August 14-15, 2012
Aug 14 00:55 President Obama doesn't like Romney-Ryan's pro-growth policies Aug 14 01:52 Why is Klobuchar hiding from Kurt Bills? Aug 14 09:42 Newt makes case for capitalism at Piers Morgan's expense Aug 14 10:14 "There's no spinning this." Aug 14 11:10 Zellers on union contracts Aug 14 11:57 Backstabbing GOP operatives resurface Aug 14 16:37 The Wicked Witch of DC strikes again Aug 15 01:32 Nolan wins 8th District primary Aug 15 14:09 Democrats don't love Reagan
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
President Obama doesn't like Romney-Ryan's pro-growth policies
President Obama took an unusual step of criticizing Paul Ryan. It isn't that criticizing a political opponent is strange. It's what he criticized Ryan about that was unusual:
Beyond his drought comments, Obama returned to criticism he made over the weekend about the Romney-Ryan pairing. Speaking in Council Bluffs, he called Ryan the ideological leader of the Republican Party, and one with whom he "fundamentally" disagrees.
It's indisputable that President Obama's policies were directed at his political allies. It'd be a stretch of monumental proportions to consider anything in President Obama's budget pro-growth.
President Obama isn't lying when he admits that he fundamentally disagrees with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. He's fundamentally opposed to the pro-growth policies that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan enthusiastically support.
For his part, Ryan seemed to flourish in his head-to-head battle, besting President Obama with this flourish:
In Des Moines, Ryan focused squarely on the state of the economy as he made the case for a change in leadership.
"One thing we've got to get straight is we're not growing this economy like we need to. We're not creating jobs like we can in America," Ryan said. "(Obama) is making matters worse and he is spending our children into a diminished future.
President Obama can waste all the time he wants talking trash and playing small ball. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are worried about creating jobs, restoring fiscal sanity and balancing the budget.
Tags: President Obama , Small Ball , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Paul Ryan , Jobs , GDP , Surpluses , Fiscal Sanity , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:55 AM
No comments.
Why is Klobuchar hiding from Kurt Bills?
It looks like Kurt Bills will start putting the pressure on Sen. Klobuchar in the near future. This ad will certainly highlight one of Sen. Klobuchar's weaknesses:
There's no doubt that Sen. Klobuchar has spent most of the last 6 years doing everything she could to avoid dealing with the biggest issues of that time. This press statement doesn't pull its punches, especially this part:
Under her tenure unemployment has increased 80% , the national debt has nearly doubled, the yearly deficit has increased 700% , and the number of Minnesotans on food stamps has increased 96%.
'Amy Klobuchar is a lightweight, but the problems facing our country are heavyweight. She wastes her time talking trivialities when the issues we face are dire,' said Mike Osskopp, Manager of the Bills campaign.
'The debt, the deficit, unemployment, and poverty are all up big under her leadership. Income is down. Minnesota can't afford another 6 years of lightweight leadership in heavyweight times,' said Osskopp.
The Twin Cities media, with a few notable exceptions, will protect St. Amy the best they can. The reality is that she's done nothing on most of the major issues facing Minnesotans.
She's been totally worthless on lowering people's electric bills or reducing Minnesotans' gas prices. She hasn't lifted a finger in pushing the EPA to grant PolyMet the permits they've been waiting over 7 years for.
She voted for reckless spending and crony capitalism when she voted for the stimulus. Sen. Klobuchar voted twice for cutting $700,000,000,000 from Medicare to pay for the ACA. Sen. Klobuchar voted twice to create the medical device manufacturers tax. Sen. Klobuchar voted to end the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that's lifting underprivileged DC school children out of poverty.
Sen. Klobuchar agreed to 2 debates but none after Labor Day, when people pay attention. That's what politicians do when they don't want people to find out that they've specialized in photo ops instead of getting important things done the past 6 years.
Sen. Klobuchar is a skilled politician. It's just that Sen. Klobuchar isn't that interested in getting important thing done for Minnesotans.
Tags: Debates , Kurt Bills , Reforms , GOP , Amy Klobuchar , ACA , Tax Increases , Medicare Cuts , Stimulus , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 14-Aug-12 09:33 AM
I really don't like Amy at all. She's as phony as the day is long and as liberal as Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer.
Her back has been covered by the StarTribune and WCCO-TV for as long as I can remember. I absolutely cannot remember when either group wrote or spoke about her in even the most vaguely negative way.
But as Gary wrote, she is a skilled politican and whether we like it or not, that's 50% of the battle. I wish that Norm Coleman would have spent as much time courting the voters as Amy has. If he had, he likely would still be in the Senate instead of Stuart Smalley.
Newt makes case for capitalism at Piers Morgan's expense
Last night on Piers Morgan's show, Newt Gingrich utterly dismantled a) Piers Morgan's chanting points and b) Democrats everywhere. This video summarizes it perfectly:
Here's the transcript of their exchange:
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that's going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people's livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they're also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you're very wealthy, you're going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan's tax cut - which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for - Ronald Reagan's tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
You know, this is the core thing that liberals don't get. If you want to have jobs, you have to encourage job creators. If you discourage job creators, if you engage in class warfare, if you do what Barack Obama's been doing, you have what we currently have. This is the worst recovery in 75 years.
Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?
Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there's this mantra you guys almost sound like you're an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They're able to live their own lives.
Obama worries about student loans. None of those students are going to get any jobs under Obama. Ryan and Romney are worried about getting jobs for those students so they can pay off the Obama loans.
I think this is a fundamentally different model, and I know everybody in the media wants to rush down and narrow it down to one point. So I'm going to rush down and narrow it down to one point: how long are we going to tolerate a president who makes the poorest Americans more unemployed, who pushes more poor Americans on to food stamps, and who eliminates hope for minorities? And that's the Barack Obama record after four years.
Most Republicans would've tried defending 'tax cuts for the rich'. Newt didn't have time for that. He attacked the underlying principle, essentially saying what Ronald Reagan said decades ago: You can't be pro jobs and hate job creators.
President Obama has villified entrepreneurs all of his adult life. He's even had to put out an ad saying that he loves small business:
That ad was hastily thrown together right after his infamous "You didn't build that" speech from Roanoke, VA.
Newt's message is refreshing because he doesn't accept the progressives' premise. After demolishing the progressives' premise, Newt then proceeded to highlight this administration's failures in helping the poor, especially minorities.
The end result is Newt making a brilliant case for capitalism being the best path to prosperity for minorities.
That's what happens when you aren't restricted to mindlessly repeating the progressives' chanting points.
Tags: Media , Media Bias , Piers Morgan , CNN , Chanting Points , President Obama , Unemployment , You Didn't Build That , Progressives , Newt Gingrich , Capitalism , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:42 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 14-Aug-12 10:26 AM
It has gotten to the point that I don't believe any thing he says anymore is true!
"There's no spinning this."
If this report is accurate, which I'm confident it is, then it's time to distill all of the Democrats' happy talk into a simple message: "People, if this continues, we're in trouble." Here's what I'm referring to:
Paul --
I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday's Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.
There's no spinning that number. It's a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.
And that's not all. Since the VP announcement, Romney's campaign has brought in over 70,000 donations from his Tea Party base.
We've got to step up our game and mobilize our supporters, starting right now.
TRANSLATION: Holy shit Batman, we're in trouble.
Seriously, I'm certain that the Democrats didn't anticipate this spike in attendance. They couldn't have seen it coming. They might've anticipated it for Paul Ryan. There's no way they could've anticipated it for Mitt Romney.
While the polling hasn't shown a shift in the enthusiasm gap, these crowds indicate one thing: that the size of the GOP base is growing. It's one thing to close the enthusiasm gap. It's quite another for the gap to widen in the size of a party's base.
President Obama, talking in Iowa like Paul Ryan was, drew a significantly smaller crowd than Chairman Ryan. The headline on Drudge hinted that President Obama had lost the magic from 2008. That's hardly a surprise.
That's why the Democrats' last option is to go disgustingly negative all the time. That's certainly what's happening. That might've worked pre-Ryan. It would've worked pre-Ryan if Mitt hadn't outraised President Obama.
In 2008, President Obama buried Sen. McCain's message, if he had one, with a tsunami of advertising. This time, especially with Paul Ryan on the ticket, Mitt has a message. This time, Mitt's able to go toe-to-toe with President Obama in the ad wars.
Most importantly, Paul Ryan's time-tested appeal to thoughtful Democrats and independents, combined with Mitt's fundraising abilities, will grow the GOP base the right way.
That's why Democrats should be worried.
Tags: President Obama , Enthusiasm Gap , Politics of Personal Destruction , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Paul Ryan , Crowds , Independents , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:14 AM
No comments.
Zellers on union contracts
How many LFR readers have gotten a 2% pay raise from their boss recently? Put your responses in the comments.
Speaker Kurt Zellers is certain to get criticized for his opinion on the newly negotiated contracts :
House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, is criticizing the proposed state employee contracts. Gov. Dayton and the state's two largest public employee unions have agreed on new contracts that provide an across the board pay increase of 2 percent. The contracts also require employees to pay higher health insurance co-pays. Zellers appeared on conservative radio host Scott Hennen's program, where he criticized the proposal.
"When you look at how many folks out there haven't had a raise or haven't had an increase in their paycheck or maybe took a cut in their paycheck, asking for a pay increase at this point in the economy, at this point where our nation is rebuilding, I think is overstepping the bounds," Zellers said.
There's no doubt that AFSCME and MAPE will complain that this is just another chapter in the Republicans' war on working people. I'd recommend that Speaker Zellers ignore those complaints.
If AFSCME, MAPE and the SEIU start complaining about this administration's war on minorities (unemployment is sky high) and people who aren't unionized (wages have shrunk, unemployment is higher), then I'll start listening.
Thus far, AFSCME, MAPE and the SEIU have sat silently about those subjects. I'm anything but surprised.
Tags: AFSCME , MAPE , Contracts , Negotiations , Mark Dayton , DFL , Kurt Zellers , MNGOP
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:10 AM
No comments.
Backstabbing GOP operatives resurface
This article highlights what happens when a politician comes along that doesn't need their help:
You've heard them on television and read them on POLITICO, cheerful, defiant statements from Republican political professionals about Mitt Romney's bold masterstroke in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate, and turning the 2012 presidential race into a serious, far-reaching debate about budgets and the nation's future.
Don't buy it.
Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren't being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right, and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.
I won't paint all consultants and operatives with a broad brush. What I'll do is highlight the fact that some consultants and operatives don't have the integrity to criticize Paul Ryan on the record.
They're gutless wonders, plain and simple.
Let's get to the caveats: No one is asserting that Washington operatives in either party are oracles or seers. What's more, it is not as if there is anything like unanimity in GOP circles about the merits of the Ryan pick, though the mood of anxiety and skepticism is overwhelming.
TEA Party activists and other conservatives don't give a rip what the idiots inside the DC echochamber think. We just don't. If you aren't in touch with the heartland, your opinion isn't worth a thing.
The political class hate Newt Gingrich. They hate Sarah Palin. They didn't like Ronald Reagan, either. Apparently, they hate Paul Ryan, too.
TEA Party patriots and other conservatives love Newt, Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan because they don't sugarcoat things. That's why they don't need armies of consultants. They think for themselves.
Tags: Corruption , Ronald Reagan , Newt Gingrich , Paul Ryan , Sarah Palin , DC Beltway , Cronies , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:57 AM
Comment 1 by Mr Bob at 14-Aug-12 03:19 PM
this is a good sign - the Tea Party is affecting Washington to a much greater degree than what is reported. The Poli-class doesn't like it.
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-Aug-12 10:37 PM
It's the vulture you have to sell to folks. Not the voucher. You may have love for voucher-man, but you are stuck pitching Gordon Gekko to folks in need. Enjoy it.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-12 11:50 PM
I hate breaking this to you but the vast majority of people prefer capitalism over the shit Obama's been peddling.
President Obama has been the worst jobs president in the modern era of the presidency.
That's the direct result of Obama's EPA waging war on the coal industry. That's the direct result of the Interior Department's war against drilling for oil. That's the direct result of Obama's disastrous economic policies.
Yes, he inherited a mess. Mitt inherited a mess when he was tapped to run the Olympics. The difference is that Mitt cleaned up that mess & made America proud.
President Obama inherited a mess, then made it worse.
The Wicked Witch of DC strikes again
Rather than celebrating Gabby Douglas' accomplishments, First Lady Michelle Obama got after Ms. Douglas for eating an egg McMuffin from McDonalds:
Granted, the Wicked Witch of DC used a teasing tone of voice in criticizing Ms. Douglas. Still, it's the fact that the first thing Michelle Obama said wasn't congratulations for Ms. Douglas.
The important part, though, is the fact that Michelle Obama wants government to dictate what people should eat. She started the movement. It didn't take long for Michael Bloomberg to latch onto the repulsive idea.
It's one thing to put nutritional information on a can of veggies or a bag of chips. That's actually information that people want. It's another for the government to tell people what they should eat. The worst is government limiting the size of slurpees or whatever.
Michelle Obama is the embodiment of the nanny state and all that's wrong with that type of government.
I can't wait for November, when we run her husband out of office and she loses the platform she currently exploits.
Tags: Olympics , Gabby Douglas , Michelle Obama , Nanny State , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:37 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Aug-12 10:34 PM
Get real. I concede, she owns fewer dressage horses than the uber-rich Ms. Romney; but she's a class act, instead.
Both of the Obamas have class. Both are highly educated. Both have accomplished much in the job world. Ms. R. has raised five strapping boys, none of which volunteered, while Dad mongers war. You'd think at least one ...
But Gary - It IS MITT Romney that is the brand you must try to sell. Not Ryan. Not Romney's family.
You are stuck with having to try to sell the vluture, not the the voucher; although that's a real pairing.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 15-Aug-12 03:32 PM
Eric:
Lack of class is what Michelle did last night!
This is an athlete who has trained for years and carefully taken care of her body to get gold medals.
Michelle's comment is, "You don't know how to take care of your body! You're not putting out a good example!"
Get real and apologize to that Olympic athlete that the SUPER RUDE MICHELLE TREATED WITH EXTREME DISREPECT. Ann Romney wouldn't have treated her that way.
Of course you hate Ann so you can't recongize somebody behaving good.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Nolan wins 8th District primary
According to the Secretary of State's website , it's clear that Rick Nolan will defeat Jeff Anderson and Tarryl Clark. He'll meet Chip Cravaack in the general election this November.
With 423 of the 812 precincts in the 8th District reporting, Rick Nolan had 13,850 votes, followed by Tarryl Clark with 10,843 votes, with Jeff Anderson getting 10,323 votes.
In other primary news, it appears as though Dave Osmek will defeat Connie Doepke in the SD-33 GOP primary. Osmek leads Doepke by 107 votes with all 39 precincts counted. This will trigger an automatic recount.
Cindy Pugh defeated 11-term incumbent Steve Smith by 1,302 votes. Pugh got 70.3% of the vote, trouncing Smith. This wasn't a surprising outcome. I wrote here that Smith got trounced by a similar margin at the endorsing convention.
Karin Housley won the SD-39 GOP primary, defeating Eric Langness by a 1,941 to 945 margin.
Finally, Al Quist defeated Mike Parry in the First District GOP primary. With 601 of 695 precincts reporting, Quist led Parry by a 11,213 to 9,697 margin.
In all probability, this marks the end of Tarryl Clark's political career. She lost to Michele Bachmann in 2010 by a 53%-40% margin in a race that wasn't that close.
Now she's lost as a carbetbagger living in Duluth. She moved there because she would've gotten beaten like a drum had she filed for a rematch against Michele.
Tags: Primaries , Cindy Pugh , Karin Housley , Allen Quist , Dave Osmek , Steve Smith , GOP , Rick Nolan , Tarryl Clark , DFL
Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:32 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Aug-12 07:11 AM
I can see how you would be happy with that result. Clark would have been stronger in the general election, but the local DFL apparatus was happy to remain suicidally inbred. It is a victory for your side, and I bet there was one hell of a crossover voting party going on. The quite low CC vote total reflects crossover monkeyshine. Or have you some better explanation?
Happy with Quist? Do you see him as a world beater?
At home, Bachmann was herself. Have you seen her signs with the orange bannering? "NRA endorsed." She is who she's been, and who she will be, and CD 6 voters are as they are.
Do you read anything into the Bills "victory," by a quite low margin for an endorsed statewide GOP candidate? 51.31% in his own party. Amy trounced all the others combined.
Stick a fork in Bills, see if there's any life there?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-12 07:57 AM
Nolan will get hammered this November because he's a terrible fit for the district. He's thrown in with the militant environmentalists way too often. During their closing arguments, he & Tarryl tried to 'I'm more pro-choice than you are' each other in a strongly pro-life district. His phony 'I support the Second Amendment' schtick won't play well, either.
Wheather Chip faced Tarryl or Nolan, the reality always was that they'd get beaten like a drum.
Comment 2 by MplsSteve at 15-Aug-12 08:47 AM
Eric, I was one of those people who voted for David Carlson over Kurt Bills. I did it as a protest vote against the Paultards who have stuck us with Bills.
Bills' campaign has been DOA since he won the endorsement. I have been telling people (and will continue to tell them) to bypass his campaign and get involved with our campaigns that stand a chance of winning.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-12 09:47 AM
Steve, Don't hold the Paulbots against Bills. I've watched him quite a bit and he's a good candidate & good guy. He might not win but he's a good guy worthy of our support.
Comment 3 by eric z at 15-Aug-12 10:09 AM
MplsSteve - That thought direction may well play out soon in the presidential race too. If Private Ryan cannot save the effort, look for a bailout to the local races, and thinking about how down-ticket reacts to a lackluster top end. And touting those silly amendments could prove a double edge sword - as you folks know.
Ron Paul remains me of a buffet. Some stuff you like and would have seconds, even thirds, some stuff, no way. It is just that from different perspectives, that which is choice and overripe is - different. In Ramsey and Anoka County where I live, there were promising primary results, and a suggestion that some who advanced have their work cut out for them. It is less partisan locally, but not entirely so, not at all as some suggest by candidates not declaring party allegiance but where you do not only vote one partisan side of a ballot among hopefuls. There are locals with ambitions, who champ at the bit to make the partisan part of primary ballots.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-12 10:20 AM
Eric, Please show more common sense than that. This morning's Drudge headline says that a key part of Obama's 2008 coalition (young people) now supports Mitt. Paul Ryan is liked, by a 52%-29% margin, amongst seniors.
This administration's failures are sinking them. There's a reason why most polls show him with a favorability rating, especially on the economy, health care & debt, in the low 40s. That's a repudiation of Obama's policies and a stiff repudiation at that.
Add to that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's monstrous crowds, compared with President Obama's and Vice President Biden's mediocre crowds. Eric, it's time you travelled back to Realityville. I don't know where you are right now but it isn't Realityville.
Comment 4 by eric z at 15-Aug-12 10:15 AM
Gary, the term "militant environmentalists" offends. You may doubt it but there are folks in the state, even in that district, that do not want the Boundary Waters Wilderness irreversibly polluted by short-sighted mining profiteers who want to screw over the entire environment for an extra twelve cents a ton of mined and refined copper. It is how it is, man, no matter how you blow the smoke. Smoke cannot hide the greed.
Comment 5 by MplsSteve at 15-Aug-12 12:16 PM
Gary, I'll vote for Bills in November. I'm less the enamored with his support of Ron Paul though. I will give him this much. I've seen him in a number of parades this year. He is a hard worker and has a greater knowledge of economics in one finger than Amy Klobuchar has in her whole body.
But so far, he's gained no traction and lacks the money to be able to buy some traction. I just feel that the GOP would be better served by (a) making sure that Cravaack is sent back to Congress and (b) making sure that we maintain control of the Legislature. The idea of Gov Dayton AND a DFL legislature scares me - a lot.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-12 01:19 PM
Steve, I know he's struggling right now but that's changing beneath the radar. Check back in a month.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 15-Aug-12 03:27 PM
Eric:
One more misstatement by Obama or Biden and there will be a flood of people not supporting Obama anymore. The DFL will be suffering the flood of diseretion.
Keep in mind the Republican base (and that includes independents) wants Obama out and saw the success the Republican legislature had the last two years they will loyal support the Republicans regardless of a possible bad candidate.
The Democrats will do what you're describing, but that is typlical liberal thinking. Saying your opponent will do what he or she is thinking.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Democrats don't love Reagan
Yesterday, I read a fascinating article by former Reagan administration member Jeffrey Lord, which he titled Why Ryan terrifies the Left . This was one of the first things that I noticed:
The admiration for Reagan has become such a part of American historical bedrock that even President Obama and likeminded professional leftists have essentially given up the ghost. When they mention Reagan at all, it is generally to play a sly game of casting Reagan as a moderate, pretending to salute him while taking a shot at some Republican for not being more like Reagan. Obama played this game four times in one speech back in April, effusively praising Reagan while casting Mitt Romney as some sort of wild-eyed extremist.
That's a game Democrats love playing. Unfortunately for them, it's another game they play poorly. They love arguing that President Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP.
That statement is so devoid of credibility, you'd think Joe Biden wrote it.
Reagan cut taxes, deregulated the oil industry, pushed a robust domestic energy production plan and frightened the former USSR into history's dustbin of failed experiments.
More importantly, he championed the guy who started innovation. Bill Gates and Michael Dell got their starts during Reagan's time in office, starting in humble settings before growing their businesses into the gigantic success stories that they are.
Most importantly, President Reagan trusted We The People with every fiber of his being.
What part of that agenda would this administration enact into law?
The simple answer is that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wouldn't consider adopting anything from President Reagan's agenda.
Militant environmentalists would shut off the campaign contribution spigot to the Democratic Party and their politicians if they voted for a robust domestic energy production program.
The OWS wing of the Democratic Party, the dominant part of the party, would throw a hissy fit if Democrats supported tax cuts for small businesses. Their heads would explode if they voted for capital gains tax cuts.
That's the truth about the progressives' alleged fondness for President Reagan. The truth is that President Obama's administration has balked at these things in President Reagan's agenda. In fact, he fundamentally disagrees with Reagan's agenda :
'He is a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney's vision but it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with ," said Obama.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Reagan's vision for America and Paul Ryan's vision. They're fantastic advocates for maximum individual liberty, free market capitalism, free trade and American exceptionalism.
The Left hates Paul Ryan for the same reasons they hated President Reagan. It's sad that American citizens don't believe in the foundational principles of our Founding Documents.
Tags: Ronald Reagan , Paul Ryan , Optimism , Conservatism , Free Markets , Liberty , Capitalism , Deregulation , Oil , Tax Cuts , GOP , President Obama , Militant Environmentalists , Progressives , Socialism , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:09 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Aug-12 08:55 AM
Love Reagan? He was a disaster. Moreover, Bonzo was the better actor in that one film.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-12 09:15 AM
Eric, if you're serious, then I've got to ask a simple question & I want a serious answer.
What part of that prosperity didn't you like? You've frequently made comments on LFR about businesses not paying their fair share. You've said that the tax code should be more about fairness than about creating prosperity.
Didn't you appreciate the robust employment of the 1980s? The rising wages? The growing 401(k)s? The stability of home mortgage rates?
What part of those things didn't you like?
Eric, it's time you started thinking like a human being & stopped thinking through a partisan lens.
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Aug-12 10:34 AM
Reagan ran up debt. Big time. It's what your guys are carping about now, Ryan in particular. Reagan did that. And coincidentally the oil cartel situation that pinched Carter years eased, and Reagan had zippo to do with it. Zippo. Taking credit where it is not due is looking at things through a partisan lens, as a good friend says.
Comment 4 by eric z at 16-Aug-12 10:37 AM
Forgot to say, do your homework. Clinton paid down a part of Reagan-Bush Gulf War debt, then the Bush son gets in and runs two front wars on a credit card. And steers the economy into the biggest disaster since the Great Depression. And you want to talk Reagan. Talk Ford and OPEC handing Carter a disaster. Talk Clinton handing the keys to a well running automobile to Bush-Cheney who drove it into a ditch. Talk a Gulf War that resolved nothing to where son-of-Gulf-War-Bush redid dad's ploy. Talk WMD that never existed except in your party's propaganda machine. Give me a break.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-12 11:24 AM
Carter was a disaster. He listened to the environutters & Americans' paid higher gas prices. Sound familiar?
Reagan revived the economy, creating 19,000,000 new jobs during his administration. President Obama trails Reagan by only 18-19,000,000 jobs, 20,000,000 at most.
PS-there's a difference between a $200,000,000,000 deficit and a $1,200,000,000,000 deficit.
As for Bush the younger steering "the economy into the biggest disaster since the Great Depression", that crisis wouldn't have happened if not for Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, President Obama preventing the reform of Fannie & Freddie.
Finally, the world's most respected intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD's. This "it only existed in your party's propaganda machine" BS isn't persuasive in the least.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 16-Aug-12 04:22 PM
Eric:
If you want to complain about running up debt you do realize that Obama has run up in just four years $6 trillion on that credit card you want to be not used.
Candidate Obama called President Bush unpatriotic because in 8 years he ran up just $4 trillion.
President Obama's response to our fiscal crisis is to ask for a horrible tax increase on the rich which will pay something like 8 days of government operations.
In 2011 President Obama didn't put a serious proposal on the table to cut spending. And his proposal to the panel that was suppose to cut spending was that tax increase which will pay for 8 days of government.
And if you want to complain about future debt card use the CBO has said over the next ten years Obamacare will cost an extra $2.8 trillion which we don't have. Romney will repeal that spending. Obama wants to keep it.
So Eric if you want to stick with the spirit of your post #3 and #4 you don't want to vote for Obama! So thank you for wanting to vote for Mitt Romney since you care about the national debt and getting the budget under control.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by eric z at 19-Aug-12 01:35 PM
Gipper lovers - why I say the man was awful for the country:
Look at the charts, keypoint around 1980, this link:
www.juancole.com/2012/08/mr-romney-heres-why-your-tax-returns-matter.html
The crap started with the Gipper. Each chart Juan Cole presents is worth a thousand words. The crap needs to be undone, to go back to the pre-OPEC, pre-Nixon days of prosperity and high marginal tax rates for the uber-wealthy levels of income, which aided national prosperity for the 99%. It is as clear as day.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 19-Aug-12 03:10 PM
First, Juan Cole was discredited in 2004. He's a disgusting little creep.
Second, it's impossible to "go back to the pre-OPEC, pre-Nixon days" because the world changed. It isn't returning so it's imperative that we make smart adjustments.
The DFL locally, & the Democrats nationally, haven't had an original thought since the 1970s. Pat Moynihan, the most brilliant Democrat thinker, admitted that the GOP has become the party of ideas.
This election will be about whether people want Obama's economic policies that strangle the economy (see the EPA, the NLRB & the ACA) or whether they prefer a return to a time when the economy grew at explosive rates & individual freedom meant something.
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 19-Aug-12 04:00 PM
Eric:
First of all instead of complaining about the tax code why don't you want to acknowledge the way that Obama unlike Reagan or Bush 43 ran up debt on our credit card? After all if you care about no more new debt being run up on that credit card a person who claims they care about that (as displayed in the spirit of posts 3 and 4) won't be voting for Obama.
Second, thanks to Reagan and Bush 43 those horrible tax cutters for the rich you have had the following things happen:
* The tax code now causes 47% of the population not to have to pay a single cent of taxes. Isn't that enough for you? Furthermore Eric this has caused the problem of people thinking I don't pay taxes and I'm given government goodies. I want to vote for the candidate that will give me more goodies and it seems possible (even though it's a lie) that the rich can pay for it.
* Tax revenue has shot up even though the rates have been cut and the tax tables show that the richest 1%, 5%, 10%, or even 50% pay more than their fairshare of the taxes collected (remember the bottom 47% pay no taxes at all)
* Eric if we get your tax increase that will help fund government for just 8 days? How are you going to fund the other 357 days?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
