Showing posts with label Obama2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama2012. Show all posts
Thursday, October 4, 2012
3 minute debate prep
Here's all the debate prep you need--first 3 minutes of the above video. Sad thing is, Romney Campaign probably hasn't watched it!
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Presidential Race Update
Hey it's not just me that thinks this thing is over--
This Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone: "The press everywhere is buzzing this week with premature obituaries of the Romney campaign. New polls are out suggesting that Mitt Romney's electoral path to the presidency is all but blocked. Unless someone snags an iPhone video of Obama taking a leak on Ohio State mascot Brutus Buckeye, or stealing pain meds from a Tampa retiree and sharing them with a bunch of Japanese carmakers, the game looks pretty much up – Obama's widening leads in three battleground states, Virginia, Ohio and Florida, seem to have sealed the deal. . . . wherever you rest on the ideological spectrum, you should be disappointed that Obama ultimately had to run against such an incompetent challenger."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
This Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone: "The press everywhere is buzzing this week with premature obituaries of the Romney campaign. New polls are out suggesting that Mitt Romney's electoral path to the presidency is all but blocked. Unless someone snags an iPhone video of Obama taking a leak on Ohio State mascot Brutus Buckeye, or stealing pain meds from a Tampa retiree and sharing them with a bunch of Japanese carmakers, the game looks pretty much up – Obama's widening leads in three battleground states, Virginia, Ohio and Florida, seem to have sealed the deal. . . . wherever you rest on the ideological spectrum, you should be disappointed that Obama ultimately had to run against such an incompetent challenger."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Why the Debates Don't Matter
If you haven't heard, the first Presidential Election Debate is this Wednesday (October 3rd) between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The media have already started hyping it. Peggy Noonan (and apparently the Romney campaign) believe it offers a chance for Mitt Romney to turn around his incompetent, losing campaign. It won't. He's done. Of course we have to go through these last few weeks of the campaign with the pundits and media, and candidates, pretending it's not over. It's over. Barack Obama will win his second term as President on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. As soon as Obama is projected by any national, credible news organization, to be the winner of Florida and Ohio (and it's just a question of how early in the evening those projections will come), you can turn out the lights and go to bed, or go back to your intense video game, or whatever.
If Bill Clinton thinks Barack Obama is an amateur, then Mitt Romney is a "rank amateur." Peggy Noonan has said the Romney campaign is incompetent. It's that and worse. Recently referred to as the "stench," the Romney campaign looks, smells, and acts like an incompetent, inept loser, now desperate, but still living in denial of its own miserable incompetence and ineptness. Romney says he's going to cut everybody's taxes--really? Do you believe that? Does any living, thinking person on the planet believe that? I don't. I gave up on Mitt Romney shortly after his disastrous foreign trip, when I realized, after taking stock of all of Obama's negatives (and there are many, very many), Romney could actually be worse if elected. That's it in a nutshell. Obama will win because Romney could be worse if elected. And the majority of the American people aren't willing to take that chance.
So watch the debate if you're so inclined, but it doesn't really matter. I may even watch the first five minutes myself. President Obama will be his calm Presidential self, and Mitt? He might make a fool of himself, or he might look like the desperate loser he has become, or he might even do a decent job. The problem is, under any scenario, he is not going to move the needle. He allowed himself to be defined by the Obama campaign back in the spring and early summer, and then he confirmed and even added to that negative definition again, and again (47% anyone?).
Update: Ryan told “Fox News Sunday” this morning that “it would take me too long to go through all the math” (on the Romney-Ryan plan to "cut everyone's taxes"). Problem is, the Romney-Ryan "math" doesn't "add up" and yet they expect people to vote for them. This is why voters don't "trust" Romney-Ryan.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
If Bill Clinton thinks Barack Obama is an amateur, then Mitt Romney is a "rank amateur." Peggy Noonan has said the Romney campaign is incompetent. It's that and worse. Recently referred to as the "stench," the Romney campaign looks, smells, and acts like an incompetent, inept loser, now desperate, but still living in denial of its own miserable incompetence and ineptness. Romney says he's going to cut everybody's taxes--really? Do you believe that? Does any living, thinking person on the planet believe that? I don't. I gave up on Mitt Romney shortly after his disastrous foreign trip, when I realized, after taking stock of all of Obama's negatives (and there are many, very many), Romney could actually be worse if elected. That's it in a nutshell. Obama will win because Romney could be worse if elected. And the majority of the American people aren't willing to take that chance.
So watch the debate if you're so inclined, but it doesn't really matter. I may even watch the first five minutes myself. President Obama will be his calm Presidential self, and Mitt? He might make a fool of himself, or he might look like the desperate loser he has become, or he might even do a decent job. The problem is, under any scenario, he is not going to move the needle. He allowed himself to be defined by the Obama campaign back in the spring and early summer, and then he confirmed and even added to that negative definition again, and again (47% anyone?).
Update: Ryan told “Fox News Sunday” this morning that “it would take me too long to go through all the math” (on the Romney-Ryan plan to "cut everyone's taxes"). Problem is, the Romney-Ryan "math" doesn't "add up" and yet they expect people to vote for them. This is why voters don't "trust" Romney-Ryan.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Monday, September 24, 2012
Denial is a river . . . in the Romney Campaign
That's right Governor--keep denying it to the end--
Mitt Romney defends 'very effective campaign' amid Republican complaints | World news | guardian.co.uk: "Wisconsin governor Scott Walker joins GOP voices calling for candidate to kickstart campaign after a devastating week"
Romney: My campaign doesn't need a turnaround - CBS News: " . . . Scott Pelley: Governor, I appreciate your message very much. But that wasn't precisely the question. You're the CEO of this campaign. A lot of Republicans would like to know, a lot of your donors would like to know, how do you turn this thing around? You've got a little more than six weeks. What do you do?
Mitt Romney: Well, it doesn't need a turnaround. We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States.
Scott Pelley: Well-- as you know, a lot of people were concerned about the video of the fundraiser in which you talked about the 47 percent of the American people who don't pay taxes. Peggy Noonan, a very well-known conservative columnist, said that it was an example of this campaign being incompetent. . . "
The above must make Obama's people very, very happy!
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Mitt Romney defends 'very effective campaign' amid Republican complaints | World news | guardian.co.uk: "Wisconsin governor Scott Walker joins GOP voices calling for candidate to kickstart campaign after a devastating week"
Romney: My campaign doesn't need a turnaround - CBS News: " . . . Scott Pelley: Governor, I appreciate your message very much. But that wasn't precisely the question. You're the CEO of this campaign. A lot of Republicans would like to know, a lot of your donors would like to know, how do you turn this thing around? You've got a little more than six weeks. What do you do?
Mitt Romney: Well, it doesn't need a turnaround. We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States.
Scott Pelley: Well-- as you know, a lot of people were concerned about the video of the fundraiser in which you talked about the 47 percent of the American people who don't pay taxes. Peggy Noonan, a very well-known conservative columnist, said that it was an example of this campaign being incompetent. . . "
The above must make Obama's people very, very happy!
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Just how inept is the Obama administration?
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast: "“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official."
Just when President Obama appeared to be in control and winning the Presidential race due to the incredibly ineffective and mistake-laden Romney campaign, along comes the attack in Libya and the Obama administration jumps to conclusions, and opines "facts"--which turn out to be incorrect--and everyone from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on down (e.g. Susan Rice et al) is guilty of this gross incompetence--
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast: "In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect . . . The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.) But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning. . . "
Paulson: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS DC: " . . . . Our leaders told the world that we are a nation led by either ignorance via doubt or by liars. Neither, of course, is an admirable trait to display when one claims to be “the” world leader. Beyond causing America to be embarrassed throughout the world, last week’s denial of what happened on 9/11/2012 makes us look incredibly weak. Even the thought of blaming the anti-Islamic, Mohammad-disgracing movie for the most recent 9/11 attack on innocent Americans was ignorant – and carrying the thought out through words from the nation’s capital via our top leaders was incredibly inappropriate, totally embarrassing, extremely America-weakening, and – most of all – an ignorant stunt to try to pass on to America and the world. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” is too little – far too late."
Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard: " . . . So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened. This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal. If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not. On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation. . . ."
What's even worse, by making a "big deal" of an obscure YouTube video that most of the world was unaware of, the Obama administration inflamed Pakistan and other Muslim communities--places which were peaceful before "agitated" by the Obama administration's "narrative."
So I guess the election isn't over after all--it's becoming harder and harder to say who's more incompetent: Obama or Romney?
Tip to Obama administration: if you want win the Presidential election, then everyone in the Obama administration (from the President on down) should every morning stand in front of a mirror and repeat: "I am incredibly incompetent and inept. Just because I may think, feel, or want to believe something is true, doesn't make it so, and I need to keep my mouth shut and my mind open."
If practiced regularly, I promise it will change an arrogant, ignorant, and inept administration into an incredibly effective organization.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Just when President Obama appeared to be in control and winning the Presidential race due to the incredibly ineffective and mistake-laden Romney campaign, along comes the attack in Libya and the Obama administration jumps to conclusions, and opines "facts"--which turn out to be incorrect--and everyone from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on down (e.g. Susan Rice et al) is guilty of this gross incompetence--
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast: "In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect . . . The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.) But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning. . . "
Paulson: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS DC: " . . . . Our leaders told the world that we are a nation led by either ignorance via doubt or by liars. Neither, of course, is an admirable trait to display when one claims to be “the” world leader. Beyond causing America to be embarrassed throughout the world, last week’s denial of what happened on 9/11/2012 makes us look incredibly weak. Even the thought of blaming the anti-Islamic, Mohammad-disgracing movie for the most recent 9/11 attack on innocent Americans was ignorant – and carrying the thought out through words from the nation’s capital via our top leaders was incredibly inappropriate, totally embarrassing, extremely America-weakening, and – most of all – an ignorant stunt to try to pass on to America and the world. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” is too little – far too late."
Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard: " . . . So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened. This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal. If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not. On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation. . . ."
What's even worse, by making a "big deal" of an obscure YouTube video that most of the world was unaware of, the Obama administration inflamed Pakistan and other Muslim communities--places which were peaceful before "agitated" by the Obama administration's "narrative."
So I guess the election isn't over after all--it's becoming harder and harder to say who's more incompetent: Obama or Romney?
Tip to Obama administration: if you want win the Presidential election, then everyone in the Obama administration (from the President on down) should every morning stand in front of a mirror and repeat: "I am incredibly incompetent and inept. Just because I may think, feel, or want to believe something is true, doesn't make it so, and I need to keep my mouth shut and my mind open."
If practiced regularly, I promise it will change an arrogant, ignorant, and inept administration into an incredibly effective organization.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Romney Campaign Is a Slow-motion Train Wreck
Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Matt Dowd talks with Bloomberg's Tom Keene about the latest from the 2012 presidential campaign, and likens Mitt Romney's relationship with the Republican party to that of an arranged marriage. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg Surveillance."
If you had told me six months ago the state of the Romney campaign as it exists today, I would not have believed you. I mean, you really have to "work at it," to get a campaign in this state of disarray--most of which is self-inflicted by the candidate and his key campaign leadership. It's not just one thing, it's a culmination of things--and now the Obama campaign is capitalizing on all the Romney fumbles and bumbles by (mostly) "staying quiet" and acting "Presidential"--smart move. If Obama can keep his campaign staff muzzled, and maintain his calm, Presidential demeanor through it all, my best guess today is he will be re-elected in spite of the terrible economy, unemployment rate, weak record, etc. My reading is Romney is "done"--he's (and/or his campaign) made too many mistakes, lost too much credibility, alienated too many voters. Remember his foreign trip? Insulted the British on the eve of the London Olympics, acted like Sheldon Adelson's lap dog in Israel, alienated the Palestinians and most of the Arab world, offended Putin; and apparently he wants to start a trade war with China. That's a full plate--covers everything from alienating our best ally to a war of mutual economic destruction with our biggest foreign creditor. Is this the way he ran Bain Capital?
You add to that the fact that he now appears to be trying to supplant Obama as the "Great Divider" (47% etc.), won't release tax returns, is a rich guy who was a rich kid and as a result, now appears to be tone-deaf and out-of-touch when it comes to average Americans--I could go on, but what's the point?
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
If you had told me six months ago the state of the Romney campaign as it exists today, I would not have believed you. I mean, you really have to "work at it," to get a campaign in this state of disarray--most of which is self-inflicted by the candidate and his key campaign leadership. It's not just one thing, it's a culmination of things--and now the Obama campaign is capitalizing on all the Romney fumbles and bumbles by (mostly) "staying quiet" and acting "Presidential"--smart move. If Obama can keep his campaign staff muzzled, and maintain his calm, Presidential demeanor through it all, my best guess today is he will be re-elected in spite of the terrible economy, unemployment rate, weak record, etc. My reading is Romney is "done"--he's (and/or his campaign) made too many mistakes, lost too much credibility, alienated too many voters. Remember his foreign trip? Insulted the British on the eve of the London Olympics, acted like Sheldon Adelson's lap dog in Israel, alienated the Palestinians and most of the Arab world, offended Putin; and apparently he wants to start a trade war with China. That's a full plate--covers everything from alienating our best ally to a war of mutual economic destruction with our biggest foreign creditor. Is this the way he ran Bain Capital?
You add to that the fact that he now appears to be trying to supplant Obama as the "Great Divider" (47% etc.), won't release tax returns, is a rich guy who was a rich kid and as a result, now appears to be tone-deaf and out-of-touch when it comes to average Americans--I could go on, but what's the point?
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Saturday, September 15, 2012
What's Wrong With Romney?
"Pick your poison" was my last statement on the quandary the American electorate faces in this year's Presidential election. But despite Obama's vulnerability to defeat, the Republicans and Romney are doing their best to re-elect Obama. Want some specifics? Here are two sources--
Listen to David Brooks on Charlie Rose
Romney Re-Explains Why He Can’t Be Trusted on Health Care - Bloomberg: "For a conservative approach to fix at least part of the affordability problem, see this article from National Affairs by James Capretta and Tom Miller. Capretta and Miller propose to combine a Romney-style proposal on pre-existing conditions with significantly expanded funding for high-risk insurance pools, in hopes of covering up to 4 million uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. But Capretta and Miller estimate that their plan would cost somewhere on the order of $200 billion over 10 years. Where is the indication that Romney plans to make such a significant financial commitment, let alone get one out of a Republican Congress? Romney's platform is full of expensive promises -- restore $700 billion in Medicare cuts, grow defense spending to 4 percent of GDP, cut tax rates. It funds these promises in part by drastically cutting spending on health care for the non-elderly. . . "
Insincerity, bumbling campaign management and worse--I wonder if Romney is trying to lose because he understands the dire fiscal situation of the United States and knows neither the Obama campaign nor his campaign are telling the American people the truth, and whoever wins the election is probably the "loser" because of the almost impossible task ahead.
Tip to the Obama campaign--just pick up on Bill Clinton's arithmetic theme for the Presidential debates ahead--Romney's math doesn't "add up" and the American people don't like being played for suckers. Offense is the best defense for the Obama campaign since the President can't run on his record and of course he can't talk about the true reality of our fiscal mess and weak economy.
Tip to the Romney campaign--get honest, sincere, and competent real fast, or forget about ever winning the Presidential race.
Oh well, whoever wins, we'll muddle through--so go ahead, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Listen to David Brooks on Charlie Rose
Romney Re-Explains Why He Can’t Be Trusted on Health Care - Bloomberg: "For a conservative approach to fix at least part of the affordability problem, see this article from National Affairs by James Capretta and Tom Miller. Capretta and Miller propose to combine a Romney-style proposal on pre-existing conditions with significantly expanded funding for high-risk insurance pools, in hopes of covering up to 4 million uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. But Capretta and Miller estimate that their plan would cost somewhere on the order of $200 billion over 10 years. Where is the indication that Romney plans to make such a significant financial commitment, let alone get one out of a Republican Congress? Romney's platform is full of expensive promises -- restore $700 billion in Medicare cuts, grow defense spending to 4 percent of GDP, cut tax rates. It funds these promises in part by drastically cutting spending on health care for the non-elderly. . . "
Insincerity, bumbling campaign management and worse--I wonder if Romney is trying to lose because he understands the dire fiscal situation of the United States and knows neither the Obama campaign nor his campaign are telling the American people the truth, and whoever wins the election is probably the "loser" because of the almost impossible task ahead.
Tip to the Obama campaign--just pick up on Bill Clinton's arithmetic theme for the Presidential debates ahead--Romney's math doesn't "add up" and the American people don't like being played for suckers. Offense is the best defense for the Obama campaign since the President can't run on his record and of course he can't talk about the true reality of our fiscal mess and weak economy.
Tip to the Romney campaign--get honest, sincere, and competent real fast, or forget about ever winning the Presidential race.
Oh well, whoever wins, we'll muddle through--so go ahead, pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Obama and the Downward Spiral For America
Obama's Accelerating Downward Spiral For America - Forbes: "New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%. In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better."
If it truly is the "economy election," Obama is doomed.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
If it truly is the "economy election," Obama is doomed.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Monday, September 3, 2012
Obama's "Culture Of Fraud" Campaign
Culture Of Fraud - NYTimes.com: Paul Krugman-- "So this is a campaign that’s all about faking it — fake claims about Obama, fake claims about policy, fake claims about Romney’s personal history."
Can't disagree with that--and I know it hurts Krugman, an Obama liberal, to have to admit the Obama Campaign is a fraud, constantly making fake claims about Romney.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Can't disagree with that--and I know it hurts Krugman, an Obama liberal, to have to admit the Obama Campaign is a fraud, constantly making fake claims about Romney.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Presidential TV ad spending focused on 9 states
Presidential TV ad spending focused on 9 states - Businessweek: "If television ad spending is any guide, the White House race will come down to nine states that have absorbed an eye-popping $350 million in commercials so far. Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, the largest and most diverse of these highly contested states, are where the ad dollars have been concentrated, and that's been consistent this election season. They account for 120 of the 270 electoral votes a presidential candidate needs to win. Barack Obama carried all nine states in 2008 when he beat Republican John McCain, but polling and the ad crush indicate all are highly competitive this time."
Actually, with Paul Ryan as VP nominee, the Romney folks have made it clear that Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are "in play."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Actually, with Paul Ryan as VP nominee, the Romney folks have made it clear that Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are "in play."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Friday, August 24, 2012
White House Press Corps Goes Seven Weeks Without a Question -- You explain it
This says it all about what passes as an independent "fourth estate" in the United States:
WH Press Corps Goes Seven Weeks Without a Question | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier: "President Obama has not taken a serious question from the White House press corps in nearly seven weeks, a remarkable string that points to a campaign-style White House operation that is seeking to insulate the candidate from tough cross examination. The last substantive question Obama took from a White House reporter was during a June 20 press conference following the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Obama allowed only six questions during the event, which was nearly guaranteed to keep him out of political hot water as the focus was on foreign policy. Since then, Obama has held no press conferences, given no interviews to White House reporters, and taken no questions at the White House events he has held where reporters have been present. After a July 26 Cabinet meeting, Obama actually laughed off the prospect of taking a serious question about gun laws. From the White House transcript: Q Mr. President, can you tell us, if what the Colorado shooter did was entirely legal, how do you do more on this subject without any new laws? THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to talk about this. Q This afternoon is fine. I’m available. THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. I’ll ask Jay for your number. (Laughter.) During his recent trip to Europe and Israel, Mitt Romney’s failure to take many questions from the frustrated reporters traveling with him sparked an uproar in Washington, even though Romney did in fact hold a press availability during the trip. Obama’s silencing of the White House press corps has drawn no similar protest."
WH Press Corps Goes Seven Weeks Without a Question | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier: "President Obama has not taken a serious question from the White House press corps in nearly seven weeks, a remarkable string that points to a campaign-style White House operation that is seeking to insulate the candidate from tough cross examination. The last substantive question Obama took from a White House reporter was during a June 20 press conference following the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Obama allowed only six questions during the event, which was nearly guaranteed to keep him out of political hot water as the focus was on foreign policy. Since then, Obama has held no press conferences, given no interviews to White House reporters, and taken no questions at the White House events he has held where reporters have been present. After a July 26 Cabinet meeting, Obama actually laughed off the prospect of taking a serious question about gun laws. From the White House transcript: Q Mr. President, can you tell us, if what the Colorado shooter did was entirely legal, how do you do more on this subject without any new laws? THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to talk about this. Q This afternoon is fine. I’m available. THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. I’ll ask Jay for your number. (Laughter.) During his recent trip to Europe and Israel, Mitt Romney’s failure to take many questions from the frustrated reporters traveling with him sparked an uproar in Washington, even though Romney did in fact hold a press availability during the trip. Obama’s silencing of the White House press corps has drawn no similar protest."
Monday, August 20, 2012
Is this the way Obama really talks?
I've written about the vulgar and inappropriate language used by Obama's campaign staff et al before, but this points to the top:
POLITICO e-book: Obama campaign roiled by conflict - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Obama’s trash-talking . . . was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. “Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?” the president asked her. Maybe, she replied. “Well,” he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. “Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.”"
Wonder how Obama would like being referred to as "boy"? As far as getting one's "ass kicked" (politically speaking), if I were Obama, I'd be watching "my behind."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
POLITICO e-book: Obama campaign roiled by conflict - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Obama’s trash-talking . . . was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. “Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?” the president asked her. Maybe, she replied. “Well,” he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. “Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.”"
Wonder how Obama would like being referred to as "boy"? As far as getting one's "ass kicked" (politically speaking), if I were Obama, I'd be watching "my behind."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Lost Respect for Obama yet?
Obama cannot separate himself from his campaign--as much as he may want to pretend otherwise--
Noonan: A Nation That Believes Nothing - WSJ.com: "The pro-Obama Super PAC ad that essentially blames Mitt Romney for a woman's death from cancer is over the line, and if it's allowed to stand the personal attacks that have marked the presidential campaign will probably get worse. If the president rebukes the PAC and renounces the ad—and he should, and he'd look better doing it than not doing it—then we'll all know there's an ethical floor below which things can't sink. The ad was a mistake for a number of reasons, one being that it makes the president look perfidious and weak: "Mudslinging is all we've got." It also may finally injure his much vaunted likability ratings."
Obama camp denies knowledge of cancer tale it told in May | The Ticket - Yahoo! News: "Oops? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group's vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker's wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the case—but it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May. . . . The ad features Joe Soptic, . . . Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad's heartbreaking narrative. . . . "
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Noonan: A Nation That Believes Nothing - WSJ.com: "The pro-Obama Super PAC ad that essentially blames Mitt Romney for a woman's death from cancer is over the line, and if it's allowed to stand the personal attacks that have marked the presidential campaign will probably get worse. If the president rebukes the PAC and renounces the ad—and he should, and he'd look better doing it than not doing it—then we'll all know there's an ethical floor below which things can't sink. The ad was a mistake for a number of reasons, one being that it makes the president look perfidious and weak: "Mudslinging is all we've got." It also may finally injure his much vaunted likability ratings."
Obama camp denies knowledge of cancer tale it told in May | The Ticket - Yahoo! News: "Oops? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group's vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker's wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the case—but it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May. . . . The ad features Joe Soptic, . . . Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad's heartbreaking narrative. . . . "
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Ryan v. Obama (video)
It is being reported that Romney will announce his Vice-President nominee Saturday morning at 9 a.m. EDT at the Nauticus Museum in Newport, Virginia. Berthed at the museum is the USS Wisconsin. Reportedly the VP nominee will be Paul Ryan, seven-term congressman from Wisconsin.
Ryan v. Obama: watch the video--Obama-Biden now have a problem--Ryan has done his homework (and neither Obama nor Biden have). Obama's campaign better "re-think" otherwise Ryan will steamroller them.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Friday, August 10, 2012
Deficit Spending - Bush v Obama
When the Democrats took over Congress in Jan 2007, after 12 years of prosperity, unemployment was at 4%, the DJIA was at a record high, we had had 54 straight months of economic growth and a boom housing market.
The recession and mortgage meltdown started in late 2007, almost a year after the Democrat Congress took power. Their predecessor Republican Congress had 4 budget surplus years, and left in 2006, with the DJIA at a record high, unemployment under 4%, moderate deficits, and 52 straight months of economic growth.
Bush -- 2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus
Bush -- 2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2003 $374 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2004 $413 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2005 $319 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2006 $248 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2007 $162 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2008 $455 Billion Deficit
Obama - 2009 $1.416 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2010 $1.294 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2011 $1.299 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2012 $1.330 Trillion Deficit
(source)
8 years of Bush: total net deficit--$2 trillion dollars
4 years of Obama: total net deficit--$5.3 trillion dollars
At this rate, Obama (if re-elected) will accumulate a total deficit in excess of $10 trillion dollars in 8 years!
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
The recession and mortgage meltdown started in late 2007, almost a year after the Democrat Congress took power. Their predecessor Republican Congress had 4 budget surplus years, and left in 2006, with the DJIA at a record high, unemployment under 4%, moderate deficits, and 52 straight months of economic growth.
Bush -- 2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus
Bush -- 2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2003 $374 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2004 $413 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2005 $319 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2006 $248 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2007 $162 Billion Deficit
Bush -- 2008 $455 Billion Deficit
Obama - 2009 $1.416 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2010 $1.294 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2011 $1.299 Trillion Deficit
Obama - 2012 $1.330 Trillion Deficit
(source)
8 years of Bush: total net deficit--$2 trillion dollars
4 years of Obama: total net deficit--$5.3 trillion dollars
At this rate, Obama (if re-elected) will accumulate a total deficit in excess of $10 trillion dollars in 8 years!
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Freedom of Speech and "Chicago Values"
We already know, thanks to Obama's buddy (and current mayor of Chicago), Rahm Emanuel, that "Chicago values" do NOT include values embedded in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the first amendment--FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The last time I checked--yesterday--"Chicago Values" are murder, gangs and thugs--100,000 gang members run the streets of the "Windy City," fiscally unsustainable public spending, high rates of dropouts from public schools, and I could go on but trust me, the LAST thing YOU want for YOUR CITY is "Chicago Values." Now it will be interesting to see if Obama's Chicago crowd will trample another constitutional value--the Right of Privacy--in their desperate effort to create the illusion of scandal about Romney--
Ann Coulter - August 1, 2012 - OBAMA'S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS: " . . . And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from "sealed" court records. Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office! So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon. They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can pick the lock of the famously guarded IRS."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Ann Coulter - August 1, 2012 - OBAMA'S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS: " . . . And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from "sealed" court records. Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office! So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon. They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can pick the lock of the famously guarded IRS."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Monday, August 6, 2012
The True Jobs Report (not so good)
You want a true picture of the job situation in the U.S.? At the rate of job growth for the past 18 months of the Obama administration, the U.S. economy will not get back to full employment until 2025!
Kudos to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post for "shining light" on the "jobs report" issued by Washington:
Wait, the U.S. economy actually lost 1.2 million jobs in July?: "The U.S. economy lost 1.2 million jobs between June and July. But that’s not how it got reported. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its jobs figures for July, it said the economy gained 163,000 jobs. So what gives? BLS isn’t hiding anything. The discrepancy just has to do with what’s known as “seasonal adjustments.” The U.S. economy follows certain predictable patterns in hiring and layoffs every year. School districts always let workers go for the summer and hire in the fall. Retailers always staff up for the Christmas holidays and lay people off afterwards. Students always flood the labor market in June. So if we want to know how well the economy is doing, we want to know how many jobs were added after taking these predictable fluctuations into account. This is exactly what BLS does in its monthly jobs reports. As Jacob Goldstein of Planet Money points out, the U.S. economy had 1.2 million fewer jobs (pdf) in July than it did in June. But, according to the bureau, the economy still had 163,000 more jobs than one would’ve expected, given seasonal trends. That’s a sign of a steadily recovering labor market. So BLS reported it as a 163,000 gain in jobs. In theory, that makes sense. But some economists and analysts now wonder if the BLS seasonal adjustments are somehow off a bit. If the financial crisis and recession mucked with the seasonal ebb and flow of the economy, then the adjustments that BLS makes for its monthly reports might be a bit skewed. Some jobs reports might look much better than they actually are. And others might look worse. There’s some reason to suspect this is happening. . . . So look at the long-term trends. For the past one-and-a-half years, the U.S. economy has added about 152,000 jobs per month on average. It’s a decent, but certainly not terrific jobs recovery: According to the Hamilton Project’s jobs calculator, the U.S. economy won’t get back to full employment until 2025 at this pace. . . it’s probably more accurate to watch that long-run average than to fixate on any one monthly jobs report."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Kudos to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post for "shining light" on the "jobs report" issued by Washington:
Wait, the U.S. economy actually lost 1.2 million jobs in July?: "The U.S. economy lost 1.2 million jobs between June and July. But that’s not how it got reported. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its jobs figures for July, it said the economy gained 163,000 jobs. So what gives? BLS isn’t hiding anything. The discrepancy just has to do with what’s known as “seasonal adjustments.” The U.S. economy follows certain predictable patterns in hiring and layoffs every year. School districts always let workers go for the summer and hire in the fall. Retailers always staff up for the Christmas holidays and lay people off afterwards. Students always flood the labor market in June. So if we want to know how well the economy is doing, we want to know how many jobs were added after taking these predictable fluctuations into account. This is exactly what BLS does in its monthly jobs reports. As Jacob Goldstein of Planet Money points out, the U.S. economy had 1.2 million fewer jobs (pdf) in July than it did in June. But, according to the bureau, the economy still had 163,000 more jobs than one would’ve expected, given seasonal trends. That’s a sign of a steadily recovering labor market. So BLS reported it as a 163,000 gain in jobs. In theory, that makes sense. But some economists and analysts now wonder if the BLS seasonal adjustments are somehow off a bit. If the financial crisis and recession mucked with the seasonal ebb and flow of the economy, then the adjustments that BLS makes for its monthly reports might be a bit skewed. Some jobs reports might look much better than they actually are. And others might look worse. There’s some reason to suspect this is happening. . . . So look at the long-term trends. For the past one-and-a-half years, the U.S. economy has added about 152,000 jobs per month on average. It’s a decent, but certainly not terrific jobs recovery: According to the Hamilton Project’s jobs calculator, the U.S. economy won’t get back to full employment until 2025 at this pace. . . it’s probably more accurate to watch that long-run average than to fixate on any one monthly jobs report."
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, August 5, 2012
"We're Not Stupid" - words that may haunt Mitt Romney
I've already written about how both Obama and Romney are doing the most damage to themselves, not each other, so I won't repeat it again. However it is becoming increasingly clear that Romney is failing--not because of anything Obama or his ineffective campaign is doing, but because Romney is NOT getting "real"--
Romney tax plan on table. Debt collapses table-Ezra Klein: "I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible. Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election. If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one — and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.” The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. . . . "
Theses On Taxes - Krugman - NYTimes.com: "Neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing. But the two men are not equivalent in their unrealism: Obama is proposing to raise revenue by around $80 billion a year compared with current policy, while Romney is proposing to cut revenue by around $450 billion a year compared with current policy. Obama is inadequate; Romney is intensely, screamingly irresponsible."
Dooh Nibor -Krugman - NYTimes.com: "even on the most favorable assumption, the Romney plan would give the rich big tax cuts on net – which means that to be revenue-neutral, it must raise taxes on Americans making less than $200,000 a year. So they’re actually giving Romney every possible benefit of the doubt – and still his plan is a redistribution from the middle class to the rich. "
One is left to ask: "Does Romney think we're stupid?" OR "Is Romney stupid?"
Remember what Romney said about Obama?--
Romney: 'It's still about the economy, and we're not stupid' - Los Angeles Times: "“Four years ago, Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change,” Romney said. “But after we came down to earth, after all the celebration and the parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama? It’s still about the economy, and we’re not stupid. . . ”"
Okay, it is all about the economy--and what we need is comprehensive tax and entitlement reforms--and we need a transformational leader. Obama claimed to be a transformational leader 4 years ago and has been a big disappointment. Romney? He better stop "dissing" us and get real honest, real fast--otherwise the electorate will figure out the best approach is to re-elect Obama and keep at least one house of Congress in Republican hands.
It seems Romney is afraid to exercise leadership. He needs Condi Rice as his VP--she's better qualified to be President than either Obama or Romney (and if Romney picks either Portman or Pawlenty I think I'll puke)--and he needs to start listening to people who know what they are talking about. I have NO confidence in Romney's campaign staff--they appear to be clueless losers (of course I have NO confidence in Obama or his campaign staff either). The difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is the challenger. Unless he demonstrates he's a better alternative, people will go with the guy they know.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Romney tax plan on table. Debt collapses table-Ezra Klein: "I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible. Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election. If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one — and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.” The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. . . . "
Theses On Taxes - Krugman - NYTimes.com: "Neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing. But the two men are not equivalent in their unrealism: Obama is proposing to raise revenue by around $80 billion a year compared with current policy, while Romney is proposing to cut revenue by around $450 billion a year compared with current policy. Obama is inadequate; Romney is intensely, screamingly irresponsible."
Dooh Nibor -Krugman - NYTimes.com: "even on the most favorable assumption, the Romney plan would give the rich big tax cuts on net – which means that to be revenue-neutral, it must raise taxes on Americans making less than $200,000 a year. So they’re actually giving Romney every possible benefit of the doubt – and still his plan is a redistribution from the middle class to the rich. "
One is left to ask: "Does Romney think we're stupid?" OR "Is Romney stupid?"
Remember what Romney said about Obama?--
Romney: 'It's still about the economy, and we're not stupid' - Los Angeles Times: "“Four years ago, Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change,” Romney said. “But after we came down to earth, after all the celebration and the parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama? It’s still about the economy, and we’re not stupid. . . ”"
Okay, it is all about the economy--and what we need is comprehensive tax and entitlement reforms--and we need a transformational leader. Obama claimed to be a transformational leader 4 years ago and has been a big disappointment. Romney? He better stop "dissing" us and get real honest, real fast--otherwise the electorate will figure out the best approach is to re-elect Obama and keep at least one house of Congress in Republican hands.
It seems Romney is afraid to exercise leadership. He needs Condi Rice as his VP--she's better qualified to be President than either Obama or Romney (and if Romney picks either Portman or Pawlenty I think I'll puke)--and he needs to start listening to people who know what they are talking about. I have NO confidence in Romney's campaign staff--they appear to be clueless losers (of course I have NO confidence in Obama or his campaign staff either). The difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is the challenger. Unless he demonstrates he's a better alternative, people will go with the guy they know.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Election 2012 -- all bets are off
The election for President of the United States is now only 3 months away (hard to believe--August, September, October). And what do we have? Two flawed, imperfect candidates, neither of whom is really "up to the job." So Americans are going to be faced with the prospect of choosing "the lesser of two evils." Besides the flaws of each candidate, it is now obvious the campaign staffs of Obama and Romney, respectively, are among each candidate's greatest liabilities. I've already written about the "wannabe Chicago street thugs" culture, language and values of the Obama campaign and National Democratic Party, so I am not going to repeat that here.
On the other hand, while Romney's staff's shortcomings have been noticeable throughout the past year, they have become glaring on Romney's trip abroad:
Romney's disastrous 'European Vacation' - CSMonitor.com: "Mr. Romney’s “European Vacation” hasn’t culminated in the destruction of Stonehenge (yet). But already, the candidate is rivaling actor Chevy Chase in his clueless ability to insult and offend. . . . in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC News, Romney suggested that London wasn’t prepared for the Olympic Games, citing concerns about logistics and security."
Everybody knows Romney is a really "rich guy" (Obama's campaign keeps wasting its money on ads telling us this over and over--get "over it!"). The real problem with Romney being a "rich guy" has nothing to do with his financial advisers, trustees, estate planners, tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc., setting up sophisticated (and completely legal) accounts offshore to take advantage of tax provisions passed by Congress and regulations issued by the IRS. The problem with Romney being a "rich guy" is that "rich guys" often convince themselves they know everything (after all they made "all this money" so that proves they know "everything!"). "Rich guys" rarely have people around them who tell them regularly, and convincingly, they don't know everything--wives are an exception (which is another reason Mitt and Barack--yeah he's now a "rich guy" multimillionaire too, just not as "rich" as Mitt--need their respective wives, Michelle and Ann, more than they need them).
Job #1 of any campaign staff and campaign manager, is first to know their own candidate inside out--his strengths, his weaknesses, his vision, his blindspots, etc. A trip abroad for a presidential candidate is not a hard task. It is essentially an opportunity to get some campaign video footage of the candidate "meeting and greeting" various foreign officials in foreign capitals. It is a worthwhile thing to do to assure both the international community and voters here at home that the candidate can represent the U.S., as its President, in the international arena.
Trip preparation by the campaign staff requires, at a minimum, a serious fifteen-minute conversation with the candidate before he departs, of the "do's and don'ts" while abroad--smile, shake hands, say as little as possible publicly other than general pleasantries, be positive, don't criticize--these people don't want or need advice or opinions from some U.S. Presidential wannabe! Private conversations with foreign officials are fine--but keep them private. See, it really isn't rocket science. This is all part of the art of appearing and being Presidential--and despite his shortfalls in other areas, Barack Obama has demonstrated he knows how to do this, whereas Mitt Romney has utterly failed in his first international test--London.
London--probably the most American-friendly foreign capital city in the world--today is a multi-cultural megalopolis that serves not only as the capital of the United Kingdom but is the world's financial center. Just this year, the U.S. corporate giant, AON, moved its world headquarters from Chicago to London and re-incorporated in England (interesting that the mainstream media reported very little on this change of "citizenship" compared to the hullabaloo over Facebook's Eduardo Saverin decision to leave the U.S. and establish citizenship in Singapore.)
Anyway, Mitt Romney either never had that "do's and don'ts conversation" or promptly forgot it once he arrived in London (campaign staff are supposed to continually remind a candidate of the "do's and don'ts"). Mitt Romney, being a "rich guy" (who knows everything and who once ran the winter olympics) presumed it was his place to pontificate, critique, and opine on matters (such as preparations for the 2012 London Olympics) having nothing to do with issues confronting the U.S.
What happened next is a lesson Mitt Romney will never forget. It was a classic one-two punch that leveled the presumptive Republican nominee straight to the mat. First punch came from the British press who circled, like sharks (ask poor Rupert Murdoch--a newspaperman himself--about the British press), the unknowing prey and publicized all of his inappropriate pontifications and opinions:
"Romneyshambles" quips The Independent. "Who invited party-pooper Romney?" asks the conservative, and generally pro-American, Daily Mail. And The Sun, as always, is the pithiest; "Mitt the Twit" is its headline. (Source: The Economist)
That, of course, set Mitt up for the second, knock-out punch--promptly delivered by British politicians:
Prime Minister (and leader of the Conservative Party) David Cameron: "We are holding an Olympic games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course, it's easier if you hold an Olympic games in the middle of nowhere" (referring of course to Romney's winter Olympics in Salt Lake City).
Boris Johnson, mayor of London, mocked Romney, telling a Hyde Park crowd: "There's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready. Are we ready?"
Finally, the Economist reports: "The most biting remarks came from anonymous officials. The Daily Mail quotes one mandarin as saying: "What a car crash. We are speechless." While the unkindest cut of all came from a "diplomatic source" in The Times: "It is worse than Sarah Palin in terms of basic diplomacy.""
So there you have it (and Romney has no one to blame but himself and his campaign staff). So now the election comes down to two choices: Obama--the disappointment; or Romney--the embarassment. Pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
On the other hand, while Romney's staff's shortcomings have been noticeable throughout the past year, they have become glaring on Romney's trip abroad:
Romney's disastrous 'European Vacation' - CSMonitor.com: "Mr. Romney’s “European Vacation” hasn’t culminated in the destruction of Stonehenge (yet). But already, the candidate is rivaling actor Chevy Chase in his clueless ability to insult and offend. . . . in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC News, Romney suggested that London wasn’t prepared for the Olympic Games, citing concerns about logistics and security."
Everybody knows Romney is a really "rich guy" (Obama's campaign keeps wasting its money on ads telling us this over and over--get "over it!"). The real problem with Romney being a "rich guy" has nothing to do with his financial advisers, trustees, estate planners, tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc., setting up sophisticated (and completely legal) accounts offshore to take advantage of tax provisions passed by Congress and regulations issued by the IRS. The problem with Romney being a "rich guy" is that "rich guys" often convince themselves they know everything (after all they made "all this money" so that proves they know "everything!"). "Rich guys" rarely have people around them who tell them regularly, and convincingly, they don't know everything--wives are an exception (which is another reason Mitt and Barack--yeah he's now a "rich guy" multimillionaire too, just not as "rich" as Mitt--need their respective wives, Michelle and Ann, more than they need them).
Job #1 of any campaign staff and campaign manager, is first to know their own candidate inside out--his strengths, his weaknesses, his vision, his blindspots, etc. A trip abroad for a presidential candidate is not a hard task. It is essentially an opportunity to get some campaign video footage of the candidate "meeting and greeting" various foreign officials in foreign capitals. It is a worthwhile thing to do to assure both the international community and voters here at home that the candidate can represent the U.S., as its President, in the international arena.
Trip preparation by the campaign staff requires, at a minimum, a serious fifteen-minute conversation with the candidate before he departs, of the "do's and don'ts" while abroad--smile, shake hands, say as little as possible publicly other than general pleasantries, be positive, don't criticize--these people don't want or need advice or opinions from some U.S. Presidential wannabe! Private conversations with foreign officials are fine--but keep them private. See, it really isn't rocket science. This is all part of the art of appearing and being Presidential--and despite his shortfalls in other areas, Barack Obama has demonstrated he knows how to do this, whereas Mitt Romney has utterly failed in his first international test--London.
London--probably the most American-friendly foreign capital city in the world--today is a multi-cultural megalopolis that serves not only as the capital of the United Kingdom but is the world's financial center. Just this year, the U.S. corporate giant, AON, moved its world headquarters from Chicago to London and re-incorporated in England (interesting that the mainstream media reported very little on this change of "citizenship" compared to the hullabaloo over Facebook's Eduardo Saverin decision to leave the U.S. and establish citizenship in Singapore.)
Anyway, Mitt Romney either never had that "do's and don'ts conversation" or promptly forgot it once he arrived in London (campaign staff are supposed to continually remind a candidate of the "do's and don'ts"). Mitt Romney, being a "rich guy" (who knows everything and who once ran the winter olympics) presumed it was his place to pontificate, critique, and opine on matters (such as preparations for the 2012 London Olympics) having nothing to do with issues confronting the U.S.
What happened next is a lesson Mitt Romney will never forget. It was a classic one-two punch that leveled the presumptive Republican nominee straight to the mat. First punch came from the British press who circled, like sharks (ask poor Rupert Murdoch--a newspaperman himself--about the British press), the unknowing prey and publicized all of his inappropriate pontifications and opinions:
"Romneyshambles" quips The Independent. "Who invited party-pooper Romney?" asks the conservative, and generally pro-American, Daily Mail. And The Sun, as always, is the pithiest; "Mitt the Twit" is its headline. (Source: The Economist)
That, of course, set Mitt up for the second, knock-out punch--promptly delivered by British politicians:
Prime Minister (and leader of the Conservative Party) David Cameron: "We are holding an Olympic games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course, it's easier if you hold an Olympic games in the middle of nowhere" (referring of course to Romney's winter Olympics in Salt Lake City).
Boris Johnson, mayor of London, mocked Romney, telling a Hyde Park crowd: "There's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready. Are we ready?"
Finally, the Economist reports: "The most biting remarks came from anonymous officials. The Daily Mail quotes one mandarin as saying: "What a car crash. We are speechless." While the unkindest cut of all came from a "diplomatic source" in The Times: "It is worse than Sarah Palin in terms of basic diplomacy.""
So there you have it (and Romney has no one to blame but himself and his campaign staff). So now the election comes down to two choices: Obama--the disappointment; or Romney--the embarassment. Pick your poison.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Monday, July 16, 2012
Obama: 'If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen'
OK--this ranks up there with Obama's "the private sector is doing fine" remark a few weeks ago--
PICKET:(VIDEO) Obama: 'If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen' - Washington Times.
That's right--no personal initiative, no sacrificing, no hard work needed to succeed in business--"somebody else made that happen." And who's that somebody else? Why the government of course:
Obama: "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." (Washington Times)
But didn't Al Gore invent the internet? (LOL)
Seriously, neither Al Gore (who said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet") nor "the government" can take sole credit for "creating the internet." The internet, as we know it today, developed over time from a lot of different sources. Obama should know better--and if he doesn't, he can read this article on Wikipedia which will educate him so he can stop misinforming the public. On thing is indisputable, the internet didn't "take off" until government "got out of the way"--History of the Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic."
As far as Obama's position that "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"--no wonder the public is so misinformed, even the President is ignorant.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
PICKET:(VIDEO) Obama: 'If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen' - Washington Times.
That's right--no personal initiative, no sacrificing, no hard work needed to succeed in business--"somebody else made that happen." And who's that somebody else? Why the government of course:
Obama: "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." (Washington Times)
But didn't Al Gore invent the internet? (LOL)
Seriously, neither Al Gore (who said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet") nor "the government" can take sole credit for "creating the internet." The internet, as we know it today, developed over time from a lot of different sources. Obama should know better--and if he doesn't, he can read this article on Wikipedia which will educate him so he can stop misinforming the public. On thing is indisputable, the internet didn't "take off" until government "got out of the way"--History of the Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic."
As far as Obama's position that "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"--no wonder the public is so misinformed, even the President is ignorant.
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)