patrick.net

rooemoore says

He can't write of his "time". Then again, maybe he can.

Romney has a widely reported history of circumventing what people are allowed to do, especially where tax implications are concerned:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121401/-VOTER-FRAUD-UNMASKED-And-um-it-s-Mitt-Romney-committing-it

For some people, facts are part of objective reality; they live in one place or another, their primary business activity is running a particular company or it isn't, etc. For cult members, it's all about what gains money and power for the cult, everything else is a distraction for the infidels.

curious2 says

I don't know who, if anyone, is missing that point.

I meant, the question about whether or not one of the other candidates would have been "better" or worse. People wring their hands and act like Romney was chosen in a smoky dark room by party insiders. He was chosen after a series of contests, where he defeated each of the also-rans.

Some of those voters may have been thinking strategically, but mostly they fell for the slash and burn Romney campaign until they were left with him. Each of their options were horribly flawed and would have been defeated by Obama.

But they are chosen by hard-core voters, who pushed their best chances to win ever rightward. Therefore, it's silly to act like Romney isn't exactly what they deserve and a product of a crazed electorate.

He sucks, because the ideology sucks.

curious2 says

I liked one of your other comments in a different thread, where you called out two dueling commenters for making too sweeping generalizations. Unfortunately, in this particular comment, you've fallen into the same trap. Generalizing about other people based on the ones you can most easily visualize risks overlooking huge numbers, for example Ron Paul voters. Based on many Paul voters' statements in Tampa, it sounded like most were not planning to vote for Romney.

OK, fair enough.

I can buy that Romney is losing some Republicans based on Obamney care, but I suspect that the others running for the ticket may have lost more Republican votes because of their own issues. I still think (at the time) that he was the best bet to pickup middle ground voters. Given Romney's penchant for alienating others with hindsight perhaps Bachmann would have had a better chance.

CL says

Each of their options were horribly flawed and would have been defeated by Obama.

Ron Paul outpolled the President nationally, but the debate audiences actually booed when Paul said things like "we need to be honest with ourselves." He got many Republican votes, but not enough. Unfortunately too many Republican primary voters acted on hate or ignorance or self-delusion, and the whole country suffers because of that. I don't know how to communicate through the bubble of Faux truthiness in which they seal themselves, but I reject collective guilt and choose not to say that all Republicans, let alone all Americans, deserve that result.

curious2 says

Ron Paul outpolled the President nationally and did very well in debates, except Republicans actually booed Paul and refused to vote for him

I didn't see any poll with Paul leading Obama. Do you remember which pollster?

And the issue with Paul is that if he is easily made to look crazy in a line-up with the GOP primary candidates, Obama would have destroyed him.

That aside, it would have been an interesting debate, to be sure. But interesting to us as political watchers is one thing, but where the electorate is is another thing entirely.

curious2 says

I don't know how to communicate through the bubble of Faux truthiness in which they seal themselves, but I reject collective guilt and choose not to say that all Republicans, let alone all Americans, deserve that result.

While I like the idea of getting the government that one deserves.

Given all the money used to obfuscate and confuse voters I don't think that they necessarily "deserve" to be punished for being tricked into voting in doom.

CL says

I didn't see any poll with Paul leading Obama. Do you remember which pollster?

Rasmussen of course.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

CL says

I didn't see any poll with Paul leading Obama. Do you remember which pollster?

Rasmussen showed Paul ahead twice, but it got little press inside the United States. RT picked up one and Yahoo picked up the other:

Rep. Paul outpolls President Obama

Ron Paul Only Candidate Able to Defeat Obama in New Poll

Even now, Paul polls within the margin of error, and significantly ahead on favorability:

http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll

It would have been an interesting debate, and more importantly it would have moved the frame so the choices would be better. With Romney, we get another round of culture wars and bitterness; with Paul, we would have got a debate about public policy. The system of divide and misrule is working perfectly for the few who run it, which is why the Paul campaign got ignored even when he did well.

curious2 says

With Romney, we get another round of culture wars and bitterness; with Paul, we would have got a debate about public policy.

Yep.

Though I fundamentally disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions at least he -- relative to other politicians -- seemed to have some integrity and states what he actually believes.

It would have made for a much more interesting debate.

Romney's flip-flopping on the other-hand makes Kerry look like the rock of Gibraltar.

leo707 says

seemed to have some integrity and states what he actually believes.

But doesn't do what he says. It sounds good if you're a Paulista, but looks hypocritical if you think he's a politician.

Still, what a different set of debates that would be! And a spectacular electoral wipeout.

CL says

Still, what a different set of debates that would be! And a spectacular electoral wipeout.

Amusing, but it probably would not have been a wipeout. Around 30% on each side will vote for their party no matter what. For a variety of reasons, Eastwood's empty chair might have got 40%. Romney might do worse than that, Paul might have done better.

Tell us how you really feel, Senator Webb:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/09/webb-drops-the-hammer-on-romney-136858.html

leo707 says

seemed to have some integrity and states what he actually believes.

No, he lies with the best of them.

http://patrick.net/?p=1216317

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/paul-ryans-dishonest-speech/2012/08/30/16bb62d8-f24f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/30/1125901/-The-biggest-of-all-Paul-Ryan-s-big-nbsp-lies

I think that perhaps one of the biggest reasons Romney isn't doing as well as he could ( not that this upsets me) is that his message has generally been generic and lacking in any detail.

His plan seemed to have been to simply let the bad economy do the work for him, which meant all he'd have to do is kick back and occasionally blame Obama for the economy and his "Failed policies". The thing is that even if a bad economy is typically worse for an incumbent, most people want to hear detailed plans and direction from the challenger. The only thing Romney has said is nothing new. Basically towing the same generic line Republicans have been towing forever: Cut taxes and cut spending. Big deal. That's been repeated so much that it has lost its meaning. People likely just ignore it.

Lastly, Romney has failed to make much of an inroad appealing to anyone beyond the same base that would have voted for anyone so long as they were a Republican. That trick might have worked back when the demographics of the country were different. But the fact is that the population has changed and will continue to do so. So as long as people like Romney fail to connect with a wider voting populace, the tactics employed by the GOP will continue to become increasingly ineffective.

Is it funny in this country?

If you made money and paid tax, you never paid enough.

If you don't pay tax, no body should mention it even it is a fact.

47% did not pay federal income tax is a fact. But once you mention it, you are a bad guy.

BobMSN says

47% did not pay federal income tax is a fact. But once you mention it, you are a bad guy.

This isn't why people made a big stink about the comment. The reason was the sentiment that the comment indicated.

This is why they have resorted to cheating (well that and because there are too many scumbags in their ranks).

Fox news, and the tea bagger movement have backfired. Independents can see the clown show that the republican party has become, and independents, or relative independents decide the election.

People don't like Romney or trust him.

In spite all the negative propaganda, and in spite of his not pleasing the left, Obama is consistent. He shows a caution in what he says and does and pragmatism that people respect. IT reminds me of the way many "liberals" probably viewed Reagan, in a way.

I was a young liberal in the 80s and didn't like Reagan. Everything from his union busting to his lowering taxes while beefing up the military (exploding the deficit)..... I could go on. So I really didn't like his policies. But I could see his charm and his likeability, and as a figure head I knew his presidency had some merit.

I think for many moderate republicans (serious conservatives and libertarians) it's like this with Obama. In a way they respect him, and they like him. True that many also hate him, in large part because of the constant complaining from the right wing media machine.

But in the end it's about likebility, and Romney loses that contest badly.

BobMSN says

47% did not pay federal income tax is a fact. But once you mention it, you are a bad guy.

Like Edvard said--mentioning it doesn't make you a bad guy. Implying that the 47% are leeches that are lazy and prefer to live off the rest of the country does.

tatupu70 says

Like Edvard said--mentioning it doesn't make you a bad guy. Implying that the 47% are leeches that are lazy and prefer to live off the rest of the country does.

I have a problem with this attitude because its so generalized- that anyone who accepts any form of social assistance is lazy. Its meant of course to train those who believe in such a statement to automatically be against any and all social programs- even if they happen to be a benefit to them directly. Its the same sort of general statements made that such-and-such thing is socialist, doesn't matter if it actually is socialist, but since that term is well-known to make people jump from rational discussion to gut reaction, it avoids any topic at hand from being even passively examined as a matter for debate and simply a means to stoke the fears of "Socialism"...

marcus says

No, he lies with the best of them.

Oh yes Paul Ryan is a huge liar, but I was talking about...

leo707 says

Ron Paul's...seemed to have some integrity and states what he actually believes.

Oops. To early, and before my morning coffee. Still,...very illiterate of me.