world

Obama hunting for votes on non-stop 40-hour blitz of states

89 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Romney has been called a flip-flopper; but he is still light years better than the liar-in-chief 1) Obama lied about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi -- released cables sent to the WH, State Dept and other agencies in real-time confirm it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous mob action. Obama kept blaming the video for three weeks. The ambassador and three other Americans are killed and he heads to Vegas to raise money. Obama could have sent a rapid response force from Sicily BUT he chose to do nothing! 2) Third debate Obama said Romney wanted US car companies to go bankrupt, BUT according to Romney's OP-ED at that time he did not say that AND it was confirmed by Factcheck.org and MSNBC HOWEVER even yesterday Obama is still claiming Romney wanted the car companies to go bankrupt. The man will say anything to stay in the WH. Okay, liberal posters, lets see how fast I can reach double-digit negatives -- you cannot dispute the facts...

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

@tatanka

Or, Obama telling the Des Moines Register he has "absolutely" no regrets about ignoring the economy during the first two years in office, when the party he leads controlled the Congress.

Heh, now that statement will go over well with American voters.

RR

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Wonder if he'll visit all 57 states?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

" "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

Was he including Canada?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Great to hear the president's packing his binders of women.

Oh, hang on, that's the other guy, lol :-)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It's desperation time for Barry. The Obama campaign is getting nervous about the momentum Romney has in the polls:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57540377/some-polls-worth-putting-in-the-waste-bin-says-obama-camp/?tag=categoryDoorTopNews;catDoorTopNews

Romney now has parity with women and leads with independents. I am beginning to sense that Romney is winning.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The deception in chief used the word "B.S". on rolling stone interview, what kind of president is he? Usually when a person utters such a word, it really reflect one's own core value and identity. Just wondering, is Barrack Hussein Obama is trying to out do Joe Biden? C'mon, you can be better than that, and please keep this type of language on the street of Chicago. Contents of character, anyone!

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

BGood - "The deception in chief used the word "B.S". on rolling stone interview, what kind of president is he?"

I agree and feel your outrage.

"Barrack Hussein Obama is trying to out do Joe Biden? C'mon, you can be better than that,.."

C'mon, indeed!

Barrack HUSSEIN Obama (<-- please remember to capitalize the president's middle name - it looks scarier that way to people who know he was born in Kenya. Whoops! Please don't repeat that), yes, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama has also been known to >roll his sleeves up< in the Oval Office. 

Conservative heads were exploding nationwide over that travesty of style.

Outrage indeed!

However, as a way to perhaps soothe your frayed nerves, I just want to say True American Conservatives need to be proud of Senate leader John Boehner, a man so proud to be American he cries at every chance he gets. 

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I really wonder, considering that Obama over the past 4 years, never stopped campaigning, will he, if re-elected finally decide to become President, or will he continue his non-stop campaign until 2016?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

@Bgood

Obama is slowing coming unhinged now blurting out words like BS? He has a problem with his temper and especially with his mouth! Desperation is so high, it's becoming quite noticeable. Him and Biden don't have the first idea of what class and tact mean.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@Molenir

True dat. Seems like Obama's handlers ever told the campaigner-in-chief he was (s)elected president in '08.

RR

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

@bass

Yeah, a sitting president using gutter language in an magazine interview while attempting to get re-elected shows "The One" is now in full meltdown mode.

Then again, perhaps he's trying to get defeated because I don't think he wants the job anymore beause, well, it's a real job; something he's never had to do. Besides, after he loses next month, he and his family will be living on our tax dollars for the rest of their lives.

RR

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@bass

Obama is slowing coming unhinged now blurting out words like BS?

First of all, who cares? Its not like no one has ever heard or seen the word before. Secondly, republican hypocrisy knows no bounds...None. McCain drops Fbomb all the fricken time and no one ever criticized him. Santorum nearly used a racial slur during a speech until he caught himself. Rick Perry own a ranch FOR SEVERAL YEARS called "N-!-g-g-e-r-Head". Ann Coulter referred to Obama as a "r-e-t-a-r-d" ...shall I go on? There is more, ya know. So before you put on this self-righteous act that republicans like to do, might want to look at the people in your own party.

He has a problem with his temper

LOL...quite the opposite. Obama is not known for blowing his top. He is known for being too cool. I wish he was more emotional and got angrier and put congress in their place, but he won't do it. Here's is someone who is known for losing their cool: McCain, Bush 43, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and if you want to go all the way back, Nixon. Did the Fox News's of the world criticize them? No. It's always Obama the angry black man, except -he's NEVER angry enough.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Its not like no one has ever heard or seen the word before.

Ah, but Taka, it is the first time such course language was uttered by a sitting president in a sit-down interview with a magazine.

RR

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

This is really really funny.

Conservatives are getting all upset because their president said 'BS'?

Heh, they know the walls are closing in on their guy's campaign. The desperation is so thick I'm almost wiping it off my PC screen.

Time to wipe the slate clean and another candidate to maybe try and win in 2016?

Good times. :-)

2 ( +5 / -3 )

McCain drops Fbomb all the fricken time and no one ever criticized him.

If you wanna get in the face of a Navy guy who survived five years in the Hanoi Hilton, dozoo.

Rick Perry own a ranch FOR SEVERAL YEARS called "N-!-g-g-e-r-Head"

And each year federal money is given to an educational institution called the United Negro College. Your point?

Ann Coulter referred to Obama as a "r-e-t-a-r-d"

Yes, yes. Freedom of speech is allowed as long as that speech agrees with liberals.

RR

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Obama has received a big official endorsement from General Colin Powell today. This is huge.

General Powell said, "Romney is a MOVING TARGET". This is the best described and damaging criticism about Romeny from the most trusted US General.. Well said, General.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Conservatives - considering you've got so much energy to hassle your president over a couple of choice words, how about chasing up your guy Mitt and asking him for his policy specifics so you can continue to pretend you "support" him and them?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Mirai

First of all, who cares? Its not like no one has ever heard or seen the word before.

It's just swearing, so why not? We heard it all before, so it should be Ok. I have kids and NO, I don't want them to hear it and it they use it, I'm going to be pissed off, if they are off with their friends and NOT in my house, I don't care. But you need to have boundaries. And usually, people that aren't intellectually bright will resort to using profanity.

Secondly, republican hypocrisy knows no bounds...None.

Sorry, both sides are prone to this. Difference is that Biden and Obama have a very loose tongue! A little too much, but what can you expect from 2 people that use Chicago and Philly thug style politics.

McCain drops Fbomb all the fricken time and no one ever criticized him.

McCain is NOT the President.

Santorum nearly used a racial slur during a speech until he caught himself. Rick Perry own a ranch FOR SEVERAL YEARS called "N-!-g-g-e-r-Head". Ann Coulter referred to Obama as a "r-e-t-a-r-d"

Again, if Obama were not the President, I wouldn't care so much, but as such, a bit of decorum would be a good thing.

...shall I go on?

Hasn't stopped you before.

There is more, ya know. So before you put on this self-righteous act that republicans like to do, might want to look at the people in your own party.

I have, Oh, have I and it seems like Dems with their over the top liberal progressive, I am better than thou attitudes have a lot more willingness to use profanity and see nothing wrong with it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/07/profanity-greater-on-liberal-blogs/?page=all

Obama does lose his cool and here you go again, so Liberals don't lose their cool???! Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, you think these guys are famous for being subtle???!! I can go on, don't go there. Liberals are just as prone to fly off the handle. Obama's color has NOTHING to do with anything, that is a liberal cop out and talking point that you guys constantly lose every time when you are losing an argument.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

All this stuff happens on both sides.

Let's not try to pretend only one side owns the muck.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I like how Obama can talk like Bill "Bojangles" Robinson when he is in front of a crowd of "African-American" even though he grew up in Hawaii -- pandering to the nth degree...

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

have kids and NO, I don't want them to hear it and it they use it, I'm going to be pissed off, if they are off with their friends and NOT in my house,

Look, I hear you on this. We never want our kids to grow up with a potty mouth (LOL). But the fact of the matter is, if you're kids are already in school, they'll not only hear it, they'll use it...especially in Japan because profanity is not taboo here. They are just words.

Do we want our politicians to use these words? I personally don't care, but some people do and that's okay too. But you also have to realize (and this is the pointed I wanted to make) is that EVERYONE uses it. Why? Because the words exist. Romney probably swears a lot too. Maybe Obama shouldn't have used profanity to prove a point, but is this going to change the way he leads or his positions? NO. That's why I say who cares. Republicans are so read to pounce on every little "human" thing that Obama does. He gets attacked for playing basketball instead of bowling, he get attacked for using mustard on his burger instead on ketchup, he gets attacked for being a smoker, as if no president ever smoked a cigarette...etc etc.

You talk about the dems being desperate, but when republican nit pick on little things like this, saying that the dems are desperate is hardly a convincing argument.

Again, if Obama were not the President, I wouldn't care so much, but as such, a bit of decorum would be a good thing.

Yeah, but these are PUBLIC figures. You can't say its not okay for Obama to use "BS", and think that its okay or acceptable for republican figures to use racial slurs. If you're going to criticize Obama, you've got to criticize the above named people as well because they are equally if not worse.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Bass - "Obama's color has NOTHING to do with anything, that is a liberal cop out and talking point that you guys constantly lose every time when you are losing an argument."

It would be nice if that were even half true.....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Tatanka - "I like how Obama can talk like Bill "Bojangles" Robinson when he is in front of a crowd of "African-American" even though he grew up in Hawaii -- pandering to the nth degree..."

Your implication that conservative politicians don't pander is correct.

Thanks for raising it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Romney now has parity with women and leads with independents. I am beginning to sense that Romney is winning.

Too quick to call. If Obama gets Ohio where he is now leading ahead of Romney, all Obama needs is one of these three states; Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa. He does not have to win all three state. Obama just needs one of them. Then the game is over.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I like how Obama can talk like Bill "Bojangles" Robinson when he is in front of a crowd of "African-American" even though he grew up in Hawaii -- pandering to the nth degree...

Here is a newsflash for you Tantaka, you might want to sit down for this because it's BIG: Obama is....BLACK! He's an African-American speaking in an African-American dialect in front of African-Americans....ooooo big fricken deal.

Did you know that when Toru Hashimoto (mayor of Osaka) is giving a speech on TV, he uses standard dialect, and when he is speaking with fellow Osaka residents he speaks in Kansai dialect? I suppose that's pandering too..NO?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

globalwatcher - "Then the game is over."

Lights out for Mitt Romney and the GOP will be "God's will" too. :-)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@GW

When you look at the popular vote, yes Romney is winning. When you look at the electoral votes (the votes that count) Obama has the edge, and the easier path to victory. If Romney loses Ohio, he'll need to win ALL of the swing states to win, whereas Obama needs to just win like 3 states (states he's already leading in)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Talking about God’s will, I gotta say I find it pretty amusing how Christian conservatives rail against it so often.

If something happens. It must have been God’s will. Otherwise it would never have happened.

Barack Obama was elected ==> God’s will.

Christian conservatives rail against Barack Obama ==> Christian conservatives rail against God’s will.

Shouldn’t God’s followers be submitting to his will????

Oh dear.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

pandering to the nth degree...

BTW, Tantaka...here is a good example of pandering to the nth degree: wearing brown face in front of a Mexican audience and speaking broken Spanish ....ROTFLFAO

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Tatanka - " like how Obama can talk like Bill "Bojangles" Robinson when he is in front of a crowd of "African-American" "

What's with the quote marks around "African-American"??

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Mitt panders to the conservative crowd when he talks like he's explaining something to a 5 -year-old. :-)

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Economic meltdown. Who was in power for 8 (yes 8) years? The Republicans. 1929. Economic meltdown. Who was in power throughout the 1920s? The Republicans. All you Reps who blame Obama for the dismal state of the U.S. should take a look back in history. If you are rich, by all means, vote for Romney. If you want a bit more equality for all people, think again. And as for the rape comments, how could anyone vote for the present Republican party? I mean, are you kidding me?
2 ( +4 / -2 )

"Obama hunting for votes"

What, he's not sure if he's gonna have enough votes?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There should be the year 2008 at the beginning of that paragraph.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

General Powell said, "Romney is a MOVING TARGET". This is the best described and damaging criticism about Romeny from the most trusted US General.. Well said, General.

Interesting, If Colin Powell was more of the Conservative bent, say like Congressman Alan West and Mr, Powell stated that "Obama is a Moving target" the howls from the left would have deafening. Gun language, imagery, violence and all. The Media would have piled it on also with a healthy dose of appealing to extremists for good measure. But since he went with Obama it's "well said".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@SushiSake: Don't go all Chris Matthews on me. Nothing special with the quotes, I am not sure what the term is in the US that will not offend African-Americans, blacks, people of color or whatever.

@Mirai: What if Romney talked like Bojangles in front of an African-American crowd? I could hear the howls now from the liberal posters -- he' s pandering!! Just because Obama is (half) black, he doesn't have to talk like he's from the south -- especially since he is from Hawaii. He's pandering -- admit it....

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Powell is a Reagan-era republican and has been consistent in all of his positions. Everyone else around him has shifted to the right (including Obama), making him look liberal. So its only natural that his positions are now more in line with democratic positions. If I were Powell, I would declare myself an independent and divorce myself from the crazies.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

But was it "God's will" to create enough conservative voters so that GWB would be voted in, annihilate the economy and pave the way for the election of America's first black president?

I would offer yes, although I'm confidant conservatives would disagree because Barack Obama is bla- - I mean bad for the economy (like economy-tanking GWB wasn't?)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sail, good point.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"...a non-stop 40 hour blitz of states that will decide the election. "

This will decide the election, eh? then what was the last four years of campaigning all about? Just waste our time, when the non-stop 40 hour blitz of states will decide the election.

Some ask what Obama will do the next four years; That's easy! Elected or NOT, he will stop blaming Bush. And start blaming Romney!

It's good there is an election though; blaming Bush for things like Benghazi, the failure of bailouts, and Eco-economy's Green-Ink Foot-Print are starting to wear thin. If his economy continues to go as he planned it, he will be blaming Romney for it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The row put Romney in an awkward spot

Really? Can't he just say one thing in one speech to one group, then say the opposite in another speech to another group? Since he's been embracing the flop he's actually doing better.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I just want to tell you that GOP has just realized a big mistake for VP choice of Paul Ryan. They do not know what to do with him as he is not helping Romney campaign. So Paul Ryan has been stashed to the South RED states only. No where near to WI, OH, IA, CO. This tells me they are in trouble..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So Paul Ryan has been stashed to the South RED states only. No where near to WI, OH, IA, CO. This tells me they are in trouble..

The local paper here seems pretty excited about him visiting this Saturday.

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Ryan to campaign in Clinton County Saturday

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will be in Clinton County on Saturday for a campaign rally.

Clinton County Republican Party Chairman Geoffrey Phillips said, "I think it's a unique opportunity given the importance of Ohio's vote as a swing state to allow Clinton Countians and folks in the immediate area a chance to meet, greet and hear from our Republican vice presidential candidate."

http://wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=202456

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Mitt panders to the conservative crowd when he talks like he's explaining something to a 5 -year-old. :-)

He's afraid of appearing to be "too educated", some republicans find that off-putting. Much better to appear "folksy". Y'all understand what I mean?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Global -"I just want to tell you that GOP has just realized a big mistake for VP choice of Paul Ryan. They do not know what to do with him as he is not helping Romney campaign."

I pointed out as much a week after Ryan was selected.

He's too similar to Romney, too young, has zero foreign policy experience and brings nothing except a large family and some gym-built biceps to the ticket.

Romney made a huge mistake in his pick - between them, Romney/Ryan have ZERO foreign policy experience.

ZERO.

GWB picked Cheney precisely to get that experience, as did Obama. Both bush and Obama went with older men for VP.

Mitt has done the exact opposite.

What was he thinking? (assuming he actually can)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

He's afraid of appearing to be "too educated", some republicans find that off-putting.

Highly doubtful.

The Pew Research Center has measured knowledge of current affairs by the general public for decades.

While that particular question produced the largest partisan difference, the survey finds that Republicans are generally more apt to answer knowledge questions correctly, something the report notes is "typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/what-americans-know-pew-research-party-positions-leaders_n_1418489.html

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Have you seen or heard the bit by Howard Stern where Obama supporters were asked various questions? It's hilarious. Really showed how uninformed those particular individuals were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why is Obama running around "hunting for votes" when the only "achievements" he's accomplished are:

-23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed

-47 Million on Food Stamps

-5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure

-$4,300 Drop in Household Income

-$5.5 Trillion of New Debt

-$716 Billion in Medicare Cuts

-$2.6 Trillion for Obamacare

-100% Increase in Gas Prices

RR

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Obama's path for re-election is simpler than Romney's. Obama only has to hold the states that's clearly leaning Democrat, plus Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa --3 battleground states where he's leading-- and that's enough electoral votes.

Romney's paths are more complicated unless he wins Ohio. He could still win it without Ohio, but that's almost impossible, even if he wins Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia back from Obama.

Furthermore, the overall popular vote is so tight, that this may again be an election where the winner doesn't win the popular vote, like George W. Bush back in Year 2000.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

47 Million on Food Stamps

Riiight. Obama FORCED people to be on food stamps. A vote for RYAN/(romney) would immediately solve this problem simply by removing funding for food stamps. See, if you ignore hunger, it doesn't exist, especially if you live in a gated community.

The U.S. government presently pays about $20 billion in cash annually to farmers to produce food; some might feel a tiny percentage of that is too much to pay for people to be able to confuse it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

RoemoRII: what is Obama's role in gas price? And in my opinion it is still too cheap in the US while half of the planet is trying hard to reduce CO2 emissions. He should have achieved 200% increase!

I'm ready to get the record thumbs down, don't worry!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"He ( Obama ) should have achieved 200% increase! ( in the price of gasoline)"

Heh, if he had "achieved" that, he might even lose California.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Now that Romney is endorsing the Ind. idiot Murdock who thinks rape is an act of God, he is finished.

Where will the republican insanity on what is a womans own decision end? It is taking on taliban type characteristics now. Legitimate rape and now god supported rape? The whole party has become one big joke, even the Romboid, if he could display emotion, would feel shame for his crumbling party. Old windbags telling women how to live their lives, even if they are raped. Amazing.

Poll numbers are showing Romney fading badly now. He is losing ground in 90 percent of polls recently.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hmmm... Rasmussen has Romney leading Obama 50% to 46% in the swing states... they must be in the tank for Romney...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Gas prices ramen?

$25 a barrel before bush invaded Iraq.

Your Romnesia is getting worse. Maybe you and 'lil Davy can get a group rate if healthcare is out of your reach?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Gas prices Madverts?

$1.38 when Reagan was president.

Your Romnesia is getting worse, ha ha, and who's 'lil Davy?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Sushi

It would be nice if that were even half true.....

"Half true?" It's all true! If you disagree with Obama on ANYTHING the end result is because he's Black. If you don't vote for him, it's because you are Black, If Republicans shout out, "you lie" or question him on ANY policy or if you are against Obamacare, you are a racist. When Dems and liberals can't win on ANY argument, the last resort is to use the mantra of race, because they know that will stop the argument, that is their ace, because they can't win on merit alone

This is something that you constantly see on the MegaSocialist National Barack Channel and this is what they do best, "play the race card."

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/263443-chris-matthews-racial-hatred-drives-romney-support

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

What was he thinking? (assuming he actually can)

He can apparently think well enough to have a Master's from Harvard, a successful business giving him a net worth of about $200 million or so, and a governorship in the process. I don't know, that probably takes a bit of 'smarts' I should think. Better than you, I and most of the other 'brilliant' folks arguing on here have done. And exactly what foreign policy experience did the President have before gaining office? Or was it all relying on 'crazy-eye' old smokin Joe to get her done?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@RR

-23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed

-47 Million on Food Stamps

-5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure

-$4,300 Drop in Household Income

-$5.5 Trillion of New Debt

-$716 Billion in Medicare Cuts

-$2.6 Trillion for Obamacare

-100% Increase in Gas Prices

Don't just stop there...

AAA rating downgraded to AA

$16T (previous)

Black unemployment 14.4% Hispanic 11%

3.5 Billion in borrowed money weekly from China

Cutting the Defense by $487 billion (while China is increasing theirs by 18%)

No Annual Budget

GDP is at 1.3%

But wait! There's more!! A whole lot more...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

But bass, don't forget he personally gave the order to get Osama, plus he saved Government, er, General Motors' union jobs, plus he won the Nobel Peace Prize for... well, he won it! Plus he has such a winning smile!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

bass4funk: when and why did the subprime crisis happen? This Cr&%#p contaminated the whole world within weeks. You do not overcome that in a second. Romneysia maybe?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Since we're throwing around cute little terms I just heard a good one - if the President is re-elected for a second term then we shall all be committing Obamicide. Maybe it's an old one, but I had not heard it. Thought it played well with 'Romnysia'.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Another huge endorsement from the Washington Post for Obama. Washington Post for Obama? Unheard of. This is huge.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is always easier to defend short term gain (Romney) than long term vision (Obama). Romney surfs on known things that made USA strong, while Obama try to move USA to modern era. Innovation and change is difficult to implement, but these are the prerequisite for prosperity. USA used to be a pioneer, and used to be a role model, do not give up!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@ol

when and why did the subprime crisis happen?

When Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from the oversight comity wouldn't reign themselves in and approving loans to people that should have never gotten them in the first place and what happened as a result; they defaulted on the loans, a large majority of them. That was the start, but the true beginnings of it actually happened and started un the Clinton Admin.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bass - "AAA rating downgraded to AA"

Only reason that happened was because the GOP-controlled Congress played 'chicken.

But that was only last year.

Bass' selective amnesia has already kicked in....

Sheez, I thought my memory was bad.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Sushi

ROFL, so now you want to blame Repubs for that, but want credit for offing OBL. Too funny.

selective amnesia has already kicked in....

Dems tend to get that a lot recently.

Sheez, I thought my memory was bad.

I guess so.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"Madverts - Sarge?"

I know - Romnesia. Praise be for Obamacare and pre-existing conditions!

"IF Romney loses? Is it actually possible he could win?"

Sure. Americans voted in W Bush not once, but twice. You know, voters like you and Romeo Ramen that are whining here on this very thread that President Obama has failed in but four years to clean up the mess!

(Or has your Romnesian condition made you forget about that too?)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from the oversight comity wouldn't reign themselves in

No conservative has ever been able to explain how two members of the minority party could have ever forced their wills on a Republican-majority Congress. Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.

Or is that the reason why Republicans need Democrats around -- albeit as a minority party: In order to blame things on and otherwise shirk responsibility for any negative consequences to their own policies?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama is not hunting for votes. We're in the homestretch here. It's all about GOTV. And Team Obama is doing great.

Day One, He coins "Romnesia." Instant classic Day Two: "Don't Worry. ObamaCare covers pre-existing conditions!" The base goes wild! Day Three: Who you gonna Trust? And lays it out Clinton Style. And the base cheers with ethusiasm and re-invigorated dedication

See, that's called executing a game plan, and doing it with Joe Montana style and finesse.

I've said it before and I'll say right to election day:

We got a better team.

And that is why we are winning.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tigger

I see you are still asking questions: But yous stills hasn't answered my question from the other day. Which is:

You, as a Republican, have a choice: you can either fight movement conservatism, with all its racist, ignorant back-ass ideas and policies, or you will be defined by it.

Which is it?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You'll not get an answer to that question.

The pegs on their noses they're wearing to support Mitt Romney must be excruciating, but wear them they will....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You'll not get an answer to that question.

I'll keep asking till he does.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

More good news for Team Obama

Thursday was a busy day for the polls... it made clear that Barack Obama maintains a narrow lead in the polling averages in states that would get him to 270 electoral votes. Mr. Obama also remains roughly tied in the polls in two other states, Colorado and Virginia, that could serve as second lines of defense for him if he were to lose a state like Ohio.

538, Nate Silver

And that, my friends, is why Obama is winning.

Looks like Rmoney should have though a bit more before penning his Op-Ed entitled Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

3 ( +3 / -0 )

JTDanManOct. 27, 2012 - 04:11AM JST

More good news for Team Obama

Let's go and win, Team Obama on JT!! This is the last 3 minutes on the 4th QT.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I am posting Romney's quote again reminding you he does not care a damn about hard working Americans.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... These are people who pay no income tax...My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Economy of the U.S. is indeed a National Security issue- When the U.S. economy is weak ,others follow suit & when the U.S. does well the world does well-Too much of the Welfare State for My Family's taste & we Pay,Pay,Pay &then some! For WHAT???? Able bodied men who run out on their "Baby Mommas"? Illegal aliens getting free college educations while the children of citizens are denied aid?- No Socialist agenda??You bet your'e ass we are in Deep & Obama's policy's have Not Helped ONE BIT!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Bartholomew HarteOct. 27, 2012 - 08:02AM JST

The Economy of the U.S. is indeed a National Security issue- When the U.S. economy is weak

US GDP data released today is a 2% for the 3rd QT that is the best among developed countries except China. Stock price 6500 to over 13000, housing price increasing, foreclosure declining, unemployment is now at 7.8% and durable good order increasing, US is doing alot bretter. We can still do better for the next 4 yrs if Obama is elected. His plan will do a trick.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

U.S. economy is above what the pilots would call “stall spin”. It certainly are growing fast enough. The job market is painful. The job market is very weak. The unemployment is reported at 7.8 percent, but how many stop looking, or look at California at 10 percent. President Obama hasn’t done much to help the job market. I don’t think his stimulus plan was very effective.The only thing the stimulus plan did was scaring people into believing that U.S. now have debts that will be unpayable. And that the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was simply beyond manageable.I think until the President leaves office, whether that is in January or in four years in January, it is going to be very difficult for the U.S. to tackle these difficult economic and fiscal issues.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This is the last 3 minutes on the 4th QT.

Damn straight. And we are 4 points up. Team Money needs more than a field goal to win, and we're gonna score another touchdown.

We've got the game. But I don't just want a win. More than 300 electoral votes is what I'm working towards.

And all the Republican whining about, well, everything, ain't gonna stop us.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@yabits

When Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from the oversight comity wouldn't reign themselves in

No conservative has ever been able to explain how two members of the minority party could have ever forced their wills on a Republican-majority Congress. Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.

That argument has been debunked a thousand times.

Or is that the reason why Republicans need Democrats around -- albeit as a minority party: In order to blame things on and otherwise shirk responsibility for any negative consequences to their own policies?

Hardly

That's NOT true, as always trying to blame and pin this on Republicans, that is why Frank and Dodd were the minority that oversaw the housing and financial collapse, Frank said, the economy was sound in 2008 and was a good time to invest and it was all a ruse.

When Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from the oversight comity wouldn't reign themselves in

No conservative has ever been able to explain how two members of the minority party could have ever forced their wills on a Republican-majority Congress. Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.

“Bill Clinton said that they want to go back to their old ways, at the convention. Was he talking about his ways? Because in ’95, he’s the one who deregulated the banks for the mortgages to people who can get loans who can’t really be approved for them. And it blew underneath of Bush’s watch. In 2003, he tried to regulate it and the Democrats shot it down. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone said that when you think of deregulations, you usually refer to the Republicans. But when it comes to the banks and mortgages, it was the Democrats. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are in bed with the Democrats.”

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

that is why Frank and Dodd were the minority that oversaw the housing and financial collapse

As minority members on a congressional sub-committee, each could have been out-voted by a Republican majority. It's a simple fact that the majority party maintains a majority vote on all committees. There was nothing Frank or Dodd could do if a majority party was opposed to them.

Because in ’95, he’s the one who deregulated the banks for the mortgages to people who can get loans who can’t really be approved for them. And it blew underneath of Bush’s watch.

Banking deregulation came mainly after Republicans took control of Congress in '94. Can you provide an example of a banking deregulation bill that was authored by a Democrat? I am betting that you cannot. On the other hand, the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal regulations against commercial banks getting into risky financial investments -- to give but one of many examples -- was called "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" after its authors. Gramm -- Republican; Leach - Republican; Bliley - Republican.

I will check out the Matt Taibi quote. I'm almost certain you're not portraying his point accurately.

Blew underneath Bush's watch? What does that say about the Republicans' leadership? Wow, so Bush and the Republicans, despite holding Congress and the White House, let Barney Frank run wild?

Sheer fantasy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

From the Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi of August, 2010. (link below)

"And it was all made possible by two major deregulatory moves from the Clinton era: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which allowed investment banks, insurance companies and commercial banks to merge, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which ­exempted the entire derivatives market from federal regulation. Together, these two laws transformed Wall Street into a giant casino, allowing commercial banks to act like high-risk hedge funds, with a whole new galaxy of derivative bets to lay action on. In fact, the laws made Wall Street even crazier than a casino, because in a casino you have to put up actual money to make bets. But thanks to deregulation, financial companies like AIG could bet billions, if not trillions, without having any money at all to back up their gambles."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-big-win-20100804#ixzz2AbiFJyJa

It was the financial collapse. Taibbi cites the afore-mentioned Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 were Republicans too, including Senator Gramm, who threatened to hold up the bill if there were any language that allowed the SEC to regulate credit default swaps.

This is not to say that both bills didn't have Democratic support, they did. But Republicans authored them, sponsored them, and pushed them through. Whatever opposition there was came from Democrats.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A new day, and what was true yesterday is true today:

Obama is winning

But, it gets better for Team Democrat: Obama maintains his leads in the polls in Ohio and other states that are sufficient for him to win 270 electoral votes. Each day that goes by, the greater the certainty that Obama will win. Each day Obama stays ahead in Ohio, the slimmer the chance for Team Money to pull one out.

Obama is winning.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@yabits

As minority members on a congressional sub-committee, each could have been out-voted by a Republican majority. It's a simple fact that the majority party maintains a majority vote on all committees. There was nothing Frank or Dodd could do if a majority party was opposed to them.

That is absolutely NOT true! Liberals always think as if they have NO responsibility whatsoever for the economy tanking! Yes, it started on Bush's watch, but this is just one example as to how Dems had their greedy mitts involved in increasing the national debt. And I fault in large part the media for covering it up! The debt limit is the amount the government can borrow to finance its operations. It has soared because the government has run record deficits over the past decade. The borrowed money has helped pay for two wars, stimulate the nation's economy after the worst recession since the Great Depression and keep intact broad tax cuts initiated during the Bush administration. During the past decade -- in other words, from December 31, 2001 until the latest business day available (December 29) -- the national debt has increased from $5.94 trillion to $15.13 trillion (results obtained at this interactive link) -- an increase of $9.19 trillion. From the beginning of 2002 until January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt increased by $4.69 trillion to $10.63 trillion, or about $1.8 billion per day for 2,577 days.

In the slightly less than three years since Obama's inauguration (1,073 days), the debt has grown by $4.50 trillion, almost as much as it did during the previous seven years, and by a daily amount of $4.2 billion.

During the first 18 months of the ten-year period -- the time during which the highest Bush Era deficits were being run -- the majority of the Bush tax cuts were not in place (they didn't take effect until mid-2003). After the investment-related and across-the-board tax cuts of 2003 were enacted, government tax collections increased dramatically (44% in four years). The idea that the Bush cuts had anything to do with the national debt climbing out of control is absurd. The idea that rescinding those cuts after the recession began or during the pathetically weak recovery of the past 2-1/2 years would have raised any significant kind of additional revenue is equally absurd, because raising taxes would have prolonged the recession, made the recovery even less noticeable, or could even have thrown the economy into another recession.

The contribution of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the debt increase is relatively small. A picture caption at the AP item I mentioned earlier on Iraq pegged the war's cost at "more than $800 billion." Even that number seems a bit inflation, but if it's right, it's only about 9% of the previous decade's increase.

That leaves two items: spending increases and recession-driven collection decreases. The latter, almost all of which has occurred on Obama's watch is probably responsible for about $1.2 trillion, or 13%, of the national debt increase.

That leaves little over three-quarters of the increased still unexplained (100% minus 9% for the wars and 13% for reduced collections). It's all due to other spending and the taking on of "off-budget" debt obligations. A large portion of the remainder is directly linked to the stimulus and its effective perpetuation, since federal spending did not decline after the stimulus program officially ended.

It really isn't worth presenting further detail, as the point has been made. The AP's and establishment press's party line about why the national debt has increased by over $9 trillion during the past decade is flat-out wrong. They won't change their tune, and yours truly won't stop refuting it every time it's seen.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@yabits

As according to FactCheck:

The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault: The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap. Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively. Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes. The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families. Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages. Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral. The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market. An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic. Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up. The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

So for you to imply that it was only the Repubs that created this crisis borders on total insanity. Both sides are to blame, but don't come off as if the Dems are totally clean in all of this. That would be a total fallacy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So for you to imply that it was only the Repubs that created this crisis borders on total insanity. Both sides are to blame, but don't come off as if the Dems are totally clean in all of this.

I never said OR implied that it was only the Republicans. Quoting from my statement above: "This is not to say that both bills didn't have Democratic support, they did." However, when you were asked for the cause of the subprime crisis, you did not include Republicans, but only Barney Frank and Chris Dodd -- both members of the minority party in Congress at the time.

You later brought a non-conservative writer into the mix by saying: "Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone said that when you think of deregulations, you usually refer to the Republicans. But when it comes to the banks and mortgages, it was the Democrats." -- as if it was all the Democrats' fault. But I supplied an actual, attributed quote from Taibbi as to the two pieces of legislation that he felt most contributed to the collapse. And the simple facts show Republican authorship and sponsorship of both of them. Many Democrats supported them also, but it is key to note that the only people who stood in opposition were Democrats. In other words, the only ones standing in the way of the rolling train of deregulation on its way towards total derailment of the economy were Democrats.

This is not to engage in bickering, but to provide some examples of the kind of lack of respect for the plain and simple facts that have caused and continue to propel the USA on a very dangerous course. I care enough about my country to strive to portray the actual history and facts of events accurately, always willing to be educated from those who equally strive to do the same. I hope you will consider doing so and elevate the level of discussion.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@yabits

I care enough about my country to strive to portray the actual history and facts of events accurately, always willing to be educated from those who equally strive to do the same. I hope you will consider doing so

Ad do I. I feel the exact same way. No arguments from me. I think that it's safe to say that we both love our country and want the best, but have entirely different opposing world and social views as to what would be the best approach into achieving and obtaining these goals. But that is the wonderful thing about democracy and the ability to disagree and the people have a choice as to what they want and who they want as their next President.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites