On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
Gotta correct you on the economy. The market is significantly better since Obama has taken office. But the problem is that Obama talked about a V-shaped recovery and we were supposed to return to our pre-crisis trajectory as a result of his policies. By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short. But the economy is definitely in a better place in 2012 than in 2009.
Obama is definitely guilty of overpromising and underdelivering.
I'm Canadian, so my opinion on who Americans vote for ultimately shouldn't matter.
But as bad as the economy is, it has improved.
And I do think the individual mandate will improve healthcare for millions of people in the states, and shouldn't be repealed unless there is a significantly better alternative. I believe that consistent and reliable health care for the middle class will improve the economy in the long term, albeit it in intangible ways.
And I like how Obama has improved foreign relations and the US brand internationally, while implementing a highly effective, hawkish counter-terrorism campaign in the background.
And I have very little confidence in the trickle-down approach to improving the economy. I think it only makes rich people richer and any improvement to the GDP would be illlusory.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
The other choice seems even worse.
As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
To put it more specifically, the Republican party is based on the principle that the government should not interfere in affairs that the people themselves can handle. That is obviously the correct notion, but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. When you let the people do as they please, you let the corrupt do as they please (for instance, bankers). Romney has already pledged to cut all the red tape the Obama administration has enacted in a time where we need more regulation so large banks and corporations don't toy with the economy and make the public bail them out.
Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone, but rather for raising taxes on the wealthy and keeping taxes low for those with under $200K annual income. With the extended Bush Tax Cuts the top bracket pays 35%. While this may sound like a lot, the present loopholes allow them to pay significantly less, not to mention the corporate tax loopholes (and offshoring). In any case, due to these tax cuts we have, naturally, received less tax revenue over the years, driving up our deficit. But the bigger problem with tax cuts for the wealthy is the classic case of "the rich get richer and the poor... are still poor." The income disparity within America has grown enormously ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were introduced. The top 1% of all wage-earners experienced over 80% of all income growth while the working class's wages remained stagnant. I'm also sure you've heard of the numbers 1% owning 40% of all wealth, 10% owning 80% of all wealth. Despite all this Romney wants to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations, and this will end up biting us in the butt by either obliging us to raise taxes on the middle-class or cutting spending on essential services such as education (the backbone of any nation) or both (the more likely option).
So while I do agree with the Republican ideal of less government when appropriate (i.e. let the state handle matters of gun control, education, etc.) there are areas where the Federal government must step in so that those in power don't trample over the unsuspecting public.
Other reasons not to vote for Romney? Personally, I'm much more left-leaning in terms of abortion, gay rights, etc.
I'm not a fan of Obama and his inability to get much done (yes, Republicans have been assholes but Obama is bad at politics), but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. As far as his economic policies go, I'd say he inherited a lot of crap from his predecessor and hasn't had enough time nor support to do what he needs (which is his own fault plus the fault of the Republican Congress).
Can't we all just vote for the Green Party? :<
I agree on much of that. I look past the abortion and gay rights issues of the extreme right wing because, let's face it, abortion is probably never going to get repealed and the gays will get their rights. There is no avoiding these two things. So, the right wing extremists can believe what they want about personal lives, but their governing policies are what i really like.
It is really really really really sad to see how delusional the world can be, why on earth would you vote for obama after all the business's HE made collapse, no construction anywhere other than the union, an unprecedented debt crisis, a RIDICULOUS health care law. sad to see
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
The other choice seems even worse.
As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
To put it more specifically, the Republican party is based on the principle that the government should not interfere in affairs that the people themselves can handle. That is obviously the correct notion, but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. When you let the people do as they please, you let the corrupt do as they please (for instance, bankers). Romney has already pledged to cut all the red tape the Obama administration has enacted in a time where we need more regulation so large banks and corporations don't toy with the economy and make the public bail them out.
Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone, but rather for raising taxes on the wealthy and keeping taxes low for those with under $200K annual income. With the extended Bush Tax Cuts the top bracket pays 35%. While this may sound like a lot, the present loopholes allow them to pay significantly less, not to mention the corporate tax loopholes (and offshoring). In any case, due to these tax cuts we have, naturally, received less tax revenue over the years, driving up our deficit. But the bigger problem with tax cuts for the wealthy is the classic case of "the rich get richer and the poor... are still poor." The income disparity within America has grown enormously ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were introduced. The top 1% of all wage-earners experienced over 80% of all income growth while the working class's wages remained stagnant. I'm also sure you've heard of the numbers 1% owning 40% of all wealth, 10% owning 80% of all wealth. Despite all this Romney wants to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations, and this will end up biting us in the butt by either obliging us to raise taxes on the middle-class or cutting spending on essential services such as education (the backbone of any nation) or both (the more likely option).
So while I do agree with the Republican ideal of less government when appropriate (i.e. let the state handle matters of gun control, education, etc.) there are areas where the Federal government must step in so that those in power don't trample over the unsuspecting public.
Other reasons not to vote for Romney? Personally, I'm much more left-leaning in terms of abortion, gay rights, etc.
I'm not a fan of Obama and his inability to get much done (yes, Republicans have been assholes but Obama is bad at politics), but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. As far as his economic policies go, I'd say he inherited a lot of crap from his predecessor and hasn't had enough time nor support to do what he needs (which is his own fault plus the fault of the Republican Congress).
Can't we all just vote for the Green Party? :<
I agree on much of that. I look past the abortion and gay rights issues of the extreme right wing because, let's face it, abortion is probably never going to get repealed and the gays will get their rights. There is no avoiding these two things. So, the right wing extremists can believe what they want about personal lives, but their governing policies are what i really like.
It's really hit and miss with that. You do need government involvement with nearly all industries at this point regardless of whether you want to believe otherwise. It's a matter of making effective policy and making strong fiscal decisions. There's no general rule who is better about that kind of thing.
And I would not say anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-contraception is extremism in the United States. But social issues have serious economic implications, so you can't just separate them out. There are definite economic benefits to gay marriage, abortion rights, and easy access to contraception.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
The other choice seems even worse.
As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
To put it more specifically, the Republican party is based on the principle that the government should not interfere in affairs that the people themselves can handle. That is obviously the correct notion, but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. When you let the people do as they please, you let the corrupt do as they please (for instance, bankers). Romney has already pledged to cut all the red tape the Obama administration has enacted in a time where we need more regulation so large banks and corporations don't toy with the economy and make the public bail them out.
Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone, but rather for raising taxes on the wealthy and keeping taxes low for those with under $200K annual income. With the extended Bush Tax Cuts the top bracket pays 35%. While this may sound like a lot, the present loopholes allow them to pay significantly less, not to mention the corporate tax loopholes (and offshoring). In any case, due to these tax cuts we have, naturally, received less tax revenue over the years, driving up our deficit. But the bigger problem with tax cuts for the wealthy is the classic case of "the rich get richer and the poor... are still poor." The income disparity within America has grown enormously ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were introduced. The top 1% of all wage-earners experienced over 80% of all income growth while the working class's wages remained stagnant. I'm also sure you've heard of the numbers 1% owning 40% of all wealth, 10% owning 80% of all wealth. Despite all this Romney wants to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations, and this will end up biting us in the butt by either obliging us to raise taxes on the middle-class or cutting spending on essential services such as education (the backbone of any nation) or both (the more likely option).
So while I do agree with the Republican ideal of less government when appropriate (i.e. let the state handle matters of gun control, education, etc.) there are areas where the Federal government must step in so that those in power don't trample over the unsuspecting public.
Other reasons not to vote for Romney? Personally, I'm much more left-leaning in terms of abortion, gay rights, etc.
I'm not a fan of Obama and his inability to get much done (yes, Republicans have been assholes but Obama is bad at politics), but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. As far as his economic policies go, I'd say he inherited a lot of crap from his predecessor and hasn't had enough time nor support to do what he needs (which is his own fault plus the fault of the Republican Congress).
Can't we all just vote for the Green Party? :<
I agree on much of that. I look past the abortion and gay rights issues of the extreme right wing because, let's face it, abortion is probably never going to get repealed and the gays will get their rights. There is no avoiding these two things. So, the right wing extremists can believe what they want about personal lives, but their governing policies are what i really like.
It's really hit and miss with that. You do need government involvement with nearly all industries at this point regardless of whether you want to believe otherwise. It's a matter of making effective policy and making strong fiscal decisions. There's no general rule who is better about that kind of thing.
And I would not say anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-contraception is extremism in the United States. But social issues have serious economic implications, so you can't just separate them out. There are definite economic benefits to gay marriage, abortion rights, and easy access to contraception.
Definitely. Considering how ridiculous some states are, federal minimums and the like are definitely required in pretty much all industries. There's always a line though.
And on social issues, it stems a lot further than just 'extremists believing what they want about personal lives' and abortion/gay rights. Also, just remember who's appointing all the federal judges. Hell, the amount of time it takes a federal judge to get confirmed has been ridiculous, and Obama is hoping to fix that so we have a much more efficient judicial system.
I this supposed to be a "pro-" or "anti-" Obama figure?
Seems to me that it actually is a pretty decent endorsement of the Obama presidency. People responded to the recession negatively, and slowly those figures have started to improve as the economy recovers. The spike is the worst right as Obama took over, and has been shrinking since.....
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
Gotta correct you on the economy. The market is significantly better since Obama has taken office. But the problem is that Obama talked about a V-shaped recovery and we were supposed to return to our pre-crisis trajectory as a result of his policies. By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short. But the economy is definitely in a better place in 2012 than in 2009.
I this supposed to be a "pro-" or "anti-" Obama figure?
Seems to me that it actually is a pretty decent endorsement of the Obama presidency. People responded to the recession negatively, and slowly those figures have started to improve as the economy recovers. The spike is the worst right as Obama took over, and has been shrinking since.....
It's neither, it's just survey data. You see whatever you want to see in it.
But for the record, it's actually a very negative endorsement of the Obama presidency. No president in US history has won re-election with a net negative on "are you better off than a year ago" (in fairness, they started asking in 1964). The really ominous correlation is the increase in real disposable income per person. It has actually fallen 0.3% over Obama's presidency, the worst result since Hoover.
Obviously, this isn't entirely Obama's fault. But he did win the election promising to improve the situation and has fallen far short of that. IMO, the thing to really be angry about is that there isn't a single banker behind bars. It's one thing to say Romney is too cozy with Wall Street and won't bring the thunder, which may or may not be true. But why is Obama signing $25 billion settlements to void any criminal liability for mortgage fraud?
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
Gotta correct you on the economy. The market is significantly better since Obama has taken office. But the problem is that Obama talked about a V-shaped recovery and we were supposed to return to our pre-crisis trajectory as a result of his policies. By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short. But the economy is definitely in a better place in 2012 than in 2009.
Employment is always the absolutely last thing to improve after any economic downturn. Generally employees are a liability that businesses take on in response to demand, not in anticipation of it. This is especially true in times of high economic uncertainty, which the government is already doing almost everything it can do to mitigate.
To see the recovery you have to look at leading indicators.
What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
On August 09 2012 06:26 lowreezy08 wrote: It is really really really really sad to see how delusional the world can be, why on earth would you vote for obama after all the business's HE made collapse, no construction anywhere other than the union, an unprecedented debt crisis, a RIDICULOUS health care law. sad to see
dude u do know the debt crisis is primarily due to the Bush tax cuts? how delusional are you is a good question.
On August 09 2012 06:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Haven't viewed this thread in weeks but I'm glad to see we are still somehow equating market trends with presidential politics.
On August 09 2012 08:50 darthfoley wrote: What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
it's comical.
So he ends up where he started? 360's look impressive too. What's wrong with that
On August 09 2012 06:26 lowreezy08 wrote: It is really really really really sad to see how delusional the world can be, why on earth would you vote for obama after all the business's HE made collapse, no construction anywhere other than the union, an unprecedented debt crisis, a RIDICULOUS health care law. sad to see
links pls. LOL.
Feel free to post when you return from whatever backwater dimension you come from.
On August 09 2012 08:50 darthfoley wrote: What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
it's comical.
So he ends up where he started? 360's look impressive too. What's wrong with that
Happy Birthday.
Maybe he's referring to THIS 360.
So, it's come to this. Today, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney responded to an attack ad disseminated by a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The ad was a controversial broadside, worthy of a response. The spokeswoman spoke against the ad with conviction. She offered a counter argument that was precise and logical and fair. The spokeswoman cleanly invoked her candidate's greatest legislative achievement, in an eminently reasonable way, in her candidate's defense.
And that spokeswoman's response is being hailed as one of the 2012 campaign season's most collossal cock-ups.
In the immediate aftermath of the ad's deployment, the Romney camp issued a relatively standard response, referring to the ad as dishonest and accusing the president and his allies of using such attacks to distract from economic issues. And nothing more might have come of this had Romney's team stuck to that story.
But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."
After that came the deluge of conservatives savaging Saul for getting lost on the road to Damascus, essentially accusing her of giving away the election.
The thing is, though, Saul's logic in citing Romney's creation and implementation of CommonwealthCare in Massachusetts is impeccable. Her baseline argument: If you are going to hit Romney with the Bain practices that allegedly led to this woman losing her health insurance, you surely must credit him for his legislative accomplishments, which enabled thousands of uninsured people to obtain life-saving care. That is, for the most part, pristine reasoning.
The only problem, of course, is that this wasn't offered in 2008, when it would have been hailed as a brilliant defense. We've once again come face to face with the perplexing weirdness at the center of Romney's entire presidential effort: in 2012, Romney is not allowed to run on the singular achievement of his career -- Massachusetts health care -- that earned him a spot in the world of GOP presidential contenders in the first place.
On August 09 2012 08:50 darthfoley wrote: What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
it's comical.
So he ends up where he started? 360's look impressive too. What's wrong with that
So, it's come to this. Today, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney responded to an attack ad disseminated by a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The ad was a controversial broadside, worthy of a response. The spokeswoman spoke against the ad with conviction. She offered a counter argument that was precise and logical and fair. The spokeswoman cleanly invoked her candidate's greatest legislative achievement, in an eminently reasonable way, in her candidate's defense.
And that spokeswoman's response is being hailed as one of the 2012 campaign season's most collossal cock-ups.
In the immediate aftermath of the ad's deployment, the Romney camp issued a relatively standard response, referring to the ad as dishonest and accusing the president and his allies of using such attacks to distract from economic issues. And nothing more might have come of this had Romney's team stuck to that story.
But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."
After that came the deluge of conservatives savaging Saul for getting lost on the road to Damascus, essentially accusing her of giving away the election.
The thing is, though, Saul's logic in citing Romney's creation and implementation of CommonwealthCare in Massachusetts is impeccable. Her baseline argument: If you are going to hit Romney with the Bain practices that allegedly led to this woman losing her health insurance, you surely must credit him for his legislative accomplishments, which enabled thousands of uninsured people to obtain life-saving care. That is, for the most part, pristine reasoning.
The only problem, of course, is that this wasn't offered in 2008, when it would have been hailed as a brilliant defense. We've once again come face to face with the perplexing weirdness at the center of Romney's entire presidential effort: in 2012, Romney is not allowed to run on the singular achievement of his career -- Massachusetts health care -- that earned him a spot in the world of GOP presidential contenders in the first place.
Yes, that was colossally stupid. She should be summarily fired from the campaign for incompetence.
On August 09 2012 08:50 darthfoley wrote: What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
it's comical.
So he ends up where he started? 360's look impressive too. What's wrong with that
Happy Birthday.
Maybe he's referring to THIS 360.
So, it's come to this. Today, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney responded to an attack ad disseminated by a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The ad was a controversial broadside, worthy of a response. The spokeswoman spoke against the ad with conviction. She offered a counter argument that was precise and logical and fair. The spokeswoman cleanly invoked her candidate's greatest legislative achievement, in an eminently reasonable way, in her candidate's defense.
And that spokeswoman's response is being hailed as one of the 2012 campaign season's most collossal cock-ups.
In the immediate aftermath of the ad's deployment, the Romney camp issued a relatively standard response, referring to the ad as dishonest and accusing the president and his allies of using such attacks to distract from economic issues. And nothing more might have come of this had Romney's team stuck to that story.
But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."
After that came the deluge of conservatives savaging Saul for getting lost on the road to Damascus, essentially accusing her of giving away the election.
The thing is, though, Saul's logic in citing Romney's creation and implementation of CommonwealthCare in Massachusetts is impeccable. Her baseline argument: If you are going to hit Romney with the Bain practices that allegedly led to this woman losing her health insurance, you surely must credit him for his legislative accomplishments, which enabled thousands of uninsured people to obtain life-saving care. That is, for the most part, pristine reasoning.
The only problem, of course, is that this wasn't offered in 2008, when it would have been hailed as a brilliant defense. We've once again come face to face with the perplexing weirdness at the center of Romney's entire presidential effort: in 2012, Romney is not allowed to run on the singular achievement of his career -- Massachusetts health care -- that earned him a spot in the world of GOP presidential contenders in the first place.
Yes, that was colossally stupid. She should be summarily fired from the campaign for incompetence.
For telling the truth. It is a monumentally stupid thing to say from a political stance but it also happens to be true. Poor Romney, must be so hard to run a campaign like this.
EPT![[image loading]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BH454_Better_E_20120807182706.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9p5dh.png)
