Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 That is a thing lefties can count on:if Conservatives lose they will start beating their chests instead of lookingat what is fishy.
Frankly I cannot believe Romney not getting a single swing state. It is too perfect. Also it doeesn't match with what was seen at ground level. Everywhere we have been told of record high particpation levels in Republican districts and low ones in Democratic counties, of obama giving his finalspeech in half empty arena in Ohio, of many tell-tale signs pointing to ack of enthousiasmbetween Democrats and a strong determination between Republicans; The logical assumption was that Romney would win easily in states where lectorate was divided. But no. Not a single time this translated into a Republican victory. Not a single time.
Then we remind of DOJ preventing Florida of purging voting lists of non-citizens, of voting machines giving a vote for Obama when the Romney button was pressed, of in Pennsylvania, thousands of Republican votes shredded by a "helpthe vote" organization, of Democrats being caught red handed organizing a concerted effort of fraudulent vote through impersonating people they knew wouldn't vote. And of course thereis the persistent fact of a party who opposes bites and nails to voter ID.(If you fear poor people wouldbe unable to vote then makeit 0 cost, also in France for voting yu need an ID _and_ a special nationallyissued lection card thus ensuring you cannot vote in more than one district).
Also when I learned thatRasmussen had been threatened by the DOJ of being sued I immediately knew here was something at work more sinister than simply trying todemoralize the Republican electorate: if poll pointed to an Obama victory fraud would not be suspected.
However the bitter thing i Republican will do nothing about it. They will do nothing bcaue ith Catholic-like eagerne they will tart beting their chets, they will do nothing out of the fear of looking like they were trying toteal the election through litigtion (and alobecaue they knowthe MSM will dowhat ineeded for that.They will donothing becaue over 150 year after it w crated the Republican party ha tillnot learned how to fight wit omeoene who fight diirtyj What could be eoected of aparty whoe dirtiet fighter, that i Richard Nixon, did nothing when Kennedy tolean electionfrom him. Obama expected it and the Republicans gave the anwer he expected.
Posted by JFM 2012-11-07 04:24||
#2 Nobody who has studied voting fraud, thinks real fraud is more than a few thousand votes in any one State.
The major problems include what was seen in the Medicare poll. People don't want to believe the facts, e.g., that Medicare taxes and copayments don't exceed 35% of expenses. People don't want to believe that Social security income doesn't exceed 70% of future payouts, etc. People want to believe that more money on education improves education. People want to believe that Islam is basically peaceful and a tiny few are making stuff up about what the Koran says.
Posted by lord garth 2012-11-07 06:10||
#3 Unfortunately, I believe the numbers. Americans want all the free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.
Well, they just elected themselves to be Greece. Romney might (big might) have stopped the bleeding for 20 years, but it is inevitable that the collapse will happen. I know I have mentioned in debates that we were choosing between a quick collapse and a slow one. Looks like the public wants a quick one.
This next decade will not be easy and it will be very bloody for the entire world.
Posted by DarthVader 2012-11-07 06:39||
#4 Stop worrying about medicare and start worrying about defence spending. More than 50% of global defence spending is done by the US. Its unsustainable, but makes a few very very rich.
The US has bankrupted itself fighting for Saudi Arabia's king.
1) they took our Saddam Hussein, the Saudi's main regional rival
2) they've helped Saudi backed islamists triumph in Libya, and now helping them in Syria.. secular regimes replaced with Islamist ones, just like we did in the 1980s in Afghanistan. How did that turn out?
3) Saudi equipped to put down its own democracy protests, and help stamp them out in Bahrain (where the US has a large base to help protect... err... "freedom" - ie the Saudi regime)
4) Now we'll knock out Iran for them - better we spend the money and see our servicemen die, than the Saudis have to waste any of their fat lazy citizens
People have to decide do they want to spend money to help prop up Saudi Arabia's King, or would they rather it be spent treating sick Americans. We can't afford to do both.
I'm in Europe at the moment (been here 2 years) and the folks here can't believe we run around fighting wars for Saudi after what they did on 911.
Posted by PlaneSPeeker 2012-11-07 06:52||
#5 >People have to decide do they want to spend money to help prop up Saudi Arabia's King, or would they rather it be spent treating sick Americans.
It would be better if the state didn't extort it in the first place. If you think you own your own body then you're responsible for it. If you don't think that then you believe the state owns you, and you're a slave.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-11-07 07:06||
#6 "People have to decide do they want to spend money to help prop up Saudi Arabia's King, or would they rather it be spent treating sick Americans."
I whole hertedly agree let's spend that money on psychaitrical care for Democrats.
Posted by JFM 2012-11-07 07:36||
#7 @lord garth
In a swing state youdon't need that manny votes. Also the few thousnad votes was in Bush vs Gore times.Now we are in Alinski times. Anyway a single_ case of vote fraud (the shredding of TRepuiblican votes already made your few thousand votes.
Ah and add the disenfranchisement of military votes tomy laundry list. By itself it makes thousnads of votes in several crucial states;
But is beter to smilelike Nixon while the other cheats.
Posted by JFM 2012-11-07 07:44||
#8 Darth hit the nail perfectly. Americans have changed. They are now willing supplicants to the Leviathan that cannot support them.
2016 is set up to be a very interesting and pivotal election. If it is held.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-11-07 08:07||
#9 > Americans have changed.
Americans have BEEN changed.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-11-07 10:34||
#10 I'm leaning toward the thinking that this was about a black man running for president. People saw only that, when they would have seen all the terrible numbers and incompetence had it been anyone else.
Also, the GOP went to war with itself, but that is another story.
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-07 11:29||
#11 I hate it when they say "baby boomer entitlements" as if anyone born during a certain period of time is personally responsible for it. I was born then. But I never asked for any of this shit.
Social Security was the law before I was even a glimmer in my Daddy's eye.
Medicare was passed under Lyndon Johnson before I was old enough to vote.
ObamaCare? Well, I voted against it.
Don't blame me.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-07 11:46||
#12 I partly agree with PlaneSPeeker. I mean, what does it matter if we buy our oil from the Soddies or the Iranians or Saddam or Col. Daffy? They all hate us.
But I don't believe we should cut the military. I think these days our real enemy is China and they are certainly not cutting their military.
As for the debt, I feel like I'm riding in the back of a car headed for a cliff and nobody in the front seat is making any move at all for the brake. Yeah, we're going over that cliff. I don't think I can open that back door and jump out. Where would I go?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-07 12:08||
#13 I hate it when they say "baby boomer entitlements" as if anyone born during a certain period of time is personally responsible for it.
It was the wartime generation whose politicians put the generous social benefits in place. And that was fine, so long as the baby boomers were diligently labouring to support their elders. But now they are the elders, and the worker to benefiter ratio is unworkable... for which the baby boomers will garner given both the blame and the reduced bennies. Sorry, but life isn't fair.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-11-07 12:24||
#14 I'm wearing all black today, mourning for America I once knew.
Posted by Total War 2012-11-07 12:59||
"Romney in 703 words graciously admitted his loss. He said the word "America" five times, the word "pray" three times and the words "Thank you" 21 times.
The Real Good Talker, who's never seen anything he couldn't throw a speech at, took 2,163 words to claim victory in what is traditionally a moment to call for unity and healing after a divisive campaign.
The victorious Chicagoan, who promised before the last election to end Washington's partisan bitterness, strangely uttered the word "fight" five times and "thank you" but seven times. He spoke the word "unify" zero times, "unity" zero times, "heal" zero times and "pray" zero times.
He did, however, manage to mention himself 27 times.
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 13:16||
#16 Sorry, but life isn't fair.
Yeah, and I'm afraid we're all about to find out just how unfair it is.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-07 13:28||
#17 Is it ok for us lot in the UK to hate America now?
Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2012-11-07 13:37||
#18 The posted article is an excellent alarm about the US fiscal situation which is the fault of both parties.
The comments are largely partisan and ignore important facts. The US budget ran in surplus under Clinton and then ran in deep deficit under Bush. Before you blame the Democratic Congress for the Bush deficits, note that large factors were the tax cuts (Republican initiative) and the wars (Republican initiatives). It was/is important to fight jihadists (I am a supporter of this website, after all), but cutting taxes at the same time was not responsible. We did not cut taxes during WWII or Korea, and Johnson was rightly criticized for not raising taxes during Viet Nam, let alone cutting them.
We need a bi-partisan solution to the entitlements morass. Neither party can take on such a disaster-in-the making by itself, as voters would punish whichever party showed political courage. Bashing the other party is natural, especially around election time, but the fiscal mess won't be fixed without dialing down the political rhetoric and working together.
Posted by Odysseus 2012-11-07 14:12||
#19 As long as it's the Administration and the idiots who elected him, #17 Admiral AA.
In fact, you might have to get in line behind the rest of us. >:-(
Posted by Barbara 2012-11-07 14:49||
#20 Odysseus -- Obama has had four years to work with the Repubs on this -- he hasn't met with any Repub about anything about the economy since July 2011 -- something Romney brought up often in his speeches about reaching across the aisle -- I say that falls back into Obama's court -- he's the one that needs to stop bashing..
He also has submitted three budgets and got not vote from either party.
It's more him not wanting to play with anyone --
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 15:19||
#21 I'm leaning toward the thinking that this was about a black man running for president. People saw only that, when they would have seen all the terrible numbers and incompetence had it been anyone else.
George Will wrote a recent column about when Major League Baseball really became color blind ---- it was when the awesome Frank Robinson, the first black manager was fired for not winning enough baseball games.
So no we're not color blind yet, this election had just a touch of AA about it, just enough to matter.
Posted by Shipman 2012-11-07 15:39||
#22 Sherry - And what do you say about my point comparing Clinton surpluses with Bush deficits? The Republican Party used to have Senators who cared about fiscal responsibility like Gramm and Rudman. Now it has a bunch of Grover Norquist disciples and people scared of them.
Posted by Odysseus 2012-11-07 15:46||
#23 Odysseus -- better question is, is there a single Democrat in either chamber of Congress who will vote to restrain non-military spending?
The one and very same Nancy Pelosi who criticized the $400 billion Bush deficits in 2006 today has not a word in complaint about the $1100 billion Obama deficit of 2012, except that she'd like to spend more.
Yes, the Pubs in the early aughts were co-opted by K street. That's one reason why they lost in 2006 and 2008.
Republicans get punished when they lose their way. Democrats get rewarded when they lose our way.
Posted by Steve White 2012-11-07 17:07||
#24 I get tired of people always coming back at me with Bush. I don't defend Bush. I think he made some horrible mistakes. That doesn't leave Obama off the hook.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-07 17:25||
#25 And besides that, Clinton was slime.
He took the credit for a balanced budget when it was really Newt Gingrich who held his feet to the fire.
It was Clinton who beefed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's when the funky mortgages resulted in the housing boom that resulted in the housing bust. That's why the economy tanked in 2008. Bush took the blame but it was Clinton's fault.
It was Clinton who granted most favored nation status to China. They took all our jobs, now they do our manufacturing for us, they pollute more than we ever dreamed of doing and they use the profits to build up their military and threaten us with it. Thanks, Bill.
It was Clinton who threw our border with Mexico wide open thereby turning California into a blue state.
It was Clinton who was having himself serviced by Monica Lewinsky when he should have been killing Osama bin Laden.
Don't gimme that Clinton crap.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-07 17:34||
#26 I believe America made two decisions yesterday.
One was that they would vote for style over substance. A black man with promises and gifts over the unpleasant math.
The second is I think America decided to no longer be the lone super power. I won't be surprised if the military is gutted and the Republicans in Congress blamed. Doesn't matter if it is true or not as the media will relay that and it will be perceived as true and the cuts as necessary. We will get by with air power and drones and nice words and bows and pretend its the same thing until its obvious that it is not.
Feels like the 30s only I don't really see the Axis powers out there. Iran is nasty and China potentially so but they don't seem to be world conquest nasties and if the US just sacrifices a few long standing allies the nasties might be satiated. Not my desire, just my thought on how the thinking will turn even if not spoken aloud.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-11-07 21:16||
#27 Odysseus -- you are learning fast -- moving through the alphabet -- made it to the letter B with "Blaming Bush" -- Big Bird would be proud.
Check out the years 2006 - 2008 -- but then, that would take some energy --- Congress, at least according to our Constitution, controls the pocketbook. Those were the years of the biggest spending, and it was the Dems, not Bush in charge of that spending.... with bullet proof over-ride veto power.
Clinton, too, like Obama, inherited his economy. The economy that Reagan, and by the way, working with Dems, put in place.
The years 2006 - 2008 saw the downfall --- it's widely known, that Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac brought our economy down.
You might want to kinda look at who it was that attempted to put Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac in control -- as their "leaders" made an incredible amount of money that would put the salaries/bonus of private business owners to shame.... Check out Jamie S. Gorelick, the amount of money she made as a director of Fannie Mae -- yes, the same Jamie S. Gorelick that establish that famous stove-pipe that killed the communications/intelligence between our government agency. With that communication opened? Who knows, 911 might not have happened. I don't know how she sleeps each night, but then, probably extremely comfortable 'cause she graduated from that job to one that had yearly compensation in the millions. Nice retirement, if you can get it.
2006 - 2008 Those are the years our economy went out of control -- yea, maybe Bush could have done more... but it would have been hard. Google Bush and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
More than once, he brought up getting control of Fannie Mae and Fanny Mac.... and as all teachers do... repeat, repeat, repeat.... the Dems had bullet proof veto power in the Congress -- the owners of our moneys. They refused to look at Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac.
Progressing into the alphabet, Romney (a really late letter in our alphabet, that letter R) was fighting that letter B -- Blame Bush, Big Bird, bankruptcy, birth control, binders and bullets --
Google is your friend -- research the deficit in each year from 2000 to 2008 --- and with each year, as the deficit grew and at what pace, ask yourself..... who controlled Congress?
Opinions can be changed, facts can't --- except when facts are viewed as we want to see them....
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 21:53||
#28 "Opinions can be changed, facts can't --- except when facts are viewed as we want to see them.... "
-I'm stealing that line!
Posted by Broadhead6 2012-11-07 22:05||
#29 Broadhead -- Rantburg's owe Marine (mine currently is on duty up above, guarding that corner of Saturday Night Steak and Bourbon) -- thank you for that.... means lot....
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 22:17||
#30 that's Rantburg own Marine --- opps....
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 22:19||
#31 Great rant, Sherry.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2012-11-07 22:46||
#32 Abu Uluque -- thank you....
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-07 23:22||