Displaying 391 To 420 Of 10,917 Comments A Quick Win For Romney May Damage Him Most Just a terrific comment, KQ. I agree with everything. The f/f’ing by Romney does need to be highlighted, but so far the ads I’ve seen don’t seem to completely close the deal. (I expect they will eventually.) They need to not only show his f/fs but need to say explicitly: This man cannot be trusted. If he lies about his beliefs, he will lie to you as President. You are buying a pig in a poke and you will never know what he will do in any given situation. Or, he will do whatever his SECRET corporate masters tell him. Secrecy and dishonesty are the polar opposites of Obama, who can prove he has been the most transparent and forthright President in our lifetimes. And that’s only the “character attack” they can use. As your wonderful metaphor on boxing said, lots of body punches win a fight just as often as a KO. The character issue is just one body punch–to the kidneys! » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 10, 2012 @ 2:57 pm Caru, I should have read your comment before I wrote–I took a lot of words to say the same! » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 10, 2012 @ 1:50 pm Great analysis, AdLib! Really well thought out and presented so clearly. This turn of events has really surprised me—who would have thought that Romney’s time as a vulture would be the attack from the others? Everyone (myself included) thought that “Oromneycare” would be his greatest flaw. (Maybe it will be later.) People say the Baggers hate crony capitalism and are populists, but I never believed that for a second. Sure, that’s what the astroturf told us (and there were some folks to whom that appealed), but we knew they were basically racists and far-Right extremists who despise the Left and want the President under the ground. So I never saw Romney’s greed and destruction as a good way to bring him down in the primaries. And it hasn’t been. Baggers at heart love that stuff. In the general, I think it will be. As an aside, I also wonder if the flip-flopper label is as potent as we thought it would be. It does show a complete lack of character and principle, but it also could make Mitt less toxic to the Indies: Isn’t the underlying message of a flip-flopper that Romney is NOT as RW as he wants us to believe? If he is seen as a moderate at heart, I don’t see how that hurts him if centrists want a reason to vote for him. They will tell themselves, “Sure, he says these far-right things in the primaries—they all do that. But he actually is a reasonable centrist at heart.” I don’t think that’s such a good tactic. When Romney goes against Obama in the general, it will be a battle between Democracy and fairness against Bain and Corporatism. Obama will repeat his latest great speeches about the billionaires and greed and equity and Romney will lie and say he created jobs. Mitt won’t pass the smell test once that begins in earnest—even the corporate press won’t let him. Finally, that brings me to the only small area of disagreement with you very fine post: Consider too that if the race for GOP candidate for President is a foregone conclusion early on, there will be little appetite and shrinking importance and news coverage for the primary races. As attention diminishes, so does the MSM megaphone for Romney to get out his “message” and attacks on Obama. Meanwhile, Obama as President will continue to have the bully pulpit to get his message out. I do agree that Romney against no one is boring news. But doesn’t it then become Romeny vs Obama? The media MUST report on a Presidential election with the same baited-breath they do now. If it seems like old news or boring, they will make it the battle of the millennium. They will hype it and analyze it and turn every statement uttered, every campaign stop, every facial expression into ominous and portentous meaning. That’s what they do. And the public will eventually get caught up in the race. And frankly, I’m already there—it IS a turning point election. It IS galactic. So I think that Romney will still get lots of coverage. I just hope that at some point the press pivots to Romney and exposes him for the serial liar he is—or is that a pipe dream? So far, Romney has gotten a free pass from the corporate media. » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 10, 2012 @ 1:42 pm Khirad that’s terrific! I confess to loving bad translations too. BTW, I was going to post some weirdness, but the post was too long already. Anyway, here’s a good one too (but not nearly as good!) [img]http://boingboing.net/images/tibettits_2.jpg[/img] » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 9, 2012 @ 5:16 pm KQ– it was a really fantastic day, wasn’t it! I love how the Repubs are doing the heavy lifting on calling out Romney in Bain and his vulture capitalism. (Did you catch Newt’s PAC ad? And the ABC News video about the offshore taxes? I never could have expected it. Cheers to another ten months of them! » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 9, 2012 @ 3:05 pm KT, people can rationalize practically anything,can’t we. I think you’re spot on–it’s a philosophy built around rationalizing our basest impulses. » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 9, 2012 @ 12:26 pm Well, at least back to The Statute of Merton from 1267. » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 9, 2012 @ 12:15 pm Hey, C’Lady! We had a great time off–full of “west and wewaxation!” The basic premise of Libertarianism always (or rather once I got past age 20) struck me as incredibly unrealistic. They seem to have the notion that people are all basically fair and reasonable and self-sufficient and ethical about all issues, all the time. Seriously? In what world has that ever been true? Therefore, left to their own devises, in some mythical Eden, everyone would take perfect care of themselves and others if those others were so accursed as to be unsound in body or mind. Businesses would look out for the common good. Since I really cannot believe that Libertarians actually believe this BS, I can only conclude that they just don’t give a shit about anybody but themselves and actually all belong on a mountain somewhere away from civilization. There they can live in small tribes and circle the wagons. And inbreed. They want to be left alone and take no responsibility for society and humanity. A pox on ’em. » Posted By Chernynkaya On January 9, 2012 @ 12:08 pm Weekend Music Thread – Merry Xmas 2011! Oh gosh, I have so many beautiful songs that I’ll add later, but just for a moment, a couple of irreverent classics: Robert Earl Keene’s Merry Christmas from the Family Adam Sandler Hanukkah Song » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 6:41 pm Santa Wish Lists from Top Political Figures So speaking of the Republican field, George Carlin once again simplifies it for us:
» Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 2:07 pm Right there with you AdLib. Lincoln was reviled in his day, and not just in the South. Obama is so remarkable it is very upsetting that he gets so little credit for so very much good that he does. And that’s not only in comparison to the disLoyal Opposition; he is affirmatively great on the merits. It is a huge insult to even compare him to anyone on today’s Right. He is a great President compared to the other greats and history will show that even if we are too stupid to see it now. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 11:45 am Making you day just made mine! I wish you the same, Adlib, on all counts. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 11:26 am The only politician on that list who wants what I want is President Barack Obama. The rest of them are all self-serving egomaniacal greedsters. That’s really true–He is actually the only one who consistently talks about the welfare of The People. The others never even mention that. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 10:30 am OK, you made me laugh out loud! I was smiling as I read “Nyep!” (and BTW I am gonna use that at home), but when I got to what the Kochs wanted–that took me over the edge to a hearty laugh! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 24, 2011 @ 10:15 am Yeah, the bookkeeping addition makes it a HUGE win for the Goopers! Bwahahahahaha! Whatev, Boehner. I’m sure the Baggers will cheer that masterstroke of gamesmanship–NOT! Now the talk is again focusing on Cantor taking over. Except–ooops, he’s at 18% approval in VA. (George Allen at 36%–ugh!) Lost the link though! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 2:33 pm House Republicans Cave, Agree To Two-Month Payroll Tax Cut Extension A top Senate Democratic aide says House Republicans have privately offered up the terms of their surrender on the payroll tax cut, pending sign off from their notoriously unwieldy caucus. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested Thursday morning, it will involve House Republicans passing a temporary extension of the payroll tax cut (and unemployment insurance and reimbursement rates for Medicare physicians) in exchange for Senate Dems agreeing to a formal conference committee to work out a year-long extension of all items. The temporary extension won’t be identical to the one Senate Dems passed. It will differ in very minor technical ways. House Republicans have already rejected the bipartisan Senate compromise bill, so they’ll have to draw up essentially the same bill from scratch, pass it in the House and then have the Senate readopt it by unanimous consent. In exchange, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will agree to a formal conference committee. The House will bring its partisan, one-year extenders bill to the table (complete with policy riders and pay-fors that cut programs like Medicare) and the Senate will bring the bipartisan legislation that passed overwhelmingly on Saturday. This is a fairly minor concession for Reid. He’s been on the record for days now saying he’d resume negotiations on a full-year extension as soon as the House passed the Senate bill. He’s saying that instead of taking the lead on those negotiations with Boehner and McConnell, that a formal conference committee would get first bite at the apple. Democrats have no reason to believe the conference committee will actually result in anything. For one, Republicans have already announced they will appoint to the conference committee several negotiators who have been on the record in opposition to any extension of the payroll tax holiday. Dems strongly suspect that in the end, just before the two-month stop gap measure expires, the issue will be settled in private discussions between party leaders, regardless of whether there’s a conference. After conceding for weeks, the Dems finally said this far and no further — and actually meant it. You read that right. Can’t help reposting this: [img]http://www.dailykos.com/i/user/191280/boehnerreidcrying_jonathanernst_reuters.jpg[/img] » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:42 pm Bito, the House Repubs did exactly what the Senate voted on. Nothing new was added and McConnell didn’t do anything to move this along. The House simply agreed to what was already accomplished by the Senate. It is a PURE win for the Dems and for working people. Plus, in two months we get to whoop their butts again. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:33 pm Well, it’s a stimulus to the wrong sector of the economy–one that doesn’t impact ordinary people, but I like your half-full way of looking at things. I hope we do see more reductions in unemployment, but to be honest, I don’t believe that fewer seeking UI benefits is a good indicator. As you know, many have given up and the real unemployment number is at least 11%–I say more like 15%. That said, these numbers help perception, which DOES impact hiring. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:16 pm Thanks, KQ! I wish I had thought of the Christmas logo sooner–found a few good ones. Did you hear that Romney is not going to release his tax returns? I wonder how that’s going to go over, assuming the MSM even reports it. Cut away all the extraneous stuff and Romney is running on “Obama is not American”–not so much birther, but the idea that he is The Other, alien to our “values.” When you strip away all the BS, Romney’s campaign is that Obama is a Kenyan Socialist, and that Mitt gets stuff done. I have no idea if it will work, but it is a referendum on Americans’ intelligence. (That is something I never assume. Overall, Americans ARE intelligent, but unreliably so.) » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:12 pm Agree, Nirek! I want some prosecutions and not just fines. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:04 pm BREAKING: National Journal reports that House Republicans have agreed to a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. Citing Democratic and Republican sources, National Journal reports that the deal was struck after Harry Reid agreed to appoint conferees to hash out a resolution between the Senate and House versions. CAVED! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 22, 2011 @ 1:03 pm You are right–very good points. I think Harry Reid is pretty masterful at using Senate rules. The one thing–and it’s the biggest mistake–Reid did wrong is not whipping up support for a change in the filibuster threshold. We would be living in a different world if we didn’t need 60 votes. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 21, 2011 @ 4:39 pm Cheers KQ-I’m with you. I am letting myself feel optimism. And when I think about it, it is actually very surprising considering how much is against the odds. After the 2010 elections I was in real despair for this country. I have no illusions though–the forces against us will never give up. In fact, I think that is one of the reasons things are starting to turn in our directions—they overreached massively, and I think they will continue to do so. I look at Wisconsin as the template of what they will do, and see how it has backfired. Still, what makes me so depressed is how many still buy into their noxious agenda. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 21, 2011 @ 4:35 pm AdLib, that was one of the stupidest–both morally and from an optics standpoint–articles ever written. Poor them! I’d say how tone deaf it was, but they wouldn’t see it that way because it’s how they really feel. It reveals how sickeningly entitled they think they are. I hope they keep giving interviews and that they keep getting published. I am all for a class war! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 21, 2011 @ 4:30 pm CL, Thank you!–my star wand was broken. The R’s insisted that the payroll tax cuts be paid for–never mind that tax cuts for the rich didn’t require any pay-fors. So the Dems said, OK, let’s pay for them by raising taxes on the filthy rich 3% and there’s the offset. That’s why the issue was brought up in the first place. (As you know, these tax decreases were NEVER required to be paid for before.) But since they WERE brought up, it’s a big deal–it raised an issue that is a big issue for voters of all stripes. A raw wound. The Dems wanted to use it to underline how the R’s are pimps for the rich, and then to concede the point was bad. As for Keystone, the Dems had no problem with accelerating the decision and they agreed to that already. What the R’s did was renege–they now say they don;t just want an accelerated decision, they want the decision to be YES. The Dems and the WH have it exactly right now–no more negotiating and it’s on their head! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 20, 2011 @ 7:18 pm I can’t make any stars change now–Can somebody else please give this post 10 stars for me? Anyway, that’s exactly how I see it too. I want Obama and the Dems to win for my kids’ and grandkids’ sake. I want Keystone killed for the same reason. I am willing to take a tax hike for that, but the question is will other Dems and Indies? Don’t know, but I do know that thinking people are willing to do so. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 20, 2011 @ 6:12 pm Great post, AdLib! (I tried to give it 10 stars but my cursor petered out after about 6–sorry!) I’ve said this here before, but I believe for many Dems it holds true too: We would give up our tax extension rather than see the Dems blink on this. We need the money, but we want fairness more. I do not want to be held hostage for another second. Fuck ’em. I had this discussion with KQ last week and he made a great point. He said it would hurt the President’s re-election more if the economy gets worse, while I was arguing that even if taxes go up, the political harm it would do if the President appears to cave would be worse. I don’t know which is the answer. But my gut instinct tells me that letting the obscene rich keep their tax cuts– even if we can too– is a huge loser. I think to a degree people have the expectation that the economy will take years to recover; what they want most right now is someone they perceive as a warrior against the Tea Party. As Ezra Klein pointed out in his column today, for the R’s this isn’t about tax cuts anyway–it’s about blackmail and getting their disgusting agenda in return: Keystone and tax cuts for gazillionaires. I was fine with the Keystone compromise because Obama punked them on it. But taking the tax cuts for the rich off the table–and thus making the funding come from elsewhere–made me ill. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 20, 2011 @ 5:30 pm AdLib, just as I started to read this, I heard that Politifact labeled this statement Partly True: Obama lowered taxes. Why only PARTLY? “He raised cigarette taxes.” So I have to ask, when a Pulitzer Prize winning site can distort the truth like this, do any facts matter anyway? In Bizarro World, the Dems are trying to raise payroll taxes and the Reptilians are the heroes of the Middle Class. And we stand slack-jawed as Mitt flip-flops while he can get away with any lie he wants as long as there is no national entity to point that out. Sorry for the rant–Now, back to reading….! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 20, 2011 @ 4:56 pm Exactly correct! What galls me is that so many–and just about every single “journalist” on the Left (not just the Firebaggers) are NOW upset about that language I referenced above in Bob Cesca’s post http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/12/yes-theres-indefinite-detention-in-the-bill.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter So yes, there IS still indefinite detention–but LESS and for fewer. That hasn’t changed. It’s been in there since the original bill was signed by BUSH. But NOW it’s unacceptable…now. There is NO WAY to veto it. Want change? Vote for Dems. But when you do vote for ’em, don’t run a Bernie Sanders Dem in a red district, dummy! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 17, 2011 @ 2:37 pm This is spot on. A rant on Twitter: My favorite among many- PL clue #5: if you hold a General Assembly requiring 90% approval for motions 2 be adopted, u can’t call out Obama for governing by consensus » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 17, 2011 @ 2:03 pmComments Posted By Chernynkaya
I have always known that Romney would be the nominee, and while he is a very weak candidate he is the one who has the best chance to beat the President as long as people think that his business experience would get the country’s economy back to pre-Bush levels. So to take a page from Rove, the way to stymie that is to go after his business record; go after his apparent strength and turn it into a liability. The other Reptiles have already done a good job of showing him to be the vulture he is, but I think that if they keep it up much longer, pressure (from RW media, corporate backers, other RW pols) will force them to walk that back. They are already being called “Left of Romney” “anti-capitalist” and damaging the Republican brand as pro-business. That’s one reason I agree that it’s best for us to get into the mano a mano sooner rather than later—because I don’t think the damage from the other candidates will last. They would have to escalate their attacks on Bain, and frankly there isn’t much more room for that without them appearing to be {gasp} socialists!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P37xPiRz1sg#!
«« Back To Stats Page
http://chirpstory.com/li/3495
Home Stats