TomCADem
TomCADem's JournalMitt Romney – The Anti-Reagan Republican
Ronald Reagan was a Republican President who forcefully and proudly articulated right wing rhetoric, yet he was actually more moderate in the way he governed. In California, he signed the California Environmental Quality Act into law and campaigned against a referendum in California called Proposition 6 that would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in the state's public schools. In 1986, Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. prior to Jan. 1, 1982. Finally, in 1986, Reagan raised taxes in response to the growing deficit. However, despite these steps, Reagan was a strong advocate of conservatism given his unabashed support for supply side economics.
In sharp contrast, Mitt Romney is a Trojan Horse Republican who tries to look like a moderate and soft peddles his pro-rich conservative ideals to the general electorate. Rather than proudly use right wing rhetoric like Reagan, Romney runs away from his right wing policy proposals. In closed door meetings, Romney tells the truth about his agenda to cut taxes and regulations, but during debates, he tries to argue that he actually supports stronger regulation than President Obama. Unlike Reagan, Romney strongly condemned his fellow Republicans for supporting any type of immigration reform as amnesty and supported Arizonas anti-immigration laws. Yet, his campaign once again equivocates on immigration during the general election. In other words, rather than promote or defend conservative ideals, Romney has had his best success when he avoids using right wing rhetoric.
This equivocation has even lead Republicans to question who is the true Romney. No one ever wondered where Reagan stood even though he had demonstrated a willingness to be flexible on conservative policies. Reagan spewed right wing rhetoric, but actually took steps that would have been antithetical to conservatives. Romney is now pushing moderate sounding rhetoric without actually articulating any policies that would be moderate in their application. Thus, Romney is the exact opposite of Reagan in that he quietly raises money from oil companies, the financial industry and right wing billionaires, while trying to assure the general public that he really does not favor the interests of those who are so heavily supporting him.
Why Romney's Attack On Dodd-Frank Is BS? Look at his biggest contributors...
In case you needed more information about the fact that Romney is perhaps the biggest pathological liar to ever run for office.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php
Goldman Sachs $891,140
Bank of America $668,139
JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219
Morgan Stanley $649,847
Credit Suisse Group $554,066
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-28/economy/33443500_1_mitt-romney-securities-and-investment-industry-north-star-opinion-research
The threat of new government regulations and larger deficits are upping the stakes this election cycle, and, with his more pro-business policies, Romney has captured the lions share of contributions made by the securities and investment industry. But to win votes from a wide swath of America, hell wrap his support for Wall Street in broader points about growth and reform
I dont think its a useful message in most corners of the country to talk about what you are doing for Wall Street, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.
Given his history at investment firm Bain Capital, Romney has a Wall Street sheen.
Romney Claims of Bipartisanship as Governor Face Challenge
Source: NY Times
As a Republican governor whose legislature was 87 percent Democratic, Mr. Romney said in Wednesdays debate, I figured out from Day 1 I had to get along, and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done. The result, he said, was that we drove our schools to be No. 1 in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.
But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.
The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact. A wholesale restructuring of state government was dead on arrival in the legislature; an ambitious overhaul of the state university system was stillborn; a consolidation of transportation fiefs never took place.
Mr. Romney lobbied successfully to block changes in the states much-admired charter school program, but his own education reforms went mostly unrealized. His promise to lure new business and create jobs in a state that had been staggered by the collapse of the 2000 dot-com boom never quite bore fruit; unemployment dropped less than a percentage point during his four years, but for most of that time, much of the decline was attributed to the fact that any new jobs were being absorbed by a shrinking work force.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html?hp&_r=0
After winning the Republican primaries by attacking Gingrich and Perry from the right, Romney's newly discovered support of bipartisanship comes under scrutiny.
* Yawn* - As Predicted Romney Wins On Points, But Will Lose - Let Me Explain
First, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II all "lost" their first debates as a matter of consensus. Did it matter. Nope.
Second, anyone who was expecting Obama to "beat" Romney in this debate, the question is beat what? Romney is a flip flopper who has been unemployed for years. President Obama is the incumbent with the record. Worse, Romney never defends his positions. He just disowns them. In other words, to attack Romney, you have to waste time explaining what his prior position was. Look at tax cuts! Romney does not even own his own tax plan. In other words, Romney's strategy was to simply disown anything that sound negative.
Third, the comments that you see are all stylistic. Romney was the agressor. Of course he is. He is the challenger attacking someone with a record. President Obama was trying to hold on to an eal.
Fourth, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, Romney's problem is trust. While Romney's slipperiness makes him a tough debate opponent (remember Romney moving to the RIGHT of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich on immigration), the bottom line is that this same trait makes people distrust him. While Romney may have "won" on points (as I predicted in a thead that I will link below), the problem is that Romney did so by disowning his own positions on tax cuts no less.
So, at the end of the day, you know what you have with President Obama and where he stands. But with Romney, I think even his supporters are even more confused. Worse, do you "trust" Romney if he "won" by abandoning his positions.
Nonetheless, the media types will hyperventilate, but the debate really does not change squat. Romney will get a deadcat bounce as predicted by Nate Silver, but the debate can't fix Romney's core problem, which is that his underlying message sucks and people don't trust him.
Ryan Tells Retired Seniors To Get A Job So They Are "Good Taxpayers" In Response To Question
Ryan was asked by a rally attendee who was no doubt concerned about all those people that Romney referred to who did not pay taxes whether there is "any way possible that this 47 percent can pay a nominal fee or something so that they feel that they have small ownership of the government and maybe they don't take all the handouts?" Well, now we know that the Romney-Ryan plan is to get seniors out of retirement and into the ranks of the employed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57524683/ryan-more-jobs-yield-more-taxpayers/
Ryan said the answer was more jobs.
"I have an idea: Let's help them get jobs so they can get good paychecks and then they're good taxpayers," Ryan said, ignoring the fact that military members serving in war zones and seniors were among the millions who do not owe federal income taxes.
Rollingstone Magazine - Mitt Romney's Real Agenda (Good Read)
Here is a good article that does the best job of reconciling and explaining Romney's agenda if he were to be elected President. With the selection of Ryan, the heavy fundraising from right wing billionaires, and his refusal to describe his agenda in a manner that makes mathematical sense, it is clear that Romney is not suddenly an incompetent candidate. Instead, his incompetence is actually attibutable to his efforts to obscure his agenda as President.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda-20120928
There is no longer any ambiguity about the path that Romney would pursue as president, because it's the same trajectory charted by Ryan, the architect of the House GOP's reactionary agenda since the party's takeover in 2010. "Picking Ryan as vice president outlines the future of the next four or eight years of a Romney administration," GOP power broker Grover Norquist exulted in August. "Ryan has outlined a plan that has support in the Republican House and Senate. You have a real sense of where Romney's going." In fact, Norquist told party activists back in February, the true direction of the GOP is being mapped out by congressional hardliners. All the Republicans need to realize their vision, he said, is a president "with enough working digits to handle a pen."
The GOP legislation awaiting Romney's signature isn't simply a return to the era of George W. Bush. From abortion rights and gun laws to tax giveaways and energy policy, it's far worse. Measures that have already sailed through the Republican House would roll back clean-air protections, gut both Medicare and Medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts on billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran benefits. In fact, the tenets of Ryan Republicanism are so extreme that they even offend the pioneers of trickle-down economics. "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after programs for the poor which is the last thing you ought to cut," says David Stockman, who served as Ronald Reagan's budget director. "It's ideology run amok."
And Romney has now adopted every letter of the Ryan agenda. Take it from Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to the campaign: "If the Ryan budget had come to his desk as president," Gillespie said of Romney, "he would have signed it, of course."
BREAKING - Romney Was Part of 47% Who Didn't Pay Any Federal Income Taxes In 2008 and 2009
The amazing thing is that the source of this disclosure is Mitt Romney himself during a debate with Newt Gingrich where he attacks Gingrich's proposal to reduce capital gains taxes to zero. Ironically, in making the attack, Romney admits that he did not pay any federal income taxes!
Does this mean that even Romney will vote for Obama in 2012?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/romney-i-wouldnt-pay-taxes-under-newt-plan-111988.html
Romney jumped in to ask: Do you tax capital gains at 15 percent or zero percent?
Gingrichs answer: Zero.
Under that plan, Id have paid no taxes in the last two years, Romney said, alluding to the fact that all his income is from investments.
ProPublica - "Where the Candidates Stand on Medicare and Medicaid"
Here is a serious, sober and sometimes scary look at the positions of President Obama and Romney on Medicare and Medicaid. This just underscores how much Romney and Ryan are lying when they say they are trying to "save" Medicare and Medicaid.
http://www.propublica.org/article/where-the-candidates-stand-on-medicare-and-medicaid?google_editors_picks=true
In contrast, Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romneys running mate, has proposed a more fundamental overhaul of Medicare, which he says is on an unsustainable path. On his campaign website, Romney says that Ryans proposals almost precisely mirrors his ideas on Medicare. But hes been fuzzy on other aspects of the plan.
A Romney-Ryan administration would replace a defined benefits system with a defined contribution system in which seniors are given federal vouchers to purchase health insurance in a newly created private marketplace known as Medicare Exchange. In this marketplace, private health plans, along with traditional Medicare, would compete for enrollees business. These changes wouldnt start until 2023, meaning current beneficiaries arent affected just those under 55.
Under the Romney-Ryan, the vouchers would be valued at the second-cheapest private plan or traditional Medicare, whichever costs less. Seniors who opt for a more expensive plan would pay the difference. If they choose a cheaper plan, they keep the savings.
NY Times Editorial - "No Rush To War" - Re Netenyahu's Advocacy of Preemptive War On Iran
The scary thing is that Sheldon Adelson is a strong supporter of Netenyahu, as well as Romney. A war with Iran would give Romney an easy out for backing out of his promises to reduce the deficit while he proceeds with huge tax cuts to the rich. Then, when we are even more upside down then before, Republicans will once again blame Medicare and Social Security.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/opinion/no-rush-to-war.html?_r=0
The significance of the report by The Iran Project is not just its sober analysis but the nearly three dozen respected national security experts from both political parties who signed it: including two former national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski; former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering; and the retired Gen. Anthony Zinni.
Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is trying to browbeat President Obama into a pre-emptive strike. On Tuesday, he demanded that the United States set a red line for military action and said those who refuse dont have a moral right to place a red light before Israel. Later, Mr. Obama telephoned him and rejected the appeal. On Friday, Mr. Netanyahu suggested in an interview that Israel cannot entirely rely on the United States to act against Irans program.
* * *
There is no reason to doubt President Obamas oft-repeated commitment to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, according to a new poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and 59 percent said if Israel bombs Iran and ignites a war, the United States should not come to its allys defense.
Adelson: Obama's moves liable to bring the destruction of Israel
Is it causation or correlation that just as Romney is looking for some sort of game changer, Netanyahu loudly demands a meeting with the President prior to the election (to once again publicly bitch about Obama's refusal to bomb Iran right now), then just as loudly raises a big stink when President Obama refuses to act as a neocon prop for Adelson's puppet. Netanyahu. Adelson almost makes Rupert Murdoch look tame given his direct willingness to lean on both Netanyahu and various Republican presidential candidates to promote his private foreign policy goals.
http://972mag.com/adelson-obamas-moves-liable-to-bring-the-destruction-of-israel/
Unlike the confrontation between the White House and Jerusalem over the settlements during the administrations first year, I think that the current rift has more to do with tones and personal mistrust than actual policy differences. More than anything, it seems that President Obamas Middle East speech was meant to help Israel avoid isolation at the UN, but Netanyahu overreacted, and later decided to play tough, mainly for political reasons. As I wrote yesterday, it worked out for him quite well.
What do people around the prime minister really think of Obama? A good example was given just before Netanyahus visit to the United States, in a phone interview Jewish Weeks Gary Rosenblatt conducted with Gambling Billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
Apart from being a personal friend of the Netanyahus, Adelson is the publisher of the pro-Netanyahu tabloid Israel Hayom (Israel Today), currently the most widely read paper in Israel (speculations held that the paper was started by Adelson to help Netanyahu personally). Many of Netanyahus men were on Adelsons payroll until recently: The head of the Prime Ministers Office, Nathan Eshel, was a deputy manager at Israel Hayom before joining the Neyanyahu campaign; former National Security Advisor Uzi Arad was part of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Research; the current NSA, Yaakov Amidror, was a pundit for Israel Hayom; the ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was a fellow at Adelsons conservative think-tank, the Shalem Center.
And what does Adelson think of Obama? Here it goes:
Any of the Republican hopefuls are going to be 180 degrees different from President Obama in terms of whats good for this country and for Israel, Adelson said, adding that Obama is the worst president for Israel.
All the steps hes taken against the state of Israel are liable to bring about the destruction of the state, he asserted.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri May 8, 2009, 12:59 AMNumber of posts: 17,387