Then I would have to say you haven’t taken a very close look.
Romney - born to a gazillionaire father with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Obama - not born to wealth; worked very hard to accomplish everything he has.
Maybe if he was on fire at the time ?
And? If I have a tomato plant that was naturally grown in the San Bernardino valley and a second tomato plant that was artificially manufactured to be scientifically indistinguishable from the first tomato plant, there’s no difference which I put in my pizza. If the end result is the same, who cares how they got there?
I heard a radio commentator this morning talking about the Bain Capital thing, and he pointed out that the people pushing this are basically going after Romney for acting like a Republican, and a Capitalist. He pointed out that the whole point of capitalism ISN’T to be a “Job Creator” (as GOP talking points claim), but to be a “Profit Creator”, and if people lose their jobs along the way to profitability, so what?
Nor will he “say anything” to get elected. That’s just nonsense.
Let’s see. This Republican Congress is one of the least productive since WWII. The previous one (the 111th, 2009-2010) was the most productive since WWII.
The 111th Congress:
[ul]
[li]Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Paid Pay Act, ensuring equal pay for equal work.[/li][li]Passed Health Care Reform, which prohibitted insurrers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, starting in 2014(?)[/li][li]Extended coverage to those under (26?) effective immediately,[/li][li]Extended health care to 32 million uninsured Americans…[/li][li]…while HCR also cut the budget deficit.[/li][li]Saved the auto industry from collapse, protecting 1.4 million jobs. Did it right, so that GM wasn’t/isn’t a basket case.[/li][li]Extended Pell Grants to millions attending college,[/li][li]Passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill[/li][/ul] To think that McConnell/Boehner/Romney would do a fraction of that is laughable. Let’s not forget that Obama reoriented the CIA towards capturing Bin Laden and the patience and forthrightness to do so, never mind the crockery.
So basically we’re comparing tomatoes with aircraft carriers.
And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
ETA: Sorry, I thought this was the thread for posting our favorite nonsense phrases.:smack:
A lot of people are making the point that it’s odd to hear Republicans going after a venture capitalist this way. It’s not unreasonable as an issue since Romney’s talked about his business experience a great deal. It’s certainly fair to talk about what his firm actually did and to debate whether it did good things or not. It’s a strange twist.
It certainly is, especially given the current line of attack from the Democrats, who merely attack Romney’s numbers on his “job-creating” and emphasize the hardship of job loss (This DNC video is a good example).
They don’t seem to realize that by doing this, they’re basically conceding that his brand of capitalism can be useful for the economy, just not as much as he says. Gingrich is actually doing the heavy lifting for them; he’s channeling the publics vague revulsion with Wall Street and justifying it against Romney’s brand of venture (vulture?) capitalism. Yes, Bain laid people off, but even good companies sometimes lay people off, and you can plausibly chalk that up as acceptable in a capitalist system. Newt’s attack has more bite because he’s putting Bain in the same boat as the rest of the hated Wall Streeters–the guys who seem to have gotten away with wrecking the economy even richer than before.
As long as I can remember, this has been a perpetual problem for Dems–they don’t go for the jugular when they have a chance, either out of incompetence or a high-minded sense of fairness. When their criticism of Romney is to the right of Newt Gingrich, you have to wonder if its really that effective.
It’s January, and while Romney is very likely to win the nomination, he hasn’t done it yet. The Democrats are not going to hit him with everything they have now.
Ted Kennedy bruised Jimmy Carter pretty badly in 1980. That fight stayed nasty right through the convention.
Not true. Kennedy criticized Carter for being too moderate.
As a thread about Republicans regretting things, I might as well throw this out there:
‘Moderate’ seems to be a dirty word among Republicans right now, and I can’t see how that would turn out well in the general election. Even Jon Huntsman (the sanest of the lot) denies it when someone throws the m-word at him. I could see them running away from ‘liberal’ and progressive’, but ‘moderate’? That can’t play well with independent voters.
Obama still doesn’t have a fraction of the money that Romney has, but, more importantly, he does have memories of not being loaded with money. Only a smug rich prick would say how great it is to let people fire their health insurance companies, with no realization that in today’s climate many people would wind up without insurance if they did so. Life is much easier if you can buy the damn hospital if you want to.
This is the key to Romney’s remark. Most of us don’t see the relationship with a healthcare company this way. I’d like to think I really have that kind of power to treat my health insurer like an employee–same goes for my bank–but in point of fact these things are not luxuries I can pick and choose at will. They are necessities for living in the middle class, and I damn well better stay in line or be hit with, say, an outrageous banking fee for trying to change my mortgage, or a pre-existing condition my insurer and their battery of lawyers can use to deny me coverage.
Romney’s life of entitlement allows him to treat these things as disposable. If that isn’t the definition of a smug rich prick, i don’t know what is.
Heh. Somebody should ask Romney how many hospitals he owns, see if that stumps him the way the “houses” question did McCain…
The complex argument is actually pretty devastating. Romney made 70% of his fortune from IIRC 4 companies – and he did this by loading them up with debt and extracting fees. Now pause for a second. If you have a company that is fundamentally unsound and in need of restructuring, wouldn’t adding debt be the last thing you want to do? It increases the odds of bankruptcy after all. In the real world, most companies in the 1980s had longstanding gentleman’s agreement with their suppliers, stockholders, workers and bond holders. Taking over the company and ripping up those implicit contracts is a great way to earn a buck, but its ability to create risk-adjusted value has been vastly over-stated.
That video was worth it just for the shot of the tow-headed little boy hearing on the news that the toy store has to close because it went bankrupt.
8:00 mark for those not inclined to sit through the whole thing.
There was a time – the early '70s – when it seemed to be a dirty word among Dems too. But when the radical, pro-McGovern “New Politics” faction took over the party, they wound up effectively sidelining it until 1992. Pubs take note.
It doesn’t help Romney that he made that huge verbal gaffe about firing people. In context, it wasn’t really that big a deal. But as a sound bite, it’s a club anyone can use against him.
Damn. If you watched that film without knowing it’s source, you’d think a Democrat had made it.
Hell, you might think Michael Moore made it.
If Romney wins the nomination, this film will go viral. The full 30 minute film is already on the net, they can’t pull it back.