Support NeoGAF

[ShockingAlberto]

Obama's biggest danger is not a "throw the bums out" mentality, but rather rekindling the kind of youth enthusiasm he had in 2008.

People four years ago wanted to be a part of history and were disillusioned from years of Bush. They were invigorated by an active candidate that presented a stark contrast to a passive Kerry in 2004.

In 2012, the narrative is that Obama has either been a do-nothing president or an actively terrible one. Things he has accomplished will be white-washed because he did not amend the constitution to allow gay marriage or prosecute George W. Bush.

It will be basically impossible to recreate that same kind of enthusiasm he had in 2008, but his campaign team is hopefully smart enough to realize they can still get people excited. Obama is good about saying why he should be voted in instead of simply offering a dark vision of the future if he is not and Plouffe (is Axelrod back as a consultant for this campaign?) is smart enough to realize that.

I expect that once Romney starts getting negative, it's going to start galvanizing the left who have been loathe to support Obama again.

 

[Jackson50]

Romney appears to have slid 7-10 points in the SC polling since Iowa; slight uptick for Newt.

There is not going to be a brokered convention.

Of course. Romney's victory has been apparent for a while. And nothing short of an unexpected scandal is going to impede him.

Also, in probably the most important development in S.C., DeMint decided not to endorse any of Romney's alternatives. I have long noted the importance of party actors in the nomination process. DeMint has the most clout in the state. His endorsement could have propelled one of the alternatives to challenge Romney. Rather, his tacit endorsement of Romney signals the alternatives are not viable candidates. The party will continue to consolidate behind Romney solidifying his position. And for those worried about Newt's SuperPAC blitz, DeMint probably obviated any potential damage in one interview. GOP voters will notice party officials defend Romney and largely ignore the attacks.

“I was just sitting here listening to Romney 's acceptance speech, and he’s hitting a lot of the hot buttons for me about balancing the budget. Frankly I’m a little concerned about the few Republicans who have criticized some of what I consider free market principles here.”

DeMint said he was concerned that Gingrich and Perry, whom he didn't name, were trashing Romney for his success at Bain Capital as a venture capitalist.

"I certainly don't like Republicans criticizing one of our own and sounding like Democrats," DeMint said, repeating later: "It really worries me when some Republicans start sounding like Democrats."

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nake...sound-like-democrats-over-.html#storylink=cpy

Before you get too excited about that, keep in mind that Obama's name hasn't been on a ballot yet. I imagine that's when their enthusiasm (or rather, pure hatred) kicks in.

Right. The low turnout could indicate depressed enthusiasm. Or it could be resultant from Obama's absence from the ballot in conjunction with the expectation of Romney's victory. We need to progress to the general before we can confidently assess enthusiasm.

 

[ToxicAdam]

My first post was. Then I responded to your response. I know you aren't that dense.

Your first post was that Buffett had more of a conscious than Mitt Romney. I then stated Mitt's record. He left his cushy Bain job to go into public service. One of the things he did was pass Health Care for the people of his state. He has opened himself up to intense scrutiny (and soon will even have to expose his financial records) just so he can enact some change in this country.

You then replied with 'It's okay when Republicans do it. hurrr" Without any indication of the context or the purpose of your statement in regards to the conversation we were initially having.

So, *I'm* the dense one because I cannot read your thoughts or extrapolate your intentions from a short, vague sentence? Okay then.

Also, yes, it is perfectly fine for a Republican governor to give a state something it wants. Are you saying that Republicans are against state rights now?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Your first post was that Buffett had more of a conscious than Mitt Romney. I then stated Mitt's record. He left his cushy Bain job to go into public service. One of the things he did was pass Health Care for the people of his state. He has opened himself up to intense scrutiny (and soon will even have to expose his financial records) just so he can enact some change in this country.

You then replied with 'It's okay when Republicans do it. hurrr" Without any indication of the context or the purpose of your statement in regards to the conversation we were initially having.

So, *I'm* the dense one because I cannot read your thoughts or extrapolate your intentions from a short, vague sentence? Okay then.

To rewind a bit, I think the appropriate initial response to to the 'developed a conscience' bit would be to point to Buffet's philanthropy, in particular to donating nearly all of his wealth to the Gates Foundation. Mitt made his millions and went into office. Warren made his billions and put it to uncommonly good use.

 

[KtSlime]

It's possible that there won't be enough of them for it to matter, and in any case, I don't expect Democrats to be anywhere near as effective at obstructionism as the Republicans have been. I expect that Democrats would sign onto another EGTRRA like package in 2013 if a President Romney was championing it.


If Americans were hostile to changes in the safety nets, they'd stop electing Republicans. To define "damage": I think some form of premium support plan is going to be passed in 2013 if the Republicans are in a position to do it, which will be reforming health care/insurance in precisely the wrong direction; cuts to Medicaid; raising the retirement age in a way that will probably disadvantage the poor predominantly; cuts to housing and food stamps, etc. Relatedly, I'd expect a significant paring back of the expected cuts in military spending.

I almost want the republicans to win, just so I can see the older people that voted them into office say "ooooh, so these are the republican ideals that I have been voting for the past 40 years, give me back my medicare!"*

Let's see how far right we can get before this country falls into complete ruin. My only concern is that we probably won't have the physical and technological means to take this country back from the aristocracy once we hand it completely over to them.

*Won't happen that way, they would never admit wrong in their ideology, so they will simply say that the republicans they voted for, and are now taking things away from them aren't real republicans.

Bulbo: I wouldn't consider money to the LDS as a charity - all they are going to do with that money is spend it on trying to convert people to their belief system.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

To rewind a bit, I think the appropriate initial response to to the 'developed a conscience' bit would be to point to Buffet's philanthropy, in particular to donating nearly all of his wealth to the Gates Foundation. Mitt made his millions and went into office. Warren made his billions and put it to uncommonly good use.

To be even more fair, Romney has donated a hell of a lot of money to charities as well. - most to the mormon church but many other charities as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/mitt-romney-gives-million_n_924414.html

 

[PhoenixDark]

(in before Kosmo points out the Obama's barely contribute anything to charities)

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The wave of Anti-Bushism didn't really hit a crescendo until 2006. It was just beginning at the time of his re-election in November of 2004.

You're right that Bush probably would have gotten destroyed post-Katrina. But the 2004 election was a referendum on Bush, and it's fair to say the "no" votes were very enthusiastic votes. (I should know, I was one of them.) But there really just weren't enough of them, because there was nothing galvanizing about Kerry.

And I suppose it's subjective, but as "passionate" as the anti-Obama contingent is, I don't think it's a patch on the outrage at Bush, even in 2004. Which still wasn't enough to push him out of office without an inspiring candidate to rally around.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's biggest danger is not a "throw the bums out" mentality, but rather rekindling the kind of youth enthusiasm he had in 2008.

People four years ago wanted to be a part of history and were disillusioned from years of Bush. They were invigorated by an active candidate that presented a stark contrast to a passive Kerry in 2004.

In 2012, the narrative is that Obama has either been a do-nothing president or an actively terrible one. Things he has accomplished will be white-washed because he did not amend the constitution to allow gay marriage or prosecute George W. Bush.

It will be basically impossible to recreate that same kind of enthusiasm he had in 2008, but his campaign team is hopefully smart enough to realize they can still get people excited. Obama is good about saying why he should be voted in instead of simply offering a dark vision of the future if he is not and Plouffe (is Axelrod back as a consultant for this campaign?) is smart enough to realize that.

I expect that once Romney starts getting negative, it's going to start galvanizing the left who have been loathe to support Obama again.

I think there's a reasonable amount of people who are excited about re-electing Obama. For the liberals online writing blogs about how Obama is nothing more than Bush 2.0, there are many youth, blacks, long-time Democrats etc. who see him as Democratic Jesus. Whether you think they're right to believe that, they're there and will come out in full force in November, and will probably be out knocking on doors and making phone calls before then.

It's sort of the same dynamic that helped Bush get re-elected. For all of the liberals who thought he was a terrible president and knew he would lose, many conservatives liked him and genuinely believed that his being re-elected would put us on the right track. Democrats at the time lived in a bubble and assumed that everyone hated Bush, when in reality there were a lot of people who were merely indifferent (not enough to kick out a sitting president) and many more who truly liked him.

That's exactly what Republicans are thinking now - "Who could possibly vote for Obama? He's been so terrible! I talked with my right-wing friends about this and we all agreed that Republicans have this one in the bag." But while the environment is worse for Obama 2012 than for Bush 2004 (which would cost him independent/moderate votes), Romney is also a much worse candidate than Kerry was (which would temper Republican turnout and increase Obama's).

 

[Clevinger]

(in before Kosmo points out the Obama's barely contribute anything to charities)

What are you, Kosmo-lite?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

What are you, Kosmo-lite?

DID YOU GUYS HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S SECRET HOLLYWOOD-STYLE ALICE IN WONDERLAND PARTY (for military family kids, documented on the White House Flickr)?

I don't have an agenda, I'm just throwing it out there!

 

[Kosmo]

(in before Kosmo points out the Obama's barely contribute anything to charities)

Haha, you mean the Bidens.

 

[scorcho]

DID YOU GUYS HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S SECRET HOLLYWOOD-STYLE ALICE IN WONDERLAND PARTY (for military family kids, documented on the White House Flickr)?

I don't have an agenda, I'm just throwing it out there!

and, while we're on the topic, why did it take Obama so long to show his long-form birth certificate? not that i have any reason to doubt it, but it does seem somewhat odd.

 

[The Librarian]

DID YOU GUYS HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S SECRET HOLLYWOOD-STYLE ALICE IN WONDERLAND PARTY (for military family kids, documented on the White House Flickr)?

I don't have an agenda, I'm just throwing it out there!

Dammit, I want people to have SOME skin in the game! And I'm not talking about money. No. I'm talking about putting actual skin cells into a vaguely-defined competitive activity defined by a set of rules. And no, I'm not talking about the game of worrying about putting food on the table every night; because we all know how much of a game that is!

 

[Zero Hero]

Your first post was that Buffett had more of a conscious than Mitt Romney. I then stated Mitt's record. He left his cushy Bain job to go into public service. One of the things he did was pass Health Care for the people of his state. He has opened himself up to intense scrutiny (and soon will even have to expose his financial records) just so he can enact some change in this country.

You then replied with 'It's okay when Republicans do it. hurrr" Without any indication of the context or the purpose of your statement in regards to the conversation we were initially having.

So, *I'm* the dense one because I cannot read your thoughts or extrapolate your intentions from a short, vague sentence? Okay then.

It was a 'hurrrrrr' statement because my original comment wasn't directed at you, but you put your 2 cents in.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

and, while we're on the topic, why did it take Obama so long to show his long-form birth certificate? not that i have any reason to doubt it, but it does seem somewhat odd.

AND EVEN THEN IT WAS FAKE! WHAT THE FUCK MAN

I then stated Mitt's record. He left his cushy Bain job to go into public service. One of the things he did was pass Health Care for the people of his state. He has opened himself up to intense scrutiny (and soon will even have to expose his financial records) just so he can enact some change in this country.

He is not running on his record as the governor, he is actually running away from it.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Your first post was that Buffett had more of a conscious than Mitt Romney. I then stated Mitt's record. He left his cushy Bain job to go into public service. One of the things he did was pass Health Care for the people of his state. He has opened himself up to intense scrutiny (and soon will even have to expose his financial records) just so he can enact some change in this country.

You then replied with 'It's okay when Republicans do it. hurrr" Without any indication of the context or the purpose of your statement in regards to the conversation we were initially having.

So, *I'm* the dense one because I cannot read your thoughts or extrapolate your intentions from a short, vague sentence? Okay then.

Liberal-gaf has zero tolerance for any kind of level-headed discussion of Romney. It just doesn't fly here.

 

[MThanded]

I'm probably late

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4bm5NxqPY#!

Protect ya neck Mitt.

 

[scorcho]

Liberal-gaf has zero tolerance for any kind of level-headed discussion of Romney. It just doesn't fly here.

I'm open to level-headed discussions on Romney. Engage me.

 

[The Librarian]

Ezra Klein on the fallacy of Huntsman's moderation.

But Huntsman’s overall policies simply aren’t different enough from his competitors to justify the wholly separate coverage the media has given him. Looking at his campaign as a whole, it seems more like Huntsman took a gamble on a political strategy that didn’t work out than that he disagrees in truly fundamental ways with his party. Pointing this out, as I did this morning, isn’t an attack on Huntsman. In fact, it’s an argument his campaign has often tried to make! Huntsman would arguably be performing better if the primary if Republican voters realized that his moderation was more show than substance.

Bingo.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Liberal-gaf has zero tolerance for any kind of level-headed discussion of Romney. It just doesn't fly here.

I don't assume all conservatives are boorish and stupid even when some of them make posts like that.

Don't generalize.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Liberal-gaf has zero tolerance for any kind of level-headed discussion of Romney. It just doesn't fly here.

I could partake in a level headed discussion about what a slimy tool he is. One day, he has no opinion at all about Kasich's fight against unions in Ohio. Flat out refused to take a position. Next day, different crowd- "Oh I support Kasich 100%! Of course I support Kasich! I've always said I support that initiative blah blah"

It goes on and on with that kind of shit.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Liberal-gaf has zero tolerance for any kind of level-headed discussion of Romney. It just doesn't fly here.

Please indulge me.

 

[Kosmo]

I don't assume all conservatives are boorish and stupid even when some of them make posts like that.

Just their ideas are, right?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Ezra Klein on the
Bingo.

I've been saying the same thing in this thread for months. Too many casual Poli-gaffers say dumb things like 'Huntsman should run as a Democrat' or things like that, but have no idea what they are talking about.

Sure he believes in Global Warming, but he also wants to strip power from the EPA. Yes, he has a rational foreign policy stance, but he still wants a huge military. He also favors a near flat tax.

Overall, I think he would be to the right of Romney. He just didn't position himself that way.

 

[The Librarian]

I've been saying the same thing in this thread for months. Too many casual Poli-gaffers say dumb things like 'Huntsman should run as a Democrat' or things like that, but have no idea what they are talking about.

Sure he believes in Global Warming, but he also wants to strip power from the EPA. Yes, he has a rational foreign policy stance, but he still wants a huge military. He also favors a near flat tax.

Yup. The man may believe in global warming, but he's not willing to do anything about it, which is arguably just as bad as not believing in it at all.

 

[KtSlime]

Just their ideas are, right?

Some ideas are just worse than other ones, not saying the right has the monopoly on all bad ideas, but they definitely got more than I'm willing to support.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Yup. The man may believe in global warming, but he's not willing to do anything about it, which is arguably just as bad as not believing in it at all.

Well, if you are a climate scientist that relies on federal grants for your research, I would think you would want someone who sincerely believes in Global Warming versus someone that doesn't. I think a Rick Santorum budget is going to like mighty different than a John Huntsman one.

But, as far as enacting legislation or regulations to help combat it ... you are right.

 

[Drek]

But while the environment is worse for Obama 2012 than for Bush 2004 (which would cost him independent/moderate votes), Romney is also a much worse candidate than Kerry was (which would temper Republican turnout and increase Obama's).

I would actually disagree with the bolded. Bush dropped below 50% for the first time in his presidency in January of 2004 and never had any significant upward momentum again until after he won reelection, living in the high 40's to very low 50's. Obama trails a few points now but has shown positive upward momentum since October 2011.

More importantly, Bush's slight lead came in a time when generic politician approval wasn't nearly as bad as it is now. Obama is outpacing the field despite his generally poor national approval.

In short, the general public hate all politicians right now, more than ever before. They actually hate Obama a less than all the other guys.

Can Romney somehow separate himself from being a member of status quo politics? That doesn't seem very likely as he's spent the last five years or campaigning as stamped straight from the GOP party lines template.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think it is funny that people on the left say they would vote for Huntsman if he were the Republican nominee, but don't want to acknowledge that they wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole in reality. Flat tax alone scares the pants off of most lefties.


Speaking realistically, I can't say that I am too dissatisfied with Obama as a president. If McCain were in there, it would have been largely the same, if not worse.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Just their ideas are, right?

I said nothing of the sort!

I would say, at the very least, that a considerable number of elements of Republican/conservative policy seem to require strenuous effort to ignore historical and empirical evidence.

 

[Drek]

I think it is funny that people on the left say they would vote for Huntsman if he were the Republican nominee, but don't want to acknowledge that they wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole in reality. Flat tax alone scares the pants off of most lefties.


Speaking realistically, I can't say that I am too dissatisfied with Obama as a president. If McCain were in there, it would have been largely the same, if not worse.

Huntsman wants simplified tax tiers, not a true flat tax. Entirely different animals.

As a person who campaigned for, voted for, and is quite happy with the job Obama is doing I would give Huntsman very serious consideration. But then I'm not a democrat, I just like intelligent people with good ideas.

 

[The Librarian]

Well, if you are a climate scientist that relies on federal grants for your research, I would think you would want someone who sincerely believes in Global Warming versus someone that doesn't. I think a Rick Santorum budget is going to like mighty different than a John Huntsman one.

But, as far as enacting legislation or regulations to help combat it ... you are right.

Yeah. That's what I meant. Apologies for the ambiguity.

...

Anybody else see Romney's latest? People who are worried about income inequality are "envious." Greg Sargent and Steve Benen have more.

 

[Learn2read]

Haha, wow. This guy is tonedeaf. Can't wait for the GE

Romney: Questions about Wall Street and inequality are driven by `envy’
By Greg Sargent

Mitt Romney had a remarkable exchange on NBC this morning that may not be as attention-grabbing about his “fire people” gaffe — but may actually be just as revealing and significant. And I hope it gets some attention.

In it, Romney suggested that concerns about Wall Street conduct and inequality are driven by “envy,” and even said we needn’t have a public debate about inequitable wealth distribution in this country.

Oh, sure, Romney has said before that Obama’s populist rhetoric is about the politics of envy. But in this particular case, Romney was pressed specifically — twice — on the question of whether any concerns about Wall Street, inequality, and economic unfairness are legitimate and are about something more than “envy.” His answer:

QUESTIONER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

QUESTIONER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.
Romney was twice given a chance to nod in the direction of saying that concerns about these problems have at least some legitimacy to them, that they are about something more than mere envy or class warfare, and that they are deserving of a public debate. And this is the answer he gave.​

At a time when polls show rising public anxiety about these problems and what they mean for the country’s future — and at a time when Dems are preparing to run a campaign focused on economic unfairness and lack of Wall Street accountability while painting Romney as the candidate of the one percent — this seems like a pretty revealing and important moment.

 

[The Librarian]

Update. David Axelrod shot Greg Sargent an email on Romney's stance.

The email:

Not a gaffe. It’s what he believes. Last week he said “productivity equals income.”

But the point is, it hasn’t for the typical American worker over the last three decades, and, particularly, over the last decade.

This is the central challenge of our time, and he doesn’t get it.

 

[Puddles]

If every Republican was like Huntsman, the country as a whole would be much better off.

I'm only interested in pragmatic policy. What's going to work? What does the evidence point to? Policy can not be a matter of faith.

 

[The Librarian]

Oh my god. I think Romney just flip-flopped on the number of jobs he created.

As recently as five months ago, Mitt Romney boasted about having created “tens of thousands of jobs” at his vulture-capital fund.

“When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked…. But I’m very proud of the fact that I learned about how you can be successful with an enterprise, why we lose jobs, how we gain jobs and overall, in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created.”

By December, Romney had come up with a new number.

“In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail,” said Romney. “That’s how that works and you try and encourage the more successful and fortunately for many people, tens of thousands of jobs, actually over a hundred thousands of jobs were created by the investments that we were able to help make.”

Which leads us to the new/old line, which Romney shared on CBS this morning:

“People here in the state know that in the work that I had, we started a number of businesses, invested in many others, and that over all created tens of thousands jobs so I’m pretty proud of that record.”

 

[A27_StarWolf]

So I'm going to be honest, I would vote for Newt, or Huntsman. I don't think I can vote for Romney given the facts, and all i've learned from him.

Otherwise I might vote for Obama, but I'm not sure I want to put him back into the oval office :/

 

[XMonkey]

Huntsman supports Paul Ryan's shitshow of a budget plan. That alone should make any notion of him as a 'moderate' go right out the damn window.

 

[Allard]

If every Republican was like Huntsman, the country as a whole would be much better off.

I'm only interested in pragmatic policy. What's going to work? What does the evidence point to? Policy can not be a matter of faith.

Yeah as a democrat I want more people like Huntsman on the otherside. Some of his policies scare me and I wouldn't want them near the white house, but he actually seems like the type of person that would give a level headed observation and take other people's input into his decisions. Its the kind of 'quality' that is missing from the republican side, but I don't blame that on the candidates, I blame the woefully polarized Republican electorate and corporate interest that have muddied up the larger picture. The difficult thing is... I just don't see it getting better. I hope to be proven wrong, but the demographics in the Republican party just seem to get more polarized and harsher to pin point as possible, almost all the level headed moderates are independent or switched parties thanks to how bad they have gotten.

 

[jamesinclair]

Huntsman supports Paul Ryan's shitshow of a budget plan. That alone should make any notion of him as a 'moderate' go right out the damn window.

Hes also said some pretty bad things in debates, but since he only gets to speak for a minute, people dont notice.

hes to the right of Romney.

 

[Kosmo]

Oh my god. I think Romney just flip-flopped on the number of jobs he created.

Depends to what level you are going - just direct jobs, or down to jobs of suppliers, etc.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

So I'm going to be honest, I would vote for Newt, or Huntsman. I don't think I can vote for Romney given the facts, and all i've learned from him.

Otherwise I might vote for Obama, but I'm not sure I want to put him back into the oval office :/

No sarcasm: what about the idea of a Gingrich presidency is appealing to you?

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Oh my god. I think Romney just flip-flopped on the number of jobs he created.

The second quote concerns the number of jobs in the US that were created in the lifetime of those companies from Bain's initial investment. The last quote is about a specific state.

I don't assume all conservatives are boorish and stupid even when some of them make posts like that.

Don't generalize.

And I'm not a conservative.

 

[The Librarian]

The second quote concerns how many jobs in the US were created in the lifetime of those companies from Bain's initial investment. The last quote is about a specific state.

So he's responsible for jobs created after he left the company?

Edit: Also, Romney's claims of job creation all have to deal with a specific state – Massachusetts. What, you think he wants to go around saying, "Oh hey. I was governor of Massachusetts, but I helped create jobs for Pennsylvania!"

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah as a democrat I want more people like Huntsman on the otherside. Some of his policies scare me and I wouldn't want them near the white house, but he actually seems like the type of person that would give a level headed observation and take other people's input into his decisions. Its the kind of 'quality' that is missing from the republican side, but I don't blame that on the candidates, I blame the woefully polarized Republican electorate and corporate interest that have muddied up the larger picture. The difficult thing is... I just don't see it getting better.

Yeah . . . it is one thing to have a guy you disagree with get into office and another for batshit crazy, bigoted, or ignorant people to get into office. Bachmann is batshit crazy. Perry and Cain are massively ignorant. Santorum is a theocrat. Those are things you can't really say about Huntsman & Romney even if you violently diasgree with them about policy.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The second quote concerns the number of jobs in the US that were created in the lifetime of those companies from Bain's initial investment. The last quote is about a specific state.



And I'm not a conservative.

Yeah, some serious reaching for controversy by people on the left. Wow.

Republicans are going to nuke Mitt's chances before the election even begins because of their envy...funny enough, that even amongst wealthy out of touch people, there is still an "us vs them" mentality. LOL

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

So he's responsible for jobs created after he left the company?

Bain may or may not have played a large role in helping those companies expand. It's hard for anyone to say unless we see the figures and know the context, the circumstances of those investments and Bain's post-financing involvement.

Edit: Also, Romney's claims of job creation all have to deal with a specific state – Massachusetts. What, you think he wants to go around saying, "Oh hey. I was governor of Massachusetts, but I helped create jobs for Pennsylvania!"

Not true. He's running for President - he has a stronger argument and position if he places himself as a person who has created jobs in several states rather than just one state. And during his election tour, he can go to several states and discuss which jobs and companies he helped expand in specific cities.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Newt with new ad shredding Romney.


Stay with it until the end.

 

[KtSlime]

No sarcasm: what about the idea of a Gingrich presidency is appealing to you?

From what I can tell of his postings, he seems to believe well educated in a small number of subjects equates to smart and educated on all topics.

He's probably too young to remember 90's politics and why Gingrich is a terrible human being.