Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The figures are abominable, but how many people read, or have easy access to them? (I know. Just hit this link. How many people take or are familiar with this link?)

And once again, Sir "sheeple", I call you down for your elitist contempt of the great mass of people and sentence you to ride a Greyhound bus down the backroads of whatever region you live in - with your mouth shut except for drinking a soda pop.

Madam, "sheeple" is an amalgam of "sheep" and "people" as in people being lead around as if they were sheep.

I can think of no better term to describe the people not in the top 5% income cohort that consistently and without question (for example, those not taking the time to "hit the link") vote clearly against their own economic self-interest for what passes as the GOP these days.

Most importantly, there is a majority within that 95% who have the wherewithal to not be so manipulated. So the contempt I have for the group has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with my contempt of learned intellectual laziness of the group. To simply call them sheep would be an insult to that animal's relative vigorous intelligence.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politic...lcampaign.html

Obama casts Romney as the proponent of tax hikes


MANSFIELD, Ohio —
Eager to turn the tables on his rival, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cast Republican challenger Mitt Romney as an advocate of tax cuts for the richest people in America at the expense of popular tax breaks for most everyone else.

Romney, Obama declared, "is asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a big tax cut."

....Countering the Republican argument that Obama's proposals would hurt small businesses, Obama charged that Romney's tax proposal would force many people to give up popular tax deductions for home mortgages, health care and college tuition. He pointed to a new report that concluded Romney's economic plan would shift the tax burden from wealthy taxpayers to low- and middle-class taxpayers.

"Folks making $3 million or more a year would get a quarter of a million-dollar tax cut," Obama told more than 2,000 supporters. "But listen, it gets worse. Under my opponent's tax plan, who do you think gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do."

Invoking the study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama said Romney's plan would result in a tax increase of more than $2,000 a year for an average family with children.

"Ohio, we do not need more tax cuts for folks who are already doing really well," he said

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...-swing-states/

Obama leads Romney in three key swing states


CBS News) President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters in Ohio and Florida - and has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania - according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted from July 24-30, shows Mr. Obama leading his presumptive Republican challenger 53 percent to 42 percent in Pennsylvania. The 11-point lead results largely from independents, who favor the president by 22 points, and women, who favor the president by 24 points.

Mr. Obama holds a six-point lead in Ohio, 50 percent to 44 percent, a state where he holds a campaign event later today.

Polling shows likely voters very interested in the Senate Dems extending the Bush Tax Cuts for all but the top 2%. It's very unlikely they're going to change their minds when they find out Romney wants to give the rich even more tax breaks at the expense of everyone else losing their mortgage, education and child care deductions and credits.

And to top it all off today -
http://www.examiner.com/article/rush...d?CID=obinsite

Rush Limbaugh dodged Vietnam draft due to a cyst on his ass

Rush Limbaugh makes a living being overly critical of President Obama's foreign policy decisions, while advocating more aggressive outcomes. He often suggests that American lives be put in harm's way...but did you know that Limbaugh himself is a draft dodger? It's true. In fact, he avoided the Vietnam draft entirely because he had a pilondial cyst on his ass.

Logic says that he would have been able to fire a weapon just fine, cyst or not. Rush has had the lifelong appearance of a stout person, so a little extra walking around would have been agreeable to his figure.

The fact that he had a cyst is not to be debated. In fact his own mother corroborated the story…

Like I said, bad day for the GOP. I’m not sure what is worse for them, losing OH, FL and PA in the polls or news of Rush dodging Nam due to a bubble on his butt. You decide.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Madam, "sheeple" is an amalgam of "sheep" and "people" as in people being lead around as if they were sheep.

I can think of no better term to describe the people not in the top 5% income cohort that consistently and without question (for example, those not taking the time to "hit the link") vote clearly against their own economic self-interest for what passes as the GOP these days.

Most importantly, there is a majority within that 95% who have the wherewithal to not be so manipulated. So the contempt I have for the group has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with my contempt of learned intellectual laziness of the group. To simply call them sheep would be an insult to that animal's relative vigorous intelligence.

Exactly. And as for Rush, I wonder how many times he is discredited before he is taken off the air. He's already got so many bumps in various places that he should be disqualified. Speaking of soda pop, given his frame and his health, it is strange that he even survives at all, even if he did manage to avoid getting himself bumped off in Vietnam.

I'd be more excited about the election if it were a matchup between Candidate Obama and President Obama. Candidate Obama favored reforming the financial system, President Obama put those directly responsible for the failures of supervision that led to the calamity in charge of the "reforms". Candidate Obama thought Guantanamo should be closed. President Obama apparently forgot that Guantanamo is a military installation and under the authority of the Commander in chief. Obama stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush and Romney in favor of the paranoid State that reads our mail, demands our papers when we travel, and feels every search is warranted. In my more cynical moments I think of Obama as a "Judas Goat" to flush out the last of the idealists.

I'm going to vote because it's my duty as a citizen, not because I expect either of the poor little rich boys fighting over the White House to do a damn thing to fix the country.

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

I'd be more excited about the election if it were a matchup between Candidate Obama and President Obama. Candidate Obama favored reforming the financial system, President Obama put those directly responsible for the failures of supervision that led to the calamity in charge of the "reforms". Candidate Obama thought Guantanamo should be closed. President Obama apparently forgot that Guantanamo is a military installation and under the authority of the Commander in chief. Obama stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush and Romney in favor of the paranoid State that reads our mail, demands our papers when we travel, and feels every search is warranted. In my more cynical moments I think of Obama as a "Judas Goat" to flush out the last of the idealists.

I'm going to vote because it's my duty as a citizen, not because I expect either of the poor little rich boys fighting over the White House to do a damn thing to fix the country.

The usual choice; alas Candidate Obama is not on the ballot. But since I'm in a "solid" state, I have the luxury of voting for someone like Jill Stein (Green Party) who supports everything Candidate Obama did and much more good stuff. I'll have to decide that later I guess. I might still give a few dials or dollars for democrats, since the alternative is so much worse. Worser of two woohsies.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ion/56595240/1

Nor did I ever dream that my cohort would go for such an empty suit as Romney. I suppose they imagine he's safe - and one of them.

Perhaps. It seems that almost everyone above a certain age is lining up to vote for Romney. I have a neighbor who is a classically trained trombonist who worked for McGovern back in '72 while a student at Juilliard who is voting for Romney. This woman has headed the music department at the local high school for two decades and is about the most active environmentalist that we have around here.
But there is this disconnect.
It does seem like we have a lot of people nursing the idea that Romney is somehow going to be an Eisenhower moderate if elected instead of being the totally mallable plastic Tea Party tool that he's shown every indication of being.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Perhaps. It seems that almost everyone above a certain age is lining up to vote for Romney. I have a neighbor who is a classically trained trombonist who worked for McGovern back in '72 while a student at Juilliard who is voting for Romney. This woman has headed the music department at the local high school for two decades and is about the most active environmentalist that we have around here.
But there is this disconnect.
It does seem like we have a lot of people nursing the idea that Romney is somehow going to be an Eisenhower moderate if elected instead of being the totally mallable plastic Tea Party tool that he's shown every indication of being.

I think there are many likely voters who vote by pattern. This year, the pattern is safety v. fairness. For some reason, the GOP is alwasy considered safe. It's really a false dichotomy, but why should that be surprising? If the polls are at all reliable this far out, then Obama should survive. Congress is the real game. If both houses go GOP and Obama keeps the WH, this could very well be a four-year beat down. If Romney wins, we should see a repeat of 2008. If the GOP holds all the cards, it will be a lot worse.

Times are scary.

Lies the Parties Tell Themselves

Politico has a nice piece about lies party insiders are telling themselves about the campaigns. Sometimes if you repeat something often enough you come to think it is really true. Here is a guide to fantasyland.
Democrats believe:

1. Attacking Bain is a silver bullet
2. The 2008 electorate will return in the end
3. The 2008 donors will eventually come back
4. Voters will blame the bad economy on Bush


Republicans believe:

1. SuperPAC spending will save the party
2. Romney doesn't need to be liked
3. Nothing matters but the economy
4. Nobody could be reelected with unemployment over 8%

Implicit in the list is that the authors do not believe any of these statements to be true.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...31.html#item-2

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...128.html?hp=t1

... Not surprisingly I see the "lies" that Democrats believe more likely to come true. People are willing to make sacrifices for a growing economy, but they want to participate in the growth and not simply get stepped on. The electorate of 2012 will look much more like that of 2008 than like that of 2010. Donors? They are gone. President Obama saved their hides in 2009 and now they want to take the profits from their rescues and run with them. It's clear that any reversion to Dubya-era policies that got us into this mess will easily be identified as such... and will be extremely unpopular. But so far President Obama seems to have a persistent lead.

I see much evidence of people tuning out the SuperPAC ads because they offer no solutions other than deference to special interests. Mitt Romney is behind because people don't like him, and his image isn't likely to improve fast enough. Romney is losing on everything but the economy, and I don't see him winning on military or foreign policy... or the divisive Culture Wars of recent years. Three Presidents since 1940 have had unemployment above 8.4% and lost -- but Ford didn't know how to run a nationwide campaign, Carter had a hostage crisis, and the elder Bush had a third-party challenge. FDR won two landslides with economic realities far worse than what President Obama now knows, and Reagan won a landslide with unemployment close to 8%. Expectations are down -- way down -- as they were in the 1930s.

Yes, you read that correctly!

Reid took a pounding on the Sunday talk shows, but he is not backing down; he's doubling down.

I'm beginning to believe Reid has really got the goods on Romney, i.e. a few years of Romney paying little or even no federal taxes on millions in income.

While I would join the chorus of disgust over Romney's lack of taxes, what I would find even more upsetting would be that a guy running for the White House for over a decade would have not had the brains to understand how this would prove to be a complete showstopper and not have done something years ago to avoid the issue. It is truly amazing and scary thinking of such a guy actually leading the US on a very unfriendly world stage.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...ref=fpnewsfeed

Unfazed Harry Reid Keeps Hammering Romney On Taxes

The fierce pushback from Republicans against Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) appears to only be fueling his quest to tear down Mitt Romney over his finances. The Senate majority leader is telegraphing that he has no interest in letting up.

The latest salvo in the intensifying spat comes from Reid’s chief of staff David Krone, who upped the taunts by calling Republicans “a bunch of cowards” and “henchmen for Romney” in an interview with Politico late Sunday night.

“To turn it around, all their childish rants this weekend about calling Reid a ‘liar’ and all that, it just shows you how scared they are that Harry Reid was telling the truth,” Krone told the paper.

Top Republicans on Sunday flatly accused the Senate majority leader of lying when he claimed Romney didn’t pay taxes for a decade, something he says he learned of from an as-yet-unnamed investor to Bain Capital. Reflecting the frustrations of his party, an incensed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Reid a “dirty liar,” and has since repeated the epithet.

Reid wasn’t fazed. His spokesman Adam Jentleson responded in the afternoon by vouching for the credibility of the source and inviting Romney to disprove the claim by releasing a series of tax returns. Calling him the “most secretive candidate since Richard Nixon,” Jentleson told TPM: “It’s clear Mitt Romney is hiding something, and the only way for him to clear this up is to be straight with the American people and release his tax returns.”

The allegation irritated the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board, which called it “a smear from the fever swamps that say more about Mr. Reid’s ethics than they do about Mr. Romney’s taxes.” But Reid isn’t on the ballot this year; Romney is. And as the Journal argued, “Mr. Romney’s problem is that he can only disprove the charge by releasing his tax returns.”

For Romney, it’s a lose-lose proposition because doing so comes with its own risk. The Republican nominee has amassed a fortune, mostly via investment income that allows him to pay a lower tax rate than many working Americans, and Democrats are eager to turn that into a liability with middle class voters.

The Romney camp is feeling the pinch, which might explain why the Obama campaign and top Democrats are standing by him, if not latching on to his narrative.

“Harry Reid made a statement that is true,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the Huffington Post. “Somebody told him. It is a fact.”

The tactics mirror a brand of vicious, no-holds-barred campaigning that Republicans have in recent decades bested Democrats at using.

“It’s a boxer’s instinct,” Reid’s spokesman Jentleson told the New York Times. “You find your opponent’s weak spot, and until he finds a defense, you keep pounding it.”

There's no reason for Romney to take this and no reason for the vicious GOP defense unless the zero tax story is true and they know it's release would be more politically fatal than refusing to come clean. On the other hand, Reid can't continue this line of attack and be proven wrong by the release of the returns. If he had just made the statement and let it die out, then people would just chalk it up to hardball politics. But staying with it in the face of being called a "dirty liar,” he's got to have the goods on Mittens.

In a cutthroat business like Bain, it’s not hard to see that someone working there didn't like Romney and wouldn't mind taking him out with the disclosure - maybe the dislike is not enough to actually leak it but enough to give Reid the gonads to stay on the attack without fear of being proven wrong.

This is not going away. It is now just a matter of whether Romney is sandbagging this for an October surprise. At this point, a lack of such a positive (for him) surprise will prove his undoing whether he releases or not.

Just to reinforce what I wrote above -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...elections-2012

Harry Reid Romney Tax Tipster 'Is A Credible Person,' New Source Tells CNN

A second source, said to be "close to Senator [Harry] Reid," has told CNN's Dana Bash that Reid's original source for the claim that Mitt Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years" exists, is a "Bain investor" and a "credible person." Dana Bash reported on this source, and the person's willingness to corroborate the allegation to which the Senate majority leader repeated on Thursday's airing of CNN's AC360.

blah, blah, blah...

...it's yet to occur to Romney that he could easily end all of this and claim Harry Reid's scalp just by releasing his tax returns.

What I highlighted is that little signal from the Press Corps.

Is there any doubt that the GOP doesn't know that they could essentially kill-off Harry Reid politically if they release Romney's tax returns AND it shows Reid was lying (Harry might say he was fooled by some devious GOP plan, but that would be worse than saying he was lying). Is there any doubt that the GOP would like to politically kill off Harry Reid?

Could the Press Corp be sending a not-so-subtle message to the GOP that they have figured out that Reid is correct and that the Romney better release the returns and take the heat because if it comes out, and Romney is shown to have been hiding it purposefully, the election could become a landside for Obama.

Like mano a mano; going toe-to-toe

Most people don't realize that, like Romney, Harry Reid is Mormon. As such, one of their shared basic beliefs is tithing to the Church.

Let's see, 10% tithe on $250 million would be $25 million to the Church. I wonder if such generosity shows up in Mitten's tax returns.

Could other Mormons at Bain be unhappy if the returns indicate otherwise? Enough to rat him out as a bad Mormon?

Inquiring minds want to know.

To use a chess analogy this still early game and I'm not quite ready to say that Romney is in check over his tax returns.
But he is playing the early game down one major piece. It may just be a rook--or it may be his queen.

I have a question for the Republican/conservative members of the boards:

Romney's strategy seems to be entirely based on the idea that Obama has failed so badly, anyone would be better. If the GOP strategy is to argue even someone as bad as Romney is better than Obama, why not run someone better than Romney, say like any of his primary opponents?

Why not Rick Perry? Perry has a more compelling personal story than Romney. He can disclose his tax returns and talk about his record as governor. Romney can do neither.

Perry can talk about his religion as Bush did, which would gain Republicans tons of Evangelical Christian troops for GOTW efforts. Romney can't.

A guy like Perry who grew up poor can more credibly argue the benefits of giving Romney a big tax cut. Romney can't.

Perry can talk about his career. Romney can't.

Supposedly primary voters chose Romney because he was "the most electable". How so?

I think Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns because the LDS would find that he wasn't paying enough tithe to the church (at least 10% of all income).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have a question for the Republican/conservative members of the boards:

Romney's strategy seems to be entirely based on the idea that Obama has failed so badly, anyone would be better. If the GOP strategy is to argue even someone as bad as Romney is better than Obama, why not run someone better than Romney, say like any of his primary opponents?

Why not Rick Perry? Perry has a more compelling personal story than Romney. He can disclose his tax returns and talk about his record as governor. Romney can do neither.

Perry can talk about his religion as Bush did, which would gain Republicans tons of Evangelical Christian troops for GOTW efforts. Romney can't.

A guy like Perry who grew up poor can more credibly argue the benefits of giving Romney a big tax cut. Romney can't.

Perry can talk about his career. Romney can't.

Supposedly primary voters chose Romney because he was "the most electable". How so?

It was in the stars.

Well, beyond that, I think Romney proved in the campaign that he could handle the debates, that he had a more presidential demeanor, and that he was less extremely right-wing than most of the others, but still acceptable to conservatives. They think his experience gives him a better resume. Romney does have strength in the Mormon states, which proved helpful in the primaries, as well as several home states.

Perry on the other hand proved himself to be, well, stupid. Ooops!

The reality is, the Republicans don't have any good candidates this time around, and Romney is the best they can muster. He is competing only because the economy is not recovering very well. That is the only reason, and it's the only argument he's got. Otherwise, he's a rather empty suit. He stands for nothing, he waffles, he makes gaffes, and he represents and embodies the wealthy class and the policies they favor. But then, that class is whom the Republicans admire and represent. So he's their man.

Oh, I forgot, you wanted conservatives to answer. Oh well....

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have a question for the Republican/conservative members of the boards:

Romney's strategy seems to be entirely based on the idea that Obama has failed so badly, anyone would be better. If the GOP strategy is to argue even someone as bad as Romney is better than Obama, why not run someone better than Romney, say like any of his primary opponents?

Why not Rick Perry? Perry has a more compelling personal story than Romney. He can disclose his tax returns and talk about his record as governor. Romney can do neither.

Perry can talk about his religion as Bush did, which would gain Republicans tons of Evangelical Christian troops for GOTW efforts. Romney can't.

A guy like Perry who grew up poor can more credibly argue the benefits of giving Romney a big tax cut. Romney can't.

Perry can talk about his career. Romney can't.

Supposedly primary voters chose Romney because he was "the most electable". How so?

The other Republicans suggested that they might be to the right of the late Chilean dictator Agosto Pinochet. Mitt Romney had some credibility outside that narrow segment of the electorate.

Mitt Romney is more effective at the one thing that matters (other than pandering to reactionary economic interests and social values) in GOP politics: raising money. Ironically any Republican nominee -- even Michelle Bachmann -- would have been effective at that because Republicans are convinced that Barack Obama is the worst thing to happen to America since Reconstruction, if not Fort Sumter.

The idea was that Mitt Romney would have crossover appeal that would defeat President Obama. He was a moderate by GOP standards... until he started pandering to every right-wing special interest. If he could be elected Government of the definitive Democratic State he showed that he could perform political miracles. But he had to make compromises to win in Massachusetts.

The Republican Party has effectively purged out the moderates. Anyone who fails to believe that economic policy can be anything other than the enrichment and pampering of the Right People and that foreign policy is to be performed on behalf of the armaments industry does not belong in the GOP. Anyone who fails to pander to the cultural values of Protestant fundamentalists is shut out. Such implies a clear direction toward the Extreme Right except on overt racism.

President Obama may be a poor cultural fit for much of America... but that says nothing about effectiveness of his foreign policy or that his economic policies put an end to the most dangerous meltdown of the American economy since the early 1930s. Does the President need to be a NASCAR fan and a devotee of country music?

Originally Posted by Odin

I think Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns because the LDS would find that he wasn't paying enough tithe to the church (at least 10% of all income).

I think that something even worse could appear -- that he makes his money through predatory methods and finds clever ways to get preferential treatment. .

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think that something even worse could appear -- that he makes his money through predatory methods and finds clever ways to get preferential treatment. .

But we all assume that already! At least (cue the creepy sinister music) The Left (!) does. I certainly do, and I'm a moderate.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

(to me)

I think that something even worse could appear -- that he makes his money through predatory methods and finds clever ways to get preferential treatment.

But we all assume that already! At least (cue the creepy sinister music) The Left (!) does. I certainly do, and I'm a moderate.

But the Right admires that!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But the Right admires that!

And there is a reason why. It is the reason why Romney is the nominee this year and it is also the reason why he is unlikely to release any meaningful info.
Simply put, conservative thought is hierarchial. Romney is the nominee this year because it is his turn. The Republicans almost always run the second place finisher from the last competitive GOP race. Also hierarchial systems don't encourage questioning. To put it another way, Romney is right (in the conservative worldview) not to release his tax returns because it is his money.
It's no one's business how he made it. The fact is he's got it. And the ungrateful should be thankful that this highly successful man is willing to give his time to governing the country.

It's not likely that you'll hear it put this way by anyone else, but that's about the size of it.

I'd like to put my finger on one weak spot in the Obama campaign strategy: This stressing that if someone loses their job, they lose their health insurance; this allows the Republicans to paint the uninsured as "indolent." Instead, the Democrats should be stressing that tens of millions of employed Americans do not have health insurance, and either will continue to lack it even with ObamaCare, or will have it once ObamaCare kicks in.

This will prevent the Republicans from using "reverse class warfare" - working-class resentment of the "underclass" - to gain pivotal votes in key swing states.

It looks like Romney, in his bid to lose the election, will choose Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Originally Posted by Aldaris

It looks like Romney, in his bid to lose the election, will choose Paul Ryan as his running mate.

That could well mean that Ryan is elected president in 2016.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I'd like to put my finger on one weak spot in the Obama campaign strategy: This stressing that if someone loses their job, they lose their health insurance; this allows the Republicans to paint the uninsured as "indolent." Instead, the Democrats should be stressing that tens of millions of employed Americans do not have health insurance, and either will continue to lack it even with ObamaCare, or will have it once ObamaCare kicks in.

This will prevent the Republicans from using "reverse class warfare" - working-class resentment of the "underclass" - to gain pivotal votes in key swing states.

I don't see how losing your job in this economy would equate in peoples' minds with indolence.