April 24-25, 2012
Apr 24 00:33 What will Rick Spielman do? Apr 24 09:30 Immigration strategy Apr 24 10:53 Minnesota, the Paul factor & the coming counterrevolution Apr 24 12:58 Occupy Unmasked Apr 25 12:10 Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? Apr 25 12:55 Obama to unions: I've ignored you, now pay for the National Convention
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
What will Rick Spielman do?
The biggest question Minnesota Vikings fans have this week, with all due respect to the Vikings stadium, is what they'll do with their draft picks. Let the speculating begin.
Personally, I'd love seeing them trade the overall pick, preferably to Tampa. Tampa owns the fifth pick, which means the Vikings would pick up an extra second day pick in the trade.
If the Bucs drafted Trent Richardson with the third pick, they'd give star QB Josh Freeman another weapon to go along with WR Vincent Jackson. Teaming Trent Richardson with Freeman, Jackson and an improving offensive line, Tampa would have a potent, quick strike offense capable of scoring with the elite teams in the NFL.
The Vikings could then use the fifth pick to take lockdown corner Morris Claiborne, then use the 35th & 36th picks overall to take Notre Dame Safety Harrison Smith and the best remaining WR. If Stephen Hill somehow makes it past the 49ers, I'd consider combining the 36th pick and their third round pick to trade back into the first round to get Hill.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the Vikings a) traded out of the third pick, then used the fifth, 35th and 36th picks to stock up on DBs. They could then sign Marcus McNeill to start at left tackle as a stopgap measure.
Totally upgrading their secondary in a single draft would be a huge step towards competing in the Pro Bowl QB-laden NFC North.
They could then pick WR's with their regular third and fourth round picks. Finally, they could use their fourth round compensation picks on adding depth to their LBs and offensive line.
By itself, adding a totally upgraded secondary in a single draft would be a major step forward for the Vikings. Adding a quality tackle like Marcus McNeill to anchor their offensive line would be a plus, too. Adding depth to their linebackers and special teams would let the Vikings take a positive step forward in 2012.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Morris Claiborne , Harrison Smith , Stephen Hill , Special Teams , Linebackers , NFL Draft , Tampa Bay , Trent Richardson , Vincent Jackson , Josh Freeman
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Apr-12 08:18 AM
Getting antsy over the draft, eh?
First Rick S. item you've had for months where the S. was not Santorum.
Rick S. will trade if he can, and take Kalil at 3 if nobody offers a good trade.
I find it interesting there are no Pac-12 defensive backs that are touted "can't miss," so tell me Gary, is that why Andrew Luck looks so good?
What's a good trade? If you trade down in the first round it means the team trading cannot give you a better second round pick than you have. So you want an extra second round pick, and the best you can expect is swapping first round to get an extra third round choice, so will Rick S. do that?
The two quarterbacks, given the St. Louis trade, will go 1 and 2, so nobody will trade with the Vikings for that position. The other quarterback, Texas A&M, Tannehill he is not a 3 pick - too much a project/risk, although if not making it at qb, he might end up a reserve wideout and special teamer given his college experience. But that's not a 3.
Kalil. You win or lose in the trenches and in defensive coverage.
If you are committed to zone coverage, cover-2, then a shut down corner is less important than general talent and good hands, playing facing the ball with turnover skill. Also, if you play zone and cover-2, you will continue to be chopped up on the short passing game, Claiborne or not.
My big question - who is Mike Harris, out of UCLA? You look at his combine stats, and wonder why he was playing o-line, instead of defensive tackle - pass rusher inside. But he did not compete, bench press. Not a nose tackle prospect then. Intangibles?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/combine?id=28890
I think that's a good link for Harris. Real combine skills.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 24-Apr-12 08:39 AM
The correct pick is Kalil. Games, and eventually championships, are won and lost on the offensive and defensive lines. Let's see this team do the right thing for once and draft a building block.
It makes no sense to invest in a young quarterback like Ponder and get him killed week after week.
That said, Spielman will probably find a way to mess it up. It's what he does. Unfortunately, because he's messed it up so badly in the past, the Vikings need just about everything, which makes all kinds of scenarios -- including yours -- possible.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 25-Apr-12 04:31 PM
Eric:
First is your football skill as bad as your political skill. The player the Vikings have been targeting is Kalil. There's a good chance if we trade with Tampa Bay because a WR is being taken with the fourth pick that we can still get Kalil at five. Adding an extra pick and still drafting the player you want is a bonus!
Second, some great players have been taken in the second round or less (Brady was a sixth for example).
Gary:
I heard Claiborne because of his personal problems might drop to the second round. Why waste the pick when we get him a round later?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-12 09:14 PM
Claiborne isn't the corner with the personal problems. That's Janoris Jenkins of Northern Alabama, formerly of University of Florida. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Claiborne won't make it out of the top 10. It's likely he won't make it past the 5th spot.
The dream scenario for the Vikings is Tampa falling in love with Trent Richardson & swapping picks with the Vikings. The Vikings would move into the 5th slot, then get the 68th & 140th picks from Tampa. The 68th pick is early in the third & the 140th pick is in the 5th round. They'd then still get either Kalil or Claiborne plus an extra third rounder.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 26-Apr-12 04:40 PM
Gary:
Sorry for having my corners mixed up. Still Jenkins is suppose to be as good as Claiborne from what I heard. Given that we draft Kalli (I believe that is set in stone) corners with the second the third and a fourth should come. Wasn't it the Packers after the vikings drafted Moss made their top three picks corners one year.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 05:10 PM
I don't know that they were all CBs but they were secondary players (CBs or safeties).
Immigration strategy
Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070 , the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They'd only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.
'If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,' Schumer said in an interview.
He called the Arizona law an 'assault on the domain of the federal government' that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona's favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn't change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.
As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it's wildly popular with voters who don't already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn't a winning issue for Democrats.
It's just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it's a net loss for the Democrats.
I'd recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they're protected against future ads. I'd then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.
I'd then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.
Tags: Immigration , Chuck Schumer , Democrats , SB1070 , Arizona , SCOTUS , Oral Arguments , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:30 AM
No comments.
Minnesota, the Paul factor & the coming counterrevolution
Ed's post about the Ron Paul factor highlights Paul's delegate bonanza in Minnesota and the disarray in the MnGOP.
The Paul campaign wants to believe that they can replicate this outcome in other caucus states, and it's certainly possible. But in Minnesota, they had an opening left by a party in serious disarray.
The state GOP has had to focus on rebuilding its fiscal position more than the internal and external politics of the 2012 cycle. Without that kind of focus, the party didn't have the resources to deal with the Paul organization, and the delegate wins are one consequence. That's actually a minor consequence compared to what will happen if the state GOP doesn't recover in time to organize for its effort in November to hold their legislative advantages, to say nothing of the mission to replace Amy Klobuchar in the US Senate.
That's an accurate picture of the situation here in Minnesota. The Paulbots won at every level of the process. What they didn't do, and what they can't do, is solidify their position as the dominant part of the party.
Further, Ron Paul is playing nice so Rand Paul has a shot at being the GOP presidential nominee. That'll never happen. There are too many conspiracy theory fringe lunatics in the Paul movement. They'll never play well with GOP primary voters or caucusgoers.
If Rand jettisons the fringe lunatics, then the energy is drained from their organization. Though the lunatics aren't the majority of the Paul movement, they are the true believers fueling the enthusiasm.
That's why the chances for a revolt are significant if Sen. Paul tries to mainstream the movement.
As for here in Minnesota, the Paul brand has already laid the seeds for their demise. In BPOU after BPOU, congressional district after congressional district, the Pauligates (short for Paul delegates) voted their slate while ignoring people who've worked hard to get local candidates elected.
There are alot of great volunteers that they kicked to the curb for the greater good of supporting Ron Paul. Here in central Minnesota, the Pauligates kicked one of the best volunteers to the curb so they'd have a clean sweep to the state convention. They also kicked past legislators to the curb for the clean sweep.
I've talked with enough people to know that there's an anti-Paul backlash building, especially if these newly elected delegates don't help with local campaigns.
I've heard too many Pauligate conversations about who is and isn't "a real Republican." Inevitably, the conversation talks about Paul being the only constitutionalist in the GOP presidential field. That's BS. During CBS's Commander-in-chief debate, Ron Paul was asked about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. When he said "What business is it of ours if they get a nuke"?, that proved he isn't serious about his commander-in-chief responsibilities as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
In short, he's a constitutionalist as long as he gets to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to pay attention to and which parts he chooses to ignore.
The point is that the Pauligates' sanctimonious attitude isn't winning friends. It's creating political adversaries. That's the type of thing that creates backlashes.
Welcome to the counterrevolution.
Tags: Ron Paul , Rand Paul , Constitution , Delegates , Conventions , Conspiracy Theories , Lunatic Fringe , Paulers , Backlash , Activists , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:53 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 24-Apr-12 11:07 AM
Ron Paul's ignorance on foreign policy issues would get us nuked. Obviously, I can't support him for that reason alone.
However, I strongly suspect that his son is more popular with the base and the Tea Party than a certain Massachusetts liberal that's been foisted upon us.
Respectfully, I submit that the issue shouldn't be "who is a real Republican". The issue should be about conservatism, since Republicanism is half of the problem we face in our nation today. The difference between the two has never been more clear.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-12 11:15 AM
I'd rather deal with a Massachusetts liberal than with the lunatics in the Paul movement & it isn't close.
It's time to start an anti-Paul counterrevolution. Their only concern at the conventions was Ron Paul. In my precinct, they didn't volunteer to help with even the smallest responsibilities. They just voted their slate & disappeared.
If they aren't willing to help get local candidates elected, they should take a hike. We don't need them.
Comment 3 by Nadia in MN at 24-Apr-12 12:21 PM
I saw what happened in CD8 this past weekend...last nail in the coffin for Ron Paul scrutiny, for me...maybe their methods were legal, but shows what kind of org & what kind of admin a candidate will have...
A few months ago I heard a stat that opened my eyes...during an AEI livestream debate one of the principals passed on the fact that in 2008 only 38% of Ron Paul supporters voted for John McCain...that's their business, but it's that sort of voting (similar to splitting the vote with a 3rd party) that gave us Obama, and will give us Obama again, this year.
If Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, he needs to encourage his supporters to give behind the nominee...something he, apparently, didn't do in 2008...correct me if I'm wrong...
Comment 4 by Thorley Winston at 24-Apr-12 01:04 PM
If Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, he needs to encourage his supporters to give behind the nominee: something he, apparently, didn't do in 2008: correct me if I'm wrong:
IIRC Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008 but not to worry since I have been assured quite earnestly by many of his supporters that Ron Paul does not in fact believe that the US government was behind 9/11 nor long for the days of the Old Confederacy.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-12 02:39 PM
Ron Paul does not in fact believe that the US government was behind 9/11 nor long for the days of the Old Confederacy.The proof of that hasn't been seen. RP's words don't match with his debate statements. As such, I don't trust him.
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. It's time for RP to prove his suddenly mainstream beliefs with mainstream actions. That hasn't happened yet. Until he changes, I'll continue to think that he isn't interested in becoming a mainstream politician.
Comment 5 by Nadia in MN at 24-Apr-12 01:10 PM
sorry, that previous post (in last paragraph) should read: he needs to encourage his supporters to *get* behind the nominee
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 24-Apr-12 02:10 PM
"I'd rather deal with a Massachusetts liberal than with the lunatics in the Paul movement & it isn't close."
On a party level, Gary, I agree. On a national level, Romney just drives me nuts. Not the candidate we need. But then, neither is Paul.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-12 02:33 PM
I'd rather deal with the policies of a Romney administration than with the policies of a 2nd term Obama administration. Think of this possibility: President Obama's 2nd term would likely include his agreeing to Putin's wildest dreams in terms of missile defense, etc.
Also, remember that Republicans, with increased numbers of TEA Party conservatives, will control the House and Senate. That's a positive thing in terms of getting the economy going & getting spending under control.
Comment 7 by Thorley Winston at 24-Apr-12 04:21 PM
Sorry Gary, I forgot to include my tag with my last post. ;)
Comment 8 by Bob J. at 24-Apr-12 04:44 PM
"Also, remember that Republicans, with increased numbers of TEA Party conservatives, will control the House and Senate. That's a positive thing in terms of getting the economy going & getting spending under control."
Those are the same TEA Party conservatives that you expect to turn out to vote for Romney. In my own circle, I know plenty of people who are saying they'll vote downticket but write in for President. Whether they follow through or not remains to be seen, but NO Tea Partier that I personally know can stand Romney.
Control of Congress is going to be absolutely vital no matter who wins the Presidency -- to (hopefully) drive Romney from the right or to try to put a leash on 0bama.
If he scams his way to the Presidency, I expect no significant conservatism from Romney. His Massachusetts record makes such a supposition, shall we say, unwise.
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-12 08:49 PM
I can't stand Mitt either. I'm still voting for him because President Obama plans to undermine the United States from a national security standpoint. He's said as much to Medvedev.
He plans on repeatedly 'caving' to the militant environmentalists on energy policy. The economy will be near Great Depression levels if the EPA is under President Obama's control.
This president might love this country. If he does, it's apparent that he's got a funny way of showing it.
Comment 10 by eric z at 25-Apr-12 09:35 AM
Ron Paul is the only one you have that has ideas.
The rest will sink your party if you do not give Ron Paul the attention he has earned.
You guys talk the talk, but Ron Paul walks the walk.
He is a true conservative. Not a theocrat wanting big government but a theocratic one, like Santorum.
Not an ethically challenged individual like Gihgrich.
Not Gordon Gecko with a different name and temple underwear.
He is the future you refuse to acknowledge, the chance your people have to be at all relevant again.
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-12 11:53 AM
Eric, it's stunning that you think RP is the only one with ideas. Newt Gingrich has been all about ideas & putting great agendas together since the early 1980s.
As for RP walking the walk, that's BS. RP says that he's the only constitutionalist amongst the presidential candidate. During CBS's commander-in-chief debate, he was asked about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. His reply? "What business is it of ours if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?" The terrorist-supporting nation of Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. They've repeatedly said that they want to destroy the United States & Israel, supposedly with these weapons.
They'd also be interested in giving some of these missiles to Chavez, which is certainly well within missile range of Washington, DC.
In short, RP refuses to take seriously his commander-in-chief responsibilities as laid out in the Constitution. RP is a constitutionalist when it suits him. He isn't when it doesn't.
As for RP's not being ethically challenged, that's crap, too. He sent out a newsletter for alot of years. His letters frequently contained some of the vilest, most racist articles imaginable. He's a lowlife scumbag.
Comment 11 by eric z at 25-Apr-12 09:46 AM
Ron Paul's people saved you from the great embarrassment that Lynne Torgerson would have been to your party had she and not the Ron Pual candidate won endorsement in CD 5. Show some gratitude for that, folks. Torgerson's out of the running now but wants to start some form of Jesus lobby. Check out the Daily Paul on that, or the Fridley Patch reporting Torgerson's latest brain fart:
"I recently founded Christian[s] United in Politics, although it is not yet fully operational. The purpose of this organization is toget people with the right values, conservative Christian values, to take leadership roles in political party(ies), run for and be electedto political offices of all levels, and back candidates who have the right values. Christians United in Politics stands for:
"Pro Life, and back Life with legislation
Oppose gay rights legislation
Pro Israel
Take care of the earth
Strong work ethic, yet take care of the poor
Stop radical Islamism"
You are lucky to have Chris Fields in CD 5, instead of Torgerson's Santorum-Bachmann cloning effort.
Comment 12 by DaveP at 16-May-12 11:57 AM
Gary - you have no idea what you are talking about. Wars of intervention are NOT constitutional. If Congress thinks Iran is such a threat that they declare war, then Ron Paul would prosecute that war, win it, then come home. THAT is being a constitutionalist.
Newt has been attending the Globalist Council on Foreign Relations for years.As far as Newt's "ideas" here's a few:
Voted to create Dept. of Education under Carter:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/h468
Voted for NAFTA and GATT:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oa9YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=g-oDAAAAIBAJ&dq=nafta%20gingrich&pg=4526%2C5120542
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HbIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PvEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4722%2C8952495
He thinks allowing terrorist attacks to succeed occasionally is a good idea:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/holy-terror-newt-gingrich-joked-about-allowing-an-attack-to-get-through/
Kill non-violent marijuana smugglers (even though Newt himself is a confessed pot smoker): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr4170
Co-sponsored the 1989 Global Warming Prevention act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.1078:
Not to mention downright silly ideas like death rays, illuminating highways with space mirrors, etc...too many to list just look here: http://www.newtexposed.com/old/
Actually, the Moon colony and mining the Moon are his LEAST crazy idea.
Finally, one more thing about your "counter-revolution" - the average age of the GOP is...ummm...OLD.
We will win by attrition if nothing else...but I do not expect it to take that long.
Dave P
PGH PA
Occupy Unmasked
Thanks to Bill Jacobson through Common Cents , we have the video promotion of the upcoming Citizens United video. It's titled Occupy Unmasked. Here's the promotion video:
As I watched the promotion video, I kept thinking how eerily similar this looked to the riots of the late 60's and early 70's. In my opinion, the #OWS protesters aren't any different than the dirtbags that created the counterculture that lead to the race riots in Chicago, Detroit and LA.
In fact, I'd argue that they're bigger dirtbags than their brethren from the 60's and 70's. The counterculture dirtbags produced terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The #OWS movement is producing terrorists who specialize in destroying private and public property but it's more than that.
They're producing violent criminals like rapists and murderers. The #OWS villains "aren't striking a blow against the war machine." They're committing rapes and murders against their own Occupy activists.
Here's a video created about the race riots of the 60's:
Here's another video of the 60's:
Part of the 60's movement could be called the "Peace, love and flower power" movement just as easily as it could be called the "Sex, drugs and rock n' roll" movement. There was a genuine libertarian streak to 1960's liberalism.
The #OWS movement doesn't have anything in common with libertarianism. In fact, the #OWS movement is, for the most part, fascistic, which doesn't have anything in common with libertarianism.
The #OWS movement will hurt Democrats this election. The #OWS protesters are so far outside the political mainstream that they couldn't find the political mainstream with a year's worth of gas and the world's best GPS.
In addition to being radicals and anarchists, #OWS activists are criminals, thugs and rapists. If the Democrats want to attach themselves to their extremist behavior, they'll do so at their own peril.
Tags: Occupy Wall Street , Activists , Rapists , Race Riots , Felons , Murders , Democrats , David Bossie , Citizens United , Occupy Unmasked , Republicans , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Apr-12 09:30 AM
The sixties were good times, with promise, but unfortunately with Nixon, Kissinger, and after the purge, Ford and Rockefeller; floating the dollar, and the oil cartel flexing its muscle along with the Reagan-Bush deal to undermine Carter on the Iranian hostage situation - Reagan-Bush using the deal with the Iran theocracy to undermine Carter's reelection effort.
But sixties and the antiwar effort, it portended good things that the politicans and elite outside of the elected officials gutted. Nixon is the poster child of ALL THE CRAP then, not those who had to take to the streets to be heard. And the Kennedy and King assinations, sure Gary, it was the hippies behind that. If you say so.
Give me a break.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-12 12:00 PM
Carter undermined Carter with the Iranian hostages. PERIOD. They didn't take him seriously whatsoever because he was a pacifist.
The counterculture that started in the 60's & blossomed in the 70's has been a plague on America since its inception. There's nothing worthwhile that came from it. The OWS people are worse than the dirtbags from the counterculture movement. I've seen both so I've got an historical perspective.
President Obama & other progressives had better get used to having the OWS protesters hung around their necks. Most people don't like them now. After ads show Pelosi & Obama embracing them in one clip, then the cutaway to the atrocities committed by OWS are shown, people will hate them.
Good luck with that one.
Comment 2 by John Galt at 27-Apr-12 09:46 AM
This one scarey movie.
I earned my two college degrees at two different colleges-one public and one private from 1961-1970 and lived through this sort of deterioration of our society. This appears to be the next and perhaps final phase. God help us!
We must fight this these people (the Occupy movement) anyway necessary to the death or we are dead.
Comment 3 by Steve at 29-Apr-12 05:31 AM
There have been two separate Criminal Sexual Conduct offenses at the OWS site in Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis Police Case Numbers 12-125816 a CSCR (Criminal Sexual Conduct - Rape) on 4/27/12 and 12-126382 a CSCM (Criminal Sexual Conduct - Molestation) on 4/14/12 both involving OWS protestors.
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
That's going to be the theme of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign :
At one point, he paid homage to the campaign slogans of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in their bids to defeat an incumbent president during economic turmoil.
'Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one?' he said, as the crowd cheered 'NO!'
'Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more AT your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Are you paying less at the pump?' 'It's still about the economy,' Romney added, bluntly. 'And we're not stupid.'
That last flurry intentionally invokes this image of Ronald Reagan:
President Obama is attempting to twist Reagan's famous phrase :
In this country, prosperity does not trickle down; prosperity grows from the bottom up. And it grows from a strong middle class out. Applause.) That's how we grow this economy. And that's why I'm always confused when we keep having the same argument with folks who don't seem to remember how America was built. They keep telling us, well, if we just weaken regulations that keep our air and water clean and protect our consumers, if we just cut everybody's taxes and convert these investments in community colleges and research and health care into tax cuts especially for the wealthy, that somehow the economy is going to get stronger, and Ohio and the rest of the country will prosper. That's the theory.
Ohio, we tested this theory. Take a look at what happened in Ohio between 2000 and 2008. It's not like we didn't try it. And instead of faster job growth, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. Instead of broad-based prosperity, the typical American family saw their incomes fall by about six percent. Outsourcing, rampant; phony financial profits all over the place. And instead of strengthening our economy, our entire financial system almost collapsed. We spent the last three and a half years cleaning up after that mess. So their theory did not work out so well. Maybe they haven't been paying attention, but it didn't work out so well.
Mitt's message will play better because it's questioning President Obama's spun version of reality. President Obama suggested in his speech that President Bush attempted to cut environmental regulations. That's utter BS. Environmental regulations weren't cut. They increased.
It's insulting that President Obama is lying about the Bush administration like this. Unfortunately, it isn't surprising. The unemployment rate during the Bush administration averaged less than 6% per year. During the Obama administration, the unemployment rate hasn't been less than 8%.
The other thing that President Obama hasn't figured out is that elections are about the future. A future filled with oppressive regulators like the EPA and the NLRB isn't a bright future. A future filled with ever-rising gas prices isn't a bright future. A future filled with high unemployment rates isn't a bright future.
That's what the future holds if this administration gets a second term. This administrations took a bad turn and made it significantly worse.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign will run on the theme of increased domestic energy production and increased job growth, two things that the American people crave.
In poll after poll, President Obama's approval rating on the economy is in the tank. Voters have made up their minds. That fight won't turn out well for this administration.
Tags: President Obama , Obamacare , Unemployment , Deficits , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Ronald Reagan , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 25-Apr-12 12:47 PM
Unfortunately, HotAir is reporting that the man who made "Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Four Years Ago?" necessary, one James Earl Carter, says he would be okay with a President Romney.
Sigh.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-12 03:33 PM
Who flipping cares? Mitt's infinitely better than the current occupant of the WH. That's the only thing I need to know in making the decision.
Comment 2 by eric z at 26-Apr-12 06:38 AM
12 years ago were fine. Some pack of idiots drove the train off the tracks, tearing up the tracks in the process. You cannot easily run the trains on time when they are off the track.
To have a Republican say government power and policy can fix an economy but then oppose any effort in that direction and then cast blame on someone else for the policies that the GOP has forced on others ---
It is like saying leave the train off the track, but make it run on time. Sorry, Gary, you hand Obama a mess a total bucket of it, and say turn it into a humming machine, but --- no tools allowed, it is not fair to create and prolong the economic downfall, and then say it is cause to put the Romney raider in charge. The oil patch folks did a bang up job, eh? That's cause for the corporate raider to have a shot to see if he can equal that act?
No.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 09:15 AM
Eric, You're so blinded by ideology. The statistics indicate that you're wrong. The highest yearly unemployment rate during the Bush administration is 3 points lower than the lowest unemployment rate under the tyrant Obama administration. There hasn't been an administration whose disregard for the law has been as bad as this administration since the Nixon administration.
Obamacare is unconstitutional. The NLRB telling Boeing it can't build a new plant in North Carolina is a massive overreach of its authority. That's why the countdown to this administration has started. Be prepared to be on the outside looking in come Jan. 20, 2013.
There's no doubt that this administration inherited a mess. Likewise, there's no doubt that this administration's policies have made the mess 50 times worse.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 26-Apr-12 09:33 AM
Gary, with all due respect, there's a very good reason you were a Newt Gingrich supporter, and you know what that reason is.
Romney isn't 'infinitely' better than 0bama, and a fair examination of his record in Massachusetts will show it. Romney's not 0bama. That's about it.
Yes, 0bama absolutely, positively must go. I'd just prefer that he be defeated by a conservative.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 10:17 AM
I prefered that Romney get defeated by a conservative, too. That's why I'll still contend that Newt Gingrich should've been the nominee.
Newt's solutions were superior to Mitt's. It wasn't that complicated to me.
Obama to unions: I've ignored you, now pay for the National Convention
Imagine how uncomfortable the Obama campaign must've felt asking the unions to pay for the Democratic National Convention . Those negotiators/fundraisers must've felt nervous and then some.
President Barack Obama's political advisers are pressing labor unions to contribute to the Democratic convention in September to cover a fundraising shortfall resulting from their self-imposed ban on corporate donations, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Democratic officials gave representatives of the major U.S. unions, including the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Auto Workers, a tour of the convention sites in Charlotte, North Carolina, April 23 in advance of a request for donations, according to the two people, who requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss internal strategy.
There's nothing in this article that says these political advisers wore flack jackets while giving the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the UAW a tour of the stadium. Had they given the tour to the construction unions or engineer unions, they would've been well-advised to wear a flack jacket.
They're the people President Obama stiffed on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I can't imagine that they're happy with how President Obama's administration has treated them. I can imagine them being prepared for open revolt against President Obama's administration.
This is exceptionally telling since the DNC was trimmed from the customary 4 days down to 3 days, presumably to cut expenses. Now DNC officials are having difficulty raising the money needed to present a scaled-down version of a convention.
This speaks to the Democrats' lack of enthusiasm compared with 4 years ago and their inability to raise money, which is directly tied with the lack of enthusiasm for Democrats this cycle.
The polls are painting a modestly positive story for President Obama and the Democrats. Stories like this paint a bleak picture for President Obama and the Democrats.
When the polls finally tip, and they will, the Democrats won't have a positive story to tell about their stewardship of the economy. They won't have a positive story to tell about their not passing a budget in 1,092 and counting. They won't have a positive story about how this administration's EPA and NLRB have hurt families and small businesses through regulatory overreach.
Tags: Democratic National Convention , President Obama , UAW , Teamsters , AFL-CIO , Fundraising , Charlotte , Enthusiasm Gap , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 26-Apr-12 09:30 AM
"I can imagine them being prepared for open revolt against President Obama's administration."
Unions are to the left what the GOP believes conservatives are to the right. No matter what they do to blow off the base, the stooges will be there in the end.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 10:15 AM
The leadership will be but the rank-and-file won't be. It's important to make that differentiation.
