So.. Does this sound like a campaign that believes that their guy is up like Rasmussen says he is? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81428.html?hp=t1 A3PO, I agree the July ads worked, but Romney sure helped the cause. This 47% tape (recorded in May, I recall) makes Mitt look like more of an out-of-touch rich ******* than anything that Obama's ads said. And that's in addition to the "betting $10k vs Perry" and other quotes.
This. It is a must for anyone running for public office to not let the opposition define you. Mitt's failure to counter, plus his most recent gaffe only reinforces in the minds of voters that Mitt is a rich, out-of-touch douche running for the highest office.
I don't really disagree with you, but I've felt the same way before and ended up being surprised, so I'm staying cautious for now. It's a trip watching this play out, though. I never dreamed that Romney would prove to be such a god awful campaigner. What freakin' luck. I know all the reasons why the state of the economy isn't something that should be laid at the feet of Obama, but given how the economy seems, a Republican ought to have a fighting chance based on our political history since 1980, yet Romney seems helpless, adrift, a caricature of a candidate, with Obama quite appealing in comparison. I love it.
I could come up with other examples, but an easy answer is 2004. I didn't think there was any way Bush could win a second term, yet he did. But if anything, it bodes well for Obama. There's a real advantage to being the incumbent.
i figured that was it. kerry was a flawed candidate, like romney. kerry got swiftboated and couldn't man up and dissuade voters of the slander. romney has already owned up to all the things that make him unlikeable and unelectable. he has nowhere to hide, although he seems to be trying. what can he say? no matter what he says about obama he has nothing compelling to offer about himself. he's poison. if i were a republican (not a tea bagger) i would get as far away from him as possible for any hope that this doesn't turn into a dem, dem, dem, dem world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-pawlenty-gets-new-job-quits-romney-campaign/ Tim Pawlenty quits as co-chair for Romney campaign to take head a lobby group.
Let's see stick around with a floundering campaign or go make $1.8 Mil as CEO... Now that is a tough choice.
Romney moderates his positions including taking some credit for the Mass. health care law he passed, in comments last night. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...-a-more-moderate-mitt-returns?lite&ocid=msnhp *** A more moderate Mitt returns? After originally standing by his comments at that May fundraiser in Florida, where he was surreptitiously recorded saying that he can’t win the “47%” of Americans who are dependent on the government, Romney backed down last night. “This is a campaign about the 100%,” he said at a forum in Miami sponsored by Univision, per NBC’s Garrett Haake. But Romney did more than back down from those 47% remarks; he also softened his tone on health care, immigration, and gay rights. "Now and then the president says I’m the grandfather of Obamacare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment, but I’ll take it,” he said, going on to praise the Massachusetts law. He also clarified his earlier remarks on self-deportation. "I said I'm not in favor of a deportation, a mass deportation effort rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country," he said. "I believe people make their own choices as to whether they want to go home, and that's what I mean by self-deportation. And he added this about gay marriage: “I would like to have the term marriage continue to be associated with a relationship between one man and one woman, and that certainly doesn’t prevent two people of the same gender living in a loving relationship together having gay domestic partnership, if you will.”
Romney, his people, and his campaign media wing, Fox "News" have been spinning Mitt's gaffs so hard that it's a wonder they can stay on their feet. Heck, most of them must be on their knees, pumping Dramamine by the handful. It's all too much for them to take, the failure darkening around them The hate they spew exposed as fake, a lie that's simply all too much
As opposed to his opponent, who thinks that pouring hundreds of billions of dollars onto every problem is the cure to everything that ails the nation.
No, I didn't know that. Probably because it's not true. FY 2011 spending was the highest in the nation's history in dollars and tied for the second highest (with 2010, behind only 2009) in spending as a percentage of GDP. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals tables 1.1 and 1.2
^ Sorry, for the spending as a percentage of GDP, I meant to say tied for the second highest since 1946.
From the WSJ Obama spending binge never happened Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Awesome! The Obama campaign is out with a new web video mocking the GOP's recent penchant for using out-of-context quotes from the president in ads and videos. The video uses chopped up clips of Mitt Roney that distort his meaning to absurd extremes: <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5X3LGAXVd80" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You didn't say that spending was increasing at the slowest pace in 40 years (a claim which I find dubious for reasons I've posted before in this and several other threads). You said: As I pointed out above (and the data you posted show), the claim that you actually made is undeniably false. Spending was higher in FY 2011 and FY 2012 than in FY 2009, so clearly spending is not at a 40-year low under Obama.
