarians and Pauline evangelists are now reeling in the wake of Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney. Brad Knickerbocker reports for The Christian Science Monitor:

Why did Rand Paul forsake his dad Ron Paul for Mitt Romney?

Well, perhaps "forsake" is too strong a word. We're not talking about political patricide here, nothing remotely Oedipal. They're both still on the libertarian fringe of the Republican Party, like-minded on the issues their brand of conservatism cares about.

But Rand Paul, the freshman US Senator from Kentucky, did endorse presumptive GOP presidential nominee Romney over his father, the US Congressman (and party gadfly) from Texas. And it's caused quite a stir within the Libertarian Party, which laments the younger Paul's "betrayal" of his father's principles.

"No true libertarian, no true friend of liberty, and no true blue Tea Partier could possibly even consider, much less actually endorse or approve of, the Father of Obamacare, Big Government tax and spender, Republican Mitt Romney," the Libertarian Party exclaimed on its website Friday.

What really gripes Libertarians is that when he ran for the US Senate, "many of his fund-raising appeals were sent to the donors and supporters of his father…. designed to convince Ron's supporters that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. That Rand was, like his legendary father, a steadfast champion of liberty."​

While Knickerbocker points to the political sensibility of siding with Team Romney, the sense of betrayal still stings like an open wound. In the end, as the Tea Party Revolution discovered, politicians are politicians.

And it is true that one need not read the veepstakes into Sen. Paul's endorsement; Ron Paul has all but officially ended his presidential campaign. But at the same time, given that the veepstakes whispers came to prominence not because of any "liberal media conspiracy", but through Rick Santorum (see Berman), right-wing press (see Berman, Gwyn-Williams), and libertarian-conservative bloggers (see America), it's hard to ignore it completely. True, the earliest mention I've found comes from progressive pundit Brent Budowsky, but a month later, it was Santorum, CNS, National Review, and others on the right-hand side of the aisle carrying the story that eventually reached my ears. Budowsky doesn't seem to have gotten much play insofar as it seems to be Rick Santorum who brought the point to the fore.

And as we run down the veepstakes list—Christie says no; Jeb Bush says no; Mitch Daniels says no and now has election-fraud baggage on his record; Republicans in general are rushing to exclude themselves from the veepstakes—the leading contenders from the news cycle are Gov. Bob McDonnell, of mandatory invasive ultrasound infamy in Virginia, and Rand Paul, whose name keeps coming up in this strange, conspiratorial context. Some are suggesting Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants the job, though he did say, "I've got the job I want."

It's not going to be McDonnell; the Virginia abortion fight this year makes him a toxic shock to the women's vote. One does wonder if we're going to see more of the 30 Rock "Kenneth" routine Jindal offered in response to Barack Obama's first State of the Union Address.

And then there is Rand Paul.

And one need not see any particular conspiracy. As Budowsky noted:

[Ron] Paul increasingly [disappoints]. He criticizes greed but advocates policies that reward greed. He practices a brand of libertarianism that falls short on personal responsibility. His words ring true, but his policies often contradict his words. He fails to challenge special interests by advocating policies that let special interests buy our democracy.

Could it be that the version of capitalism practiced by Romney is the embodiment of the version of libertarianism practiced by Paul? How sad. In the great battle for true reform on behalf of the 99 percent, Paul has become a voice for the policies that benefit the 1 percent. Even regarding his many newsletters that included repulsive content, the Texas Republican had to be dragged kicking and screaming into taking any personal responsibility.​

In that case, the lack of criticism against Romney from Ron Paul makes perfect sense in a non-conspiratorial way. That is, Rand Paul as vice presidential candidate makes sense according to policy, not cabal. However, if the Kentucky senator is throwing his lot in with the "one percent" and the policies which have created so much economic trouble, that hand our government over to inchoate plutocracy, that subordinate liberty to economy, Rand Paul will still disappoint his father's devoted legions.
____________________

Notes:

Knickerbocker, Brad. "Why did Rand Paul forsake his dad Ron Paul for Mitt Romney?" The Christian Science Monitor. June 9, 2012. CSMonitor.com. June 9, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...Paul-forsake-his-dad-Ron-Paul-for-Mitt-Romney

Ward, Jon. "Bobby Jindal Avoids Saying He's Not Being Vetted For Vice President". The Huffington Post. June 8, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. June 9, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ey-vice-presidential-candidate_n_1582130.html

 

[iceaura]

In a digression, a schtick bit for the file

The Three Laws of Rombotics:

I • A Romney may not injure a corporation or, through inaction, allow a corporation to come to harm.
II • A Romney must obey orders given it by corporations except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
III • A Romney must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(adapted from Driftglass)

 

[joepistole]

In a digression, a schtick bit for the file

The Three Laws of Rombotics:

I • A Romney may not injure a corporation or, through inaction, allow a corporation to come to harm.
II • A Romney must obey orders given it by corporations except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
III • A Romney must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(adapted from Driftglass)

That is pretty good Ice!

 

[wellwisher]

The number one problem facing the nation is the economy. President Obama has no training in business while MItt Romney does. People need common sense. Romney's job, where he made his name and fortune, was analogous to repotting companies. When you repot a plant, you need to trim off branches from the top and reduce the rootball to a fraction of the size. Then you place the compact plant in fertile soil and let it grow.

This is exactly what the country needs. The country is root bound with redundancy and debt, and top heavy with too many chiefs. We need to repot the government, first by trimming the top and then by reducing its root ball. Then we add good economic soil, so it can grow.

 

[iceaura]

The number one problem facing the nation is the economy. President Obama has no training in business while MItt Romney does. People need common sense. Romney's job, where he made his name and fortune, was analogous to repotting companies. When you repot a plant, you need to trim off branches from the top and reduce the rootball to a fraction of the size. Then you place the compact plant in fertile soil and let it grow.

The companies repotted by Romney often died. And that was OK, because the purpose behind Romney Repotting was not to help the businesses grow, but to extract profit from the trimming of them, and sell the old pots and repots as well as the trimmings for millions more than was paid for them. The wellbeing of the Repotted plants was of no interest, and not used in the evaluation of Romney's endeavors.

And the desire, as well as the ability, to do that appears to be one of the benefits of training in business. One might question whether such desires, or abilities, are equally beneficial in political realms. A person can change employers with minimal hardship, often - but countries?

The economic troubles we face as a nation were brought upon us by people trained in business, including Romney himself. The irony of Romney benefiting from the economic troubles he helped create, by pointing to his expertise in the creating of them, is more amusing from a distance than from a position in line for Romney Repotting.

Or to make the obvious observation: the last President trained in business - with advanced degrees, executive experience, etc - was W. Before him, we go back to Jimmy Carter (whose education was in science and who did a bit better as Pres, perhaps in consequence) and then IIRC Herbert Hoover. After Hoover we had a long time before expertise in business was thought of as a desirable Presidential attribute, but the people who learned that lesson are mostly dead now.

 

[joepistole]

The number one problem facing the nation is the economy.

I don't know that it is the number one problem, as we have many problems, but it is certainly up there. The economy is the result of other issues. It is not the cause of our woes but rather a symptom.

President Obama has no training in business while MItt Romney does.

Well George II had business training too and do you see what that brought us, the Great Recession, record deficits and debt?

People need common sense.

Yes we do and repeating the mistakes of the past is not so common sense in my book.

Romney's job, where he made his name and fortune, was analogous to repotting companies. When you repot a plant, you need to trim off branches from the top and reduce the rootball to a fraction of the size. Then you place the compact plant in fertile soil and let it grow.

This is exactly what the country needs. The country is root bound with redundancy and debt, and top heavy with too many chiefs. We need to repot the government, first by trimming the top and then by reducing its root ball. Then we add good economic soil, so it can grow.

Why are you conservative supporters so big on making illogical arguments? That is another false analogy. Romney's job as CEO of Bain Capital was to make money. That is not the job of the POTUS. It seems the right in this country loves simple more than the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

What the country needs is competent leadership. You can make a case against President Obama's leadership style. But on the whole his leadership has been fairly competent. I think Obama’s major misstep was in trying to please Republicans in his first few years in office - thinking he could get bipartisan support, when in fact he had absolutely no possibility of getting that support. Obama wasted much political capital pursuing something that he was obviously not going to get.

But here is the rub, where is Romney's leadership? I have not seen him display a backbone much less leadership. As recently as this weekend when confronted about President Obama's recent decision on immigration, Romney could not give a straight answer. There are good reasons why Romney's fellow Republicans have labeled Romney "etch-a-sketch".

If Romney cannot take a solid consistent position on virtually any issue which has been the case to date, then how can he lead? He cannot. He has not. He has been like House Speaker Boehner, following the herd - a herd that has been running towards an economic precipice.

 

[quadraphonics]

The number one problem facing the nation is the economy.

Anodyne enough...

President Obama has no training in business while MItt Romney does.

Obama's first job out of college was at Business International Corporation.

Mitt Romney has no experience as Commander in Chief of the United States. Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. This should remind us that we have more than one problem, and always will, regardless of which one is "number one" on any given day.

Regardless, you beg the question of whether "business training" is a particularly relevant qualification for the task of managing national economic policy. Running a business is not the same thing as running a country.

People need common sense.

Are you suggesting that Obama lacks "common sense?"

Because, if so, that's preposterous.

Romney's job, where he made his name and fortune, was analogous to repotting companies. When you repot a plant, you need to trim off branches from the top and reduce the rootball to a fraction of the size. Then you place the compact plant in fertile soil and let it grow.

This is exactly what the country needs. The country is root bound with redundancy and debt, and top heavy with too many chiefs. We need to repot the government, first by trimming the top and then by reducing its root ball. Then we add good economic soil, so it can grow.

I was going to savage this section, but couldn't actually think of anything more damning than what is already written right there. If you think that suggesting we subject the US government to the Bain Capital treatment is a winning campaign message for Romney, by all means have at it..

 

[spidergoat]

The number one problem facing the nation is the economy. President Obama has no training in business while MItt Romney does. People need common sense. Romney's job, where he made his name and fortune, was analogous to repotting companies. When you repot a plant, you need to trim off branches from the top and reduce the rootball to a fraction of the size. Then you place the compact plant in fertile soil and let it grow.

This is exactly what the country needs. The country is root bound with redundancy and debt, and top heavy with too many chiefs. We need to repot the government, first by trimming the top and then by reducing its root ball. Then we add good economic soil, so it can grow.

Too bad that will never happen under Romney. It's all a lot of big words.

 

[joepistole]

Romney seems to want to win the presidency by hiding out in the land of mindless rhetoric and talking points. He, like Palin before him, gets derailed by unexpected questions. Additionally it seems he like to hide in obscurity. For example when asked several times this weekend about President Obama's new policy on deportation, he was repeatedly unable to give a direct answer. Romney still has not provided more than one year of tax returns. And he has failed to answer questions related to his other promises like balancing the budget. He claims tax reform and eliminating certain deductions will balance the budget. But he has yet, despite being asked, been able to tell anyone what deductions he wants to eliminate and which ones he wants to keep.

Romney the candidate of obscurity.

 

[Billy T]

Romney seems to want to win the presidency by hiding out in the land of mindless rhetoric and talking points. ... Romney the candidate of obscurity.

Would you prefer a lot of promises you know will not be kept? Skill at uttering words, that offend no-one, which on the surface seem to make some sense, but don´t, is great advantage in an election campaign.

 

[joepistole]

Would you prefer a lot of promises you know will not be kept? Skill at uttering words, that offend no-one, which on the surface seem to make some sense, but don´t, is great advantage in an election campaign.

I guess we will see how well it advantages Romney, if it advantages Romney. But Americans are entitled to some hard answers from those wanting to occupy the highest elected position in the land.

One of my favorite Romney promises is that by the end of a Romney first term should he get one, Romney recently promised an unemployment rate of 6% - which is almost a percentage point higher than what the non partisan Congressional Budget Office is predicting assuming no changes to existing (Obama) policy.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...lower-unemployment-to-6-percent-in-first-term

 

[spidergoat]

I don't think Obama makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well George II had business training too and do you see what that brought us, the Great Recession, record deficits and debt?

how an you say that with a straight face when Obama has precided over the largest deficits in history?

These are the federal budget deficits for fiscal years 2005 through 2012 (2012 is estimated):

2005: 318,000,000,000
2006: 248,000,000,000
2007: 161,000,000,000

The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, one-third of the way through FY 2007.

2008: 459,000,000,000

Now we get to the Obama administration, which began one-third of the way through the 2009 fiscal year. The Democratic Congress did not pass a budget resolution until President Bush was gone and Obama had been sworn in. On top of the massive spending increase called for in that budget, the Democrats enacted the $800 billion “stimulus” bill; some, but not all, of that money was spent in FY 2009:

2009: 1,413,000,000,000
2010: 1,293,000,000,000
2011: 1,300,000,000,000
2012: 1,327,000,000,000

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/obama-doubles-down-on-lies-about-spending-and-debt.php

What the country needs is competent leadership.

Agreed. But we're definitely not getting that under Obama. According to his 2013 budget, federal debt held by the public will double under Obama, meaning he will have added as much to our tab as all previous presidents combined in just one term. You call that competent?

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion.**The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008.*The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007.**But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President.**That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...iggest-government-spender-in-world-history/2/

 

[joepistole]

how an you say that with a straight face when Obama has precided over the largest deficits in history?

How can I say, “Well George II had business training too and do you see what that brought us, the Great Recession, record deficits and debt?” ? Easy, it is the truth.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/obama-doubles-down-on-lies-about-spending-and-debt.php

Referencing right wing partisan blogs riddled with illogical and false argument is not much of a defense. But it is all you have.

Agreed. But we're definitely not getting that under Obama. According to his 2013 budget, federal debt held by the public will double under Obama, meaning he will have added as much to our tab as all previous presidents combined in just one term. You call that competent?

Indeed I do, and the numbers back me up. The day President Obama was sworn into office the nation was in the midst of greatest recession the nation had seen since The Great Depression - the greatest economic crisis in nearly 100 years. When Obama was sworn into office the nation was losing more and more jobs with each passing month. In the month of his inauguration the nation lost nearly a million jobs and had lost more than 4 million jobs in the preceding months. The economy was collapsing, shrinking at a 9 percent annualized rate. We were staring an economic Armageddon in the face.

Within a few months of office, President Obama had reversed the job losses and economic contraction. The economy has been growing at a steady 2-3 percent since 2009 and instead of losing jobs the nation has been adding jobs, notably private sector jobs, at a steady 100k-200k per month. Not to mention Obama has had a number of successes on the international front, killing Bin Ladin, something Republicans were not able to do in the previous decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...iggest-government-spender-in-world-history/2/

Again, quoting or referencing partisan nonsense riddled with fallacies is not evidence. It is not even reason. It is not honest. It is demagoguery at its worst. It is intended for the fool, the uninformed and the party partisan in need of an excuse to justify further devotion.

When President Obama took the oath of office the federal government was on track for a trillion dollar deficit in 2009 - before one law had been passed and before any action taken by President Obama. When you take millions of people off the tax payer roles and put them on the government safety net, as The Great Recession did, it is going to cause the nation to spend more money while at the same time greatly reducing revenues. The Great Recession caused in no small part by Republican deregulation, was expensive and remains expensive. That 750 million dollar stimulus to save the economy and reverse the economic contraction and job losses was cheap compared to the costs of inaction. Even the outgoing Republican administration came to that realization.

And when President Obama assumed office, those unfunded and escalating wars did not go away? It took 2 years for President Obama to extricate the nation from Iraq. And it will take President Obama another two years to get out of Afghanistan. The previous Republican administration bungled those wars for almost 8 continuous years all the while adding the expense to the nation's credit card.

Despite ferocious Republican/Tea Party opposition, Obama did manage to take the previous Republican special interest legislation (Medicare Part D) and turn it into a universal healthcare program that the CBO has estimated will save the nation hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years. So yes, President Obama has demonstrated clear and competent leadership. The nation was lucky to have such a man at the helm during a critical time in our history.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-deficit-was-track-top-1-trillion-year-h/

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-debt-deficits-were-baked-into-the-cake-125978.html

 

[quadraphonics]

how an you say that with a straight face when Obama has precided over the largest deficits in history?

I notice that you were careful to use the phrase "presided over," which only implies that Obama was in office during said deficits. You did not say, for example, "caused." So given that you are being careful not to blame the deficits that Bush's policies caused on Obama, one wonders at your hysterical accusatory tone at the start of that sentence.

Anyway as joe already pointed out: he can say that with a straight face because it's the truth.

Can you say with a straight face that Obama's policy decisions are primarily responsible for the country's fiscal scenario? If so, well, you're good at uttering lies with a straight face.

Agreed. But we're definitely not getting that under Obama. According to his 2013 budget, federal debt held by the public will double under Obama, meaning he will have added as much to our tab as all previous presidents combined in just one term. You call that competent?

You're defining presidential competence solely in terms of the growth of the federal debt held by the public?

Putting aside the obvious fact that such is a ridiculously stilted measure, transparently pursued for craven partisan gain, let's note that both Reagan and W were both worse than Obama, in those exact same terms (even without amortizing the effect of Bush policies out of the Obama debts). Are we to conclude that you hold both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush to have been grossly incompetent leaders, and Clinton to have been highly competent? Or is this line simply the dishonest bullshit that it so clearly appears to be?

I eagerly await your characteristic evasion of these points.

 

[iceaura]

These are the federal budget deficits for fiscal years 2005 through 2012 (2012 is estimated):

2005: 318,000,000,000
2006: 248,000,000,000
2007: 161,000,000,000

The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, one-third of the way through FY 2007.

2008: 459,000,000,000

You have been called on exactly those lies before, several times.

W's administration published false budgets, with such major expenditures as the Iraq War and the TARP program kept off the books, as a matter of policy. Accurate figures for the deficits run by W are easily available, (such as here, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm where we see that W's final two fiscal years both ran trillion plus deficits) however, and you have been presented with them more than three times prior to this latest posting of yours.

Continuing to post these demonstrably (and demonstratedly) false numbers, after they have been corrected for you, is an odd practice. What are you attempting, thereby?

 

[Billy T]

You have been called on exactly those lies before, several times.

W's administration published false budgets, with such major expenditures as the Iraq War and the TARP program kept off the books, as a matter of policy. Accurate figures for the deficits run by W are easily available, (such as here, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm where we see that W's final two fiscal years both ran trillion plus deficits) however, and you have been presented with them more than three times prior to this latest posting of yours.

Continuing to post these demonstrably (and demonstratedly) false numbers, after they have been corrected for you, is an odd practice. What are you attempting, thereby?

Thanks for "calling Madanthony´s lies out."

I just want to note that Greece is going to collapse for doing exactly the same thing. I.e. not listing major costs in their budget.

AND restate my view, first stated when GWB still had two years more as POTUS, that GWB´s budget tricks, tax relief for the very wealthy, starting two major wars, which US is still paying for*, both in lives and dollars, made a run on the dollar by Halloween 2014 (or before) almost certain, with world´s worst depression to soon follow the run in US & EU "inevitable."

I.e., by the same tricks that Greek leaders used, and many other stupid decisions, GWB has destroyed** the US economically too. - Why for 6 or more years I have been calling the coming depression: "GWB´s Depression" (But ignorant voters will blame whom ever is POTUS when the depression starts. My opinion of Obama´s intelligence dropped greatly when he decided to run for a second term - he will not be able to kick the US debt etc. problems down the road for four more years, so I hope Romney wins. Then at least the correct political party will get the blame, if not the correct person.)

As far as being a bad POTUS, GWB is far out in front of all the others.

*and incapacitated vets in US government hospitals will still be costing US tax payer decades after GWB is dead.

** GWB got training in destroying what is almost impossible to destroy years ago when Saudi wealth bought him a small profitable oil company. In about three years of GWB´s "management" it was bankrupt. - It is not easy to bankrupt an oil company but GWB is very skilled in bankrupting profitable organizations.

 

[Billy T]

"... Fewer Americans believe the economy is getting better and a majority disapproves of how President Barack Obama is handling it, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Meanwhile, new financial filings reveal that although major donors supporting the president and Republican challenger Mitt Romney spent millions of dollars last month on their respective candidate, outside political groups helping Romney are reaping a growing share of the largesse. With Election Day less than five months away, the new poll shows that Romney has exploited concerns about the economy and moved into a virtually even position with the president.

Three months of declining job creation have left the public increasingly glum,* with only 3 out of 10 adults saying the country is headed in the right direction. Five months before the election, the economy remains Obama's top liability. ..." From: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-obama-loses-advantage-economic-anxieties-increase-063013702.html

Billy T comment: Also yesterday I got an Email from Obama´s Campaign, which I did not open to read, but title admitted they were not collecting as much as the Romney office was. (Surely the email was again asking me asking me to donate.) What they don´t know is I put too much into the civil rights movement and expect US to be in deep depression by end of 2015 at latest, so don´t want a black man as POTUS when "GWB´s depression" starts. (More on why that name in post 177.)

* See bloomberg´s confirmation of this and the probable growing negative impact on US economy at: http://www.stateofthemarkets.com/re.../1/0/63b6711dc03566f21f6ff5840c85ff20dae8c5e8

For an entirely different reason, I find myself singing along with the Republicans the song: "The worse it gets, the better it is!" Go Romney Go! (PS you are a perfect rich "fall guy.")

 

[joepistole]

Would you prefer a lot of promises you know will not be kept? Skill at uttering words, that offend no-one, which on the surface seem to make some sense, but don´t, is great advantage in an election campaign.

I would prefer directness and honesty. If Romeny is the leader he claims to be he should at least be able to act the part.

 

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

Seems everything you posted is flat out false. Be it Deficit, Debt or growth in gov't spending, Obama and his policies(most of which he could not get past the filibuster)have made the situation better, not worse, despite the treasonous Rethuglican obstructionist lackey's of the Corporate dollar in Congress(yes, there are Democrat Corporate lackeys, but they at least are ashamed of their treachery and attempt to hide it). But I thought the recent hearing where Jamie Dimon appeared quite illustrative of the source of the problem, I thought the Republicans were going to have to get a room, getting all nervous and sweaty in a competition of who could shove his nose the furthest up his butt.

Grumpy