When it comes right down to it, Romney does not have a lot of friends and there are many who would like to take him down. If Huntsman and Romney split the moderate vote, Romney could lose. He is no slam-dunk.

Good point Ron. Its not like there's a strong moderate vote in the first place.

Just read that Romney believes that Federal Disaster Relief is "Immoral". Guess he doesn't need the support of those living in Joplin and New Orleans. He can forget earthquakes along the West Coast and Hurricane Season is beginning along the Eastern seaboard. Maybe there are no disasters in Salt Lake. Here comes a flip-flop!

Maybe there are no disaster in Salt Lake...

I'd say that Mormanism is a pretty big Salt Lake disaster for Romney's plans...

Consider the source. The Union Leader is very Teapublican. I'm sure they intend to endorse Bachmann or some other non-Romney.

So one editor at the Union Leader doesn't like Romney. I'm certain Mitt will get over it.

And "high-falutin"? This editor guy live in a one room cabin down by the river?

Guess we need to all wait for "thinkprogress" to weigh in on the matter. A very balanced op-ed service there, right amy?

And "high-falutin"? This editor guy live in a one room cabin down by the river?

Have you been to NH? It's pretty rustic so you may not be too far off...

Wasn't the second Bob Newhart series about life in New Hampshire? "Hi, I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl."

Leave it to you know who to change the subject from Romney's arrogance to the Union guy doesn't like him.

LoL

A high-falutin', rootin' tootin', son of a governor,

basement dwellin', ragtime multi-millionaire.

AM: A high-falutin', rootin' tootin', son of a governor,

Speaking of Wisconsin - How are things going there today Annie? Been any rulings on any laws by the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

And Romney would win Wisconsin. Primary and General.

Jody, Iowa: Leave it to you know who to change the subject from Romney's arrogance to the Union guy doesn't like him

Just putting it in context Jody. Why does some unnamed editor at some backwoods newspaper get to think he/she has the final say?

Why is Obama campaigning now?? There is no Republican candidate to campaign against. No Democratic candidate to campaign against.

So why isn't he in Washington doing his job?? Or is this the way he disguises "extra" vacations. Must be sweet to have AIR FORCE ONE as your personal taxi.

As reported by First Read Yesterday Re: Obama in Puerto Rico:

It was Obama's second trip to the island. On his first visit, during his long primary battle against then-rival Hillary Clinton in 2008, he promised to return as president.

And this is different from what Romney said, How?

The hypocrisy of this site never ceases to amaze me.

WCA: It was Obama's second trip to the island. On his first visit, during his long primary battle against then-rival Hillary Clinton in 2008, he promised to return as president.

I'm certain the editor(s) of the New Hampshire Union Leader roundly criticized Obama at the time. It's just that no one noticed, or cared.

And Annie, you've gotten awfully quiet.

Back to the topic .... anyone remember what sank George H.W. Bush's re-election campaign? The view of the nation's voters that he was entirely out of touch. After he marveled at the laser bar code reader at a grocery checkout stand.

If Romney persists in being aloof and aristocratic, he's sunk.

The Union-Leader, by the way, is notorious for its hard-right news and editorial stance, and has harpooned many a candidate on both sides of the aisle. "Journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron when applied to that paper.

White Collar Auto

FR isn't the only site reporting what was opined in the Union Leader editorial, I also read this on CNN. I guess its a big deal because the paper co-sponsed the debate and it's weird they attacked the Republican front runner. I do believe the Leader is to the right of Romney, which explains the jab. I've always heard of that paper as being virulently right-wing (as opposed to quietly Republican, like the Portland Press Herald.)

The hypocrisy of this site never ceases to amaze me.

First Read reporting that a newspaper in New Hampshire thinks Romney is overconfident is now "hypocrisy"?

First Read reporting that CNN reported that a newspaper in New Hampshire thinks Romney is overconfident is hypocrisy when they simply cut and paste CNN's article without comparing it to similar statements that they reported from Obama just yesterday.

I am beginning, however, to understand what led to all the cut and paste contributors to this site. It would appear, FR sets the standard.

Seems to me your beef ultimately is with the Union Leader...it's their opinion about Romney and FR and CNN are merely reporting what the Union Leader said. If the Union Leader was silent about Obama's remarks about Puerto Rico in 2008 but has an opinion about Romney in NH, then, yes, that is hypocrisy.

By the way, I don't have a problem with Romney's statement. What, is he supposed to tell you he thinks he's going to lose?

Maybe people are irked because Gov. Romney is at least a part-year resident in NH (Wolfeboro) and has been for many years. It's one thing to say you'll be back in four years when you live somewhere far away, but when you and your family live only a few hours away it sounds pretty patronizing....

Hey Buzz -

Did you catch the clip of Mittens pretending to be 'groped' by a waitress? GROSS!

He WISHES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3cvAjIdEy0

Which brings me to another point, why would a ANY server vote Teapublican?

"In the land of blinds, a one eye man is the king". please let cocky Romney enjoy his fake throne. time to roast him shall come.

DBO: You mean coming up with one-liners, and tossing out promises about what all YOU are going to do (without any details or backup) doesn't automatically get you the election?

Worked for Obama.

Hopey/Changey

Yes We Can

"My Stimulus plan will hold unemployment below 8%"

Recycled Teapublicans are now/still using and recycling their talking points from the past 2 years>

Now they are back to their 'Take the Country Back' one liner!

Back from who, or what.....Teapublicans have no clue....only talking points!

Country First....Real Americans.....me, myself and I!

JoAnnaSmith:

The quote you put up: "My Stimulus plan will hold unemployment below 8%" - Let's either see some attribution or an admission that you invented that quote.

What's the deal with you right-wing ideologues, do you not know where reality ends and fantasy begins? Can you not tell the difference between the truth and the lies?

Have you no shame?

Hey, is that the original recipe Fiesty Redhead that gets collapsed all the time, or the new, improved Fiesty Redhead that just gets deleted??

Must be tough having an alter -ego. Tough for all your fans who need a good laugh from the walking Illinois joke everyday. (No, Not Obama)

David Walker, Teapublicans have no shame or conscience!

@David Walker

"In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan"

Page 4

The Job Impact of the ARRA, Christina Romer & Jared Bernstein

otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Chilled - you forgot FAILED leadership, leading from behind & I got MINE ef YOU!! ;o))

Teapublicans have no shame or conscience!

Indeed! They're morally bankrupt!

David Walker

JASI is deluded. she must have sworn to Norquist the GOP god never to speak the truth.

DW: Let's either see some attribution or an admission that you invented that quote.

Here you are Mr. Walker, Dr. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, the Presidents economic advisers made the statement. Now, one would think they spoke for the President.

And I do reference a far right wing source, Time.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

No lets see you admit it is in fact is true that the President's team made the statement.

Pledging allegience to Norquist is 'Un-American'.......seems like that should be investigated!

...then of course there's the 'American People'....'Founding Fathers'.....'Massive (fill in the blank)'..'Job Killing'....'Backs of Our Grandchildren'.........

.....Teapublicans are priceless in their ability to sway so many with so little substance!

The agent speaks for the principal. The Principal is responsible for its agents. They are a team that works together.

Also if Romer, Bernstein or anyone else where speaking out of turn then Obama and Biden should have so stated. They did not.

So Mr. Walker, you too, like Annie Molly, have gotten very, very quiet. No admittance from you to the proof of the "8% unemployment" statement?

Have you no shame?

8% unemployment = Red herring.

I'd like to point out a couple things. As evidenced by Alan's quote, these were approximations "there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely" The quotation includes THE LINE AFTER THE 8% Estimate.

Second, the quote was made on 1/10/09, before the president was even sworn in and before being passed, in a much different form on 2/10/09. this is after it had been reduced in size and changed in scope (you know, spending ALMOST HALF OF IT ON TAX BREAKS)

This is EXACTLY the type of thing that has me gassin' up my torch. We can't even play by the same facts anymore! We are no longer people of reason, but people of obfuscation, half and no truths, and manipulation.

We can debate the success of the Stimulouse. but we need to do so with FACTS. Real ones, not just the ones you like, or the ones you've manufactured.

That's why Teapublicans and Republicans want to legislate us back to the days of dear old Ronnie R. Forgetting this is the 21st century and the times they are a changin'. It reminds me of the feebus bird (something that was brought to my attention I was being, in therapy many years ago, see flying my freak flag). The feebus bird flies on its back and therefore can only see where it's been, never where it's going. That's the T-Pers and the Pugs.

Ted, Mid Michigan: Second, the quote was made on 1/10/09 before the president was even sworn in and before being passed

This much is true, the quote was made and it did exist. It was the basis/threat for the Obama administration pushing for the 2009 Reinvestment and Recovery Act, an Act that was signed into law 5 very short weeks after the statement was made. The message was: Do this (the Recovery Act) or unemployment will skyrocket - which it did anyway. Obfuscation. Half truths. Manipulation. The same techniques were used to pass ObamaCare.

Touche' Ted!

No lets see you admit it is in fact is true that the President's team made the statement.

Well then darling, WHY did you omit it in your original comment!

You sure have some nerve talking about half truths & manipulation - though it comes as NO surprise to anyone who reads your drivel!

This much is true, the quote was made and it did exist.

BTW - your 'crab walking' makes your butt look big!

@Ted

I understand it was an estimate but that estimate was used in proposing a spending program. The fact it was almost 15% off 7.3% vs 9.1% does not bode well for future spending programs

you know, spending ALMOST HALF OF IT ON TAX BREAKS)

..and the report contains the reason that it contained tax breaks

Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases. However, because there is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts and state relief can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly

Or in other words there was not enough"Shovel Ready" jobs to spend more of the stimulus on. This has been borne out by the President's latest statements. I always find it interesting on this board the claims that the tax cuts in the stimulus were somehow inserted by a minority Republican party, when it is there in black and white why they were included and voted on exclusively by Democrats. It also make me wonder exactly what Krugman and Reich, who called for a bigger package, planned to spend the money on.

Next they'll be claiming the Republicans made them put a mandate in HCR.

Now, Joanna, if we can agree to the fact that the package was dramatically changed / watered down from the original "Prototypical" package that the infamous "8%" was based on, we can end this nonsense conversation. Forever. It's pointless.

Again, we can debate the affects of the stimulous and whether it was positive or negative. but we must use the same facts.

As for HCR: Lies, half-truths, and obfuscation from your side, in my opinion, is what led to IT being watered down as well. I believe the public option would have brought down costs for all. And, with as watered down as it is, I still think it's a good thing for this country.

Alan NJ: Or in other words there was not enough"Shovel Ready" jobs to spend more of the stimulus on.

The plan for Obama was to support the states during the recession so they, the states, could retain their union workers and still balance their budgets with borrowed federal dollars. Much of the "Stimulus" money went towards this rescue of those state union jobs, not towards any real stimulation and re-launching of the economy. Now the country pays the price for that choice made by Obama and the Democrats with poor GDP and unemployment numbers, states that now have to lay off those union workers, and all that added debt, $4 trillion of new debt in 29 months.

Alan,

My beef with your statment is the "8%" hammer you like to pound the President with. You're seemingly an intelligent guy. Which leads me to the conclusion that you are lying on purpose to further your ideology with the low information crowd. That is wrong. That is the position of cowards who can not persuade with facts, records, and accomplishments.

Your critisism of the stimulous is, for whatever it's worth coming from a worthless, sheep-like, lemming dem that I am, is heard. I find it fair. You don't think the stimulous created enough jobs for the money. Fair argument. I would counter that, in my opinion, the numbers would be much worse if the states were forced to drastically reduce their payrolls trying to figure a way out of the mess without the time the sitmulous provided.

So, you gave critisism, I countered. We disagree. Great. Problem is, NONE OF THIS MATTERS NOW! We need to move forward. Let's start talking to each other instead of clubbing each other with the biggest stick we can find.

The irony of me, red faced, screaming at people to be kinder to each other is not lost on me.......

Now, Joanna, if we can agree to the fact that the package was dramatically changed / watered down from the original "Prototypical" package that the infamous "8%" was based on, we can end this nonsense conversation.

So, if you write up a proposal for work that has say a 8% ROI, but your boss decides to implement a different plan, do you revise your estimate to reflect the new plan or do you stand by your original estimate? Please point me to a source that contains the revised estimates made after the stimulus was passed. My beef is that Democrats claim this 8% figure was produced out of thin air. No it was not. It was promoted by the supporters of the stimulus and now that the goal has not been met they are running away from it. Just like the mandate in HCR, just like the extension of the Bush tax rates.

As for HCR: Lies, half-truths, and obfuscation from your side, in my opinion, is what led to IT being watered down as well. I believe the public option would have brought down costs for all. And, with as watered down as it is, I still think it's a good thing for this country.

Please contact

Ben Nelson

Mary Landrieu

Joe Leiberman

and ask them where the public option went.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/mary-landrieu-opposed-to_n_213211.html

Ted, Mid Michigan: Now, Joanna, if we can agree to the fact that the package was dramatically changed / watered down from the original "Prototypical" package

No, not really. The original package proposed on January 10th was for $775 billion, less than the final version of $787 billion. The basic outline of that package was preserved as it moved from proposal by Obama, Romer, and company, to legislation. It was not "watered down".

Source: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The orignal proposal for unemployment if that package was passed was 6.8% by now as seen in the Paul Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/

Once again, these are the numbers Obama and his team used to convince themselves and give credibility to Congress to pass the largest stimulus package in history. Reality is no where close to their original predictions.

Alan,

I'm tiring of this. It seems pointless. You're right, the Dems should have revised numbers. That still wouldn't have made anything different than where we are now. What's the point of this conversation?

As for HCR, I agree that the aformentioned Dems on your list should be whipped with various instruments for thier deflection. After which, I would like to ask every single GOPer why they never came up with a plan to address the number one campaign issue of '08. We carried as much water as we could, as far as we could. I am not happy, but am satisfied that we won the battle and moved the position forward.

So, Alan, Let's move forward....Do you think that we should be spending all this time talking about cutting spending, or do you think we should be focused on creating jobs and growing the tax base? I see cuts as losing to win. I see a real jobs plan (and chistalmighty, I don't care if the 'craziest' GOPer out there came up with it, i would support it.) as a win win. I'm not saying that cuts aren't on the table, I'm just wondering if our national focus is where it's really needed.

JoAnnaSmith and Alan:

First JoAnna, you are hardly important enough in my life to warrant my sitting in front of my monitor awaiting your usual dogma and/or lies. I was working with more pleasant vegetables in my garden. I will however be watching from time to time to catch you and expose you as a serial prevaricator and partisan hack.

Now for both of you, need I explain the purpose of quotation marks? Your link, Alan, goes to a generalization promulgated in a paper by Romer and Bernstein. Both have regretted making such a foolhardy prediction. Nonetheless, the earlier referenced "quotation" does not exist. Let's stick to verifiable fact.

Two days ago, none other than Ron Paul - a Republican - noted that the current state of the economy is the product of 70 years of policy. It didn't start on the Obama watch, or the Bush watch....NO, NO, NO. It goes back 70 years, something I have been pointing out repeatedly in these threads. I'll leave it to you to prove that the economy has been in anyone's hands besides Republicans and/or Democrats. I point that out merely by way of background.

A mountain of statistics clearly demonstrates that the economy headed south in a very big way towards the end of the Clinton Administration and accelerated dramatically on the Bush watch. Indeed, CBO predicted at the beginning of the Bush Administration that the nation would have zero debt right now. Unfortunately, Republicans slashed taxes, started two incursions, and were in power when the housing bubble began to deflate. Right now, the the largest portion of our national debt is solely attributable to the tax cut.

That is a matter of historical fact. What has occurred during the Obama Administration is little more than damage control. Worse, the President is not willing to tell Americans the tough truth.

As I pointed out in any number of earlier posts, there is only one answer to cleaning up out debt mess. It is going to require serious revenue increases, serious budget cuts, and a tight, tight focus on efficiency. There is NO other answer.

Finally, there is one point that you, and virtually everyone else, continue to ignore; the unemployment rate is meaningless. That rate has been tweaked one way or another as long as I have watched it. St. Ronald of Reagan himself began counting military personnel in unemployment statistics to make the rate appear lower than it was. Again, I point this out to illustrate the fact that the economy is in a massive transition that every politician is busy pretending isn't happening. American manufacturing continues to employ machines instead of highly-paid humans. Even at that, many of those jobs are being off-shored. Demand is down. The consumption model has been drastically altered. Change! Transition! No one wants to face the truth.

Again, those are facts. I'm sick of the finger-pointing, the blame game, the ideological nonsense, and the hyper-partisanship. It is facts we have to address, not discredited "solutions".

Oh yeah Joanna, when will be telling us you made up that quote?

Joanna,

What is the point? We have spent an hour now arguing the innacuracy of an estimate for cripes sake!!! It was an estimate! it was wrong. Don't tell my wife, but occasionally I am wrong too...woe is me.

I do know that my county has a new highway surface, as do many of our surface streets. That many o' people I know, here in an auto state, have been directly impacted positively by retraining efforts. And, contrary to what the talking heads say, I generally feel the situation is getting better. My family's outlook has greatly improved. That's my barrometer.

I'm gonna leave this alone now...have a good day.

So, Alan, Let's move forward....Do you think that we should be spending all this time talking about cutting spending, or do you think we should be focused on creating jobs and growing the tax base? I see cuts as losing to win. I see a real jobs plan (and chistalmighty, I don't care if the 'craziest' GOPer out there came up with it, i would support it.) as a win win. I'm not saying that cuts aren't on the table, I'm just wondering if our national focus is where it's really needed.

As I said yesterday I think the ideology of both sides is bankrupt. It seems to me that supply-side and demand-side theories have both failed and I am not for allowing either side to double down by claiming their failed solutions need to be bigger. I am for getting our fiscal house in order and allowing the business cycle to work itself out. So, I for a tax revision where the objective is to raise revenues. I believe the best way of doing this is to lower the rates and remove deductions. For example, if mortgage tax relief was capped a 500K this would net revenue from the wealthy with no effect on most middle-class families. To use the President as an example, he earned 1.7M and paid an effective tax rate of 27%. If we reform the code such that he paid between 30% - 35% I think that would be a good goal. The same principal should be applied to the corporate tax rate. Lower but with as few deductions as possible. The goal here should be to promote markets not individual businesses. For example we are distorting the price/cost of ethanol so we should remove the subsidies. But we are also distorting the price of oil. Removing subsidies promotes markets not social programs. Green jobs are a burden until the economics justify them.

Entitlements have to be reformed and that means people are going to pay more for less. The basic fact of Medicare is that a single man pays in 50K and receives 150K, and a single woman 185K. We need leaders that can explain that this is unsustainable and unfair to future generations who will pay the cost of borrowing the difference.

We need a President to articulate what our world role is in the 21st century (doctrine if you will). From this strategic view, the DOD should be restructured to reflect this. Again the aim is to lower the overall spending. The 3 1/2 wars have to end as soon as possible. I do not think we have reasonable goals in Afghanistan nor Libya. Iraq hopefully is winding down and we should pull back to Bahrain not maintain ground bases in Iraq. What the hell we are doing in Yemen is bordering on Cambodia - illegal to say the least.

Pensions for federal and state workers have to be changed from defined benefits to defined contributions. With defined benefits current politicians can promise the moon down the road leaving their successors to pick up the bill not. This is not fair on the workers, who will lose current pay for a future benefit that may not be funded, on the future mayors or governors and on the taxpayers who are not involved in the negotiations.

That's my basic philosophy. Right now there's not a lot out there that I support on either side.

DW: First JoAnna, you are hardly important enough in my life to warrant my sitting in front of my monitor . . .

Try not to respond to my posts next time, and then I won't have to respond to yours.

Well Ted, the estimates were wrong, there where no WMD's, and we're $14 trillion in the red.

Should we hold someone responsible for that?

"tossing out one liners ABOUT OBAMA"- what did you do with the ABOUT OBAMA part of that quote, Smiff- dishonest much? Guess your cutesy answer wouldn't have worked as well had you left it intact, huh?

Sheesh....

Alan, (sigh of relief) thank you! I agree with much of what you say. Your statements show we have much more in common than these boards allow us to beleive. Your positions are well stated and a fair reflection of where we're at. Thanks for the dialog. I truly appreciate it. My own positions are much less thought out than yours, so I haven't much to offer in response. I will say this, if we can get some independent analysis of the effects of your tax proposals, that would be very interesting to me. I, too, am all done with the never ending wars. I have a question about your statement on midicare: Isn't the 50k paid in by the worker invested? And, is the return on that investment included in your numbers. Again, thanks.

Joanna,

you state:

Well Ted, the estimates were wrong, there where no WMD's, and we're $14 trillion in the red.

Should we hold someone responsible for that?

Yes, Joanna, we should. But it would not change our current situation. Not even one iota. For the record, from the items you listed, it seems, again, that both sides are to blame. Let's move forward.

Ted: Yes, Joanna, we should. But it would not change our current situation. Not even one iota

Oh yes it will. Lets be optimistic. As with Alan, I also believe both sides are at at fault, and it's going to take both sides to correct it. The Presidents Debt Commission produced a remarkable document last year that in stark terms defines a path out of this mess. That document defines the technical aspects to the solution, but not the political. In fact, the political part is the hard part. Anyone, Democrat or Republican, that says entitlements reform are the key to fiscal responsibility gets my vote. Anyone, Democrat or Republican, that says we have to raise taxes, and can insure that money would go to pay down the debt has my vote. Anyone that demagogues someone else that tries to reform entitlements and reduce the deficit deserves to be thrown out of office.

Let's move forward.

Indeed.

Unless he has a heart attack or chokes to death on a ham sandwich.

Obama fights for jobs at home. Romney makes money sending jobs to China.