Why Is Romney Losing?

romney's words, actions, and unrepentant statements from his 'struggles' during college where he lived off of stock money given to him through to this campaign showcase the prototypical entitlement persona of someone suffering from an extreme case of 'silver-spoon syndrome.'



So I disagree that romney is faking anything. He's not Daddy Warbucks and the inference from Brooks, et. al. that he is some sort of closeted moderate simply fails the giggle test.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

10 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Debate Prospects Are in Trouble

Debates are won and lost on demeanor. How the debaters conduct themselves spins voter perceptions toward or away from candidate policies more than the policies themselves. We've seen it time and again.



So Obama will use the same strategy he used in 2008: be plain, bland, and polite. It worked because McCain's temper tantrums didn't need a lot of prodding and those eruptions of anger turned away a good number of would-be voters.



The Obama debate strategy was, in other words, 'give the other guy enough rope...' There was little counter-punching and there was even less in the way of direct challenging during those debates.



My point is that Robert's debate analysis is tremendously over-engineered. McCain at least had some credibility when he was running. romney's credibility is non-existent and his positions (and history) virtually indefensible. Even the friends of mine who are off the charts with their, let's call it, "anti-socialism" openly tell me they can't stand romney.



In 2004, dubya at least made a strong effort to appear like he cares about 'the little guy' and became a guy people wanted to have a beer with. romney's sneering contempt for the unrich is such that he won't even try to fake empathy - and that'll continue to be obvious during the debates.



So here's all the debate analysis you need:



Romney will lose because very few people can stomach rich bullies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Romney's Last Chance: Cheat and Lie

The script, with the exception of the errant nuclear bomb drop (they would definitely portray Israel getting bombed by Iran), is not going to be too far at all from the actual scripts that will fuel the panic-generators on the right over the last few weeks of the campaign. They've proved time and again that there are no bounds, no rules, no morals, no ethics - only unrelenting, p3tul3nt, 'ends justify the means,' in their never-ending quest for power.



Sadly, that has never stopped the President from groveling at their feet every time the republican party says "boo." And after the onslaught of intellectual depravity is unleashed near election day, the President will, unfortunately for us and the world, go right back to his knees begging republicans for support and throwing workers, home-owners, the poor, the elderly, and the middle class under the bus - wait, no... I mean "compromising."



Decorum! Yeah, that's the thing that we need in Congress and the White House now.... kumbaya.... I can only hope we can survive the next 4 years of either of these two.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton to Treasury

This is a joke, right? Please tell me it is...



Maybe you can palette placing into a position of tremendous power the guy who championed and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagel, a reduction of capital gains rates (which set off the tech bubble), and the man who hired/shaped such Obama characters as tim geithner, rahm emmanuel, among other hucksters - but not me.



The folks who did as much (or more) over 30 years of conservative rule to set the stage for the 2008 implosion were clintonistas. And the folks on Obama's staff who whittled the needed stimulus package from the original Romer proposal to a meager portion were acolytes of or people from the clinton administration.



And we need MORE of that gang in power?!?!



No thanks.



Just because the man can get the people dancing in their pews doesn't mean he's got any value to society in an office with as much power as the Treasury.



No more bushes. No more clintons. No more GS alumni. No more of the 'ruling class' should be in these positions of influence.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Democrats Blew It

Clearly, you have no clue about how capitalism works. No government, no capitalism - period. Germany's economic performance is superior to ours right now and they have close to twice the spending on entitlements than we do (can say the same for Finland and many other nations). Therefore, entitlements [for the non-rich] aren't the problem.



You can writhe around on the ground, wailing in protest of the simple fact that economies can't function without government, but it doesn't change reality. You want to get candy whenever you want it - then go to Somalia and enjoy the fruits of your labor and total, government-less freedom. Good luck. I'm sure the doctors are good out there, too.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Speech... Yawn

They were never going to work with him. They were always going to fight him and do everything to make him fail. This is why his 'go along to get along' approach was never going to have any success in bringing adults to the negotiating table - there are no adults in the republican party.



When someone only wants to fight you, you have two choices: fight or walk away. Bargaining and trying to make friends doesn't work when the other party has only your demise on their mind. Very little progress has been made because of the President's 'play nice' approach.



The facts are behind my position. Matt Taibbi and Ron Suskind have documented the behind-the-scenes actions and the subsequent impact of Obama's bipartisanship obsession in painful detail. Blaming Congress is a convenient excuse that requires we all believe the President is a powerless slob who can't stand up, articulate, and directly appeal to America with a vision and exposition that rallies the country behind his path. He's done no such thing - barely more 1st term press conferences than dubya. Oh, and make sure you read Taibbi's coverage of how Obama's nice-nice approach motivated the too-big-to-fail big-wigs to greater glory... you might actually have a breakdown.



Weak excuses may be acceptable to you - but they don't cut it with me.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Speech... Yawn

Fair assessment.



I've written this a million times - Obama's personality is flawed for this work. His only passion is to appear to be a good-hearted referee between two equally serious and earnest groups (Dems and republicans). No personal swats at anyone is allowed - everything has to be compromise and congenial, no matter what the loss or cost (e.g. extending tax cuts for the rich, extending patents for pharma, etc.) to the economy or citizenry at large.



Worst strategy ever was to send out clinton (and Kerry) to be Obama's policy hit man. In the course of doing so, the President, by contrast, can ONLY appear aloof, distant, and disconnected from policy. The only way to avoid offending a hardened republican or tea partier is to not say anything specific about their extreme policies - and thus you get nothing from the President's speech except his trademark cotton candy.



Again, in the wholly pointless pursuit of bipartisan gregariousness, Obama chooses to prevent progress. In this case, however, it was for his own re-election.



What clinton, Warren, Kerry, and other speakers did during the convention was to show what leadership and the courage of personal conviction looks and sounds like. Against that backdrop, the President's standard 'don't offend anyone!!' fare can only aspire to come off like second-rate fluff.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief

The truth hurts.



My guess is billy was a few names down on the "preferred nomination speaker" list, somewhere after newt gingrich, don rumsfeld, and judge roberts - but higher than alito and dick cheney.



So why not choose from such a list? He picked the notorious rick warren to deliver the invocation at the 2009 inauguration - why not pick another disgrace of a person to deliver a nomination speech?



Obama is as ethically shallow as any of the other recent modern presidents. The company he keeps is a constant reminder that he's not the 'good guy' he works so hard to portray himself as.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Campaign Must Get Its Economic Story Straight After Day Of Gaffes

Here's the problem with Obama and what you want him to say:



1.) Obama believes that the most important thing - more important than actually doing hard work for the people of this country - is to speak in a positive, dignified, collegial manner at all times, especially when the undignified person is a republican. If you HAVE to say something yucky, be as vague and obtuse so it can't be considered a personal attack on anyone.



2.) The major problems this country faces are all based on republican (and bill clinton's) policy blow-back - unbridled greed will solve all the minor problems.



3.) Mitt rmoney is the personification of every one of those many failed policies. He is the face of ALL the corporate raiders, the tax-evaders, the grifters, the silver-spooned entitled, overdriven greed that is the scourge of the middle class. He's the soulless ghoul who laid off your uncle at the plant. Rmoney's fingerprints are literally and figuratively all over our economic mess.... which leads to the last logic point...



4.) Go back to point #1.



The campaign doesn't know how to answer the question because to answer it means that a 'personal attack' may be the interpreted result - and Obama hasn't the stomach for such tawdry business.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost