Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by anniefey

  1. Nov. 4, 2012 A new PPP poll released late yesterday has President Obama leading Mitt Romney 50% to 47% nationally. This is the first lead of 3 points either candidate has had for weeks. Obama led in all three days of the poll (Nov. 1-3). His approval rating is now positive (48% to 47%). A week ago PPP found him to be deep under water (44% to 52%) so this is a 9-point gain in a week for Obama. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov04.html#item-1
  2. Noonan: Romney campaign is a "ROLLING CALAMITY" September 21, 2012 Stephanie Condon Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, hasn't been shy about voicing her concerns about Mitt Romney's campaign, but in a Friday column she stepped up her critique. "The Romney campaign has to get turned around," she wrote. "This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant 'rolling calamity.'" Noonan is one of several conservative pundits who in recent weeks have spoken out about the Romney campaign's perceived missteps, such as its response to the crisis in Libya and the lack of policy details put forth. more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57517589-503544/noonan-romney-campaign-is-a-rolling-calamity-/
  3. Posted by Ezra Klein on September 17, 2012 There are two sure signs a campaign is in trouble. The first is that it begins changing its strategy rapidly and erratically. The second is that it begins attacking its strategists fiercely and anonymously. The Romney campaign is in trouble. First came the changes in strategy. It went from doing everything possible to assure a “referendum” election to picking Paul Ryan as the vice presidential nominee and going for a choice election. It went from focusing relentlessly on the economy to cycling among welfare, Medicare and Libya. The latest ad is about manufacturing jobs in China. Now we’re hearing the calls for a change in strategists. On Sunday night, Politico published a 2,700-word piece mostly dedicated to giving “Romney aides, advisers and friends” space to knife Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist. “I always have the impression Stuart must save his best stuff for meetings I’m not important enough to attend,” one Romney campaign insider told Politico. “The campaign is filled with people who spend a lot of their time either avoiding him or resisting him.” Ouch. MORE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-is-behind-and-the-debates-arent-likely-to-save-him/
  4. Why Romney Is Avoiding Specifics on His Policy Ideas: No One Likes Them Jonathan Cohn September 11, 2012 | 2:46 pm Conservatives panicking over Mitt Romney’s poll numbers want him to talk about policy in more detail, particularly when it comes to health care. Nothing would please me more. But conservatives wishing for a more honest, substantive debate might want to look at a new survey out today. The results suggest that Republican positions on Medicare and perhaps even Obamacare are less popular than I realized. The survey is the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. Its most striking result is the primary question about Medicare reform. It asks respondents whether Medicare “should continue as it is today, with the government providing health insurance and paying doctors and hospitals directly” or whether it “should be changed to a system where the government provides seniors with a fixed sum of money they could use either to purchase private health insurance or to pay the cost of remaining in the current Medicare program.” The wording seems relatively straightforward and without terms designed to sway opinion one way or another. It says nothing about “vouchers,” for example, and it doesn’t raise the possibility that seniors might have to pay more if the system changes. But 67 percent of respondents said they preferred keeping Medicare as is, while only 26 percent said they favored the Republican reforms. That result is consistent with other polling on the issue, as far as I know. It also makes intuitive sense, at least if you’ve ever spoken to anybody on Medicare. Policy experts, including some to the left of center, love to talk about the virtues of competition and supposed efficiency of the private insurance market. Sometimes they even make valid arguments: From a policy perspective, Medicare really does have some problems. But most seniors like Medicare just the way it is. It’s easy to use and covers pretty much every medical service they might need. Most important of all, they never have to worry it will disappear. Non-seniors can appreciate these things, too. Most of us also know what it’s like to choose from among private insurance plans and to deal with insurance company bureaucracies. That's not a lot of fun. And many of us understand what it's like to lose insurance or, at least, worry about losing it. That's not a lot of fun, either. more: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107123/romney-avoiding-policy-detail-medicare-obamacare-polls#
  5. GREED & DEBT: THE TRUE STORY OF CALAMITY BAIN! Matt Taibbi How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president. - - - - "But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth." "By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions - placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place..." "If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House." more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz24wOZQSKf
  6. Here are the facts to back up the branding/labeling approach we need to pursue: Private-sector jobs grew far more under Democratic than Republican presidents, 1961-2012 May 08, 2012 by Laura Clawson Picture. A thousand words. Etc. The instant any Democrat uses this chart showing that between 1961 and 2012, the United States added 42 million private-sector jobs under Democratic presidents and 23.9 million private-sector jobs under Republican presidents, despite Republicans holding the presidency for 28 years during that period compared with 23 years for Democrats, PolitiFact will doubtless devote hundreds of words of dubious "context" to label it some form of untruth despite the clarity of the comparison. But whatever the relationship between correlation and causation here, this is a stark contrast: Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans. Republican presidencies, though, saw slightly greater creation of public-sector jobs, which rose by 7.1 million under Republicans and 6.3 million under Democrats—a difference that would be entirely irrelevant if Republicans weren't always running around wailing about big government and demonizing public workers. The presidents who averaged the most jobs created per month were Bill Clinton, at 217,000; Jimmy Carter, at 188,000; and Ronald Reagan, at 153,000. That's right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan. The only president to preside over a cumulative loss of private-sector jobs was, of course, George W. Bush. more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089785/-Private-sector-jobs-grew-far-more-under-Democratic-than-Republican-presidents-1961-2012
  7. We still don't seem to get it, this concept of framing the message, of branding the opposition, of creating long-lasting perceptions about the GOP that would sway votes for generations to come. We have to brand the GOP as "The Party Of Recession," as "The Party Of Job Destroyers." Perhaps it's anathema to some in our party to use the Frank Luntz method of branding the opposition by using catchy slogans and labels... but it works. And the one key difference is we can BACK up our labels with FACTS (something Republicans could never do). We must use a common language, a set of terms/phrases, when speaking of Republicans. We must ALL use these terms/phrases, and AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. And, we have the facts to back them up, for those who feel guilty about using this approach created by Luntz. Language matters! -
  8. Have you heard? Ryan is now trying to "Etch-a-Sketch" his past worship of Ayn Rand. But there's plenty of video showing him lauding Rand and advocating her philosophy.
  9. Forrest Gump had a heart. Mitt Romney is a shell. There's no substance to Romney. "Don't run, Romney, don't run!" someone should have shouted.
  10. The Romney campaign is accusing President Obama of cutting Medicare by $700 billion in order to pay for "Obamacare," and has made that charge the centerpiece of a new ad. The basic claim: Obama stole the money seniors put into Medicare in order to give health care to other Americans. Watch: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/new-romney-ad-accuses-obama-of-cutting-medicare REFUTE THE LIE WITH THIS GRAPHIC BELOW:
  11. January 2009: Paul Ryan Literally Plotted To Sabotage America's Economy August 13, 2012 On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy. The Guest List: Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R), Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R), Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R), Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R). Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich During the four hour meeting: Paul Ryan and the other senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation. Paul Ryan and these other Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours. No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy. MORE: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1119591/-January-2009-Paul-Ryan-Literally-Plotted-To-Sabotage-U-S-Economy
  12. The Five Fatal Flaws of Romney's Ryan Veep Pick August 12, 2012 By Tim Dickinson 1) Who's the Boss? Romney is the most awkward GOP nominee since George H.W. Bush. Ideally, he ought to have picked a dutiful, competent running-mate who wouldn't risk upstaging him. But Romney – like McCain before him – felt he needed a game changer. So he went with Ryan, a man who electrifies the party base far more than he ever could. At the ceremony where he introduced Ryan, Romney looked less like he was introducing his new side kick, and more like he was passing the torch to the party's replacement nominee – an impression Romney gaffetastically reinforced by lauding Ryan as "the next president of the United States!" 2) All Right, Right Now!? For all the talk of Etch-a-Sketching a more centrist Romney for the general election, the Ryan pick actually drags Romney farther to the right than he was willing to venture during the primary, when he refused to go the Full Ryan. In winning the nomination, Romney left significant daylight between his own, pragmatic brand of free-market conservatism and the heartless, New-Deal rollback championed his radical future runningmate and the radically unpopular GOP-run House. Over the weekend, that daylight vanished. The Ryan Budget has become Romney's de-facto platform – and possibly his electoral albatross. 3) Don't Tax Me, Bro Romney has been twisting in the wind over his tax returns. But the Ryan pick doesn't change the subject, it just raises more difficult questions. Like: "Governor Romney, do you really think you deserve to pay nothing in taxes?" The Ryan plan, unlike the proposals that Romney put forward in the primaries, would zero out taxes on capital gains and dividends, the vast bulk of Romney's earnings. Now, Harry Reid may have been full of [excrement] when he gossiped about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years; but if the Ryan plan were to pass – and top Romney adviser Ed Gillespie insisted Sunday that "of course" it would be law by now had Romney been president – Mitt would pay nothing in taxes going forward. Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-five-fatal-flaws-of-romneys-ryan-veep-pick-20120812
  13. The media have portrayed Rep. Paul Ryan as a courageous reformer who is offering serious solutions to fix the country's finances. In reality, Ryan is an ideologue who offers fraudulent proposals that would hurt low and middle income Americans and put the social safety net in jeopardy. Media Matters looks at what the media should know about Paul Ryan and his policies. Media Have Portrayed Ryan As A Serious and Responsible Reformer 1. Ryan Wants Low And Middle Income Americans To "Bear The Entire Burden" Of His Fiscal Reforms 2. Ryan Plan Would Drastically Hurt Medicare And Medicaid Recipients 3. Ryan Has A Fraudulent Plan To Reduce The Deficit 4. Fiscal Hawk? Ryan Supported Policies That Caused Massive Deficits 5. Ryan Has Repeatedly Proposed Partially Privatizing Social Security 6. Ryan Is A Historically Ideological VP Nominee Pick 7. Paul Ryan: George W. Bush Endorsed Full analysis of each of the above items at: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/11/seven-things-the-media-needs-to-know-about-paul/189277
  14. Rachel Maddow: "Mitt Romney has a tell." Aug 04, 2012 by hungrycoyote At the end of Thursday night's show, Rachel Maddow had a teaser about a piece of video that hadn't been seen in 10 years. I posted the teaser as an update to the diary about Wednesday's night's show (Rachel Maddow Helps President Obama Expose Romney's Achilles’ Heel), where Rachel showed us how Mitt Romney was caught lying during his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts. Here's the video clip Rachel was talking about. (Video of Sept 24, 2002, debate) Question: You have refused to release your income tax forms even though others, including Governor William Weld, U.S. Senator John Kerry, and your opponent, Shannon O'Brien, released theirs. Do you have something to hide? Mitt Romney (laughing): I believe very deeply in my personal privacy, what little amount there's left. And in this case, you've made a couple exceptions from your list. Senator Kennedy, when I was running against him, "Boy," I told him, "you've got to release those income tax returns of yours." And he said, "No, I value my privacy." And I think he was right, and I was wrong. As a result, I do share his view on this. I'm not going to release my income tax returns. And Shannon O'Brien's husband, with whom I presume they share expenses, likewise hasn't reduced, excuse me, released his income taxes. One thing I noticed, that Rachel never mentioned in Friday night's show, was that correction at the end: "And Shannon O'Brien's husband, with whom I presume they share expenses, likewise hasn't reduced, excuse me, released his income taxes." Am I being too cynical, or does that look like some sort of Freudian slip? Now that you've seen the promised clip, I will try to explain how it fits into the narrative of the hypocrisy Mitt Romney has been practicing ever since his first foray into an attempt to take public office in 1994, when he ran against Ted Kennedy trying to claim Kennedy's Senate seat. Rachel dedicated nearly the entire first half hour of Friday night's The Rachel Maddow Show to examining Mitt Romney and how he has been dancing around releasing his income taxes since that 1994 race. There was so much information to share, that Rachel divided it into two segments with a commercial break in between. The first segment reviewed what has been happening this week with what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney having paid no taxes for ten years, wanting to know what Romney is hiding, and the ensuing firestorm. MORE: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/04/1116592/-Rachel-Maddow-Mitt-Romney-has-a-tell
  15. For years the GOP has been branding/labeling Democrats by creating phrases that elicit perceptions about our party. Frank Luntz is the individual who initiated this approach. His idea was to coin short phrases that would convey something negative about our party, and he demanded that all Republicans -- Senators, House members, television pundits -- use them repeatedly. He believed, and was right, that use of these phrases by ALL members of the GOP, and use of them ALL the time, would create a negative perception about Democrats that would become ingrained in the minds of the public, of the American electorate, and thus alter how many voted. Examples? Think of "tax-and-spend liberals," "limousine liberals," "cut-and-run Democrats," "nanny state," "war on Christmas," to name just a few. The GOP, in formulating these phrases, has created a playbook. All the members study their playbook and use it like a sledgehammer on the public. Just turn on CNN or MSNBC (and of course FOX) and you hear the phrases used by Republicans every time, all the time. And so the time has come to create our own playbook. We have the opportunity to define the Republican Party, to create long-lasting perceptions about them. In other words, they've been defining -- branding -- us for decades. It's now our time to define -- to brand -- them! Below are two graphics that convey the same information as the graphic above, just less tedious and more entertaining: other examples at http://www.airfarceone.net/mittrom.html
  16. He won't releases his tax returns. (What's he hiding?) He lied about how long he was at Bain. Now we have the disaster in London. Romney is going down in flames. We haven't even gotten to the convention yet. (We may still yet see a floor fight.)
  17. Best? Not even one of the "better" presidents. More like one of our WORST!
  18. To see what he would do as President, look at what he has said and done in the past... http://mittromneyforpresident2012.org/ (This is NOT a pro-Romney site. This site looks at Romney's flip-flops on issue after issue.) Example: Romney On Health Care Reform:
  19. What rubbish. Blame the victims. Label people who can't do for themselves and because of no fault of their own are in dire situations. People back in the 1930s ... you know how many probably died because their families couldn't afford to take care of them? You know how many people died who had they been alive today, with today's programs, would have lived longer, productive lives. Look in our inner cities, before they were a proud people? Where did you study sociology and history? What ignorance! And this is a liberal ONLY forum. What part of liberal ONLY don't you understand? Take your right-wing prejudice and nutty ideas to the conservative message board.
  20. But it was worth it I hope. Besides, you can't be denied coverage now for a pre-existing condition. (Which we can thank the president for in his fight for expanding healthcare coverage!)
  • Create New...