So let me get this straight:
The Republicans have picked a candidate for president who
implemented a state government healthcare initiative that among other things
required all residents to buy healthcare insurance and fines them if they don’t.
Furthermore, this candidate made his money (unlike his father whose business
actually built THINGS) through vampire capitalism: where financial entities realize
immense revenue for themselves and their stockholders through the manipulation
of ”financial instruments” that typically result in the closing down of factories,
killing businesses, contributing to local economic misery and unemployment.
And
this on the heels no less of the greatest economic meltdown since the great
depression that was due to the financial sector -- specifically, where
exotic “financial instruments” were used to gamble with billions of dollars of
people’s savings and pension funds, etc.
This dancing master, who over his political career has tiptoed
from being against abortion before he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, to
supporting a “woman’s right to choose” while campaigning for the Governorship…
back to the other toe against it when he was running in the presidential
primary,
… from being pro-gay rights when he was running for Senator
in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy
…to being against gay marriage when he was Governor of
Massachusetts (or was he…? No one
really knows for sure…)
… from being in favor of creating state law mandating that
Americans buy healthcare insurance under severe financial penalty when Governor
of Massachusetts
… to being so adamantly opposed to the mandate in Obama-Care
which -- wait for it … mandates that Americans buy healthcare insurance under
severe financial penalties -- that he
promises to “repeal Obama-Care on Day One”…
...is about to be tapped out.
And the punchline to this joke is…
wait for it…
The Republican voters that chose him over his rivals in the
primaries did so because …
wait for it…
he had the best chance of beating Obama!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And what about the vaunted conservative CHRISTIAN RIGHT that
supposedly wields so much clout in the party? Well, they’ve apparently given
their seal of approval to someone who believes that humans are the spirit forms
of aliens called Thetans who were trapped in a volcano by their evil alien foes
the Markabians --
--Oh, wait a minute, that’s Scientology. I get them confused.
Ignore this last part.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
You can’t make this stuff up! Thanks Republicans! Great job, once again.
George Bush in 2000. Sarah Palin in 2008. And now Dancing Master Mitt.
I am confused. Knowing full well the politics of the article's author, I am puzzled as to why the characterization of Bain Capital sounds like a stock Obama campaign ad. "Vampire Capitalism" has been a staple (not to be confused with Staples, a thriving member of Bain's portfolio) of the president's argument against the Romney candidacy. This line of attack has been debunked repeatedly by fact checking in newspapers. Of course, the fact checking doesn't get headlines, so the public is swallowing it wholesale.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/
Now, I'm not a social conservative, so Romney's pivots over the decades don't particularly bother me. The critical component of the electorate, independents, don't favor social conservatism. Thus, Romney's odds with independents are better if they perceive him to be soft on social issues, or at the very least not insistent on making them a legislative priority. That's how Bob McDonnell became governor here in Virginia. Everyone knows he's a pretty hard social conservative (hence the dredging up of his graduate thesis in which he argued that women should stay at home), but he didn't talk about social issues, didn't make them a highlight of his agenda. The Republican legislature has taken that into their own hands, but that's another story.
As for the health care law, the author knows perfectly well the debate is about federal authority and state authority. The mandate in Massachusetts was derived from the concept brewed up by the Heritage Foundation, no conservative slouch. The idea behind it is to promote individual responsibility and attempt to solve the free rider problem that inflates the cost of health care for everyone. I'm not particularly fond of mandated anything from government, and less so from the federal government, but the logic behind it is certainly sound. Now, conservatives will wax poetic about the injustices of Obamacare's mandate and rip into Romney for being proactive about the problem in his own state. However, memory should never be so short that you don't recognize your own ideas.
The biggest problem with the health care legislation is that in all its bloated language, there really isn't a path to reducing the cost of care, which is what needs solving in the first place. I would recommend looking into Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare. He's thorough in explaining it and it's sound policy that has been demagogue into oblivion by Democrats.
The author may not like Romney, but in all honesty, if any other candidate from the pool that lasted into South Carolina were nominated, I'd be at the front of the line to pull the lever for Obama come November. As a right-leaning independent, I wouldn't be alone. People didn't give him the time of day because he didn't pander to the extreme right and he worked in the Obama administration, but Jon Huntsman was the guy that should have gotten the nomination. Sterling governorship record, staunchly conservative without being socially a monger, and a no-pandering policy mind oriented around results. Alas, Romney will do.
John, you said:
ReplyDelete> I am confused. Knowing full well the politics of the article's author, I am puzzled as to why the characterization of Bain Capital sounds like a stock Obama campaign ad. "Vampire Capitalism" has been a staple (not to be confused with Staples, a thriving member of Bain's portfolio) of the president's argument against the Romney candidacy. This line of attack has been debunked repeatedly by fact checking in newspapers. Of course, the fact checking doesn't get headlines, so the public is swallowing it wholesale.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/ <
I read the article. Here are some excerpts:
“But private-equity firms are primarily focused on creating wealth for investors. Sometimes that’s accomplished by growth, and increased employment. And sometimes it’s accomplished by cutting costs or eliminating poorly performing firms, resulting in job losses. So Romney has opened himself to Obama’s attacks by claiming credit for creating jobs — sometimes without justification, as we have written about before.
“Private-equity firms in general have “only a modest net impact on employment,” according to a study released in September 2011 by the National Bureau of Economic Research that tracked the performance of 3,200 acquired firms and their 150,000 establishments. Bain has not said how many jobs may have been created at the 350 companies in which it has invested.
. . .
“In its simplest terms, it’s true that Bain made money on the GS Industries deal even though the company went bankrupt. Under Bain’s leadership, the company took on massive debt. Much of the debt was taken on to make much-needed updates to aging equipment, but some of it was also used to enrich Bain and its investors. Some analysts say the company’s large debt was a key contributor to the company’s fall. Adding to the employees’ woes, the company announced at the bankruptcy that it could not honor commitments it had made regarding pension and other benefits. So there’s no getting around that this was not Bain’s finest hour.”
Now me:
I suggested that Romney’s experience in Bain Capital is not a strength in the upcoming election. Bain is a private equity firm. They trade in companies and financial tools such as debt. They do not make products, or services.
The crash of 2008 was caused by Wall Street, essentially. IMO the collapse wouldn’t have been possible without other contributing factors (a fiat currency; the federal legislation passed at the behest of the banks to free up their investment sides to make far more riskier investments, for example). But nonetheless, trillions of dollars disappeared from Americans’ pension funds and other investments, not to mention the loss of jobs and subsequent bankruptcies, lost homes, poverty, and even homelessness. The average American worker was raped by Wall Street in 2008. Many Americans from both parties, from both ends of the political spectrum, share that sentiment. There is a dark side to capitalism. It requires checks and balances, IMO.
Bain may not *technically* be “Wall Street,” but private equity firms are a whole lot closer to the AIGs and Goldman-Sachs than Apple or General Motors. I think Romney’s business experience is a liability – just as Obama’s *complete* lack of same is a major liability of his own.
You say:
ReplyDelete> Now, I'm not a social conservative, so Romney's pivots over the decades don't particularly bother me. The critical component of the electorate, independents, don't favor social conservatism. Thus, Romney's odds with independents are better if they perceive him to be soft on social issues, or at the very least not insistent on making them a legislative priority. That's how Bob McDonnell became governor here in Virginia. Everyone knows he's a pretty hard social conservative (hence the dredging up of his graduate thesis in which he argued that women should stay at home), but he didn't talk about social issues, didn't make them a highlight of his agenda. The Republican legislature has taken that into their own hands, but that's another story.<
Perhaps. I hold another view. I think this election will be decided by the base—as in, base of the Republican Party. Two segments are the Christian Right and the Tea Party. Efforts are underway (Ralph Reed is involved in this--and Ralph Reed is no idiot, whatever you may think of his views) to have them make common cause. I simply don’t believe that the Christian Right will really come out for Romney. At best, they will cast their individual votes for the “R” candidate, but I don’t see them doing all that real extra work, like they did for Bush in 2000. And that extra work is crucial. Bush would not have won without it.
As for the Tea Party – well, I don’t see them as being hugely enthusiastic for this milksop weathervane candidate whose political operating principle seems to be to go for plausible deniability, remain as uncommital as possible. And then there’s Romney Care.
Talk about a pig-in-a-poke! Since derailing Obama-Care is THE galvanizing issue for TP, I don’t see how that part of the right wing is going to come out in full force for Romney either.
I can see a 50-50 split in Independents, and Romney falling short because of a lackluster support from the base.
>As for the health care law, the author knows perfectly well the debate is about federal authority and state authority. <
WOW! I’m sorry, but here we strongly disagree. Indeed, this is Romney’s argument, and he hopes to convince voters of it, but if you buy this argument, I have a bridge to sell...
The difference between the Mass. mandate and Obama-care mandate is a distinction without a difference. Sure, the funding mechanisms differ (but don’t forget that Romney care was mainly funded by federal money, an option not available to Obama-care). But any and all differences are obliterated by this simple fact: In both plans anyone who doesn’t have health insurance has to pay a fine. And BTW, contrary to a lot of misinformation, it is NOT a trivial amount of money. For people like me, solid middle-class wage earner, it is counted in the thousands, not hundreds.
This, of course, is Romney’s Achilles heel, and I actually look forward to seeing him trying to worm his way out of it during the debate(s) with Obama.
[My opinion on healthcare is not germane to this essay, my criticisms of Romney, but since you mentioned yours, I believe the only possible solution to our thoroughly broken system, the worst healthcare *system* in the developed world, is a single payer system. Yes, that’s also known as socialized medicine.]
Continued ...
You continue:
ReplyDelete>The mandate in Massachusetts was derived from the concept brewed up by the Heritage Foundation, no conservative slouch. The idea behind it is to promote individual responsibility and attempt to solve the free rider problem that inflates the cost of health care for everyone. . . .<
>The biggest problem with the health care legislation is that in all its bloated language, there really isn't a path to reducing the cost of care, which is what needs solving in the first place.<
AGREE! It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic: The problem is that healthcare is unaffordable, so 2000+ pages of legislation are written which do nothing to really address that problem, other than require people to buy this massively unaffordable healthcare insurance and to add insult to injury, fine them if they don’t--or can’t!
> I would recommend looking into Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare. He's thorough in explaining it and it's sound policy that has been demagogue into oblivion by Democrats.<
>The author may not like Romney, but in all honesty, if any other candidate from the pool that lasted into South Carolina were nominated, I'd be at the front of the line to pull the lever for Obama come November. As a right-leaning independent, I wouldn't be alone. People didn't give him the time of day because he didn't pander to the extreme right and he worked in the Obama administration, but Jon Huntsman was the guy that should have gotten the nomination. Sterling governorship record, staunchly conservative without being socially a monger, and a no-pandering policy mind oriented around results. Alas, Romney will do.<
We agree on Jon Huntsman, too. Of the candidates, I thought he was the best able to win and be the most effective president. But that quote in Chinese – what was he thinking? Republicans --*especially* Romney—had been demagoguing China to no end, and Huntsman pulls that stunt. It might’ve gone well in a Democratic debate, but not there in that environment where they’re looking for someone to blame for our own mismanagement of our economy. It was over for him after that.
Other than that, I believe Rick Santorum would be more electable than Romney, and maybe Newt Gingrich, too, despite their perceived negatives. Few will agree with that statement, but I stand by it (though it can never be proved or disproved). The base would’ve gone to bat for either of them, once the dust had settled. Not so with Mitt, a truly terrible candidate given the environment.
I'll touch briefly on each of the counterpoints:
ReplyDeleteAs for Romney's Bain experience: I'll admit it's a liability at the moment, rather than the asset it should be, because of the Obama campaign's framing. Is being a successful CEO of an equity firm any less impressive business experience than a chief at a manufacturing company or services provider? Same skillset, different deals and management. We'll hear more about the Olympics as well.
Regarding the GOP base: Romney's enthusiasm is rising in people that are voting for him, almost even with Obama's supporters, according to the newest ABC/Wapo poll. That will only go up. Also, Romney doesn't need to win the hearts of the base with Obama as his opponent. Indeed another poll showed more people are voting against Obama than for Romney.
On the GOP also-rans: Here I have my strongest disagreement. The base is important, but in a referendum election in which the GOP base is fired up to oust the president, it's the independents and moderates that will win this election. As an independent myself, I would have been first in line to pull the lever for Obama if Santorum or Gingrich had somehow won the nomination. The level of disdain for those two on the left would also have fired up the left to turn out for a president for whom some hold buyer's remorse. The political middle likes the way GOP politicians manage budgets and generally their executive style (hence the governor advantage). Gingrich is perhaps less offensive as a relic of a bygone age. However, Santorum excites no one in the middle. I don't judge him for his social politics, I just flat out disagree with them.
On your first point/question: Yes, I do think being an equity firm CEO is less impressive than a manufacturing CEO. Wall Street was bailed out by the taxpayers -- by us. They took their risks but they paid no penalty. That isn't capitalism. AIG was bailed out to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar. "Too big to fail". We were raped by Wall Street. Main St. vs Wall St. a cliche? Perhaps, but not to me. It *is* about the jobs that were lost, the Main St. workers who lost their jobs and their pensions.
ReplyDeleteOn your last point, I recognize there are clear disagreements on the social issues, and they largely run on generational lines. I would want to point out that the opinion polls cannot be trusted on these issues. There is a tremendous pressure in the culture to conform to the PC positions on what I refer to as the "feminist" issues. There is no freedom of speech on these issues in the town square anymore (certainly not on the college campus). And so I respectfully disagree with your assessment of how Americans fall out on some aspects of some of these issues. I reiterate my opinion that Santorum and Gingrich would have drawn more votes than Romney will. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.