Article

2012-07-09 -Election 2012

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.

Posted by Fred 2012-07-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Romney's going to have to do a hell of lot more than these weak jabs at Obama's handling of the economy if he actually intends to win. He's trying to engage a Chicago alley thug using Marquess of Queensberry rules...and President McCain has already shown how well that works.

Despite all his negatives and his trainload of baggage, Obama looks like he's slowly starting to pull away from Romney. None of the national polls show even a tiny lead for Mittens - even Rasmussen has it as a tie. And Breitbart News passed along info from Opensecrets.com, proving that Obama's been lying about his fundraising "disadvantage". As of 5/31, Obama had about 6x more money in the bank than Romney, and is already outspending him.

And all this was before SCOTUS delivered the political equivalent of an armor-piercing bomb into a powder magazine. The conservative punditry are frantically trying to spin the Obamacare decision as a brilliant strategic move on the part of Chief Justice ~~Arnold~~ ~~Quisling~~ ~~Petain~~ Roberts. If it was so phuecking brilliant, why is Team Ogabe and its media sockpuppets still doing the happy dance over it? They know damn well that The Won can go into November saying He's "delivered a true national healthcare system" despite the efforts of those eeeeeville RepubliKKKans to disrupt His efforts.

If Romney really wants to win this thing instead of just being McCain Mk. 2 Mod 0, he'd better get out of this Ward Cleaverish "America can do better" schtick in favor of some "we're going to hold Obama by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass; we're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and go through him like crap through a goose." Romney and his surrogates need to vet this Marxist bastard the way the media should have done four years back. Have someone dig out his college and law-school transcripts - if it's OK for the New York Times and Wikileaks to publish top-secret documents, it's OK for Team Romney to get Ogabe's background info by any means necessary. Put that video of Harlem political figure Percy Sutton indiscreetly discussing Obama's legal education being funded by a radical black Muslim with Saudi-embassy connections into a primetime ad, and run it over and over again. Pin Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid Rashidi, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis to Obama's liver...and don't forget to remind the undecided voting public that such dubious associations, maintained for decades, would make a junior government employee or member of the military ineligible for any security clearance. Worried about looking "mean," Mittens? Tough shit. These bastards are playing by Chicago rules; and the wise Mr. Connery has already said what you need to do in response:

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-07-09 04:14|| 2012-07-09 04:14|| Front Page Top

#2 He's trying to engage a Chicago alley thug using Marquess of Queensberry rules...and President McCain has already shown how well that works.

Can't disagree with you on the thrust of your comment. But, when was McCain President?

Posted by Secret Asian Man 2012-07-09 07:05|| 2012-07-09 07:05|| Front Page Top

#3 At this point in 1980 Carter had a nine point lead on Reagan.

Sometime in late October a fair number of Americans are going to decide that they don't want the next four years to be like the last four years. That will decide the election.

Posted by Steve White 2012-07-09 08:05|| 2012-07-09 08:05|| Front Page Top

#4 I think thats the point.

Still four months out. Jabs are fine so long as they hit.

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-07-09 08:47|| 2012-07-09 08:47|| Front Page Top

#5 >I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.
¯ Daniel Webster

Posted by Besoeker 2012-07-09 09:15|| 2012-07-09 09:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Concentrating too much on jobs leaves Romney vunerable if the job market gets better and makes him appear gleeful that the job market is bad. Dangerous stuff. He needs to keep things a bit generic this far out.

And hit Obamacare and taxes really hard.

Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-07-09 09:52|| 2012-07-09 09:52|| Front Page Top

#7 But, when was McCain President?

An early AM attempt at sarcasm.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-07-09 10:24|| 2012-07-09 10:24|| Front Page Top

#8 He needs to keep things a bit generic this far out. And hit Obamacare and taxes really hard.

My point is that Romney needs to make Obama himself the main issue. This red-diaper baby with his scanty resume and his Cook County rogues' gallery of mooks, fixers, bagmen, crackpots and terrorists should have been stopped when he was still thinking about the Illinois state senate, much less the Presidency.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-07-09 10:33|| 2012-07-09 10:33|| Front Page Top

#9 There's another dimension to this which is perhaps not so apparent to those of us fired up at Rantburg.

I'm hearing a LOT of people say they are sick and tired of negativity and a barrage of political attack claims. They are tuning them out, big time. And because they feel overwhelmed, they assume Obama might be as well.

Attack too much, too hard, on too many fronts and they will vote for Obama out of weariness and a certain degree of sympathy.

FWIW, these include family members who tend to be centrist and who live in three major swing states.

Posted by lotp 2012-07-09 10:34|| 2012-07-09 10:34|| Front Page Top

#10 lotp, if I had spare funds to bet I'd put down some money on the proposition that your centrist relatives know little or nothing about Obama's dodgy background and associations. That's NOT a slam on them; I know some very astute and very conservative people who (because they're not current-affairs and politics obsessives like me) still get all of their information from MSM sources.

One friend, a successful local business owner, had never heard of either JournoList or Fast & Furious. His office manager, a nice and very smart lady best described as rabidly conservative, had nonetheless bought hook-line-and-sinker the MSM's Big Lie about Sarah Palin being a drooling idiot. As a busy professional, and not a political junkie, it just hadn't occurred to her to wonder why the Dems and their media stooges were working so hard to paint Ms. Palin as a moron if she was really a flash in the pan, instead of a long-term threat to multiple leftist narratives.

Obama was put into office by MSM lies, cheerleading and open coordination with the Obama campaign, and they're determined to use the same strategy to reelect him. That's why a large part of the Republican campaign has to involve the vetting of Obama that the MSM still refuses to do. High-minded, above-it-all campaigning that deemphasizes partisan differences between candidates simply doesn't work, or else President McCain would be citing President Dewey as his life's inspiration. I'm not saying to make Obama's background and associations the sole focus of the Trunks' efforts, but it needs to be a part of them. This time around, the stakes are just too damned high.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-07-09 11:21|| 2012-07-09 11:21|| Front Page Top

#11 At this point in 1980 Carter had a nine point lead on Reagan.

True enough, but 32 years later (good God, I'm getting old) we have both a different media and a different electorate. Not insurmountable challenges, but certainly difficult ones...

Different media: The folks at the alphabet networks, the NYT and the WaPo no doubt personally favored Carter over Reagan. But they still had enough residual journalistic integrity to refrain from joining themselves at the hip with the Carter campaign, or from flat-out lying in order to assist him.

Different electorate: The Sixties radicals who now run the universities and determine how our children are taught history and civics were either in grad school or in junior faculty positions in 1980. I went to college and business school fairly late in life (finished undergrad at age 36 via years and years of night school), and didn't see the emphasis on the Race-Class-Gender holy trinity becoming dominant until the early 1990's. I'd bet that more than half the nation's current voters have spent all their schooling being marinated in "progressive" orthodoxy.

Also, in 1980, Hispanics had a smaller share of the nation's overall voting population than Jews...hell, Reagan was even able to carry California in 1980. It wasn't until Bubba's Administration that the southern border was well and truly thrown open - I still remember local SoCal news coverage talking about coyotes openly bringing vanloads of illegal migrants to Lindbergh Field in San Diego and handing them their one-way plane tickets to locations all across the country. As late as 1986, the Hispanic population of my home state of Ohio could practically be counted on one hand; now, there are large enclaves of illegals...who can be counted on to vote for guess which party?

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-07-09 12:10|| 2012-07-09 12:10|| Front Page Top

#12 Ricky, you are making some excellent points here. Bravo.

One thing I might add about OBummer's college transcripts: Any halfway decent job I ever had required my college transcripts before I was hired. You would think that an applicant for President of the United States should be required to disclose his. You would think. OK, maybe not legally, but a fair and objective media would certainly be asking about it. So would a Republican Party that had a true determination to win this election.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-07-09 13:28|| 2012-07-09 13:28|| Front Page Top

#13 RbR, valid points all. But here's the gig. As much as you may see what appears to be a unified front, Democrats are scared shitless right now - and for good reason. Even some of Obamas die-hard supporters (In their moments of private assessment) are wringing their hands and askingMaybe he is over his head? Even the most casual observers have somewhat made up their mind about President Obamas character. The real question is; what do you get when you appoint a man to the highest executive office that has absolutely no executive experience. The answer; Take a look around brother!

Posted by DepotGuy 2012-07-09 20:06|| 2012-07-09 20:06|| Front Page Top

23:18 SteveS
23:04 Sherry
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:04 JosephMendiola
22:00 gorb
21:58 SteveS
21:48 Pappy
21:21 lotp
20:43 Vortigern Hupoluse1541
20:25 Besoeker
20:16 Thing From Snowy Mountain
20:12 Bright Pebbles
20:06 DepotGuy
19:55 Deacon Blues
19:38 gromky
19:19 Frank G
19:19 Zhang Fei
19:08 Charles
19:05 Iblis
19:02 Raider