Friday, October 19, 2012

The Impending Defeat of a Progressive President

The common wisdom among our partisan leftist friends, including the mainstream liberal media, is that the upcoming presidential election will be a close one.  But in the end, their champion Barrack Obama will indeed emerge triumphant and send that “selfish 1%’er” Mitt Romney running back to obscurity to lick his wounds.  I strongly suspect that this is more a matter of misplaced faith on their behalf than on common sense.  Ronald Reagan was 9 points behind Jimmy Carter in the month prior to that election, and as we all know, the Gipper won in a landslide.  I would submit to my leftist friends that they are about to experience a similar shellacking in 18 days. 

When it comes down to it, common sense dictates that America will not re-elect Obama to the presidency.  In 2008, Barrack Obama was a fairly unknown candidate who spoke eloquently about grandiose ideals such as generic hope and change.  In 2012, President Obama now is a known candidate with a dismal record on which he has to run.  The result of his record pretty much suggests that his re-election is indeed doomed.  President Obama has angered or disappointed far too many people and specific demographics thereof to get the kind of support or even voter turn-out for him that he received in his first election.  Let’s look at a few specifics as to why I think this portends the end of his administration accordingly.

First off, it is with a high degree of certainty that I think that those conservative folks who voted for John McCain in 2008 will not be voting for Barrack Obama in 2012.  Obama thus will pick up none of those votes accordingly.  That said, there are millions of independent people that did vote for Obama in 2008 when he was a well-spoken but virtually unknown quantity that are sorely disappointed in his performance who will not vote for him again in 2012.  The net result will be a loss for Obama.

President Obama carried a staggering percentage of the black vote in 2012, however, he has angered many church-going black people including prominent pastors due to his recent stance in support of gay marriage.  While Obama will still easily get a majority of the black vote again, he will not have anywhere near the percentage that he did in the first election.  Again, this is a net loss for Obama.

The Jewish vote in America has also historically been a strong support group for the Democratic candidate, and indeed Obama captured a majority of their votes in 2008.  That said, Obama’s policy of “placing daylight between America and Israel” has made Israel feel more vulnerable to ever rising anti-Jewish terrorist groups and states in the Middle East.  Obama’s suggestion that a return to the indefensible 1967 borders for Israel as a starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians drew the ire of Prime Minister Netanyahu and alienated many of the Jewish people.  Obama’s seeming indifference in actions, if not always in his rhetoric, towards preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a huge existential threat to Israel’s survival.  These factors have ensured that Obama will lose a significant percentage of the Jewish vote in America for this election.

The youth vote was wildly enthusiastic and turn out for Obama was huge from this constituency in 2008.  Now, four years later, 50% of college graduates are unable to find employment and enthusiasm for Obama based on his poor stewardship of the economy and job market for these young people will ensure that far fewer of them will turn out to vote, and of those that do vote, many of them will not pull the lever for Obama this time.

The Catholic vote was slightly in favor of Obama in 2008.  Now with Obama’s assault on Catholicism and Americans’ first amendment right to practice their religion via his Obamacare HHS mandate, there are millions of Catholics that will not vote for Obama this time around.   Another net loss for Obama.

Next, small business owners have seen a dramatic increase in their costs of doing business and are fearful of the impact that Obamacare will have on their bottom lines.  These and other negative factors that Obama has created in the economy through his policies have made it so that small businesses are unable to grow and hire more people, hence the horrible unemployment numbers still.  For that reason, most small business owners will not be voting for Obama on November 6th either.

Then there is the veteran vote to consider.  While this group has historically been more reliably Republican in their voting tendencies, Obama has done nothing to endear those folks in the armed forces to himself.  Indeed, Obama has made it even more difficult for military members to vote absentee out of fear of this, accordingly.  You will see Romney get an even greater percentage of this group than McCain did in 2008.  Net gain goes to Romney.

Even among the bed-wetting on-fire progressives that voted for Obama in 2008 there is much anger and resentment towards him for not going even further in his attempts to usher in a worker’s paradise.  The enthusiasm gap and waning support from the most ideological of his base will suffer accordingly and result in less voter turn-out from this group too.  Another net loss for Obama.

Lastly, there is the blue collar working class folks who have seen true unemployment remain above 8% for nearly all of Obama’s tenure.  Gas prices, food prices, and even health care costs have dramatically skyrocketed directly due to Obama’s policies over the last four years.  People ultimately will always vote with their pocket books, and Obama has not done anything to alleviate the burden for America, and particularly for this constituency group.  This is a huge net loss for Obama.

The bottom line is that President Obama will lose, in some cases by huge margins, many votes from the preceding groups of American voters.  There is no single group where Obama stands to gain in voter support over the 2008 election.  With that said, common sense and simple arithmetic tells me that on Wednesday November 7th, President-elect Romney will be celebrating, as will a strong majority of Americans.  May God bless America again accordingly!

71 comments:

FandB said...

Mr. Paine, I *Hope* you are right in your analysis, it is most certainly time for a *Change*.

I agree with your comments, but I am still not sure how the shifts in voters will play out in terms of the electoral college system. Obama still performs very strongly in some very large states with many electoral votes, e.g. California, New York, Ilinois. At the end of the day, it still looks like it will boil down to Ohio. Romney will most likely need Ohio to win enough electoral votes and as of today, most polls still have him trailing there by 2 or 3 points.

T. Paine said...

FandB, thanks for stopping by and commenting! Your concerns regarding the electoral college and your analysis thereof is indeed still a concern, and is frankly the only sliver of hope that the left has remaining. That said, I think the polls are wildly under-reporting Romney versus Obama support. When the final tally is made, I think Romney will win in convincing fashion. If he doesn’t, our nation will indeed be in jeopardy of surviving another four years.

The Heathen Republican said...

In short, Obama has not gained support from a single group of Americans since 2008. In every single case I've found, support has fallen, not risen.

T. Paine said...

Damn, H.R.! You summed up in two sentences my entire, long-winded post. Thanks being so succint! :)

Dave Dubya said...

Boy, you guys will be sooo furious when Obama wins. ;-)

Just like last time.

Vote for the Morman Mammonite liar. He knows what's best for us all.

The Heathen Republican said...

I made this same argument a while back using charts. Of course, by using charts, I opened myself to John Myste's most devastating argument: charts can be manipulated. I was overcome with grief after my defeat.

But your argument comes in the form of prose, so it's likely he won't be able to refute your post as easily.

jim marquis said...

Yeah, he'll only win about 95 percent of the black vote and 65 percent of the Latino vote this time out.

Just imagine how much better the country would be doing right now if Obama had gotten just a little bit of help from the Republicans.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jim, sounds like your faith in that old time Democrat religion hasn't faltered. You can't know that we'd be better off; that's simply a matter of your belief.

I'm willing to give Obama and the Democrats the benefit of the doubt: they honestly believed the bills, stimuli, and jobs acts they wanted to pass would do good things for the economy.

Perhaps you can similarly give Republicans the benefit of the doubt: they honestly believed Obama and the Democrats were harming the economy and getting in the way of a true economic recovery.

Not only that but you may remember there was an historic election in 2010. Republicans took control of the House because we the people voted to STOP the Democrats. Knowing that, it was THEIR JOB to stop what the Democrats were doing.

Keep praying, though. At this point, I think Obama's only chance rests in the prayers of acolytes like yourself.

Just the Facts! said...

Look, the real question is "will Obama "blame Bush" when he loses, or will he claim it was racism?

jim marquis said...

The 2010 election was a farce. A lot of independent voters were simply upset the economy was still in the tank and voted in new people hoping they would do what they could to make things better. What they got instead was largely a group of obstructionist hotheads who were mainly interested in blocking everything the president tried and sending women back to the 1950's.

Anonymous said...

"What they got instead was largely a group of obstructionist hotheads who were mainly interested in blocking everything the president tried and sending women back to the 1950's."

Really, looks like what they were thumbing their nose at was a President who would say anything, and would tell any lie in order to get a vote. And your worried about setting women's rights back!

THE FIRST LIE
In a February episode of The Joy Behar Show, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said that “if this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services, (but) to basic family planning. You know, mammograms, cancer screenings,” referring to a GOP-backed bill that would have cut funding to the organization.

THE SECOND LIE
"When Gov. Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms,” said Obama Oct. 16 during the second presidential debate.

PROOF THAT THESE ARE LIES
A statement released by Planned Parenthood on Oct. 17 said that “like the vast majority of primary care physicians and ob-gyns, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses refer patients to other facilities for mammograms based on breast exams, age, or family history.” The claim that Planned Parenthood improves access to mammograms and other health services is often used to maintain taxpayer funding for the group.














T. Paine said...

Far better that the Mormon Mammonite liar wins than does the Marxist Muslim liar.
(by the way, I don’t think Obama is a Muslim, but the title is similarly silly as the one with which you benighted Romney)

Further, I think my Funk & Wagnells is wrong on definitions again. I wasn’t aware that a Mammonite, by definition, gives away his entire inheritance, gives millions and millions to his church and charities, spends years helping others in difficult positions through service work through ones church, and incidentally created more jobs as a businessman and governor than our current president has in his four years in office. Interesting…

T. Paine said...

H.R., I have learned that charts are an Achilles heel when arguing facts against our indomitable progressive friend, John Myste.

Jim, Indeed, if the Republicans had “helped” Obama we could be $20 trillion in debt right now with our credit rating lowered once again and a reported rate of 15% unemployment. Damn them for not succumbing to Obama’s wisdom and charm!

Back to H.R.: Thank you for reminding our progressive friends that the Republicans circa 2010 were indeed doing the will of the people by thwarting the Marxist designs of our congress and president. This is something that seems to often be forgotten by them.

Just the Facts, that is a very good and valid question. I think Obama will do both. He will claim that the economy Bush gave him was too poor for him to “fix” in only one term and that the “racist” element in the GOP would not give him the necessary four more years for him to finish off… errr, I mean fix… the economy.

Back to Jim: I find it interesting that when a progressive wins, the left thinks that is a mandate from the people, but when a conservative wins, the election is a farce. Again, this is quite an interesting insight into the workings of the liberal mind! :)

Anonymous, thanks for adding additional context! You were spot on with your information.

Dave Dubya said...

"left thinks that is a mandate from the people"

What a joke.

Like Republicans accepted a mandate when Obama won? They never accepted the black man in the White House. They refused to compromise and they oppose democracy itself.

A party of no compromise is a dictatorship when in power. This is what you want.

Very fascistic. Expect harsh austerity for the public and more war with Romney. Expect the wealthy to get much richer. That is how Mammonites do it. That's how your last aristocratic Mammonite did it, and left us with a financial crisis in 2008.

So much for the first "MBA President".

Your faith in Mammon is clear. Your politics are identical to that of the greediest and wealthiest people. Your vote serves Mammon by serving only their interests.

A Mammonite serves wealth and the wealthy. Romney is a Mammonite. He will never say no to any bank for any reason.

He has abundantly indicated he cares only for the elites.

Romney benefitted from his father's wealth, from a his prep school bully days to college and a house for a wedding gift. That wealthy upbringing helped him become rich by the time Dad died.

The Mormon Church mandates his "charity" unto itself and then proceeded to use that money in interfering and swaying other states ballot proposals.

Al Capone gave to charity. He was a "job creator" too.

Just like Jesus commanded, eh?

I'll honestly tell you what is killing our country besides the plutocracy of the greedy. The fact that so many Americans are brainwashed and indoctrinated into the hateful delusion that Obama is a commie.

That is how fascism is born.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: They never accepted the black man in the White House. They refused to compromise and they oppose democracy itself. A party of no compromise is a dictatorship when in power. This is what you want.

Paine: First, why does this always devolve back to a race issue with you and other progressives, Dave? I don’t like or dislike any individual based on the color of his skin pigment. I think a hugely vast majority of conservatives think similarly to me on this issue. Are you progressives so bereft of ideas that the only arguments left in your arsenal are to blame Bush and scream “racism”? Further, when your president is unable to get his agenda fully passed via congress and therefore decides to implement it through an unprecedented number of executive orders, all the while he violates the Bill of Rights, then I must ask who is really the dictator? Compromising with a party bound and determined to destroy our capitalist economy and our American liberties is definitely not an option. When they choose to do otherwise, then compromise is possible.


Dubya: Your faith in Mammon is clear. Your politics are identical to that of the greediest and wealthiest people. Your vote serves Mammon by serving only their interests. A Mammonite serves wealth and the wealthy. Romney is a Mammonite. He will never say no to any bank for any reason. He has abundantly indicated he cares only for the elites.

Paine: Nope. Wrong once again. My politics support those that are willing to work and help themselves, instead of those looking for a free hand-out of non-secured government loans for a house or an Obama-phone or cash for their clunker car. I have no problem helping the poor. I do so privately through charities. I want to help those less fortunate. I don’t want to help those that want to game the system and make a life out of ripping off the tax payer. I guess the fact that Romney wants to help the middle class amounts to you thinking he cares only for the elites. Meanwhile, your Marxist president has spread the misery and made my healthcare costs double, my gas prices double, my food prices increase dramatically, all the while he has violated some of my most basic American rights. Yep, I’ll take the Mormon Mammonite over the Muslim Marxist any day. I like the elitist middle class over the elitist politburo liberals from Hollywood and Soro’s rolodex.

T. Paine said...


Dubya: Romney benefitted from his father's wealth, from a his prep school bully days to college and a house for a wedding gift. That wealthy upbringing helped him become rich by the time Dad died.

Paine: Indeed! And Obama seemed to benefit mysteriously by gaining a world class education perhaps from foreign student scholarships to Oxford, Columbia, and Harvard, despite not having the high school or likely early college transcripts to warrant it. Next, he received a sweet heart deal from the felonious Tony Rezko to purchase his dream house in Chicago. I would rather have a parent help his kid instead of dubious government programs and felons.


Dubya: The Mormon Church mandates his "charity" unto itself and then proceeded to use that money in interfering and swaying other states ballot proposals.

Paine: The Mormon church uses much of that money to help the poor. Indeed, right along with the Catholic Church, they are one of the first ones to provide literally tons of food, clothing, and medical relief supplies to striken folks in any disaster either in the United States or throughout the world. They are far more efficient, effective, and non-corrupt than the despicable U.N.



Dubya: I'll honestly tell you what is killing our country besides the plutocracy of the greedy. The fact that so many Americans are brainwashed and indoctrinated into the hateful delusion that Obama is a commie. That is how fascism is born.

Paine: I don’t know whether Obama is a card-carrying commie or not; he certainly would never admit if he was. The fact remains that the Communist Party USA and other Marxist groups and organizations have endorsed him. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obamas_communist_party_endorsement.html The reason is pretty clear. They support many of his Marxist policies. If the truth is hateful towards your president, then so be it. It certainly is not indoctrination though. The denial of the truth by progressives such as yourself that assume the word “communist” is used by conservatives merely as a pejorative instead of a descriptive word with meaning, bespeaks of YOUR indoctrination, my friend.

Dave Dubya said...


My dear old TP,

Saying "communists support Obama" is as meaningful as saying "the Klan supports Romney". Geez.

You are quite the True Believer. I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says. From what we gather you call Bush a Marxist too. My goodness. You probably think the John Birchers are a bunch of liberals.

Real Marxism, of course, calls for government ownership, not mere bailouts. But your belief system rejects that fact. Obama does not own GM or any other company. The very fact we discuss bailouts is proof of capitalism’s failures, not for the bankers and Romney’s pals, of course, but for the people. You know, the ones Romney scorns as “irresponsible”, like retired folks and minimum wage workers and other objects of aristocratic contempt. As if they never worked hard.

Looks like class warfare to me. It will get worse, especially under Romney. Mark my words,

If you cannot tell the difference between offended self-righteousness and religious persecution, you’re too far gone into the most fundamentalist mindset. Like that anti-Muslim movie. It offended, but didn’t oppress any of the offended rioter’s right to their faith. Still can’t see the difference?

I explain these things because I like you and know you to be well intentioned. However, unquestioning belief in Republicans is the path to Hell paved by those good intentions, though.

The ““you didn’t build that” lie is a textbook example of deception by removal of context.

Did you even read the article?
Obama made the comment in July in Roanoke, saying: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part — “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” — prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context.

Out of context. Just what I’ve been saying. Liars hate context.
When corporate media fact-checkers call out your “bubble world” misinformation, I’d say that puts you on the extreme partisan fringe. But we already know that.

I had to laugh at your accusation that Obama is making it more difficult for military service members to vote. I suppose the irony of the real voter suppression by Republicans and their “voter fraud” ruse is lost on you; bless your True Believer heart.

Dave Dubya said...

I’ll just take one of your Right-Wing-assertions-as-fact claims and show you the reality:

Obama ”skips” his intelligence briefings

Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled.

Our colleague Walter Pincus earlier this year examined how Obama has handled his morning foreign-policy discussions:
Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue. [National Intelligence Director James] Clapper may be present once or twice a week, but most often one of his deputies is in attendance in case an intelligence community issue arises.

When Pincus refers to the “morning meeting,” he is describing a regular national security meeting that is held every day at 9:30 a.m. with the president’s top advisers.

...Upon reflection, we now realize that the GAI report had a bit of a math problem. The White House public schedule does not list meetings on weekends, so Obama automatically loses 28 percent of the “meetings” because of that fact. Thiessen had earlier claimed Bush had oral intel briefings six days a week--though no actual schedule is available to confirm that--so at the very least GAI should have subtracted one a day week from Obama’s numbers to make a valid comparison.

We had nearly given this data Four Pinocchios and in restrospect we were perhaps too generous with Three.


That would be one Republican LIE you swallow as pure truth.

Remember this is from the Neocon-friendly Washington Post, even.

Dave Dubya said...

Your reality often exists ONLY in the far right propaganda machinery. Perhaps you could show at least a little interest in seeing the other sides regarding your knee-jerk accusations.
Mentioning the black man in the White House only devolves back to a race issue when racism is a factor. I specifically pointed out I was not calling you a racist. Why do you ignore that? Racism still exists, and contrary to your programming by Limbaugh, it exists in Red States more than Blue, since the days of slavery. If you think there’s no racist hate for Obama, you’re in a bubble. A dangerous bubble that tolerates extremist hate. Deal with reality.

Compromising with a party bound and determined to destroy our capitalist economy and our American liberties is definitely not an option

This is a classic example of the radicalized indoctrination I’m talking about. The Right demonizes liberals, and even corporatist Democrats, as Marxists. This demonization is created to justify the non-cooperation and obstruction that is obviously politically motivated.

Again, this is how fascism is born, especially when an uncompromising, demonizing party, representing the elite minority has power. History teaches those who bother to care.

My politics support...

The interests of the greediest men in the world...GOP talking points....True Believer indoctrination...Limbaugh...Beck....FOX(R)...and resentment for the half of Americans who disagree.

My friend, the bottom line is this. The Republican Party represents the interests of Big Money. That’s it. Don’t you know that simple truth yet? I don’t blame you, of course. This is why they need such a vast network of corporate media propaganda.

The propaganda works well on all authoritarian personalities, and it dupes enough fundamentalists and low information voters to keep the Right in power. Not propaganda, you say? I remind you of Bush’s little slip about, “catapulting the propaganda”.

In case you didn’t know, let me tell you why gas prices under Bush went from record highs....that’s right.....to relatively low. There was this little thing called a financial crisis. Yes, really. Look it up. You are being dishonest to credit Bush for low gas prices just as you are dishonest to blame Obama for rising insurance and other prices. Guess what. Those prices would go up anyway. Always have, always will. Until we adopt a single payer health care system.

Last time Republicans had the White House they left us two wars and a financial crisis, and blamed it on one representative and one senator in the party out of power. Now that party of the unaccountable is tight with the unaccountable Mammonite Wall Street swindlers. Yeah, that sounds like a good matchup for our economic salvation.

Vote Republican and say goodbye to a slow recovery and hello to austerity. Insurance companies will own our Medicare and Social Security. How swell can that be?

Next time Republicans seize control it will be worse. I can promise you that.

Just the Facts! said...

"They never accepted the black man in the White House."

Dave are you still spouting that line of liberal b.s.? I'd like just once for you to support your claim that conservatives who oppose the policy's of Obama only do so only because he is black.

"Your reality often exists ONLY in the far right propaganda machinery", coming from you DD that's like the lid calling he kettle black.

"Last time Republicans had the White House they left us two wars and a financial crisis" and there were no liberal democrats who voted for any of the actions that supported funding the wars or caused the financial crisis?

Dave Dubya said...

"They never accepted the black man in the White House."

"Your reality often exists ONLY in the far right propaganda machinery”

"Last time Republicans had the White House they left us two wars and a financial crisis"

These are just the facts.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: You are quite the True Believer. I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says. From what we gather you call Bush a Marxist too. My goodness. You probably think the John Birchers are a bunch of liberals.

Paine: I wasn’t blogging back when Bush was in office, but I wrote plenty of letters in disagreement to President Bush. I have also done so with my Senator Hatch. I am hardly a GOP shill. Indeed, I will call them out when they are not following Republican principles just as quickly as if I were criticizing a Democrat. In actuality I do so quicker because I expect more out of the GOP; not so much out of the increasingly leftist Democrats. I am tired of the nonsense of both major parties and have no problem voting for another candidate if he is viable and represents my beliefs. In that vein, I just voted for the Constitution Party candidate for senate over Hatch in my early voting ballot. Bush wasn’t a Marxist, but he did do some things that were definitely in that vein, and I DID call him on it accordingly.

Dubya: Real Marxism, of course, calls for government ownership, not mere bailouts. But your belief system rejects that fact. Obama does not own GM or any other company. The very fact we discuss bailouts is proof of capitalism’s failures…

Paine: Well, my friend, it is a matter of incrementalism, as even Obama admitted regarding his Obamacare law. One cannot simply take over a private company and have the government “own it” on paper in our current governmental situation, although that is awfully damn close to what Obama did. The GOVERNMENT fired GM’s executives, put in place their own handpicked CEO who had no car production experience, told them what cars they would make, and then gave ownership of the company assets to the unions. Now maybe that isn’t the textbook definition of Marxism, but there really is only a distinction without a difference there. Obama even insisted that many banks take government loans, whether they wanted them or not under threat. That also smacks of Marxism, Dave. And the fact that you think GM’s “needing a bailout” proves capitalism’s failures only goes to show that you don’t understand economics or capitalism very well, my friend. In capitalism, if one runs his business foolishly, he will indeed fail (regardless of whether it is a mom & pop business or one that Obama deems is “too big to fail”.) It is that risk of failure and that potential for greater profit that are hallmarks of capitalism and entrepreneurship. All that GM’s failure proved was that management was exceptionally foolish in giving in time and again to unrealistic union demands that made their products uncompetitive with the rest of the industry. So what does Obama do? Instead of allowing GM to go through bankruptcy to shed its foolishly acquired legacy debt to the unions, he takes assets of the company that rightfully belong BY LAW to the bondholders first and gives it to the UAW. How this man is not impeached just on that alone amazes me and is proof of the lack of constitutional knowledge and backbone by our congress.

Dubya: Looks like class warfare to me. It will get worse, especially under Romney. Mark my words,

Paine: It is Obama and the Democrats that live by this class warfare tripe. They don’t have anything else of substance to run on, and you are correct that if Romney wins, the class warfare rhetoric from the left will indeed get worse.

The Heathen Republican said...

T.Paine, don't fall into Dave's trap when he says, " I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says."

The left does this to provoke we on the right into attacking our Republican politicians. Yet you should know, and Dave is a prime example, they never question their own politicians.

As we both know, Dave never criticises any Democrats on his own site, yet he repeatedly claims to not be a Democrat.

They pull this same garbage when they tell us we need to moderate our "extreme" views to appeal to independents, yet they don't hesitate to broadcast their extreme views with no apparent worry over what independents think. It's just a tactic to make us shut up.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: If you cannot tell the difference between offended self-righteousness and religious persecution, you’re too far gone into the most fundamentalist mindset. Like that anti-Muslim movie. It offended, but didn’t oppress any of the offended rioter’s right to their faith. Still can’t see the difference?

Paine: No, Dave, I cannot see the difference. My faith instructs me that life is sacred, even nascent unborn life. Now you may or may not believe that too, but irregardless, many Catholics and other folks do believe in this very basic principle. Life is sacred and not to be killed except in just war or in defense of one’s own life. Obama’s HHS mandate comes along and says that every business and organization must provide insurance that includes those measures which either prevent life from being established or kill it once it is established. This isn’t hyperbole or some academic debate. This is a central tenet to our faith. Obama’s unconstitutional mandate is not even necessary because those that want contraception and abortifacients can still acquire them easily and at low cost nearly anywhere, no matter what the despicable tool Sandra Fluk says.


Dubya: I explain these things because I like you and know you to be well intentioned. However, unquestioning belief in Republicans is the path to Hell paved by those good intentions, though.

Paine: I appreciate the sentiment, and indeed I like you too, Dave. As you know there are definitely areas in which we both agree. That said, I am hardly a champion of many Republicans. If more Republicans would conscientiously stick to and vote for the principles in the party platform and follow the constitution, then I would be more unquestioning in my belief in them. That said, I think you are in danger of being hypocritical there, my friend, as you seem to be rather blindly defending all of the most liberal of positions when they come along, sir.



Dubya: Obama made the comment in July in Roanoke, saying: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part — “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” — prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context.
Out of context. Just what I’ve been saying. Liars hate context.

Paine: Dave, what you seem to forget is that the government provides those roads, teachers, and police officers etc. for all citizens. Every American is provided with the same basic civil services. And yet, only some folks dare to risk their money and hard work to create a business. Yes, they would have a very hard go of it if that civil infrastructure wasn’t in place, but that is something that is in place for everybody. The fact is that those individuals that strive to create something more did indeed build that! As a matter of fact, we the people and not the damnable government also built that infrastructure and paid for and staffed our civil servants. Government did not build that! We did! Obama, once again, gives credit to the government for that when it belongs with the people. I understood perfectly what Obama meant, including the extra “context”. It only further makes my point. It doesn’t excuse Obama. It only further shows his mindset that government is responsible for people being successful. Bull crap! The opposite is true. Government is successful when it is held accountable by the people to do our will. It hinders the creation of business and often times infrastructure. The regulation and inefficiencies of government are the only thing that Obama and our elected officials have often built. The successful parts were all built by ordinary Americans.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: Your reality often exists ONLY in the far right propaganda machinery. Perhaps you could show at least a little interest in seeing the other sides regarding your knee-jerk accusations.
Mentioning the black man in the White House only devolves back to a race issue when racism is a factor. I specifically pointed out I was not calling you a racist. Why do you ignore that? Racism still exists, and contrary to your programming by Limbaugh, it exists in Red States more than Blue, since the days of slavery. If you think there’s no racist hate for Obama, you’re in a bubble. A dangerous bubble that tolerates extremist hate. Deal with reality.

Paine: Dave, if racism wasn’t a factor in your accusation, then why even bring up “the black man in the White House”? What purpose does that serve if it is not meant to imply something untowards? I am not so naïve as to think that racism doesn’t exist today; however, you are very naïve if you think it exists in great enough measure to negatively impact Obama on racism grounds alone. Indeed, I would submit to you that a white progressive state senator from Illinois two years removed from that position that had an undistinguished record of typically voting “present” and a community organizer history prior to that would not have been made the Democratic nominee for president, let alone elected. The reason Obama is president is the very fact that he is black. It was a magnificent thing to see a man of color elected to office, despite his policies. That said, he owes his presidency to his race. It was not a hindrance but rather a vital component of him getting elected. Hillary was vastly more qualified for the office than Obama ever was. I would argue that the same holds true even today. It frankly scares me to think that I would rather have had her in office than Obama.


Dubya: Again, this is how fascism is born, especially when an uncompromising, demonizing party, representing the elite minority has power. History teaches those who bother to care.

Paine: One can compromise to incrementally move forward one’s agenda; however, one should not ever compromise on core principles. Demonizing a person or party for refusing to compromise those principles is a specialty of the Saul Alinsky leftists, Dave.


Dubya: (as refers to Paine)My politics support...The interests of the greediest men in the world...GOP talking points....True Believer indoctrination...Limbaugh...Beck....FOX(R)...and resentment for the half of Americans who disagree.

Paine: Interesting. I would characterize my politics as supporting constitutionalism and self-reliance. You accuse me of supporting greedy men, and yet you march in lockstep with the likes of George Soros, who can devastate nation’s currencies for his own financial gain without any scruples whatsoever. Who is greedy Dave? The man that wants to keep the money he earns or the person that wants to redistribute that same money that was earned by others to himself without having earned it? I will gladly support Romney and Beck etc. over Obama, Soros, and Bill Maher. Romney and Beck are trying to lift people up and are good men of character. Your crew seem more intent on spreading hate and discontent.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: You are being dishonest to credit Bush for low gas prices just as you are dishonest to blame Obama for rising insurance and other prices. Guess what. Those prices would go up anyway. Always have, always will. Until we adopt a single payer health care system.

Paine: Really? So the fact that Obama passed sweeping legislation that added 30 million more “patients” while drastically cutting the amount of doctors available to treat those patients through huge disincentives has nothing to do with the fact that the average person saw their health care costs go up by $2500 instead of down by that much like Obama promised? The fact that Obama put a moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf and opposed the keystone pipe line had nothing to do with rising gas prices? The fact that his economic policies have added greater costs to businesses and thus made consumer costs go up accordingly isn’t his fault either? Who is being dishonest here, buddy?


Dubya: Next time Republicans seize control it will be worse. I can promise you that.

Paine: How can things get worse than 23 million people still out of work and 15 million more people on food stamps under this president? By the end of Romney’s first term you will see REAL unemployment at the levels that Obama said his massive stimulus package would place us at now. Of course that will be worse for Democrats and their political future because when one relies on constitutional and free market solutions, more people actually do well in our nation. Democrats seem to hate that when more people aren’t dependent upon the government for their well-being. It erodes their power base and shrinks their constituencies.

T. Paine said...

Just the Facts: I'd like just once for you to support your claim that conservatives who oppose the policy's of Obama only do so only because he is black.

Paine: I think Dave is a good guy overall and he means well, but I am definitely with you on this one JTF!

T. Paine said...

Dubya: 1) "They never accepted the black man in the White House." 2)"Your reality often exists ONLY in the far right propaganda machinery” 3)"Last time Republicans had the White House they left us two wars and a financial crisis" These are just the facts.

Paine: 1) I don’t accept the unconstitutional policies of the man in the White House, irrelevant of his skin color. 2) Completely wrong! 3) You are correct about this fact. The reason for it is that the Republicans didn’t hold true to their free market principles and instead channeled their “inner progressive” when legislating. If they had behaved as true Republicans, this would not have been the case.

T. Paine said...

Heathen, there is complete truth in what you said regarding leftists complaining about us conservatives not criticizing our own. I don’t have a problem calling a spade a spade, and while I don’t typically post on GOP malfeasance, I have been known to do so on occasion. Tom Delay’s shenanigans come to mind specifically. That said, I have to agree that I cannot ever recall Dave writing a specific post ever criticizing any Democrat whatsoever. Fear not though, as I have no intention of “moderating” my views in order to bow to leftist sentiments regarding my “extremism”. Just as you do an exceptional job with your writing on your blog, I try to put out the facts with my own analysis thereof and then let the chips lay where they fall.

Dave Dubya said...

I’m flattered by all the attention from you guys.

Time permitting, I may deconstruct more erroneous or outright false claims made above. For now let’s just take one example.

HR:
As we both know, Dave never criticises any Democrats on his own site, yet he repeatedly claims to not be a Democrat.

I cannot ever recall Dave writing a specific post ever criticizing any Democrat

TP: Heathen, there is complete truth in what you said regarding leftists complaining about us conservatives not criticizing our own.

Someone’s either not paying attention...or is being dishonest....again.

Or.... it depends on what “never” means, and what “complete truth” means... ;-)

Why should anyone believe you two guys when this pattern is indicative of almost all of your claims and arguments against my points?

Here we go, just for my buddies:

September 15th:
Soon afterwards, auto company bailouts and Obama's economic stimulus plan, despite being gutted by the corpo-dems and Republicans, started to create the confidence needed to stop the panic.

May 29th
The cold cruel claws of unregulated (amended to “de-regulated”) capitalism and it's servile class of minions in the Republican and Democratic Parties will reduce our country into the same conditions the Soviets inflicted on their population.

May 16th
John Edwards is a slimeball for cheating on his wife.

March 27th
I know it sucks to vote the lesser of evils. I hate voting for those almost as loathsome corporatist Democrats.

January 12th
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too.

And that’s just for this year, one I’ve been too busy to write as many posts as usual. How about we go back ito 2008?

December 13th
But, since we do not have publicly financed elections, Congress and the Executive Branch owe their souls to the big money boys of the corporate military/industrial complex.

November 5th 2008
That’s right, but just because democrats are in majorities does NOT mean they are in charge. They have corporate string pullers working to get them to dance to their tune, and media jackals are nipping at their knees already.

November 3rd
I cannot endorse someone who voted for Bush’s FISA law. It was a horrible act of pandering to the corporate telecom industry, and an un-American assault on the Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Therefore I will not endorse Barack Obama.


Some Democrat, eh?

For perspective, please show us, if you can, HALF as many times you criticize sitting Republicans or candidates.

Methinks we see more Right Wing projection at work. ;-)

The Heathen Republican said...

Dave, it's telling that those are the best examples you could come up with. While I know you won't admit it, we both know you had a very hard time coming up with even that list.

First observation, except for your swipe at Edwards, every single example is you taking a swipe at both parties. You simply never criticize Democrats for their policies -- you criticize them for acting like Republicans or caving in to corporatists.

Second observation, you had to go all the way back to 2008 to come up with eight examples. I think you have reinforced my point, not countered it.

Finally...

The March 27th quote is from a post about what you call the Republican war on democracy...

September 15th is a post trying to convince readers that they are better off with Obama...

May 29th was your denunciation of unregulated capitalism, something you falsely attribute to Romney...

The May 16th quote is from a post about Mitt Romney bullying someone in prep school, a story that was found to be fake...

...I'm done, I think I've made my point. The fact that you could ONLY come up with these few examples, and given the full context of each quote, I stand by what I said.

T. Paine said...

Heathen, thank you so much for doing all of the leg work on this before I even had a chance to do so. That said, H.R. is right yet again, Dave. Dubya, your denunciation of Democrats (again with the very valid exception of John Edwards) was very timid and typically in conjunction with criticizing those rascally Republicans in the same breath. What say you now, my friend?

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
As a Republican you MUST lie. We get that. “Given the full context of each quote”, you didn’t build that. ;-)

The May 16th quote is from a post about Mitt Romney bullying someone in prep school, a story that was found to be fake...

Like a rabid pit bull you keep coming back with anything you think might stick.

So, Mitt the Snip must be a “conspiracy”, then, eh?

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified.

It’s interesting that when someone lies, they need to continue to add more lies to defend the first. Your case is just that.

The fact that you could ONLY come up with these few examples

This is clearly false. I showed you this year’s examples and skipped way back to 2008 to show I’ve been consistent.

I could show you more.

Dave never criticises any Democrats

Obama’s not a Democrat now?

It’s funny watching you try to weasel your way out of that one.

Now it all depends on what you mean by “criticizes”?

Hilarious.

TP,
What say you now, my friend?

I say I criticized Democrats. And I did. HR lied and was called on it.

Afterwards you two needed to quantify and modify your false accusation. This is classic Right Wing smearing.

“You didn’t build that” also means whatever you say it means, right? How authoritarian.

Read this: Dave never criticises any Democrats

True or false? Try to be honest.

Now, as I said, “I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says”

Still applies, right?

Thank you, loyal partisans.

While neither of you can meet my challenge, at least one conservative had the guts to be honest about Romney. Of course one of you will deny, or quantify out of reality, what he said.

Let’s ask Red State conservative Erick Erickson about Romney:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.
I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

Along the way, he’ll drop lots of coin to grease the skids for himself. Mitt Romney is the silly putty of politicians — press on him real hard and he’ll take on whatever image you press into him until the next group starts pressing.

Republican billionaires have a fantastic track record of getting Republican opinion leaders to support them and an even better track record at losing elections. Mitt Romney will be no different.


Note how the first half of the last sentence confirms what I’ve been saying all along. The GOP is almost entirely and exclusively in the service of Big Money.

True of false?

FandB said...

T. Paine: "By the end of Romney’s first term you will see REAL unemployment at the levels that Obama said his massive stimulus package would place us at now."

Mr. Paine, I believe this statement is quite profound. A very powerful incentive for democrats to lie, cheat, steal their way back into the White House is that if Romney is elected and does as you predict, it will be proof of Obama's and the democrats' incompetence and failure to deal with the problems they "inherited." Romney's potential success will discredit four years of progressivist socialism-building on the backs of the middle class.

It will also offer further proof that the "great recession" would not have been nearly as "great" if the government had enacted sensible policies for countering it rather than focusing too much attention on Obamacare and not enough on restoring economic confidence.

Dave Dubya said...

Hey, there , F&B,

Nice to have you back at the office. ;-)

And it warms my heart to see this gathering of TP, HR, and F&B. You are three of my very favorite advocates of the Guardians Of Plutocracy. Cheers!

We liberal/moderate types can’t help noticing the enthusiasm you all share at statements that are sheer conjecture at best. But they sound really good and match your ideological fantasy world. You cheer your predictions and opinions as if they were actually true, or will become true.

Amazing. It is a truly a loyal and faithful belief system that befits a religion, or a cult.

Meanwhile back in reality.

And :unemployment at the levels that Obama said ...Or if you were correct, Obama never said. Please show the quote where he said that, specifically about the actual law that was passed. One reality is this. Republicans are on record requesting Stimulus money and praising the jobs and projects that came with it.

Yes the “evil socialist massive stimulus” actually saved jobs and restored enough economic confidence to take us in the direction of recovery, and eventually reverse the steep slope in unemployment that started under Bush back in 2008 when de-regulated capitalism triggered the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression.

If I may ask, who left us the “great recession”? And what are the problems the Democrats "inherited”? And why are “great recession” and “inherited” in quotation marks?

I thank the three of you in advance.

Or.... let’s see some more of those wacky predictions that sound so good they must be true.

Have fun!

FandB said...

I generally use quotation marks to denote phrases that are fictitious constructs or left-wing talking points.

Specifically, I used them here because the left uses the term "inherited" to distance themselves from issues that they were at least as guilty of causing, if not more so than republicans.

I used them with "great recession" because the liberal/socialist policies of this administration made the recession much deeper and broader than it needed to be. Better policies, faster reactions to changes, and more attention being paid to the economy could have lessened the severity considerably. If Obamaco had taken care of the economy before focusing so much of their effort on Obamacare, this election wouldn't even be a contest. Just another example of poor judgement on his part.


T. Paine said...

Dubya: I say I criticized Democrats. And I did. HR lied and was called on it.

Paine: Yeah, you did criticize a few in milquetoast fashion. I stand corrected accordingly. You have proven that you are equally hard on Democrats as you are on Republicans. Indeed your seldom criticism of said Democrats typically comes in conjunction with your criticism for Republicans too. You are fair and balanced.



Dubya: “You didn’t build that” also means whatever you say it means, right? How authoritarian.

Paine: No Dave. I will explain it one last time. It means precisely what the dictionary definition of his words says it does. The additional context that you think changes the meaning only solidifies what I and nearly all other non-leftist partisan Americans thought he meant. Trying to twist the meaning of what he said into something a little more politically palatable for the electorate after the fact is a job left to David Axelrod and you, sir.



Dubya: Read this: Dave never criticises any Democrats. True or false? Try to be honest.

Paine: In the narrowest sense of the word “criticizes”, I guess I would have to say that you technically have criticized Democrats. (Albeit for usually not being much further to the left.)


Dubya: Now, as I said, “I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says”

Paine: Admittedly I don’t typically go out of my way to tear down Republicans. You all on the left can do that just fine by yourselves. That said, here is one example of when I did do so:
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/01/tom-delay-is-sentenced-to-three-years.html I noticed in the comments that our hyper-leftist friend S.W. Anderson even commended me for my criticism of Tom DeLay. Have you ever gotten kudos for an objective criticism of a Democrat by a conservative reader? I’m betting not.



Dubya: Note how the first half of the last sentence confirms what I’ve been saying all along. The GOP is almost entirely and exclusively in the service of Big Money. True or false?

Paine: Really Dave? Because some knucklehead of whom I have never heard says something inaccurate about Romney, you find this confirmation of your long-held political belief? Wow! I would answer a resounding “FALSE!” to that question.

T. Paine said...

FandB, you are absolutely correct in your analysis. The Democrats cannot afford to have another Reagan come along to fix the economic mess left/created by a Carter. If Romney is elected, his policies will drastically improve the economy in short order. I suspect the Democrats will try to spin it and say that it was Obama’s policies already in place that started the growth in the economy, and Romney merely inherited that from him. The problem is that the current economy is slowing down again because of Obama. The public is too smart to buy that nonsense anyway, so in the end you are right. The left cannot afford to have their asinine policies put to the lie that they are.

T. Paine said...

Towards Dubya: The “Guardians of Plutocracy”? Wow, I sound like a super hero now! Thanks Dave! I suppose I can be the arch-nemesis of the Marxist Avenger! :)

As for my prediction regarding Obama’s demise as president, I fully acknowledge that it is conjecture. That said, I gave a long list of reasons for my theory. When it comes to pass in two more weeks though you can apologize to me if you so desire. 

The funny thing is that you think we don’t live in reality and yet you credit Obama and the Democrats for creating jobs and for this wonderful recovery we are in currently. Never mind the fact that it is slowing down and economic growth is worse year over year for three consecutive years since your highly championed stimulus package was passed. And as far as I am concerned to hell with every Rino that voted for the largely ineffectual stimulus bill. It was a short term fix that only added massive amounts more debt to the taxpayers.

I have acknowledged that Bush helped create this mess. Again, that is largely because he spent money we did not have on things that it should have not been spent upon. In other words, he spent and governed like a tax and spend liberal Democrat. He certainly wasn’t a champion of conservative fiscal policy. When you leftists talk about the failed economic policies under Bush, I wholeheartedly agree. I further agree that we should not return to those failed policies for four more years under Obama. They simply don’t work.

Oh, and by the way, does that also count as my criticism of a Republican for our earlier discussion?

T. Paine said...

FandB regarding your most recent comment, all I have to say is Damned Straight! Well said!

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
I’m impressed. You actually included Republicans as part of the cause of the mess. I fully agree both parties screwed things up. That doesn’t exonerate Bush. He was the “decider” in power.

TP:
“I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says”

Still applies, right?

Here’s an observation from a guy you may think is a liberal, but he has agreed with you on blaming unions in part for the debt.
The U.S. economy is recovering well

Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government.
...U..S. corporations have also bounced back. Corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of gross domestic product, and companies have $1.7 trillion in cash on their balance sheets.

The next president will reap the rewards of work already done. So it would be the ultimate irony if, having strongly criticized almost every measure that contributed to these positive tends, Mitt Romney ends up presiding over what he would surely call “the Romney recovery.”

T. Paine said...

Dubya: “I’ve yet to see once where you question what a sitting Republican or Republican candidate says”

Paine: Indeed. Tell me, was John Edwards still holding office when you criticized him? (I ask only because that is the only person out of the examples listed where you seemed to actually be more than luke warm in your condemnation.)


Dubya: Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government.
...U..S. corporations have also bounced back. Corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of gross domestic product, and companies have $1.7 trillion in cash on their balance sheets.

The next president will reap the rewards of work already done. So it would be the ultimate irony if, having strongly criticized almost every measure that contributed to these positive tends, Mitt Romney ends up presiding over what he would surely call “the Romney recovery.”

Paine: Wow! Do I know liberals or what? See FandB, I told you that the left would try to set the groundwork for taking credit for the economy once Romney does fix it. Dave, most businesses under this Obama economy still won’t hire people for fear of costs and regulations of doing so, particularly with Obamacare. This recovery has been one of the most anemic on record. If government would get the hell out of the way, we could actually see a real recovery and those 23 million people out of work might actually be able to find a decent job. I am sure you can find all sorts of Paul Krugman wannabes that concur with you. Reality is something quite different however.

The Heathen Republican said...

Dubya: "Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government."

Wait, wait, my Google button works, too! Here's what I found:

“Using the latest… (OECD) data for all 32 countries that it is available for, there's a strikingly clear relationship. The countries with the largest stimulus programs suffered the most during the recessions. The more they increased spending or the more they increased their deficits, the worst (sic) they did.

“Countries such as Ireland, Iceland, Estonia, Spain, and the UK dramatically increased per capita government spending… [and] suffered the biggest drops in GDP, contracting on average by a total of 4.4 percent between 2007 and 2010… The most frugal countries… let per capita government spending either shrink or grow much more slowly… [and] per capita GDP actually grew by an average of 7 percent over the three-year period.

““Austerity” may be a bad word to some politicians, but the countries that followed Keynesian policy have a trifecta of problems: poor GDP and job growth, plus they've left their citizens with massive debts to pay off.”

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2011-2012_factbook-2011-en;jsessionid=1ooxd9bb77ech.epsilon

Dave Dubya said...

I nailed it, "a guy you may think is a liberal". Easy call.

Of course, every corporate media talking head is a liberal to the far Right.

Yes, there you go again with assertions, assertions. "once Romney does fix it"

Sorry, Romney has NOTHING to do with the recovery now.

Still nothing on sitting Republicans or candidates.

Just make something up. I know you can do it. ;-)

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
Yes, Europe has problems.

There's no mention of the US in your excerpt.

Dave Dubya said...

Here’s another criticism I have for a particulary slimey Democrat.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) was leading the Senate process wherein the health care reform legislation was being crafted. In the previous election cycle (2008) he received over a million dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

This is the best example of a bought and paid for, corrupted corpo-Dem representing the interests of Big Money over the public.

This man may as well be a Republican. He works for the same bosses.

And you guys think liberals wrote Obamacare? Ha.

The Heathen Republican said...

Then you better disregard it, Dave. I wouldn't want you to learn anything, and I sure don't want you to read anything that contradicts your left-wing faith.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
It would help if your link went to the words you quoted. ;-)

The Heathen Republican said...

Sure, okay. I linked the OECD instead of the article quoted. Here is the article: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/07/16/austerity_works_its_time_to_give_it_a_try_99764.html

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
OK, thanks for the "fair and balanced" assessment from one John Lott co-author of the just released "Debacle: Obama's War On Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future".

The Heathen Republican said...

Typical Dave. Can't rebut the substance, so undermine the source.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, like TP asserts above. "Paine: Wow! Do I know liberals or what?"

Love your projection.

The Heathen Republican said...

And now you're attacking me... yet you still haven't addressed the substance of the Lott article that you asked me to link.

Stop accusing me of projecting. Stop claiming you know Republicans. Argue what you believe. Argue substance. Debate the points we make instead of what you think we think.

Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

John Myste said...

A study was done using the Iowa Electronic Market (which supposedly has a proven record), a combination of polls and a combination of historical data analysis to decide who would win. I wish I could cite the source, but I heard about on NPR and I have no interest in researching it, as I am not trying to make a rebuttal, but just tell an anecdote. This source, unlike other predictors, has an uncanny record for producing the right answer when combining factors.

They found that Obama should win, no faith needed.

Some in the GOP, like some of you here, are desperately trying to prove that Obama will be unseated, as if that would validate your wacky conservative philosophy.

I have yet to see any relevant proof that would argue against the indicators. Charts, single indicators, are certainly a feeble and inferior attempt. However, Mr. Paine, though I don't agree with you, the only way you can refute the seeming direction is with philosophy, which you have attempted to do. You are arguing what you believe for the reason you believe it and I respect that rare quality.

MR. Heathen was correct: I do think your non-cherry picked real philosophy is far more cogent than his arguments. However, ultimately I see no reason to buy into it. I don't think unseating Obama is rational and you said nothing to convince me otherwise. If we are going to unseat him, I think the Romnies are a better choice by far than most Republicans: easily manipulated by public opinion and often defers to the majority. I respect that about them. They are good Republican Joe if ever there was one.

Besides, Ryan and his type bore me, but with Romnies, each day brings a brand new one. You just never know what you are going to get. Romney is like a box of choc’late.

Dave Dubya said...


HR,
I pointed out the article was not about the US. Another point is the article is dated before the unemployment rate dropped to the level Obama found waiting for him when inaugurated.

Calling out projection relative to the previous comments is hardly an attack. "Can't rebut the substance, so undermine the source," is exactly the response to my linked article.

After the typical unfounded anti-government assertions, GOP talking points, and the usual "prediction as fact" claim about what Romney will do, this was offered, "I am sure you can find all sorts of Paul Krugman wannabes that concur with you."

There was no substantiated response.

See what I mean?

I love how you channel Mr. Myste: "Stop claiming you know Republicans. Argue what you believe. Argue substance. Debate the points we make instead of what you think we think."

See my Baucus point. I'd say if I know him, I know Republicans.

"Same bosses" was my conclusion, my belief, and my substance, backed by the fact he reeks of insurance and pharmaceutical money, just like Republicans.

And this was never considered for some reason..."The Republican Party represents the interests of Big Money."

Mmkay?

Speaking of points, I've yet to any criticism of a sitting Republican or candidate.

Stop claiming you know Republicans. Argue what you believe.

I've told you this is what I believe: "My friend, the bottom line is this. The Republican Party represents the interests of Big Money. That’s it. Don’t you know that simple truth yet? I don’t blame you, of course. This is why they need such a vast network of corporate media propaganda."

I have also stated my agreement with Erick Erickson, which was also ignored and lost to response.

Have a look again at my shared belief:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

Along the way, he’ll drop lots of coin to grease the skids for himself. Mitt Romney is the silly putty of politicians — press on him real hard and he’ll take on whatever image you press into him until the next group starts pressing.

Republican billionaires have a fantastic track record of getting Republican opinion leaders to support them and an even better track record at losing elections. Mitt Romney will be no different.


Anyone care to respond, or even acknowlege? Anyone? None so far.

Seems yours is not the only time wasted.



T. Paine said...

Dubya, who is Erick Erickson that his OPINION should end all debate on the matter of Romney? I was unaware of the previously unknown Mr. Erickson as being an infallible authority on all things Romney. Perhaps if I was aware of some set of sterling credentials beyond reproach for Mr. Erickson, then maybe I could take his words more seriously. Otherwise, his is just one more progressive opinion based on class warfare rhetoric. Was he perhaps one of the quasi-leaders of the great unwashed (if you will pardon the term) occupy Wallstreet movement? For that matter there is much in Mr. Erickson’s unfounded assertions that could just as easily be applied to Mr. Obama. There! I acknowledged and responded to your clip. Happy? :)

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
To quote above: "Can't rebut the substance, so undermine the source".

I'm surprised you don't know about Erickson.

Erick Erickson is the well known editor of the conservative blog Red State. He was even hired by CNN (Corporate News Network).

Like I said, it took guts for a Rightie to speak the truth about Romney.

You ARE aware of Romney's ever shifting positions, right?

No thoughts at all on this tendency?

T. Paine said...

Dubya, yes I am painfully aware of Romney’s shifting positions over the years. That is one of the reasons why many conservatives, myself included, did not support him in the Republican primaries. That said, he has shifted in the right direction on all of his positions. Obama’s lies and shifts have been merely to hide the fact that he is a closet Marxist.

Dave Dubya said...

Obama’s lies and shifts have been merely to hide the fact that he is a closet Marxist.

And as we now know, if this, or anything else, is asserted by someone on the far Right...It must be true. ;-)

Hang in there, True Believer, and be awestricken, or outraged, at the majority of Americans who don't buy that paranoid nonsense.

John Myste said...

I don't see how anyone who has examined an electoral map could think Romney is going to win. I don't care how much you have to drink, I just don't see it.

T. Paine said...

John, we conservatives will win through voter suppression, fraud, and through individual states having their Secretaries of State falsify the results. (At least that will be the story from the left following Romney’s stunning win.)

John Myste said...

Boy, you guys will be sooo furious when Obama wins. ;-)


I don't think it is faith that makes Republicans pretend they think Romney will win. I think they somehow sense that if they pretend Romney will win, it validates their contempt for Obama, because to them, Romney winning would validate their contempt. It is psychologically fascinating, regardless of motivation. People seem to suspend reason once they have taken a hard position on a topic. I think this is a textbook example (no offense to those holding their reason in suspension intended).

If someone were to say: "Romney could win," and then longingly imagined it, I could still classify that as reason tempered with desire. However, the assumption that a losing candidate will win seems only to be present when combined with someone identifying oneself with contempt for the opposing candidate.

Again, fascinating!


John Myste said...

John, we conservatives will win through voter suppression, fraud, and through individual states having their Secretaries of State falsify the results.

Another great quote I must log.

However, you forgot how you will hold the House - Gerrymandering.

Can you resubmit your timeless quote that I may log it as a complete historical record?

The Heathen Republican said...

John: "I don't see how anyone who has examined an electoral map could think Romney is going to win."

John: "People seem to suspend reason once they have taken a hard position on a topic."

John, I know that your faith in Obama won't allow you to consider the very realistic possibility that he will lose, so consider this a hypothetical.

IF Romney wins, how will you explain the two statements above. You claim that we have to suspend reason to believe that he can/will win. So IF he wins, won't it be you that has been suspending reason?

John Myste said...

John Said: If someone were to say: "Romney could win," and then longingly imagined it, I could still classify that as reason tempered with desire.

Heathen Said: John, I know that your faith in Obama won't allow you to consider the very realistic possibility that he will lose, so consider this a hypothetical.

Heathen, I know Obama could lose. You have faith that I think he could not possibly lose, but your religious faith in what liberals believe does nothing to influence liberal belief. I thought we had been over this.

IF Romney wins, how will you explain the two statements above.

The two statements above are compatible with a Romney victory. Please pay attention. I said that it is unreasonable to assume a candidate will win who does not have the electoral map on his side. I did NOT say that that candidate cannot therefore win. I did not say that assuming he could win was unreasonable. I said thinking he is going to win is unreasonable.

You took that to mean he could not possibly win because your conservative theology demands that you think liberals think the way you need them to think. Your philosophy should stand on its own, without this requirement. You are projecting. I am not saying Romney cannot win. Conservatives are saying Obama cannot win.

Try not to be so desperate to trap me in just anything and you will not be so prone to getting your legs caught in your own snare, my friend.


The Heathen Republican said...

First, I have never claimed that Obama can't win or that Romney can't lose. You must be confusing me with someone else because I am very aware that Romney can lose the election.

Second, it appears to me that you have constructed a world view where 1) those of us who believe Romney will win have discarded reason. But if Romney ends up winning, 2) those of you who believed Obama would win never discarded reason.

Once again this is an example of heads you win, tails I lose. Very convenient for you.

An alternative view is that Obama believers won't admit that the polls are skewed, so when he loses they are in for a big surprise. When a Romney believer like me or T.Paine points this out, we are told that we are discarding reason.

If Obama loses, it will certainly be you who discarded reason and trusted the Obama-adoring media too much.

T. Paine said...

Yeah John! What Heathen said! :) (You go, H.R.!!!)

John Myste said...

Heathen,

All I said was that it was irrational to "think Romney will win."

You invented the rest. I rebuttal your invention. You now changed the argument (without conceding the prior one), to challenge another assumption about my philosophy.

You are trying very very hard to catch me in something and one thing does not work, you seem to say: "Oh yeah, what about this then?"

Focus on what you actually think about things without spending all your time laying traps and hoping those who disagree with you are clumsy enough to fall into them, Christ!

John Myste said...

Paine,

You hitched your wagon to the wrong horse. You are now denounced by association, whereas you could have escaped unscathed.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste! How dare you comment about my wagon! I will hitch it to the best horsey I possibly can each and every time. In this case, I got hitched up all proper like, sir! :)

John Myste said...

Mr. Paine,

Probably my all-time favorite essay is Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance

It is only a few pages, but sums up an important lesson in life.