Mitt’s On … And So Is The Election!
Rather than engaging in (by now) redundant commentary regarding the first debate between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, let’s just stipulate that Romney had a great night, while it seemed that Obama thought if he could blink his eyes fast enough his magic teleprompter would suddenly appear. No such luck.
And, let me agree in advance with my Liberal “friends” that one night does not an election make, that history is filled with examples of challengers defeating an incumbent President in their first debate, that Obama will doubtless be as formidable as expected in the next debates, and that Romney will have to sustain his energy and even improve his performance to win. Hopefully this will eliminate some of the defensive dismissals and rationalizing retorts from the usual suspects, who should be more upset at the prospect of a de-billed Big Bird than a de-selected Obama.
Instead, I am directing these comments once again to the Unenrolled voters.
In a CNN poll after the debate, presented as a “scientific” sampling by Wolf Blitzer, 67% of the voters believed that Romney had won the debate. Apart from the size of the margin, there are at least two remarkable things about this result: (1) 25% of the voters actually believed that Obama had won the debate, with the remaining 8% undecided; (2) the combined percentage of “non Romney” supporters in this result (33%) is roughly equivalent to the 37% registered Democrats in Massachusetts, so there is some relative symmetry.
Assuming that the 25% voters who felt that Obama had won the debate represent the most delusional liberals among the Democrats, what the vast majority of America undeniably said in the CNN poll is that Romney is the better candidate, with the better view of the role of government, and clearer vision for the future course of America. So, with this poll as a scientific indicator, should we really believe that Obama has a 25%-28% point lead over Romney in Massachusetts? Or, have Massachusetts’ Unenrolled voters been Stockholm Syndromed to the same level of political incoherence as Bay State Democrats?
I have devoted a lot of attention to Unenrolled voters in prior pieces, openly wondering if so-called Independent voters are “noble, naïve or just not interested” in the political scene. These pieces drew scores of comments, many from outraged readers who specifically noted that Unenrolled voters had purposely disassociated themselves from the Parties to enable them to vote for the “best candidate”.
So, unenrolled Massachusetts’ voters, what did the 51% of you see in the debate? Who is the best candidate? It’s up to you.
While you are thinking about this, I think it is time to remember a simple fact that has been ignored around here for too long. Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts. He is one of us and that is a very good thing. He raised his family here. He was successful in his business career here. He was the governor here, despite being a Republican. He talks of Massachusetts as “my State.” He is proud of what he accomplished here. And though Democrats do not give him his due, Mitt has mattered for Massachusetts. What part of this is bad for us?
I am not sure if Democrats understand, let alone care, how difficult it is to be a Republican in Massachusetts. We are such a political minority that I suspect that most Democrats in this State know few, if any Republicans. Most Republican candidates, Senator Brown included, do not even note their Party affiliation on their signs, for fear of instant derision from Democrats.
What we get from this is that Republican State Senators can hold their meetings in a broom closet, and not disturb the brooms. There are so few House Republicans that they cannot even procedurally require roll call votes to ensure majority party accountability to their constituents. Consequently, we all get closed door deals, anonymous voice votes, and one-party corruption as a result. And then there is the Boston Globe and other media that cater to, and have protected the Democrats from their excesses and transgressions even before the glory days of Ted Kennedy – a lifetime of politics for me. Is this what we want? Is this the government we need and deserve?
Despite all of this, Mitt Romney – a Massachusetts Republican - is on the verge of becoming President of the United States due to his significant management and problem solving skills, and his record of success and achievement. He is the political “ghost buster” who has arrived on the scene when his Country needs him. We should be proud of him. Massachusetts should support him.
Unless you are a hypocrite of the most partisan order, you claim in your comments that you want the political gridlock to end. You say you want common sense solutions, not ideological impasse. You want bi-partisanship. During the debate America heard how Mitt Romney used his CEO experience and skills to work together with Massachusetts Democrats to achieve great things – such as the Massachusetts Health Plan. They heard about him meeting weekly with, listening to, and working with Democrat leaders. Don’t think for a moment that this did not have a very powerful and positive effect on the Independent voters across the Country. Why not here in Massachusetts? Or, are our Unenrolled voters that much different from the rest of the Country too?
If America is to work, the parties must work together. We all know this, and this is why we also know that Scott Brown is the better candidate than Elizabeth Warren if we really do want the Washington logjam to be broken.
On June 26, I published the appended piece in Patch titled, “10 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Takes Massachusetts." Please take a look. I stand by this admittedly longshot prediction, but it is up to the Unenrolled voters to make it happen. We know what the Democrats will do because they cannot help themselves.
However, you, by your majority status, can help Massachusetts help America. We have seen Obama for four years. You know what he has done, and where he wants America to go. If this is what you want, then you’ve got what you want. If not, Mitt Romney – a Republican from Massachusetts - has a different plan and a different direction.
So, once again I ask, “What do you want America to be, today, tomorrow and for the future of your grandchildren”?
And, since you wanted the freedom to vote for the “best candidate,” who is the best candidate to make America what you want it to be? Time to choose.
Indy in Northborough
10:49 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
I am an unenrolled voter and in the past 20 years have pretty much split my vote between GOP and Dem. I voted for Romney for Governor. I did not feel that Romney's performance at the debate was a slam dunk. I knew some of the facts (taxes were added to support our healthcare program in MA, doctors are not saying they will reject Medicare) and scratched my head at Romney's distortions and ended up checking up on some facts the next day. I have not seen any consistency in policy or general demeanor by Romney over the past year. I have not seen any good documentation of details and specifics by the Romney campaign that I saw when McCain or past candidates ran for President. More sound bites of "the devil is in the details...but I am not going to give you details" do not inspire my trust in this candidate.
I do not think that the debates tell all, as you have pretty much said. Ironically, Ryan announced before the debate that even if Romney lost is was just because Obama is a great orator. So was Obama going to be lambasted either way? I think that most voters did not tune in and many of us were disappointed with the way the debate was moderated and also by BOTH candidates. I will tune in to the next debates but I don't think that Romney did himself any favors by some obvious calumny.
Dan B.
12:27 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Thank you 'Indy', and I agree with you completely. The great thing about being independent is not being confined to vote for one set of candidates. Everyone seemed to think Mitt was fantastic and President Obama was horrible. I would give Mitt the edge, yes, but it was nowhere near a blowout - especially when you let pesky little facts get in the way.
Jim Hatherley
5:07 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Dan and Indy, thanks for responding. I understand your pessimism completely. We have been dealing with so much disinformation over the past four years - spun over by the increasingly embarrassing Media, that nobody trusts much of what the government says any more. For instance, who can possibly believe yesterday's unemployment report?
I fear that your anti-Romney bias is showing a little. Heck, even Chris Matthews was crying about the thrashing. And here's the thing - 67 Million people watched this debate vs. the 11 million that watched the Conventions. This was face to face without the opportunity to prop up the Democrat and push down the Republican.
But here's what people also saw. They saw an Obama so out of his depth - at least for this one debate - that they wondered if this is the face of America to meet with and negotiate with foreign leaders.
As to the pesky facts ... this is a knife that cuts both ways. Excuses - aome amazingly creative, others so very insulting - cannot replace what we all saw and heard.
Anyway, only 25% of the most liberal liberals saw Obama with the edge. I hope that both of you Unenrolled voters are going to actually vote for the "best candidate" as I so often hear... seemed very clear, at least in this debate.
Thanks again. Enjoy the day.
Dennis Wilson
9:04 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
I’m fascinated by the debate strategy. Romney’s strategy was obvious & he played it well. Everyone is still guessing about why Obama blew it.
Why didn’t Obama bring up the 47% question? Did Obama make a wild guess that Romney would say “I was completely wrong” in front of 60 million people? That would have been one of the major headlines after the debate. Instead, Romney went to Hannity to say “I was completely wrong”. Who watches Hannity...folks who are already know they are going to vote Romney. Now Obama gets to continue to run his ads with Romney saying 47% of Americans are slugs. Did Obama take away Romney’s easy lay-up and forced him to take an outside shot. And why did he go to Hannity? Any one of the networks or newspapers would have given Romney interview time and greater exposure.. I haven’t seen Romney’s entire time with Hannity. Was it just the 47% issue or a longer interview?
I don’t think Obama cooked the jobless numbers but I think he might have known the number before the debate.
My real question for Romney is why is he asking for $2 trillion for defense when the Pentagon is not asking for it? Future wars will likely be fought with drones & not battleships & large armies. Drones have to be cheaper to build than battleships. So what is Romney going to use the $2 trillion for? If the Pentagon is not asking for the money, who is? Defense contractors? Will the $2 trillion be revenue neutral? Would love to know.
Jim Hatherley
9:20 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Dennis, thanks for your fascinating post. I am wondering where you ended up?
Is it possible that you are overthinking this? Is it possible that Romney is very bright and quite experienced and that Obama is not so much, and especially not without the teleprompter? I mean, why would a President, any President, intentionally expose himself to America - and the World - in such a negative or humiliating way?
I am interested in the Defense spending comment as well. I can't imagine that this will not be fully discussed in an upcoming interview or debate. I dd not see the Hannity interview.
Bottom line ... if you are an Independent so you can vote for the best candidate, now that you have seen them side by side what are you going to do?
Andy Koenigsberg
9:14 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Tell me Jim - if the tables were turned and the incumbent was a Republican - would you still be doubting the jobs report? Jack Welch - who questioned the report's veracity in a tweet, said himself that he had no evidence to support his conspiracy theory. The data used for the jobs report is publically available on the BLS web site and it is encumbent on the critics to support their accusations - with data or a critical analysis of the statistical processes used by the BLS that can withstand independent scrutiny.
Jim Hatherley
12:44 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Thank you, Andy, but I fear that you are seeing a tree and not seeing the forest ... or understanding the theme of my blog. In fact, if you just page down one piece to the post of "Proud Resident" you'll find your answer, at least part of it.
But just for a moment I need to ask if you are just a tad too hypocritical to even ask this question? Were you a Republican what you would face is a daily onslaught of biased information from a protective media. It's actually quite obscene in a democracy to have the Press covering up. Sorrry to say that - buit not to respond to you, but to say how badly our Country has been dimininished by the Press.
Now - to respond to you directly. I know that you are an intelligent person from your blogs and posts. So, here's the deal ... in a month where 1,500,000 + applied for new unemployment claims and 114,000 new jobs were created, how can the unemployment rate mathmatically drop by .3 unless the figures have been fudged?
People want common sense. This is an example. C'mon, I know you can do better than to be one of the 25% of the people who thought Obama won the debate.
Really!
Andy Koenigsberg
8:58 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
There is nothing hypocritical in the very simple question I asked you. And you still did not answer it. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you still doubt the numbers? Yes or no.
The total number of new unemployment claims in September was 1.5 million but so what, the intial cliams were about the same for the previous 3 months as well, but you have to evaluate that number in light of the total population of employable people and the total number of those employed. The total number of unemployed people decreased by 456,000 in September according to the BLS.
All the information is at BLS, just as it was for the many months when the data did not work in Obama's favor. Journalists from conservative publications, Fox News and researchers from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute are more than welcome to dig through it to find any flaws.
It's easy to use "common sense" but it is harder to dig a bit deeper to understand what the numbers mean - in other words, you have to think about it. If common sense were all we used - we'd still believe the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth. Understand how they arrived at the numbers, instead of comparing apples and oranges.
Could the BLS numbers be wrong? Sure - but I want to see more than a bunch of bloviating by the right wing before I am convinced otherwise.
And Jim - stop acting like you are a member of a victimized minority. It's unbecoming.
Proud Resident of Northborough
9:31 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
All of this discussion regarding the jobs report is foolishness. 8% or 7.8% is irrelevant. Either number is awful. We have come to expect so little from this administration that some are touting the 7.8 number. We have become accustomed to failure and as a result have set the bar as low as possible. Now that it appears, at the eleventh hour that the bar has been cleared, some want us to think it is a great achievement. It is not.
Jim Hatherley
12:47 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Thank you Proud Resident for putting this into context - without even having to say that Obama had proposed that after spending nearly a trillion dollars in a (so-called) stimulus, the unemployment rate would be down to 5.6% by now.
Pass the kool-aid please ... because the libs are still sipping from the cup of ideological delusion.
Good job.
Ed Bertorelli
10:17 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Good blog Jim,as usual. Right on "proud resident' both numbers are awful for Obama. And thanks Andy for raising the point of credibility of unemployment figures. Jim try to imagine the outcry if the Bush admin. had released similar figures-we would have had every Democrat trying to outdo the other in denouncing the accuracy of the numbers.
And on to 'raging Joe ' Biden who last week said that the Obama admin had 'buried' the Middle Class and added that " Yes We Can' raise taxes by a trillion dollars.
Jim Hatherley
12:50 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Ed, thank you, and yes ... I can only imagine.
Here's another thing I shudder to imagine. How about Obama representing the United States in high level meetings with foreign leaders - without his magic 'prompter? No wonder he bows to foreign leaders ... he acted subserviently to Romney the other night as well.
It's the moment of truth for the so-called noble Unenrolled voters. Are they really going to vote for the best candidate, or are they just not as interested or informed as they claim?
dennis byron
11:38 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
The issue with the October 5 jobs report is that the statistics are not believable, not that they were purposely fixed.
-- The unemployment rate calculation is based on a survy of households asking if how many people 18-65 who live there are working
-- The jobs report is based on a survey of businesses. The Bureau of Labor also puts out a report each week saying how many people applied for unemployment for the first time.
For as far back as anyone can remember, the three reports have pretty much agreed with each other. Now all of a sudden in one month, the number of people that say they are working has increased by almost a million people but businesses say they have only created 100,000 new jobs and hundreds of thousands of people have applied for unemployment for the first time.
If you do statistical analysis as I did for 40 years before I retired, you say something doesn't compute. That doesn't mean the numbers are fixed, just that at least one of the numbers is out of whack.
Jim Hatherley
12:52 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Dennis ... exactly. Thanks for expanding the discussion regarding this "tree". Perrhaps now the Unenrolled voters can begin commenting on the "forest" that I laid out for them in this piece.
dennis byron
11:47 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Message to Westboro Republican Town Committe chairman who wrote the original post
Romney was the worst governor of Massachusetts in my 66-year memory. He really lives in NH, Utah and San Diego. He parachuted in from Utah in 2002 and sucker-punched the local girl. He bought the 2002 election with his billions. He championed the idea that if you give poor people an insurance card for free they will stop going to the local ER and instead go to the doctors (even though doctors won't accept the card and there are no doctors in their neighborhoods anyways). He claimed freeloaders were the problem with healthcare sosts when it turns out there were none. He oversaw, or overlooked, or was clueless about moves in his information technology department that made it harder for the visually handicapped to access state services through computers. He didn't do much else and like management consultants and VCs everywhere then he left town before anything was implemented.
Strong memo to follow
-- Concerned and unenrolled voter
Jim Hatherley
12:57 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Message to Dennis Bryon ... thank you for your comment.
I disagree with you entirely. Begin with Michael Dukakis, from whom we all have the distinction and legacy of living in Taxachusetts. and, while you are at it, let's look at the current Incumbent who has proved that you do not even need to have a Governnor to have a State.
I can't wait for your strong memo to follow since it will doubtless be filled with all the ideological nonsense that we have sadly had to endure from the Liberals. In the meantime, I am counting you as a solid Yes for Obama and Warren.
Nouna Avva
8:09 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
It seems to me that you are trying to force people to make up their minds. You can't, Romney was acting like a preacher ready for battle. Reminded me of Tammy Fay's husband and we didn't like how he was acting at all. For a man running for president it was not the proper way to behave. He did not do the best job here in Mass and he started some of the downfall, why don't people look at that. As for Obama, he started off with a bad hand, has had more than his share of trouble. Give the man a break he composed himself and didn't lash out at Romney and I give him credit for that. We have not decided who we will vote for but I would not like someone preaching to me how he's a one man show.....
Joe Kane
8:30 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
MB - you must have been watching a different debate than I was. Did you have your TV stuck on MSNBC all night??!! That would explain it. Romney looked every bit Presidential, and showed the American public that he is someone who can comprehend what is going on in this country and also showed that he can think on his feet. Obama on the other hand, looked exactly like the "Not Ready for Primetime" player that he is. No holds on the facts, just looking to throw out pre-designed talking points and hoping that they would stick. But that didn't happen, now did it??!!
And you must have forgotten what it was like for Romney when he was governor here. The Legislature was 82% Democratic! The Speaker of the House was Billy Bulger and he did everything he could to try and make Romney fail. However, Romney came out of the blocks looking for common ground issues that he could work with the Democrats on and he had some success. So much that Democratic lawmakers started to say that they should stop doing what was best for the state because they were making Romney look good. The same thing happened when Bush came into office in 2001. Do you remember Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle standing before the cameras and saying that they were going to do everything in their powers to stop him at anything he did. But on the other hand, Tip O'Neil reached out to Ronald Reagan and worked with him on solutions. Two great Americans there!!
Jim Hatherley
9:29 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
M B, thanks for your note and I understand your concern, especially if this is the first time you have read one of my pieces. If not, let me add some context. Over 50% of the voters in MA are unenrolled. I have done several pieces trying to understand if they are unenrolled because they are noble, naive or just not interested, hence commit voter malpractice more often than vote for the "best candidate".
So, here we are, with under 30 days to go. By now you either love Obama and are voting for him no matter how poorly he performs, or you are sincerely looking for the best candidate. So, what's the deal?
Preachy? Perhaps ... but if any of this is new to you, you haven't been to "church" in longer than you might want to admit.
Forget the bad hand that Obama got - he has made it worse, and whined about it every day for the past four years. How about the hand that Romney got when he began?
Consider this - you saw Obama the other night. Do you want him meeting with foreign leaders representing the American people? He was bored, lifeless, and completely overwhelmed. Chances are he will do better in th next debate, but without his teleprompter Obama seemed very unsteady attempting to defend what he has done in the last four years.
Sorry if you think I am preaching, but I am a Republican in Massachusetts and sometimes we have to do a little bit more to get any attention. It's like living with a glass political ceiling.
Jim Hatherley
9:38 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Joe, thanks for your comment, and you touch on what I believe was a powerful part of the debate that had zero to do with Obama's non teleproptic stupor. Mitt looked into the camera and spoke about governing in a body that had 87% Democrats, and making it work.
Democrats are too self centered and incapable of giving credit to Romney for that.
But America heard that powerful story. And, if they are really, really interested in common sense, bi-partisan solutions - not merely being hypocritical about that - then around the Country Romney is resonating. We have had ample time to experience Obama, and to foresee what four more years will look like. People who vote for Obama, and Warren, clearly want government dicta and regulations and taxes to replace individual freedom and liberty. They are willing to swap freedom for free stuff.
It's an old story - old as Plato and has never worked. Apparently Liberals have not learned their history, otherwise they would know that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat its failures.
Thanks again.
Concerned Citizen
9:43 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
I totally disagree with everything that dennis byron said in his post about Mitt Romney being the worst MA governor in 66 years. Mitt Romney became governor with a $3Billion budget gap and by the time he left office, he had a $2Billion surplus in the Rainy Day Fund that made it very easy for Deval Patrick to take over. For those who complain that Romney balanced the budget by raising fees, Mitt explains, "we found that some fees hadn't been raised in as many as 20 years." Specifically Romney said, "these were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver's license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald's or Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign to raise money for our state in a way that was consistent with what the market had done over the ensuing years." http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/stretching-on-romneys-fees/
(Make sure to scroll down below Obama's ad to read the truth about the fees and tax hikes imposed by Gov. Romney in MA)
dennis byron
11:19 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
What did I say that you disagree with?
Do you disagree that he really "lives" in NH, Utah and San Diego? I admit I don't have a day count and I am talking about the last 15 years and not his whole life. But. he clearly didn't have a legal address here while he claimed to legally reside in Utah between 1999-2002 so that he could get a property tax exemption there.
You certainly can't disagree that he parachuted in from Utah in 2002 and sucker-punched Jane Swift. That's pretty indisputable
You certainly can't disagree that Romney bought the 2002 election with his billions. He contributed $6 million of the $10 million spent, personally spending more of his own money than O'Brien spent overall (primarily on negative ads)
You certainly can't disagree Romney championed the idea that if you give poor people an insurance card for free they will stop going to the local ER. That was halfo of his pitch behind RomneyCare.
You can;t disagree that Romney claimed freeloaders were the problem with Massachusetts budget issues re healthcare costs That was the other half of his RomneyCare pitch but it turns out there were no freeloaders (or so few they don't register on the headcount reports)
You can't disagree about his information technology department scancal.
And thanks for bring up how he scoked it to us with much higher fees for the few months he was here. I forget about them
Jim Hatherley
9:48 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Thanks, Concerned Citizen, you are further exposing the bias that Democrats hold over Republicans in Massachusetts. Let's face it - it's all about one-party rule in the Beacon Hill Politburo, and any foray into the corner office, however well needed to put some discipline into government (as you describe) is met with ungratious antipathy.
Pretty shallow rooted.
Which brings me back to the Unenrolled voters. WHat are you going to do, or do you really believe that everything is great right now?
Concerned Citizen
10:10 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Governor Romney also worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to sign into law Romneycare, so that everyone in MA would have healthcare. Governor Romney improved our schools by instituting charter schools and merit pay for good teachers. He increased our bond rating. He set up SECURECommunities to keep us safe. He set in place a dismantling of the tolls on the Mass Pike that are an unfair "tax" on the commuters west of Boston, which was unfortunately reinstated by Governor Duval Patrick when he took office. And Governor Romney never took a salary while he was governor. Some MA residents were unhappy that Governor Romney decided to run for President while he was governor, but that's how our political system works. Bill Clinton did the same thing when he was governor of Arkansas. So, all in all, Mitt Romney was an excellent governor for MA.
dennis byron
10:42 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Concerned Citizen and Joe Kane explain why most of us in Massachusetts are Unenrolled voters
1. Billy Bulger was never Speaker of the House
2. Billy Bulger was President of UMass for one of the few years Romney was governor
3. There is no direct relation between the state's Stabilizatio Fund (assuming that's what the Concerned Citizen means by "rainy day fund") and a so-called "budget gap."
4. The stabilization fund is driven higher by a variety of automatic things built into law from long before Romney's time, by direct appropriation and by accounting gimmickry/year-end timing; it is driven lower by the same means
5. There is no such thing as a budget gap in Massachusetts; our budget must be balanced at all times (although that can be and often is manipulated by borrowing); if Romney had a "budget gap" when he became Governor I guess you mean that his predecessor -- the Republican whom he parachuted in on and sucker punched -- proposed an out of balance budget?
While illustrating why most of us are unenrolled, you're really demonstrating why most of the minority of voters register Democrat
Joe Kane
1:16 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Dennis - my mistake on Billy Bulger. He was President of the Massachusetts Senate from 1978 to 1996. He left there to go be President of UMass. Part of the reason that he left UMass was because Mitt Romney was putting pressure on him because he was not cooperating with federal authorities who were looking for his brother Whitey. Billy resigned from UMass in 2003. A fitting end to another crook!!
Bob Berman
9:19 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
There may be no such thing as a budget gap, as you stated, but Governor Romney's lasting fiscal legacy from his time on Beacon Hill was the fact that he effectively (along with plan-maker and left hand man Charlie Baker) put any early state payment for the big dig into what is effectively a high interest credit card scheme, split out into debt in each or our state transportation authorities.
It was the least fiscally conservative move that he possibly could have made, and we are all paying dearly for it now as those credit bills are co ing due. We are forced to continue paying tolls, meet ever increasing train, bus and subway fees, and deal with decreases in service.
Anyone who says that Governor Romney is a fiscal conservative simply did not pay attention to his time in office here.
Jim Hatherley
11:08 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Dennis, your points are taken. At the same time, however, I have been looking at Unenrolled voters' claim that they are not affiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans so they are not obligated to vote for a lesser candidate out of party loyalty. Taking them - and you - at their word, there is a very sharp distinction between the candidates and their governing philosophies this year. The fate of the Country will turn, for better or worse, on the votes of Independent voters.
Who is the better candidate? That's the question. We know about Obama and seen what he has done, and will likely do if he does not have to answer to the voters (think of his so-called "flexibility" with Russia). We saw what Romney did as Governor working with 87% opposition, and also saw his success in managing the corrupt Olympics in 2002 and his record of business achievement.
You might like Obama, but there is no way to disparage Romney. He is a candidate of amazing credentials, experience AND personal and family traits that have too often been lacking in our leaders.
We should be proud that Mitt is from Massachusetts. It is a good thing - and a Republican at that. If this experience did not give America what is needed right now, it may be another generation, if ever, that we see it again - we are that partisan in this Country right now - and will only get worse in a second term. i don't know about you, but I believe this will doom the country.
Concerned Citizen
12:24 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
dennis byron,
Mitt and Ann Romney owned an estate in Belmont, MA from 1989-2009, where they raised their five sons. Mitt did move to Utah for a short period of time during the time he consulted for the Olympics. Many national experts in various fields of business move to different regions to consult with companies and businesses, that doesn't mean they sell they their primary homes.
Mitt Romney didn't "sucker-punch" Jane Swift. She was not ready for primetime. Her performance was abysmal. I remember it well.
Mitt Romney worked with the Democrats to bring about Romneycare. A health plan that Senator Ted Kennedy was very keen to pass. It was a bipartisan plan, so all Bay Staters would have health care. If you think that poor people get good health care by using the Emergency Room in hospitals as their primary care physicians, you are sadly mistaken.
I have no idea what your freeloader comment is all about.
And yes, the Rainy Day Fund is the same as The Stabilization Fund.
Stephen Faris
7:05 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Jim,
Great job! Mr. Romney will be our next President. Dick Morris has consistently shown that Obama cannot win. Goto http://www.Dickmorris.com
to get the facts.
The only question for the voting public is:
A) Captilist Society or B) Socialist Society
If you want growth(the only way to save the US), vote for A) Romney.
Or read the book "The Road to Surfdom" by Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1992)
If Obama is re-elected we will continue on that road.
Steve
Jim Hatherley
8:31 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Steve, thanks and it really is that easy, isn't it? It really makes me wonder what Liberals are thinking, and what they want America to be. Thanks for the book recommendation - perhaps you can add a brief synopsis at some point.
Stephen Faris
9:17 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Jim,
Below is a summary of Mr von Haayek belief which has guided my decsion to support free markets. President Reagan was quick to understand the issues. God bless him. After all Politics is similar to religion etc.
Hayek argues that Western democracies, including the United Kingdom and the United States, have “progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.”[9] Society has mistakenly tried to ensure continuing prosperity by centralized planning, which inevitably leads to totalitarianism. “We have in effect undertaken to dispense with the forces which produced unforeseen results and to replace the impersonal and anonymous mechanism of the market by collective and ‘conscious’ direction of all social forces to deliberately chosen goals.”[10] Socialism, while presented as a means of assuring equality, does so through “restraint and servitude”, while “democracy seeks equality in liberty”.[11] Planning, because coercive, is an inferior method of regulation, while the cooperation of a free market is superior “because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority”.[12]
Jim Hatherley
9:45 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Thank you, Steve. Yes, there is a major difference between equality of opportunity and equality of result. Freedom vs. free stuff.
What is very disappointing is we have a President who talks about everyone paying their "fair share" when half the people pay zero share, and playing "by the same rules" when we have had Government sponsored discriminatory processes in place for the past 50 years. We need capitalism, not utopia.
Stephen Faris
9:20 pm on Monday, October 8, 2012
Folks,
I wont bore you with the rest unless you like it. Goto below and read for free!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
Steve
Jim Hatherley
9:12 am on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Andy, thanks again. Let me respond directly - absolutely yes!
And, I love your end note. Very nice, but it sadly reflects what happens when the "entitled majority" begins to panic. We begin to get blaming or excuse making. After the debate it was first the altitude. Then there was some unknown crisis that was on his mind. And then the thought that Obama did not want to vigorously counter-debate for fear of appearing angry. And now, Romney is a liar and a cheater. Obama was so stunned by Romney's lies that he was unable to respond.
Amazing.
It could not possibly have been that Obama cannot defend his record, and that Romney was excellent at revealing what everyone knows - even if the 25% who thought he actually won the debate are in a state of cognitive denial.
Believe me when I say this, Andy, but one of the greatest dangers in America right now is that the people do not believe - or trust - their government. They see it as corrupted. You can rationalize about the BLS stats etc, but nobody believes the number - not credible/defies common sense. The people don't believe the actual cost of Obamacare. In fact, they don't believe the projected cost of any government program because they can all read the Debt scoreboard.
What do we want America to be? How about better government and lower cost of government? How about a Press that reports the news and not their bias? And how about an end of class warfare and hyper-partisanship?
And leadership?
GM
10:56 am on Friday, November 2, 2012
Jim, I'm late posting, but I just saw this blog. Your repeated questions to unenrolled voters prompted me to respond. I'm unenrolled. What I'm writing here is my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in my views --
I'll restrict my comments to the Republican side of the ledger. You've done a reasonable job calling out key liabilities on the Democratic side. My only comment on that side is my concern about the recent idea of establishing a Dept. of Business in the Cabinet. Besides helping to institutionalize our shift toward a government directed command economy, it left me wondering what exactly the Secretary of Commerce has been doing for the past 4 years.
Here's where I think the Republicans get it wrong -
1. Maintaining the current long term capital gains tax structure is a losing proposition because it basically says that people who work to earn their living should be taxed more than people whose living comes from unearned income.
2. The Republican platform against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, is a losing position. I get the moral argument Paul Ryan and others are making, but government has no business enforcing moral standards that are not widely accepted by the public. Look at what happened with Prohibition.
3. Obama is sitting on a $5 trillion debt problem, but Bush created the first $1.3 trillion of it. Why should I believe that Republicans really will shrink the size of government?
I have more, but let's start with those.
Jim Hatherley
1:48 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
Thanks, GM, but with the election only 4 days away I need to be very direct with you because i cannot tell if you are undecided or just another Democrat-light person who wants gov't to oversee our lives without thinking sufficiently about the voluntary loss of liberty that goes along with that.
Your first proposition is wrong. People like Romney - and every person who has invested in Apple - first pay their income tax. If they have disposable money left over, they can choose to take a risk of a) losing an investment in a stock or b) i making a profit. One Democrat in this or another string whined about the same thing - then confessed that he prematurely sold his Apple stock at $300.
The abortion argument is stupid on both extremes. Yes, the Republican platform (not Romney's position) is too stark. But the Democrat platform allowing late term and partial birth abortion is infanticide. If you are a loon on either side, it's a big deal. If not, move on.
Please do not compare Bush's spending with Obama's. Bush was no conservative. However, compared with Obama, Bush was a cheapskate. If you have do not have children or grandchildren - or if you do not care about their futures - vote for Obama and stop the equivocating. You will get what you deserve if he wins. Sadly, everyone else will get stuck with his irresponsible legacy as well.
The Country is at stake. What do you want America to be? Easy answer for me, and hopefully a correct choice for you.
Chris L.
4:08 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
If there is already a Department of Commerce, why does Obama want to create a Secretary of Business cabinet position?
Because he can create a new federal Department of Business, "create" a few thousand government jobs, and claim he's helping the unemployment numbers by putting more Americans to work.
Now let me use an analogy people can understand. If one parent works outside the home, thus creating a single revenue stream for the household, that parent is not "stimulating the economy" by giving his kids an allowance. He's just spending more of his own money. There's not any more money coming in to offset the kid's allowance, therefore, its not a positive move for the budget of that household.
Now tell me....where is the money for the Secretary of Business going to come from?