Romney/Ryan Campaign

[philunderwood]

'Obama the great disabler

By Mark Steyn

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

The other day, I passed a Republican Party county office here in my home state, its window attractively emblazoned with placards declaring "Believe in America. Romney 2012" and "New Hampshire Believes. Romney 2012." There's not a lot of evidence for the latter proposition, but I'm certainly willing to believe that Romney believes that New Hampshire believes. An hour or two later, I chanced to be passing a television set just as the station went to break. The words "WE BELIEVE" appeared on the screen, followed by youthful hands raised to a clear blue sky at the dawn of a new day, shafts of sunlight gleaming through ears of corn, a puppy gamboling across a meadow, a kitten playfully pawing, happy green t-shirted volunteers of many races unloading a recycling carton ... and I thought, despite myself, "Well, say what you like, but the reassuring vapidity of the Romney campaign is at least getting more professional." At the end, in the spot where the off-screen voice is supposed to say "I'm Mitt Romney, and I approve this message," it instead said: "Introducing Purina One Beyond: a new food for your cat or dog."

Well, what do I know? By contrast, the Obama campaign's theme is "Forward" – which, in the context of a second term for Mister You-Didn't-Build-That, I'd carelessly assumed was a poignant allusion to "The Charge of the Light Brigade":

"'Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!' he said:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred."

But apparently the focus groups are oblivious to Lord Tennyson, and "Forward" is seen as sunny and optimistic rather than a deranged lemming-like march into the abyss. In that sense, "Forward" is unusually honest for the Democrats, at least compared with their recent assertions that Romney hasn't paid any taxes in 10 years and personally gives women terminal cancer. "Forward" means "Even more of the same": You can't say he isn't warning us.

Against this, Romney offers "Believe in America." It's a slogan designed not to frighten the horses and, like Purina One Beyond, appeal to both cats and dogs, Republicans and Democrats – or at least those mercurial "independents" on whose whims and fancies the fate of the republic depends. If it were up to me, the campaign slogan would be "You're screwed, losers. Steyn 2012" – or, after yielding to the consultants' internals showing that moderates want something more sunny and upbeat, maybe "Get real, you chumps. Steyn 2012." That's the reason I'm not running. Well, that and the Hawaiian birth certificate.

I wouldn't claim to know what America believes or even what "New Hampshire Believes," but this is what I believe – that another four years of the present statist ascendancy will seal America's fate. As noted here previously, the International Monetary Fund predicts that China will become the world's dominant economic power by 2016. So the guy elected in November will be the first president since Grover Cleveland to know what it feels like to be the global also-ran. Even this, however, understates the size of catastrophe the United States faces. There are no precedents in history for a great power spending itself to death on the scale America is doing. Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt, and has nothing to show for it. Do you know how difficult that is to do? Personal debt per citizen is currently about 50 grand, but at least you got a La-Z-Boy recliner and a gas-fired barbecue out of it. Obama has spent America's future, and left no more trace than if he and his high school "choom gang" had wheeled a barrow of five trillion in large notes behind the gym and used them for rolling paper. Right now, combined total debt in the United States is just shy of $700,000 per family. Add in the so-called "unfunded liabilities" that a normal American business would have to include in its SEC filings but from which U.S. Government accounting conveniently absolves itself, and you're talking about a debt burden per family of about a million bucks. In other words, look around you: the paved roads, the landscaped shopping mall, the Starbucks and the juice bar and the mountain bike store. ... There's nothing holding the joint up.

Hmm. "There's nothing holding the joint up. Steyn 2012": How's that poll with the focus groups? Not exactly "Morning in America," is it? But what happens when you blithely ignore debt for a few decades? Here's a headline from The Wall Street Journal's "Smart Money" this very week: "More retirees are falling behind on student debt, and Uncle Sam is coming after their benefits." Maybe that's the slogan. "It's twilight in America: More retirees are falling behind on student debt."

Half the country is entirely unaware of the existential threat Obama-sized government represents, and Mitt seems in no hurry to alert them to what's at stake, save for occasional warnings that if we're not careful America will end up like Europe. We should be so lucky. The more-likely scenario is something closer to the more corrupt and decrepit fiefdoms of Latin America. Look at the underlying assumptions of the Mitt-gives-you-cancer ad – that in America a businessman is somehow responsible not only for his employee's health, but that of the employee's family members years after said employee has left said employ. No Euro-socialist would even understand the basis of the attack: In its assumptions about the ever-more-tortuous and farther-flung burdens the state can place upon private business, it is quintessentially American.

This election represents the last exit ramp before the death spiral. (Yes, yes, I know: too long for a campaign button.) Obama has spent the past four years making things worse. More debt, more dependency, more delusion. For Act Two, he's now touting the auto bailout as a model for ... everything! "I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry." In the past three years, he has "created" 2.6 million new jobs – a number that does not even keep up with the number of (legal) immigrants who arrive each month. Obama does not "create" jobs, he creates disabled people: In the same period as 2.6 million Americans signed on with new employers, 3.1 million signed on at the Social Security Disability Office. Obama is the first president in history to create more disabled people than workers. He is the biggest creator of disabled people on the planet. He has disabled more people than the Japanese tsunami. More Americans have been disabled by Obama than have been given cancer by Mitt Romney. "Ask yourself, 'Are you more disabled now than you were four years ago?' Obama 2012." Followed by the wheelchair logo with the Obama "O" where the wheel should be. In the Democrats' Dependistan, the wheelchair ramp is downhill all the way.

I support Romney, and I'm not rattled by a bad week's polls. But I am bothered that Romney's insipid message does not rise to the challenge this nation faces. Maybe the milquetoast pantywaist candy-assed soft-focus "Believe in America" shtick will prove sufficient under a relentless barrage of nakedly thuggish attack ads designed to Barry Goldwater the guy. But John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, thinks not: "This is a race he should be able to win," he wrote, "so if he loses, it won't be because Obama won it. It will be because he lost it."

Just so. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. The hour is late, and the man needs to get in the game.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=paul-ryan

Paul Ryan and what his nomination means

Published August 13, 2012 | By Bruce McQuain

It means the Democrats are facing a strong ticket with the announcement of Ryan as the VP nominee. It also finally focuses the ticket where most Americans want it focused – the budget, the size of government, the economy and jobs.

For Mitt Romney the selection of Paul Ryan is about as strong a choice as he could have made. Ryan has an intricate knowledge of the budget and budget process in Congress. That will be a critical skill in the next four years for an administration to have. In effect, Ryan will become the defacto administration budget expert (dare we say “czar”) for the Romney administration and give that administration a level of expertise unknown to most past administrations.

Romney is a “turn around” guy. He knows how to turn ailing businesses and the like around. The combination of Ryan and Romney is and should be compelling to most Americans.

For critics of Romney’s “conservatism”, the addition of Ryan should cool their angst and shore up the conservative base. Ryan is more of a Tea Party conservative (i.e. fixed on fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism) but that is the sort of conservatism which is going to attract the most non affiliated voters.

Our fiscal house is broken and in bad need of repair. This is a team with all the credentials to do that, or at least begin a positive effort to do that (I doubt that it can be fixed in 4 years, but a lot of progress can be made in that time).

And, of course, that means trouble for the Obama administration, whose record is anything but compelling and whose leadership has been anything but inspiring. Ryan, therefore, must be “destroyed” in a political sense. So in the name of “vetting” – something that was never really done for our present president — we will see all sorts of wild stories and opinions flying around concerning the new VP pick.

I’m not sure any of that will matter much though. Why?

Well, there are indicators seem to be pointing out a momentum shift that polls aren’t showing yet (we discuss that on the podcast). A half-full fundraiser for Obama in his home town of Chicago vs an enthusiastic crowd who packed a Romney/Ryan rally at a furniture store in North Carolina. Or the turnout at this event:


Earlier in the day, Romney and Ryan campaigned at the NASCAR Technical Institute in Mooresville, N.C. The Hickory Daily Record reported that the two were “greeted by thousands.” A Romney campaign official told TheDC that an estimated 4,700 people showed up, with 1,700 people inside the event and 3,000 outside.

If the Obama campaign isn’t worried, then they are even more insulated from reality than I thought.

Fundraising is another indicator that all is not well in Obamaland. Romney, even without Ryan as the VP pick, has been consistently bringing in more campaign donations. And not by a little. He’s been crushing the Obama effort. That may be the truest indication to this point of how far the Obama brand has fallen. Donors don’t like to back losers. Indications are that the choice of Ryan will only exacerbate that problem for Obama.

So Paul Ryan means even more trouble for an already troubled Obama campaign.

What should we expect, then? A full-court press by the left and as dirty a campaign as you’ve ever witnessed. The Obama campaign and its media surrogates and pundits are going to be in attack mode from now on. In fact, just peruse some of the stuff already out there today. Expect it to get worse. The “Palin treatment” is called for because … because it worked the last time. I would guess, however, that Ryan may be equal to the task ahead and perhaps turn that treatment back on those who attempt to apply it.

In the meantime, we have the opportunity over the next few months to actually discuss the most important and compelling issues facing us as a nation – if the media will let us. Unfortunately, they usually focus on the horse race after picking sides. And we all know whose side they were shamelessly on last go-round.

So I expect stories like this vs. stories about budget, spending and employment. I expect, given the abysmal Obama record to see continued attempts by media surrogates to distract rather than inform or discuss relevant and important topics.

But then, that seems to be American politics today. What’s surprising is how the left has managed, since the 2010 election, to pretend they never happened and that they’re back in the happy days of 2008 again. I see a lot of “whistling past the graveyard” among them. I see them and the media ignoring some pretty bold indicators that they’re in deep trouble. And I hope they continue to do so.

Look, an economy that’s banging along the bottom of a recessionary dip and an unemployment rate seemingly stuck at about the 8% mark (or 14% if you’re looking at the U6) are not something any president wants to run on and, they’re certainly not something I’d assume he’d be keen about discussing.

If Romney/Ryan will focus and force the debate about those issues without letting the Obama campaign successfully distract and divert that debate, I think they win. And I think Paul Ryan is a strong enough personality to make that happen.

That is what his nomination means. And that means big trouble for Obama.

~McQ

[twinder]

We can only hope that enough people realize what's at stake.

[Ritty77]

[Ritty77]

[philunderwood]

He's got my vote!!!

[Ritty77]

I saw a poll where Ryan's favorability rating was 39% favor, 23% disfavor. That leaves 38% who didn't know him. I'm guessing he gathers in about 30% of that as he gets known, because I can't see him being painted as an extremist or felon or murderer.

What a great pick! Glad I was wrong about Pawlenty.

[Ritty77]

Aug 13, 2012 8:33:24 GMT -5 twinder said:

We can only hope that enough people realize what's at stake.

This election is makers versus takers. Obama did his best to put enough additional people in the takers column. We shall see.

[philunderwood]

The Paul Ryan Choice

By Thomas Sowell

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Governor Mitt Romney's choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate is one of those decisions that seem obvious — if not inevitable — in retrospect, even though it was by no means obvious to most of us beforehand.

Anyone who wants to get a quick sense of who Paul Ryan is should watch a short video of a February 2010 meeting in which Congressman Ryan politely, but devastatingly, "schools" Barack Obama on the utter fraudulence of the statistics that the Obama administration was using to claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That video is available on the Drudge Report.

As a long-time member, and now chairman, of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan is thoroughly familiar with both the facts and the fictions in the federal government's budget. In recent years, the fictions have grown much bigger than the facts. But, as Congressman Ryan reminded the president, hiding spending is not the same as reducing spending.

If this year's election is going to be decided on the basis of hard facts, the Obama administration is doomed. But the Obama campaign is well aware of that, which is why we are hearing so many distracting innuendoes and outright lies about such peripheral issues as what Mitt Romney is supposed to have done while running Bain Capital — or even what is supposed to have happened at Bain Capital, years after Mitt Romney was long gone.

The Obama campaign's big smear, about how Romney is supposed to have caused a woman to die of cancer, has been exposed as a lie by CNN, hardly a Republican network. What smears like this show is that the Obama administration cannot run on its track record, so it has to run on distractions from the country's real problems.

When Senator Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney hasn't paid his income taxes, and demands that Governor Romney disprove this unsubstantiated allegation, that raises an obvious question as to why the Internal Revenue Service has not prosecuted Romney, instead of leaving that to a partisan politician in an election year.

What makes this a farce is that Senator Reid himself has not released his own income tax records, while claiming that Romney's release of only two years of his income tax records is not enough, even though it has been enough for other candidates in other years.

If Mitt Romney releases all his tax records going back to his childhood, it will not put a stop to this fishing expedition, much less bring an apology when those records show nothing illegal. It will just provide more material for making more distracting claims to change the subject from the track record of the Obama administration.

When Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter back in 1980, he asked the question that should be asked of the voters when any president is seeking reelection: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Four years later, when Reagan ran for reelection, he implicitly asked and answered that same question in a campaign commercial titled "Morning in America," which listed the ways the country was better off than it had been four years earlier. Don't look for any "Morning in America" ads from Obama. "Mourning in America" might be more appropriate.

This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.

But, if what they want is emotionally satisfying rhetoric and a promise to give them something for nothing, to be paid for by taxing somebody else, then Obama is their man. This is not to say that the public will in fact get something for nothing or that rich people will just pay higher taxes, when it is easy for them to escape taxation by investing overseas — creating jobs overseas.

Even if most Americans do not have their own taxes raised, that means little, if they end up paying other people's taxes in the higher prices of goods and services that pass along the higher taxes imposed on businesses.

There are no doubt voters who will vote on the basis of believing that Obama "cares" more about them. But that is a faith which passeth all understanding. The political mirage of something for nothing, from leaders who "care," has ruined many a nation.

[twinder]

I would just like to wake up in early November and have a feeling that my kids have a chance in this country. Right now, I truly, do not feel that way.

[relenemiller]

I shop at a (one of many) thrift store on Clayton Ave. in Loyalsock. The women who run that show vary in age, but the minimum would be perhaps 60+ and up....

There were six of them there on Saturday, after the announcement about Ryan. All of them were pleased..very pleased with Ryan. Which makes me wonder what the media (right and left) hype is about the senior vote. Clearly that doesn't speak for the rest of the country...but they have friends, husbands, family and all are pleased. Is the media doing what they do best....steering the election with fear and threats of impending doom? The feel I got on Saturday, and that didn't speak of the positive remarks from customers...was good about Ryan.

What's wrong with this pic?

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=untrue-news

Probably untrue news – 9 Sept 2012 edition

Published September 10, 2012. | By Billy Hollis.

Mitt Romney stopped and bought Girl Scout cookies during a campaign stop this morning. He bought two boxes of Do-si-dos and a box of Trefoil butter cookies.

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz derided the incident as yet more evidence that Romney is out of touch with average Americans. "He didn’t get a single box of Samoas or Thin Mints? That’s unpardonable. Those are the Girl Scout Cookie varieties Americans love. Mitt Romney has proven again that he’s not fit to lead America during this tough economy."

Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called Romney a racist over the flap. "He didn’t buy anything that has any chocolate in it. Not only did he turn down the totally brown Thin Mints, he wouldn’t even take the partially brown Samoas. The only reason I can think of for such blatant insensitivity is outright racism."

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said a friend in the Girl Scouts told him Romney had never purchased Samoas or Thin Mints. "The facts are clear. Unless Romney releases his purchase records of Girl Scout cookies for the last twenty years, we’ll all know exactly what to think."

A Romney campaign spokesman pointed out that the group of Girl Scouts selling cookies outside a supermarket was out of Samoas and Thin Mints. "We were all disappointed that there were no Samoas, but that’s not Mitt Romney’s fault. The Obama economy with its high unemployment has made it impossible for the Girl Scouts to predict how many cookies of each variety to order. I really wanted some Samoas with vanilla ice cream on top, but, hey, that’s just how it goes."

Politifact looked at the Romney campaign’s claim that they didn’t buy Samoas or Thin Mints because they were not available that day. Since there were some Samoas and Thin Mints available from other scouts elsewhere in the country, they rated the claim "mostly false".

[Ritty77]

Today, I exercised my free speech rights in the form of a donation to the Romney campaign. It was a large sum ($28.00), for which I will receive a made-in-America, 100% cotton, navy blue, long-sleeved T-shirt.

R&R2012!

[philunderwood]

Dems, fear not. Romney is a Big-Government Man

By John Stossel

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

President Obama tanked in the last debate. Good.

Now maybe people will listen when Mitt Romney says things like, "The genius of America is the free enterprise system, and freedom, and the fact that people can go out there and start a business. ... The private market and individual responsibility always work best."

They do.

But then Romney responded to Obama by essentially saying: I want big government, too!

We who hope for smaller government as a way to expand liberty and create prosperity are disturbed by what we heard last week. The GOP candidate painted himself as a big government man.

"Regulation is essential. ... Every free economy has good regulation."

He added the obligatory, "Regulation can become excessive," but showed no sign of understanding that free competition — unrestricted by government monopolistic privilege — is the best regulation. Nothing better protects consumers and workers than free choice in a competitive marketplace.

Romney also made it clear that he doesn't want to reduce government revenues. He insisted that his 20 percent cut in tax rates would be revenue neutral.

"In order for us not to lose revenue — have the government run out of money — I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth."

I'm all for slashing deductions and simplifying taxes, but the 1980s taught me to be wary. The top rate went back up — from 28 to 39.6 percent at one point — but the deductions repealed are likely gone forever.

Then Romney said, "I'm not looking to ... reduce the revenues going to the government."

Why not? The less revenue in government hands, the more private individuals can do wonderful things with it.

Romney emphasizes revenue neutrality because he doesn't want to be accused of proposing to increase the budget deficit, which he repeatedly pounded Obama over. He could avoid that charge by calling for spending cuts. Our deficit is a spending, not a tax revenue, problem. The federal government already collects $2.6 trillion! That's more than enough.

Romney says, "I will eliminate all programs by this test: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it."

Great. But I don't believe it. He did say he'd take away Big Bird's and Jim Lehrer's appropriation. Fine. Big Bird doesn't need the money. PBS-like programming will thrive without taxpayer handouts, and America shouldn't have "government TV" anyway. But the cut would be only $445 million out of a nearly $4 trillion budget. Big deal.

He also said he'd "make government more efficient."

Gee, haven't other politicians thought of that? The claim is meaningless. That promise is made and broken year after year. Efficiency requires a market test, but since government gets its money by force, there is no market test.

He said he'd "combine some agencies and departments" and cut back the number of employees." But he quickly added: "through attrition." Attrition! That isn't leadership. It isn't even management. "Attrition" means good people leave and the deadwood stays. I suppose Romney fears losing votes from government workers. Much of the time, Romney endorsed government spending. "I do not believe in cutting our military."

Never mind that we now spend at Cold War levels and that our military tab is as big as the rest of the world's combined.

He criticized the federal government's many worthless job training programs, but did he call for repeal? No: "We got to get those dollars back to the states."

On America's useless Education Department: "I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I'm planning on continuing to grow."

Geez. Grow? What good would that do? The feds already suck $100 billion from state taxpayers only to return it later with strings. It hasn't improved test results. The department has been a complete waste of money. If the Republican candidate won't even eliminate that intrusive bureaucracy, there's little hope.

Maybe Paul Ryan will do better at the vice presidential debate tomorrow night.

[Ritty77]

[Ritty77]