Here it is:
...and one thing people always complain about is that the "candidates" never give the specifics of their "plans" to change things if they are elected. Well....here's Romney's plan - AND IT'S LOADED WITH SPECIFICS. Like it or not.
And as for President Obama: He's my President, but after a long campaign in 2007 and 2008 and 3+ years in office, I STILL don't know what his specifics are. I don't want Pelosi's specifics, or Reid's specifics, or what the Democrat's DON'T LIKE about the Republican's specifics. I WANT THE PRESIDENT'S SPECIFICS.
Unfortunately, my hunch is that even on November 6, 2012, I won't know what they are.
If I recall, the obama slogan was "change" "yes we can". I cant think of one single thing that he has done in his term that was remotely significant with the exception of killing of Bin Ladan. all that was is him saying yes....I can not think of one thing he has done in office to improve the quality of life for my family, not one. The "hot mike" incident says it all, once I get reelected I dont have anything to lose.
It really is astounding. C-Span was replaying the video of Romney's speech last night and it looked as good as it sounded on the radio. Whoever wrote it touched all the bases and outlined a superb plan to go after Obama when the campaign starts heating up. Romney delivered it very effectively, and without major flubs or looking like his eyes were tied to the teleprompter. The audience - especially considering their employment background - appeared almost enrapt when the camera panned the auditorium.
The Democratic candidate obviously won't be running on his record; he'll continue trying to scare people by distorting what the Republican would do if he got elected. If I were Romney, I'd stick to the highlights of this speech, and create attack adds which show the Democratic candidate in 2008 promising "Change We Can Believe In," followed by exactly WHAT the change has been.
Yes - bin Laden is dead, but we're still going the wrong way on entitlements, taxes, the federal deficit and debt, so the former is solidly overshadowed by the latter.
It WILL be interesting. I saw an interesting headline the other day which essentially said that the Republicans should "put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Dems go crazy." If they did that, it might bring the odds to just about even as to who would win in November. Of course, the Dems would try to paint Rice as a "right wing extremist" and tie her to Dubya, but my hunch is that the American people wouldn't buy it.
Great blog and analysis Chief, I really like your suggestion for the ticket because Romney can draw Independents so he needs to pick a traditional conservative who has the likeability factor. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are two minorities that has it too! The campaign battle will be tough regardless; however a ticket like your suggestion or mine would garner some hope if the economic situation is at least the way it is right now.
Ah Sebe and Funk...ya know I love you guys and at the risk of alienating the both of you, Romney is a much more profound Zig-Zagger than Zig-Zag Zell Miller when it comes to where he 'takes a politcal stance.' (See etch a sketch comment by one of his own Republican Party Members-Rick Santorum.)
You see, the politically nebulousness of Mitt Romney, who orchestrated the prototype on which what is called ObamaCare, swithces and changes his 'official position' more times than his kindred political mongrel Zell Miller. It really doesn't matter at all who Romney puts on his ticket before he gets the living daylights beat out of him in the General Election.
Being the chameleon that Romney is, I suggest he resurrect someone of like ilk to join him on the ticket, and the obvious choice, of course, is Bro' Zell.
Zig-Zag would make an excellent choice. Two Peas in a Pod. Two souless politcal spirits joined at the hip voicing the same vacant ideology.
Sound like a winner to me.
Hi Jimmy: I'm not really "rooting" for Romney - I'd just like to see a decent race where there's an actual choice. I suppose Romney would provide that - and nobody else on the Repub side has a prayer of beating the President. (Romney might have a prayer.)
I'd like to watch ol' Zell run for office again, but I think he's too old and probably tired of dealing with the media.
Why aren't we having pro and NCAA football already?
Hi Sebe. I ain't a knockin' ya or nothin'. Just commentin'. You are probably one of the most truly Independent minded persons I've ever come across. Funk is stand up too, but he and I are on opposite sides of the aisle. It is YOUR INDEPENDENT vote that he and I covet for our respective political party. You are in the middle which is where the candidates will run to in November. Your blog does what it should do: open things up for commentary...which is what the webmeister wants us to do here.
I try to be "independent" in my political thought, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, my life's experiences in Chicago biased me away from the Dems. I do try to fight the bias, though, and to consider things on their inidividual merits.
Speaking of biases, here's an article I ran across which - although the symbol and banner may turn off some (as well as the actual content because it goes against the stereotype) - actually has some enlightening information in it. For one - that MLK was a REPUBLICAN. I did not know that. (I also never even heard of the "NBRA.")
Here they are:
Yes. Window dressing does indeed sell. To some, anyway. And how bout that Y2K Florida Recount? It's one thing to steal a precinct or Governors seat in Illinois. It is quiet something else though to steal the Presidency of the United States.
You are right tho, Sebe...the Game is On!
Gotta go watch da news soon. Just one last comment, and I could be wrong...but if Santorum does NOT pull out of the race, I bet Newt will pull out and throw his delegates to Santorum.
Afterall, it what the Newster does best...cause a fuster-cluck. He will bring the party down with him for 'rejecting' him. It's in his DNA.
Brother Jimmy, you won’t alienate me by supporting your candidates or positions; however personal attacks are a different story which we have put in the past. I grew up a Democrat with JKF as my inspiration my mother and father bless their souls still are and they are proud of President Obama making history. I’m proud of that accomplishment too, but he is in over his head as POTUS without any executive experience whatsoever before becoming President. He can’t run on his record because it’s the opposite of the 2008 Campaign of Hope and Change and he is a flip flopper too! Romney polls well with Independents and he needs help with Conservatives and Women, that’s why Romney/Rice has a chance in November, IMHO. Will he ask and she accepts; only time will tell. I’m not a registered Republican but free markets, less government and personal responsibility is key to success in our country.
Chief, I didn’t know about the NBRA, however I had heard MLK was a Republican but I couldn’t find any supporting facts.
Hi Funky: I never paid much attention to MLKJr's political affiliation, but (like probably most people) I thought he must have been a Democrat.
My bias against the Democratic Party has nothing to do with any of that stuff in the NBRA literature. It has everything to do with the way I saw them run the elections and the unions (of which I was a steelworker's union member) in Chicago before I entered military service.
BTW: My parents-in-law had a picture of JFK (at least 20"X24") on the wall in their home, but they HATED Daley (the old man) - like most of the rest of the people we knew back then. Nobody could understand how Daley stayed in office all those years. (Everybody just said "he gets things done," which is EXACTLY what the Germans said about Hitler in the late 1930s.) I believed back then that the Dems MUST have been stuffing the ballot boxes, especially when the instances of convicted felons and the deceased voting Democratic on election day came out. And the Dem union thugs had such interesting "fundraisers," where they "influenced" the votes of union members (think verbal threats and blackjacks).
Hi Jimmy: Yes - there is some window dressing there but a lot of history too. My prediction is that everybody but Romney has just been "noise" during the GOP campaign. I give the rest of the field zero chance to overtake him. As far as whether they (the Repubs) can be fragmented enough to remain non-credible - I think it's likely. I still don't think that Romney is the candidate to enthusiastically unite the GOP and mount a serious threat on election day, but the mood of the country (and the Dem supporters) isn't what I expected at this point. Perhaps the campaign will "whip them up," but I don't see a lot of enthusiasm there and the "hopey changey thing" is pretty stale about now. It's going to be tough for them to run against Dubya this time, but I still can't see Obama being denied a second term.
I'll bet the Repubs get a lot of mileage out of that "Mic Moment" with the Russian president, though. In previous elections that would have been a KILLER.
Yes Sebe and Funk. I do not wish to get too cocky on this subject. I mean it wasn't long ago that the prospect of electing a "reformed" drunk and drug abuser from Texas seemed almost laughable to some. I by no means am trying to completely underestimate the Right. It can happen if the Left's base does not become energized and voter turnout is low in the swing states.
But I think it has to be accompanied by a Repubican ticket with sufficient charisma and apparent competence to overcome the "better the devil you know" thinking that will be in the minds of most voters this time around. I just wish the President would LEAD. Reagan and Clinton got things done by arm-twisting AND compromise in the face of tough partisan opposition. I said it before and I'll say it again:
*At least in the short term, taxes must go UP and entitlements must go DOWN. The burden must be weighed and evenly distributed throughout the social strata. No free rides.
*We are actually getting out of foreign wars, and the peace dividend should be used to balance the federal budget and pay down the federal debt.
*The welfare state must be reigned in, and big business should be afforded only those tax breaks that facilitate job creation in the United States. Our products and our workers must not be at a disadvantage re: foreign products, workers, and locations.
All of this stuff has at one time or another been part of the platform of either party. What needs to be done is some good old fashioned HORSE-TRADING, where the minds meet and the compromises are forged. They need to stop worrying about who "wins" in the media and do what they're getting paid for:
TO ENSURE THAT *WE THE PEOPLE* "WIN."