September 21-22, 2011
Sep 21 01:38 Obama's worst nightmare Sep 21 09:00 Ryan Says Perry, Romney Right on Social Security Sep 21 21:30 The Anti-Perry Backlash? Sep 22 04:28 Day Care Myths Sep 22 11:12 Cato Institute's Verdict: Romneycare Stinks Sep 22 11:57 Wall Street collapse signals another recession Sep 22 13:18 Chairman Garofalo fights back Sep 22 15:26 Mitt Commits Cardinal Sin Sep 22 23:33 Romney's Difficulties Multiply
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Obama's worst nightmare
The latest Marist polling is President Obama's worst nightmare, at least at this point in the campaign. Here's the most eye-popping news from the poll:
The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.
While that's the most eye-popping news, this might be the most worrisome data from the poll:
By a margin of 49 percent to 36 percent, voters said they definitely plan to vote against Obama, according to the poll. Independents by 53 percent to 28 percent said they definitely plan to vote against him.
With 49% of all voters saying they'll definitely vote against President Obama, that doesn't give President Obama any margin for error. The fact that President Obama doesn't have a margin for error is only made worse with the realization that he won't have a margin for error the rest of the campaign.
That's alot of pressure for a very long time. The campaign he'll need to run the next 14 months will have to be better than mistake-free. It'll have to be mistake-free and inspirational. Without the inspiration, there's no way he'll drive the turnout the way he needs to.
Marist polling leader Lee Miringoff should be applauded for supplying this information:
METHODOLOGY
This survey of 1,042 adults was conducted on Sept. 13-14. Adults 18 and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined. Results are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.0 percentage points. There are 825 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. There are 317 Republicans and Republican leaning independents. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 5.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations.
It should be mandatory to have this type of detail about the methodology used in the polling. Marist should be proud of Mr. Miringoff.
Posted Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:38 AM
Comment 1 by Ryan M. at 21-Sep-11 05:50 AM
Why are they bothering at all with polls of "ADULTS" which are MEANINGLESS in an election instead of registered voters? Only reason I can think of its to give Obama a false aura of being stronger than he really is.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-11 06:51 AM
Ryan, You're right that polling adults isn't as predictive as registered or likely voters. I'm ok with them polling adults precisely for the reason you just mentioned. It gives President Obama a sense of false hope. My biggest worry is that he'll step aside & actually give down-ticket Democrats a better chance. I don't want that happening. Let him keep thinking that he can turn things around.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 21-Sep-11 09:03 AM
Gary, don't worry. Narcissists always think they're the only answer. Barack is no different.
Comment 3 by Jon S. at 21-Sep-11 01:08 PM
Following Ryan's point the news for Obama is even worse: it's not just a poll of adults, only 79% of whom are registered voters, but the sample is D +8. A likely voter poll would probably have shown Palin in the lead, as well the other leading Republican candidates.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-11 08:41 PM
Jon, that's a great point. Thanks for the keen observation.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 21-Sep-11 04:01 PM
Gary:
I found something interesting about the methodology that makes it even worse. According to the method just 317 out of 825 votes. That's just 38.4% of the sample. The poll if the sample had been more balanced would've had Obama's not reelect vote at 50% or over.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Ryan Says Perry, Romney Right on Social Security
Chairman Ryan, the definitive source on all things relating to entitlements, says that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are right about Social Security:
Social Security fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.
'It's not a criminal enterprise, but it's a pay-as-you-go system, where earlier investors, or say, taxpayers, get a positive rate of return, and the most recent investors, or taxpayers, get a negative rate of return,' he said. 'That is how those schemes work.'
Perry's description of the Social Security as a 'Ponzi sceheme' has been attacked by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Perry's leading challenger for the GOP presidential nomination. Romney criticized Perry for scaring seniors and wanting to abolish the program, warning that the Republican nominee needs to work to reform the program.
'They're both right,' Ryan said of Perry and Romney. '[Social Security] is not working, it is going bankrupt, and current seniors will be jeopardized the most by the status quo.'
This isn't as taboo of a subject as it once was, even in Florida. Yesterday, Shannon Bream reported that different generations have different reactions to the term Ponzi Scheme. She said that older generations have the most adverse reaction to the term. Even there, though, the reflexive reaction isn't outrage.
There's a totally different reaction when talking with 20-somethings. That age cohort, for the most part, don't think they'll get paid any Social Security benefits when they retire. The term Ponzi Scheme is right in their eyes.
Predictably, the DCCC reflexively reacted to Chairman Ryan's statement:
'Ryan's belief that Social Security works like a Ponzi scheme proves, once and for all, that House Republicans have really declared a war on seniors,' DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson said in a statement. 'A Ponzi scheme is Bernie Madoff ripping off Americans, not Social Security benefits that seniors earned and depend on during retirement.'
The DCCC's reaction is predictable. It's reflexive demagoguery worthy of Al Gore or Alan Grayson. Let's be clear about this. The scam that Bernie Madoff ran was a Ponzi Scheme. Madoff stole billions of dollars from people. There isn't enough time in prison for what he did.
There's another definition of Ponzi Scheme that isn't about criminal behavior. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of Ponzi Scheme :
an investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability
Seniors currently collecting benefits or previous generations of seniors who collected benefits think it's a positive thing. It's equally understandable that graduates entering the workforce think it isn't a good deal. They're the people paying into a system that won't guarantee an equitable return on investment.
It'd be surprising if 20-somethings thought that was a worthwhile investment.
While demographics shift from older generations to younger generations, the Democrats will be caught on the wrong side of this issue more frequently. It's a shifting time bomb that eventually will explode in their face.
That's why it's smart generational politics for Gov. Perry to highlight this issue. The more he talks about it, the more youthful, energetic TEA Party activists he'll attract to knock on doors, volunteer at phone banks and get his message out.
Posted Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:00 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Sep-11 09:59 AM
Notice the Social Security Admin has quit sending those annual statements of how much money is "in your account"? Too many people were questioning how they could get access to that money, until a Supreme Court ruling that there was no such thing as an SS account, that individuals had "no interest" or control of it, and that Congress was under no obligation whatsoever to make SS payments to ANYBODY. It is an "entitlement" only in the sense that it has been promised by previous pandering politicians. And that ought to properly concern everybody.
The other way to look at it is to ask why the current "shortfall" in SS revenues isn't just made up from the SS trust fund, and of course the answer is that there isn't one plugged nickel in the trust fund, just billions of dollars of IOUs written by one branch of government to another. Sort of like an IOU from your front pocket promising to pay your back pocket for the hamburger you had on Tuesday. Maybe it's a Ponzi scheme, or maybe it's the old shell game?
The Anti-Perry Backlash?
It's anticipated that the GOP candidates will go after Gov. Perry during Thursday night's debate.
Rick Santorum has suggested that by saying he's forgotten more about Israel than Perry will ever know. Mitt Romney has been talking like a demagogic Democrat about Social Security in attacking Gov. Perry's statements about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme.
That's a shame because he's actually asked some valid questions about states taking over Social Security. None of that matters, though, because his constant attacks against Gov. Perry are shrill-sounding.
Now that Mitt's taken the gloves off, he's looking less than presidential.
I'm predicting that the other GOP candidates will lose stature if they continue with their nonstop attacks on Gov. Perry. What the American people want most right now are solutions to their biggest problems. They want someone with a proven record of positive results.
What's coming across during these debates is that Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum sound increasingly shrill. They aren't sounding presidential. They're sounding petty.
A month from now, people will have forgotten the debates except for Romney's, Bachmann's and Santorum's shrillness. I'll predict that they'll remember how Gov. Perry defended himself without sounding shrill. I'm predicting that there'll be an anti-Perry backlash that will last longer than the debate images will last.
The one candidate who's safely navigated through this political minefield is a candidate that pollsters and pundits are mistakenly writing off. That candidate is Newt Gingrich. He's been articulate, to the point and well-informed. He's articulated solid solutions.
He's told his story of putting in place policies that helped the private sector create 20,000,000 jobs while ending welfare as we know it and balancing the budget 4 straight years. He's refused to attack Gov. Perry.
Most importantly, he's the only man on that stage that can claim the title of being a statesman with an overabundance of gravitas.
The conventional wisdom holds that Newt isn't electable because he's got marital baggage. It's time to discard conventional wisdom. Each of the top-tier candidates have difficulties to overcome.
Mitt's known as a flip-flopper who's won one election in his life. After winning that election in 2002, he signed the precursor of Obamacare. Michele's problem is shooting her mouth off at the worst possible moments. Santorum lost his last election by 16 points.
Nonetheless, each of these candidates has an infinitely better plan for creating jobs while balancing the budget than President Obama. He's the failure. He should be the focus of Thursday night's debate.
At the end of the day, constantly going after Gov. Perry communicates a rather unflattering message: that the other candidates are petty and jealous of the attention that Gov. Perry has gotten.
That isn't how you win presidential elections.
Posted Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:30 PM
Comment 1 by Big D at 22-Sep-11 10:32 AM
Rick Perry is taking it from all sides. The MSM, GOP "establishment," Karl Rove, Dick Morris, conservative talking heads (i.e., Malkin), and worst of all ... the other GOP candidates. Perry has a great personal and professional story to tell ... and I want people to hear it. Instead, all we get is Santorum's attacks ... I'd respond to him by simply reminding the voters that Santorum supported Spector over Toomey because he was more interested in being the "conservative" senator from PA. Bachman's attacks ... she's an opportunist ... if she wants to repeal Obamacare, then she should stay in the legislature and persuade her colleagues. Romney's attacks ... i'd basically just ignore them and point out to the listeners that Romney is Obama-lite and his attacks are straight from the Dem's playbook ... I wouldn't bother getting in the mud, because Romney has proven over the course of the debates that he'll say anything to make his opponents appear "unelectable." Perry must defend his TX record, attack Obama, and inform the people about his life story.
Day Care Myths
Doug Grow's post about the day care unionization fight is filled with myths. Here's one myth:
As part of the state's effort to balance the budget, the day-care subsidy program for lower-income families was cut. Those cuts not only affect families but also day-care providers. This reality has made many, though certainly not all, day-care providers interested in signing cards stating they approve of the idea of joining a union. After all, higher subsidies to families should mean higher pay for day-care services.
That's a myth. At the time, Rep. Mary Franson was a day care provider who was contacted. She said that the card the AFSCME wanted her to sign only asked whether she wanted to receive more information on unionization of day care providers.
According to Rep. Franson, there are at least 2 lobbying groups that deal with the issues day care providers deal with, which I cited in this post :
According to Rep. Franson, who identified herself as a former day care provider, she's worked with several organizations, including the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association , aka the MLFCCA, and Childcare Works .
Additionally, Mr. Grow didn't talk about something that commenter Vikki said about being a day care provider :
We, as daycare providers, technically have no boss. We are our own bosses. We decide what to provide to the children as far as meals, curriculum (if used), arts and crafts, etc. Nobody tells us what we have to use or do. I am totally against unionizing daycares. This wouldn't give us a voice in our HOME BUSINESS. Note: HOME business. It's run out of our homes. We decided to do this and provide care to other children. Yes, we do have certain rules that need to be followed. We need to keep our voices open for ourselves and not let someone else tell us how to run our own businesses!
Does Vikki sound like she's the least bit interested in having AFSCME tell her what she has to do? As she states, the state already has rules that day care providers have to obey. Why do they need more regulation?
These paragraphs gave me mental whiplash:
The unions counter that they would give day-care operators a stronger presence at the Capitol in raising subsidy levels, which currently are below federal recommendations. Larger subsidy programs, the unions argue, would benefit more Minnesota kids.
The unions insist they would not establish the rate families pay to operators. Rates will continue to be a private negotiation between operators and families.
Why should people think that AFSCME will lobby the legislature but they won't attempt to establish the rates families pay providers through legislation? To buy that argument, you'd have to think that AFSCME is only interested in being a lobbying group.
That flies in the face of everything that AFSCME has done the past 6 months. Shame on Mr. Grow for drinking AFSCME's Kool-Aid.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:28 AM
No comments.
Cato Institute's Verdict: Romneycare Stinks
With all eyes focused on Rick Perry's debate performance tonight, the Cato Institute's Doug Bandow reminds people that Romneycare is hurting Massachusetts :
As part of his liberal phase when governor of Massachusetts; political principles have been ever-flexible for Romney; he orchestrated passage of legislation with eerie similarities to ObamaCare. Massachusetts mandates purchase of insurance, decides what benefits must be offered, and maintains a complex system of subsidies and penalties. Declared Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker, the two programs are "not identical, but they're certainly close kin." MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both Gov. Romney and President Obama on health care, asserted: "Basically, it's the same thing."
Out of either policy pride or political calculation, Romney continues to defend his approach as "a model that works." But he probably could not escape the legacy even if he wanted to. Walker wrote: "Health care was Romney's greatest achievement by so wide a margin that it's hard to know what to compare it to."
However, Romney has grown increasingly desperate to distinguish his legislation from that of Obama. The best the former can say is that his program was constitutional, since states possess the so-called "police power," allowing them to regulate most anything within their jurisdiction. In contrast, the federal government was created with only limited, enumerated powers. The Founders would never have imagined that Washington could force people to purchase health insurance under the guise of regulating "commerce among the states." (So far the federal courts have split on the issue.)
The reality is that Mitt's got serious problems with conservatives. He's betting his campaign on the premise that there's more moderates voting than conservatives. That isn't a smart bet in a TEA Party environment.
Meanwhile, Gov. Perry is appealing to those young, energetic TEA Party activists with his straight talk on Social Security . I call that Perry's crazy like a fox strategy.
It's worth noting that Mitt's suffering from a 'shifting principles' deficit. Mitt's principles shift to meet the needs of that situation. That isn't leadership. That's pandering and it isn't attractive.
In any case, the fact that RomneyCare is constitutional does not mean that it is wise. Americans want their president to exercise good judgment and common sense, as well as respect the office's constitutional limits. RomneyCare fails the first two standards.
Ouch. That's a harsh shot from the Cato Institute. Saying that Romneycare isn't proof of good judgment or a healthy respect for constitutional limits is a powerful double whammy. That isn't an easy characterization to get past. Still, that isn't the worst of Cato's shots against Romneycare. This isn't even the strongest shot against the sinking ship called Romneycare:
The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner observed: "In Massachusetts, Romney needed and got buy-in from the powerful hospital, insurance, and corporate lobbies. To win that support, he could not fundamentally change the way they did business. Instead, private insurance companies got more customers thanks to the individual mandate, hospitals kept their beds full, and corporations that failed to insure employees paid only a token penalty of $295 per worker."
That sounds alot like waving the white flag of appeasement, not rallying people to dynamic, worthwhile legislation. This is the most devastating shot, in my opinion, on Romneycare:
Defenders of RomneyCare argue that its goal was to expand coverage, not to cut expenditures, but Gov. Romney was not alone in promising "affordable" health care. Anyway, the legislation certainly was not supposed to drive costs skyward.
However, paying for more benefits for more people inevitably makes medicine more expensive. Costs for Commonwealth Care, the Massachusetts government's subsidized insurance program alone are up a fifth over initial projections. Last year State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill wrote: "The universal insurance coverage we adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts' plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth's budget."
There's certainly a gigantic difference between something costing $88,000,000 a year and spending $4,000,000,000 over 5 years. Finally, this information doesn't help Mitt's chanting point that he's an expert at turning things around:
State finances have not collapsed only because RomneyCare spread the costs widely, forcing virtually everyone in and out of the state to share the pain. Cahill cited federal subsidies as keeping the state afloat financially. Indeed, a June study from the Beacon Hill Institute concluded that "The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government." The Institute pointed to higher costs of $8.6 billion since the law was implemented. Just $414 million was paid by Massachusetts. Medicaid (federal payments) covered $2.4 billion. Medicare took care of $1.4 billion.
This information highlights the fact that Romneycare isn't an example of taking over a sinking ship, then righting it. It's a highlight of taking something that was ok and wrecking it. That's an image that Romney can't afford to gain traction. If that image gains traction with conservatives, he's sunk.
It's just that simple.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Sep-11 03:26 PM
Single payer is the only thing that will work. Ultimately it is where we will have to end up.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-11 06:22 PM
Single-payer is a failure. I quoted a study from a single-payer advocate. Here's part of what the study said.
Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.Are you interested in a system that doesn't produce miracle drugs that might cure Alzheimers or the next generation of diagnostic equipment that might detect health issues faster?
I'm not.
Removing "the profit motive" will lead to less health care, longer wait times, etc. Remove the incentive to do something & you'll get less of it.
It's just that simple.
Wall Street collapse signals another recession
Whether people think that Wall Street is a haven for corruption or whether you think it's the last bastion of capitalism, it's indisputable that it's often a predictor of the economy. There's no mistaking that this article's unmistakeable message is that we're heading for another recession:
"A lot of people were hoping for the Fed to say we are close to recession but not really in it and were expecting an aggressive action out of the Fed. The market didn't get this," said James Dailey, portfolio manager of TEAM Asset Strategy Fund in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The market's mood has turned decidedly negative since the Fed statement on Wednesday, which detailed additional stimulus measures but also focused on the weak economy.
Investors are taking a more pessimistic view, and they question the ability of euro zone governments to control the sovereign debt crisis and reverse sluggish growth.
This is disastrous news for President Obama. The sinking ship Hopenchange just had its hull crack along the keel and it's taking on water at an alarming rate. Today's developments strengthen people's ABO (Anybody But Obama) attitudes.
The Obama campaign's strategy has been clear for quite awhile now. They're planning on casting the GOP nominee as far outside the mainstream while casting themselves as the defenders of the middle class. That strategy just exploded.
The middle class can't exist without there being a healthy, thriving entrepreneurship class. (See Reagan's quote about never getting hired by a poor person.) President Obama's constant threatening of entrepreneurs, at minimum, proves to them that they're under siege from this administration.
Economies, like people, don't function well with a gun pointed at their head. Instead of unions striking, this time, it's capital that's striking until President Obama's overregulation stops. If President Obama's strategy is to offer one stimulus plan after another while having the fed prop up the economy with easy money, then we're headed for another recession. What's worse is that that recession will go deeper if President Obama insists on keeping Obamacare and Dodd-Frank on the books.
Finally, companies are frightened by the EPA's attempt to stop coal-fired power plants with their regulations. Economies can't flourish without abundant, inexpensive energy. Strip all the other things away if you'd like. That's one thing that's inescapable.
At last look, the DJIA is down 400+ points.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:57 AM
No comments.
Chairman Garofalo fights back
House K-12 Education Committee Chairman Pat Garofalo's op-ed is a no-holds-barred defense of the K-12 budget and his questioning of the upcoming blitz of school referenda. In his op-ed, one of Chairman Garofalo's strongest rebukes is against the Strib itself:
Is it reasonable to ask how schools plan on spending the additional $650 million in funding they received this session before taxpayers provide them a second increase through higher property taxes?
Most people think so.
Yet this simple request has brought howls of protest from DFLers, the teacher's union and, inexplicably, even from the Star Tribune ("The pass-along pain from school cuts," Sept. 13).
The Strib and other media outlets are frequently the first to whine about the lack of transparency and accountability in government. Why aren't they supporting the need for school districts to explain in detail what their levies will do? Shame on them for their transparent hypocrisy.
This is the hardest-hitting shot at the defenders of the status quo:
Despite these facts, defenders of the status quo have begun their typical behavior of criticism, claiming their increase was really a cut and calling demands for accountability in school finance "a war on children" ("Lawmaker spreads school aid myth," Short Takes, Sept. 17).
They seem to be demanding blind support for a second round of property tax increases.
Their behavior is predictable. They attempt to equate any call for fiscal accountability as a lack of support for children.
Their tactics may have worked 20 years ago, but those tired arguments fail miserably in a new era of demands for fiscal accountability.
The DFL's and the Strib's argument (pardon the repetition) that calls for fiscal responsibility is really a euphemism for not wanting to support students is intellectually dishonest. Mostly, it's based on the Agenda Media's all-too-intentional mischaracterization that conservatives like Chairman Garofalo care only about money. The inference is that conservatives don't care about children.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that conservatives care about children and taxpayers' wallets in equal measure. Conservatives don't think it's an either-or situation because they think it's important to do both.
They think that because they've seen the wasteful ways that government spends money. They noticed it when Minneapolis spent $270,000 on administrators' pay raises after terminating 52 teachers . They've seen the US DoJ spend $16 per muffin at their conferences.
Why wouldn't people want their legislators doing their due diligence on major spending issues?
While school finance is complex, there is one point that perhaps everyone can agree on. There is a big difference between those districts proposing a renewal of an existing levy, or keeping taxes where they are at, and seeking a tax increase.
Taxpayers are wise enough to know this difference. Recent attempts to falsely claim that my concerns about some attempts to raise taxes were really an attempt to reduce education funding are simply without merit.
Before using exaggerated and distasteful references about "going to war," people should get the facts straight.
The first telltale sign that you're dealing with a desperate opponent is the acceleration of their exaggerations. Chairman Garofalo is right in saying that the DFL's tactics might've worked 20 years ago but that they don't work now because the Strib isn't the local newspaper of record anymore.
Media outlets like Examiner.com have unleashed a hordes of new investigative reporters. Thanks to these reporters, elected officials, whether they serve at the school board or city council level or at the state legislature, will be held accountable.
That thought frightens the old guard of the status quo.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:18 PM
No comments.
Mitt Commits Cardinal Sin
Gov. Romney has been trending upward recently, mostly because he hasn't been the pinata that Rick Perry's been. That upward trend ended, though, with this lie :
Governor Rick Perry of Texas, now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has a very different idea. He agrees with me that Social Security's financing is in trouble, but from that point forward we sharply diverge. Instead of repairing the program as I aim to do, he wants to dismantle it.
Gov. just crossed the line that conservatives will beat him to death over. Saying that Gov. Perry "wants to dismantle [Social Security]" is a bald-faced lie and he knows it. This is proof positive that Romney realizes that he's looking ok in the horserace but that he's losing in what I'd term the intangibles race.
Gov. Perry is building support amongst youthful, energetic, TEA Party voters which will help him when the primaries and caucuses start. Romney's running a plodding, conventional wisdom campaign.
During his interview with Sean Hannity, Hannity questioned Gov. Perry about his plans for Social Security. Does this video sound like Gov. Perry wants to dismantle Social Security?
Shame on Gov. Romney for telling such a bald-faced lie. Gov. Perry's campaign was right yesterday in responding to Gov. Romney's attacks :
The Perry camp shot back after Romney released questions he said the Texas governor should answer on Social Security, including details of how a pension system run by states rather than the federal government might work.
' Mr. Romney is again sounding like a Democrat, distorting the truth and trying to scare senior citizens ,' Perry communications director Ray Sullivan responded in a statement. 'Rick Perry and other conservatives are courageous enough to be honest about federal spending and entitlements, whether Mr. Romney and the liberals like it or not.'
What's interesting is that, during his interview with Hannity, Gov. Perry laid out a wide variety of options that must be discussed in formulating a serious package to put Social Security on the path to long-term solvency.
It's important to not that the preeminent expert on entitlements, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said that Gov. Perry was right in callng Social Security a Ponzi Scheme:
Social Security fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.
'It's not a criminal enterprise, but it's a pay-as-you-go system, where earlier investors, or say, taxpayers, get a positive rate of return, and the most recent investors, or taxpayers, get a negative rate of return,' he said. 'That is how those schemes work.'
Republicans should immediately reject Gov. Romney as a serious presidential candidate, mostly because he's a flip-flopping moderate but also because he's willing to lie about his GOP opponents' policies in his desperate attempt to gain traction with voters.
Before this op-ed, I didn't agree with Gov. Romney. Now I don't trust him. It's time to write him off as a serious GOP presidential candidate. I won't vote for a bald-faced liar. PERIOD.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment 1 by Big D at 22-Sep-11 04:14 PM
"Before this op-ed, I didn't agree with Gov. Romney. Now I don't trust him. It's time to write him off as a serious GOP presidential candidate. I won't vote for a bald-faced liar. PERIOD." - I agree.
Romney is desperately banking entirely on the "electability" argument. However, isn't Perry the only undefeated candidate in this race? (with all due respect to Palin.) Plus, Romney's approach exemplifies how he just doesn't understand the electorate. The voters are clamoring for somebody with (1) a proven jobs record, (2) go toe-to-toe with Obama, and (3) repeal obamacare. If they believe that you'll do all three, then they'll vote for you.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Sep-11 03:24 PM
Big D - a question, are you certain Perry never lost a race even when he was a Democratic candidate? That is a little like Coleman, until he lost a race. In Coleman's case it was delayed by Wellstone's untimely death. But Perry, you say, was a winner back when he was a Dem?
Romney's Difficulties Multiply
In the post-debate spin room, proven liar Mitt Romney was asked about Gov. Perry's position on Social Security. Romney's answer was that "Well, I really don't know where Gov. Perry is going to land on this issue."
That's astonishing considering the fact that, in his op-ed, he said that Gov. Perry "wants to dismantle" Social Security. In 2008, Gov. Romney was attacked for being a flip-flopper. Today, Gov. Romney said 2 things about Gov. Perry's position on Social Security in less than 12 hours.
It's one thing to change positions over time. It's another to change them in half a day. It's time for Gov. Romney to admit that he lied about Gov. Perry's position on Social Security and that he demagogued the issue without regard to the truth.
A profile in courage, Mitt Romney isn't.
Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft has the video of Gov. Perry nailing Gov. Romney for another thing that Gov. Romney said in his hardcopy book, then deleting it in the paperback. Here's the video:
Here's what Gov. Perry said that nailed Gov. Romney:
GOV. PERRY: In your hardcopy book, you said that Romneycare was exactly what the American people needed to have, that Romneycare given to them as you had in Massachusetts, then in your paperback, you took that line out. So, speaking of not getting it straight in your book, Sir, that one would be a good place to start.
We don't need smooth-talking politicians who say what people want to hear, then change when their policies fail. What's more, we don't need politicians who change their tune when their policies fail, then deny that they ever made such a statement.
Gov. Romney isn't the corrupt politician that President Obama is but he isn't an honest man, either. I'd far rather have Newt as our standardbearer than having Gov. Romney.
This afternoon, I said that I wouldn't vote for a liar. I'm standing by that statement. In fact, we've just added more proof that Gov. Romney has a strong aversion to the truth.
Not only does the GOP need to nominate someone who is clearly different from President Obama. They need to nominate someone who doesn't change his mind twice in less than 12 hours.
Posted Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:33 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 23-Sep-11 10:55 AM
There are two important victories that conservatives, and by translation America, must attain over the coming months. The first is the defeat of Mitt Romney, because I fear the second and larger goal, the defeat of Barack Obama, won't happen unless the first takes place.
I'm lukewarm on Perry. I don't like his immigration position and this whole Gardasil fiasco shows he has a tendency to think government first, which is what we don't need.
Tired of having to pick the evil of two lessers, I could probably choke down a Perry vote. Not so with Romney.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Sep-11 03:20 PM
Is it clearing the field, for Ron Paul to make a move? I could see that effect. Bob J., does that ring your bell?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-11 06:27 PM
Ron Paul is a 13 percenter. That's his ceiling. His statements indicate that he's totally nuts.
Saying that a border fence with Mexico "might be used to keep people from leaving" the United States is the wildest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
His saying that Iran having a nuclear weapon is the stuff that lunacy is made of. These people want to destroy western civilization.
If you like him so much, we'll trade him to the Democratic Party. I certainly don't want his lunatic national security ideas infecting the GOP.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 26-Sep-11 09:05 AM
Good morning, Eric:
Regarding Paul, not really, no. I'd prefer our President not to get us nuked.
Were I to have my vote today it would more than likely go to Herman Cain.
