Gay Patriot Header Image

Given his divisive (& often dishonest) campaign,how can Obama (should he win) expect to unite country?

Yesterday, Charles Krauthammer contended Mitt Romney’s poll numbers were “so much worse in the swing states than they are in the national polls” because, for the past six months, Democrats have been falsely advertising that the Republican nominee “wants to cut the taxes for the rich and to tax the middle class”:

You see ad after ad, and they are both false. I think he needs to look at the camera straight, explain in a sentence or two why each is completely false, and to then turn to the president and ask him how he can premise his entire election on a way of presenting the Romney position that is so at odds with the truth….

Not only have Obama’s ads been generally dishonest, but they have been overwhelmingly negative.  The SuperPACs and unions cutting ads for the Democrat seem more intent on vilifying Mitt Romney than in making the case for Barack Obama.  One union even tracked down Mitt Romney’s garbageman who somehow seemed to know that the Republican didn’t value his services.

When running for governor of Massachusetts, however, Romney had spent a day working as a garbageman and feeling “invisible” in that job, wondered if “it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect.“*

The ad, in short, offered an impression of Romney at odds with reality.

And it’s not just the ads.  It’s comments like Vice President Biden’s yesterday (echoing things the president himself has said on the campaign trail) falsely claiming that Romney would raise taxes on the “middle class.”  Deceptive though it is, Obama’s negative campaigning has been effective to some degree.  Although Obama’s policies have exacerbated many of the nation’s problems (and sometimes even created new ones), he could still win.

But, if he did, how would he be able to govern?  How can a man who has run such a divisive campaign manage to unite the nation?

*One can imagine how much media coverage this deceptive ad would have received had a pro-Republican group presented it.

Share

63 Comments

  1. There is no way Obama would even try to “unite the nation.” I’m not even really sure what that means, but I what I do know is that leftists only “divide and conquer.” If everyone gets along, they will blame the government for their problems (or, worse, themselves) instead of each other.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — October 3, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - October 3, 2012

  2. Obama isn’t interested in governing, just keeping the fancy jumbo jet and the priority tee-times for another four years.

    Comment by V the K — October 3, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - October 3, 2012

  3. First and foremost, in Augustinian philosophy, “a lie is speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

    The campaign that “informs” what Romney is going to do to people in terms of taxation is not knowable, unless Romney himself has stated the “information” himself in no uncertain terms.

    Of course, it is possible to “deduce” the “information” by examining documents and statements that give strong evidence that the “information” is correct.

    The speaker could claim that he is giving a “warning” without the”intention of deceiving” based on some level of “probability” deduced from a variety of sources of information that leads to a “reasonable” speculation. However, this makes the “informer” the judge of what is “worthy” information.

    So, time to look at how a demagogue proceeds apace:

    All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

    Hitler: Mein Kampf, p. 134

    In fact, it is not really about deception; it is pitting intentional evil against the fabric of trust and honor.

    The lie is intended to put Romney on the defensive as Obama smirks and dissembles and blames Bush. Clarity, reason and truth are all victims in the Big Lie.

    Romney’s task is to disarm the demagogue while establishing the truth.

    I agree that Romney must dismiss each Obama harpoon as manure, but he must also counter Obama with truthful facts that corner him.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - October 3, 2012

  4. Obama doesn’t care about uniting the country, he is obsessed with punishing white people.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 3, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - October 3, 2012

  5. I find it extremely difficult to adequately express my frustration at conservatives for complaining about Obama’s inability to unite the country. Of all the lazy, dishonest, and nonsensical attacks you guys launch at Obama, the idea that there is any plausible scenario wherein conservatives would unite with liberals behind Obama is the worst. The bottom line is that conservatives would rather the economy completely crater than to ever willingly give credit to Obama for anything.

    Unity is a two way street, and Republicans never do it. Democrats are always more willing to go along with Republican legislation and policy proposals, and Republicans hand back goose eggs to Democratic ideas. You’ll try to deny this, of course, but everyone knows that the partisan discipline among the Republican caucus is your party’s greatest strength.

    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about. And you want to talk about how divisive President Obama is? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

    Comment by Levi — October 3, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - October 3, 2012

  6. Oh look, Levi is lying again.
    And in other news, the sun is setting in the west.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 3, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - October 3, 2012

  7. Yes, Livewire, and we can prove it.

    Liberalism depends on being a pathological liar. Levi lies for power. Just as the pathetic liar Obama accused Romney of being a murderer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2012 @ 7:23 pm - October 3, 2012

  8. He cannot unite the country because his socialism is loathed by nearly half of America.

    Comment by davinci — October 3, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - October 3, 2012

  9. The little fascist with visions of grandeur has brought his enslaved goat to the discussion and demands respect and throttles it while blaming G.W. Bush for making him a pervert. I particularly love this:

    Unity is a two way street.

    Right. Both ways lead to his way or the highway. How cute:

    •you guys nominated a super-rich candidate

    that who goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors

    •about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.

    Oh.

    Obama has never gone behind closed doors and talked about bitter clingers or acted the race-baiting brother in despair against whitey or said that 47% of the country needs to be government trained to know how to not act like jerks and a$$holes in the job market. Nope. Your man doesn’t flit to Hollywood for high dollar hi-jinx or hang out in Las Vegas which he has scolded the little people to avoid. Nope. Not your hypocrite-in-chief.

    You morons have got to unite and get your morons-for-equality message tuned up.

    Come election day, you buffoons of braggadocio are in for one hellava silent majority ice bath.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2012 @ 7:36 pm - October 3, 2012

  10. I get a little tired of liberals whining that Republicans wouldn’t work with President “F–k You Guys, I won,” but then I remember, they are cultists, and they must defend the Cult Leader with as many lies as they can.

    Can anyone think of anything … ANYTHING… that the Cult Leader offered the Republicans by way of compromise… Ever?

    “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” – Barack Obama, October 25, 2010.

    This is what Cultists mean when they say their Cult Leader “tried to work with Republicans.”

    Comment by V the K — October 3, 2012 @ 7:46 pm - October 3, 2012

  11. V the K.

    No longer do I assume that there is common ground between the Progressive mantra and common sense. My many years of entertaining enlightened discussion has finally come to the bitter realization that the general nature of the Progressive is little different from the nuanced behavior of the Mongol horde. They are not the least bit interested in progressing; they are only intent on subjugation and tribute.

    In fact, I see little difference between them and radical Islam. They are out to milk what they can from their oppressed and desert them when they run dry. If they run out of recruits, they will simply impress them into service on threat of of violent dismemberment.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2012 @ 8:11 pm - October 3, 2012

  12. Whereas Bush compromised with Democrats all the time; for example, in letting Ted Kennedy’s staff write his education bill. Really, to be able to say this with a straight face:

    Unity is a two way street, and Republicans never do it… Democrats are always more willing to go along with Republican legislation and policy proposals

    … means that the speaker is either ignorant, dumb or a liar without shame. I will allow Levi to take his pick.

    there is [no] plausible scenario wherein conservatives would unite with liberals behind Obama

    Sure there is. For example, if Obama were to propose meaningful spending cuts.

    What you should really say, is: There is no plausible scenario wherein Obama would demand anything but total victory for His way of doing things.

    conservatives would rather the economy completely crater than to ever willingly give credit to Obama for anything

    Wrong again. The economy is going to crater all on its own, Levi. Because of Obama’s policies these last 3 1/2 years. Because of that alone. Conservatives don’t want it; they merely recognize it as inevitable. You should, too. Start preparing yourself now.

    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.

    You mean the Democrats with Obama, right? (The Obamas being well part of the proverbial “one percent”, and Obama having done the bidding of Goldman-Sachs these past 3 and 1/2 years.) Or are you just projecting again? LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - October 3, 2012

  13. the general nature of the Progressive is little different from the nuanced behavior of the Mongol horde. They are not the least bit interested in progressing; they are only intent on subjugation and tribute.

    heliotrope, you may have noticed lately that I agree, and my commentary on left-liberals has become that much more strident.

    I have noticed two things that the ideological or ‘committed’ left-liberal will always, always, always protect and insist upon – with EVERYTHING they say being a mask designed to manipulate people into letting them have it, and no compromise on it ever being acceptable or even possible:

    1) Unlimited abortion.
    2) Government handouts.

    Publicly-funded, late-term abortion combines the two and is their wet dream.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - October 3, 2012

  14. It’s always liberals like Levi that say we have to unite behind the democrat president but Levi will never unite behind a republican president.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 3, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - October 3, 2012

  15. “Given his divisive (& often dishonest) campaign,how can Obama (should he win) expect to unite country?”

    Maybe he’s counting on the fact that liberals tend to see defamation of conservatives as “bridge-building”. :-)

    Comment by pst314 — October 3, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - October 3, 2012

  16. Shorter Levi: “Be reasonable. Bend over and take it, you @#$ kulak.”

    Comment by pst314 — October 3, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - October 3, 2012

  17. And now, gentlemen and the occasional lady, let us jam this particular nugget down Levi’s throat.

    Sideways.

    “Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt 20 months later,” Obama says, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you’ve got to give a 10 percent match. The local government’s got to come up with 10 percent. Every 10 dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s got to give a dollar.

    “Now here’s the thing, when 9/11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you got to put in. Well, here’s 10 dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not going to wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’ … What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense. Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much.

    And the reality:

    Commenter “Ken” points out something I hadn’t been aware of before: Obama was one of a small minority in the Senate who voted against the bill that waived the Stafford Act in order to make assistance funds available to the New Orleans Katrina victims without their having to match them with a 10% contribution.

    That’s the same Stafford Act he lied about in his 2007 Hampton speech, the waiver that had actually occurred several weeks before he made the speech, the waiver that he voted against.

    See this for a list of those who voted for and against. You’ll note that Obama’s “nay” vote was one of only 14 cast against the act, almost all of them liberal Democrats.

    So put bluntly: Obama screamed that the US government was racist for not waiving a law that it not only waived, but whose waiver he personally voted against.

    Again. Obama lied about there being no waiver. He knew there was a waiver, because he voted against it.

    Obama called white Americans and the American government racist based on not only an outright lie, but an obvious deliberate and malicious lie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - October 3, 2012

  18. Levi is like red dog. Who is red dog? Well red dog ran onto the school yard and locked on to a bitch in heat. All the children ran to the window to watch red dog. The teacher went out and beat red dog with a broom, to no avail. So little Alex went out and said he could make red dog stop. He took the broom and jammed the handle in red dog’s behind. Red dog ran off howling. Alex told the teacher: “red dog can give it, but he can’t take it.”

    Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2012 @ 11:03 pm - October 3, 2012

  19. Poor Andrew Sullivan:

    Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

    It is to laugh. Obambi has lost his styrofoam columns and his klieg light halo and only the lonely old pols are there to mop his brow. Do you suppose Rahmbo will send him a dead fish?

    Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - October 3, 2012

  20. Lots of wailing from other lefties too. Chris Mathews’ teeth-gnashing priceless… not anything he says specifically, but just the fact that he’s doing it… vehemently: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/03/romney-wins/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2012 @ 11:55 pm - October 3, 2012

  21. I get a little tired of liberals whining that Republicans wouldn’t work with President “F–k You Guys, I won,” but then I remember, they are cultists, and they must defend the Cult Leader with as many lies as they can.

    Romney came very close, but not quite to reminding Obama of this in the debate. As soon as Romney mentioned how he would get legislation passed, you could tell this was what he was thinking.

    I think Obama has been so coddled by the media that he assumes victory is his, if he just runs out the clock on the election and he has forgotten how to make any kind of substantive argument.

    Of course Obama has 4 years of crap to defend-it is hard to be Mr. Hope and Change when the economy is in the dump, the middle and lower class keep sinking lower and the scandals keep coming (at some point the media isn’t going to be able to distract the electorate with bright shiney things like Romney gaffes).

    Comment by Just Me — October 4, 2012 @ 12:24 am - October 4, 2012

  22. Was surfing for debate news, but came across this Golden Oldie from 2008: http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Is-Obama-an-enlightened-being-Spiritual-wise-2544395.php

    I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

    … But He did, basically. Phrases like “Goldman-Sachs”, “bailouts”, “Quantitative Easing”, “Too Big To Fail”, “Porkulus” and “Solyndra” come to mind. Anyway, Morford continues:

    Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

    Umm… does tonight’s debate performance put the nail in that coffin?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 12:47 am - October 4, 2012

  23. Let’s face it, Obama’s performance will probably get better in the next debates.

    But that doesn’t mean Romney’s will go downhill. And if Romney stays in good form, he wins. As someone just pointed out over at _Powerline_: Undecided voters have seen Obama in good form before, and they’re still undecided. To break Romney, they only need to see him as a plausible alternative.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 1:19 am - October 4, 2012

  24. “Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate”

    Funny how when the democrap is rich (Kerry) it does not matter.

    Comment by susan — October 4, 2012 @ 3:09 am - October 4, 2012

  25. Inherited wealth vs. self-made, is the issue there. Lefties hate independent, self-made people. People who acquire wealth by inheritance, marriage, etc. are not independent and self-made. They fear their wealth – because they have no idea how it was made; no hope of ever re-making it themselves if they should need to. Lefties like people like that. Such people gravitate to Big Government, i.e. left-wing politics, which fixes the system in their favor while they pretend to be noble (cheap grace).

    So, if someone’s wealth is self-made or largely so, the leftie makes a big thing of it. But if someone’s wealth was married into or inherited, the leftie is OK with it; the more so because the wealthy person (in the latter case) is likely to be a leftie and to give money to lefties.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 3:46 am - October 4, 2012

  26. Umm… does tonight’s debate performance put the nail in that coffin?

    Well I am not the person to ask because I always viewed the whole “Lightworker” spiel a load of crap, but I think the coffin was nailed shut somewhere after he said “I won” and then moved on to shove stimulus and obamacare down our throats.

    I am curious what Obama does over the next few days-he knows and his team knows he failed in last night’s debate, but Obama is not the type to deal well with failure, my guess is he is going to get nasty or find some dog to wag.

    Comment by Just Me — October 4, 2012 @ 8:12 am - October 4, 2012

  27. Inherited wealth vs. self-made, is the issue there. Lefties hate independent, self-made people. People who acquire wealth by inheritance, marriage, etc. are not independent and self-made. They fear their wealth – because they have no idea how it was made; no hope of ever re-making it themselves if they should need to. Lefties like people like that. Such people gravitate to Big Government, i.e. left-wing politics, which fixes the system in their favor while they pretend to be noble (cheap grace).

    So, if someone’s wealth is self-made or largely so, the leftie makes a big thing of it. But if someone’s wealth was married into or inherited, the leftie is OK with it; the more so because the wealthy person (in the latter case) is likely to be a leftie and to give money to lefties.

    Huh. That’s an interesting thing to say considering who conservatives have been nominating for President recently. Mitt Romney is inherited wealth. McCain married into his wealth. George W. Bush inherited his wealth from his father who inherited his wealth from his father. Yes, John Kerry married into money too, but by any definition, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are more self-made than the conservative candidates.

    And yet…. ‘Lefties like people like that.’ We’ve been voting against those kinds of candidates for the better part of 30 years, so I guess we have a funny way of showing it.

    Comment by Levi — October 4, 2012 @ 8:35 am - October 4, 2012

  28. 1. Romney gave away his inheritance to charity. His fortune is, in fact, self-made … Although being the son of the governor of Michigan definitely gave him a leg up.
    2. In building his fortune, Romney created thousands and thousands of private sector jobs. Clinton and Obama created their personal fortunes entirely through politics, making themselves wealthy but creating zero jobs for anybody else.
    3. Every Democrat candidate for president since 1984 has been a career politician.
    4. The cultist has no answer to the question of what his cult leader offered Republicans as an incentive to work with him.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2012 @ 9:24 am - October 4, 2012

  29. 1. Romney gave away his inheritance to charity. His fortune is, in fact, self-made … Although being the son of the governor of Michigan definitely gave him a leg up.

    I think few democrats and Obama supporters know this fact. Obama has done an excellent job of throwing the “inherited wealth” mud at Romney to the point that people do not know Romney gave his wealth away.

    One can make the argument that Romney benefit from the wealth by being able to attend private prep schools etc, but then so did Obama (and his girls are going to be able to walk into any university they choose while the common man has to fight for a spot).

    Comment by Just Me — October 4, 2012 @ 9:33 am - October 4, 2012

  30. Obama did not grow up in poverty. He was raised by his grandparents. His grandmother was the vice president of a bank and he attended an elite private school in Hawaii before affirmative actioning his way to Columbia and Harvard. (Until his records are released, I will assume he was not admitted on merit.) He then made millions on a book that was probably written by someone else and was carried to political success by the Chicago machine and a national media that never better him and willingly made themselves operatives of his campaign. Only his drooling cult-followers fail to see him for the mediocrity that he is.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2012 @ 9:53 am - October 4, 2012

  31. “Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are more self-made than the conservative candidates”

    BWHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

    It must be pathetic to acknowledge that the last democratic president who had what in the normal world is called ‘real job’ is Jimmah Cartah.

    Your hero barak obama in the very short time span he was a lawyer he protected his rich chicago buddies VERSUS poor (black) people. Your superman sided with the crooked and powerful AGAINST the little people.

    And the money he got from the books, we all know he didn’t write them.

    Comment by susan — October 4, 2012 @ 10:29 am - October 4, 2012

  32. but by any definition, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are more self-made than the conservative candidates.

    See? They didn’t build their wealth. The government built that.

    Two grifters and leeches on the public tax trough took small salaries and “somehow” parlayed it into millions. You know, “cattle futures” and “speaking fees” and best selling books that lie around on the remainder tables. Stuff like that.

    The little fascist has at least two candles burning on his altar to statism.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 4, 2012 @ 10:30 am - October 4, 2012

  33. And yet ‘Lefties like people like that.’ We’ve been voting against those kinds of candidates -FOR, repeat FOR, millionaire and billionaire candidates who like having the system fixed in their favor- for the better part of 30-200- years

    FIFY, Levi.

    1. Romney gave away his inheritance to charity. His fortune is, in fact, self-made

    Exactly. Sounds like a certain cultist knows less than he thinks. (No surprise there.)

    2. In building his fortune, Romney created thousands and thousands of private sector jobs. Clinton and Obama created their personal fortunes entirely through politics, making themselves wealthy but creating zero jobs for anybody else.

    I should have mentioned that, in addition to marriage and/or inheritance, lefties also treat extortion (whether that be politics/lobbying/bureaucracy, or sometimes criminal racketeering) as an implicitly acceptable way to have acquired one’s wealth.

    Again, the key is that the wealthy person must be a “government rentier”, someone who will join with leftists in seeking a Big Government that will rig the system to benefit the politically well-connected. Again, lefties love that kind of rich person… while hating and fearing its opposite, a rich person who creates real jobs for real people and makes a success of themselves, independent of lefties.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 11:21 am - October 4, 2012

  34. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton… are self-made…

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Living off the taxpayer doesn’t count. (In Obama’s case, being a Manchurian Candidate who was made by his handlers and backers – not by Himself – especially does not count.)

    To think that it does count, is to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of everything I’ve said.

    Obama and Clinton have only ever lived by exploiting their connection with government. They haven’t created wealth. They have no idea how to create wealth. That’s the point.

    Lefties envy, fear and resent those rich people who would know how to create jobs and wealth, because they’ve personally done it. While lefties often admire rich people who don’t know how to create jobs and wealth (because they haven’t done it; they’ve only married, inherited, or ‘politicked’ their way into it)… especially if the latter give money to lefties. Hence, lefties love the Kerrys of the world, the Roosevelts, the Kennedy and Rockefeller *heirs*, the Clintons and Obamas… while fearing and hating rich people who have personally created jobs and wealth. Like Romney.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 11:36 am - October 4, 2012

  35. Wondering if the cultist will defend the tattered shreds of its talking point or just repeat them on the next thread as though no one destroyed them.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - October 4, 2012

  36. Clinton spent much of his adult life as governor of Arkansas and didn’t really get elit wealthy until he made money from being president.

    Oh, and the majority of the “wealthiest members of congress” list are democrats.

    Comment by Just Me — October 4, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - October 4, 2012

  37. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Living off the taxpayer doesn’t count. (In Obama’s case, being a Manchurian Candidate who was made by his handlers and backers – not by Himself – especially does not count.)

    To think that it does count, is to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of everything I’ve said.

    Obama and Clinton have only ever lived by exploiting their connection with government. They haven’t created wealth. They have no idea how to create wealth. That’s the point.

    You made your point clearly enough. Now it just kinda seems like you’re adding a few extra qualifiers because I pointed out how the biographies of all the most recent Presidential candidates contradicted everything you just said. You have to completely change the commonly accepted definitions of ‘inherited wealth’ and ‘self made’ in order to this, and oh well, why not, since you’re just making it up as you go along, self-made careers in public service don’t count. If you’ve ever gotten a public scholarship or drew salary as a government worker, then you can never ever consider yourself self-made, according to your rules.

    Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is self-made because he gave away his inheritance! Mitt Romney the venture capitalist owes nothing to his father’s wealth, business associations, or political connections. His life would have turned out exactly the same had his dad been a lumberjack. And John McCain is self-made regardless of his marriage to a beer heiress. And George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are both self-made despite tracing their heritage to a wealthy political dynasty.

    Comment by Levi — October 4, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - October 4, 2012

  38. See Levi,

    See Levi backpedal.

    Backpedla little fascist, backpedal!

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 4, 2012 @ 3:57 pm - October 4, 2012

  39. tracing their heritage to a wealthy political dynasty.

    No way Clinton parlayed his long political life into the Oval Office and then build enormous wealth trading on his place at the political table. Nope. He didn’t have any wealthy network of good old boys who lined his pockets and now line up to curry his favor. Nope. Why, little Chelsea had to work at McDonald’s for ages just to get her own posh home.

    And Barack, he worked how many jobs to earn his way through Columbia? He spent so much time toiling for his meal ticket that he became entirely invisible as a Columbia student. It is almost as if he wasn’t really there. Remarkable. But, by golly, when he finished up as the star of the Harvard law school, why he went to Chicago to be a social worker. And, lo and behold, he met high placed wealthy people and they helped him be a state senator and a U.S. Senator and then POTUS and he even grabbed the Nobel Peace Prize before he was even inaugurated. Just a remarkable comet who happened to become a millionaire on books nobody ever read. But, somehow people with money attached themselves to him and he was able to help them in “small” ways and …… oh, how great it is be caught up in the highest clouds of wealthy political power brokers.

    Who do you think will have more clout: Former President Clinton or Former President Clinton or Former President Carter?

    Comment by heliotrope — October 4, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - October 4, 2012

  40. You made your point clearly enough. Now it just kinda seems like you’re adding a few extra qualifiers because I pointed out how the biographies of all the most recent Presidential candidates contradicted everything you just said.

    Wrong, Levi.

    You screamed that rich people who went around sucking up to big-money donors weren’t fit to be President.

    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.

    Comment by Levi — October 3, 2012 @ 6:56 pm – October 3, 2012

    You got smacked with the fact that you were pushing rich people who went around sucking up to big-money donors as candidates for President.

    Again, the basic issue: you don’t like Romney because Romney and other Republicans don’t subscribe to your grifter theories that the government owes you a handout. And we know that you support and endorse the super-rich who criminally defraud others as long as they agree with your mooch and grifter philosophy. After all, you insist that small business owners and working people need to pay more taxes so that insider-trading multimillionaire Nancy Pelosi can have her liquor-stocked private airliner without having to spend her own money.

    What’s the matter, Grifter Boy? No answer? Doesn’t the little grifter Levi want to explain why he and his Barack Obama Party want to tax small businesses more so Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to trouble herself with spending any of her millions?

    Handouts. That is all you want, Levi. You want a handout. You don’t want to work, you don’t want to contribute; you just want a handout. Just like the rest of your fellow Obama supporters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2012 @ 4:39 pm - October 4, 2012

  41. You got smacked with the fact that you were pushing rich people who went around sucking up to big-money donors as candidates for President.

    Exactly. This comment:

    a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about

    …perfectly describes Democrat nominees, like both Barack Obama and John Kerry. And, come to think of it, Bill Clinton in his day.

    As I said, leftists are fine with “a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about”… if it’s the *right kind*: one who doesn’t create wealth and jobs. but who gets rich the leftie way, by marriage, inheritance, market manipulation, grift or extortion; one who understands that those who create actual wealth and jobs (and accordingly, who have significant abilities and knowledge that lefties will never have) are The Enemy, to be preyed upon if they don’t stand up for themselves, or to be feared if they do.

    Franklin Roosevelt, incidentally, was in the 1920s what we would now call a “hedge fund manager” or a “speculating vulture”. That’s the leftie game. Rig the system, for the benefit of the non-productive (both the non-productive rich, and the non-working poor). Hide the fact, under populist rhetoric. It is no accident that, in 2008, Goldman-Sachs employees were Obama’s number one donors.

    The middle class and the “working rich” are the targets. It’s not about rich vs. poor; it’s about PRODUCER (whether rich, middle or poor) vs. LOOTER (whether rich, middle or poor).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 5:24 pm - October 4, 2012

  42. A few years ago, I was given the privilege of an up close and personal encounter with Paul Allen’s mega-yacht, Octopus. The two helicopters, the manned submarine and unmanned submarine, jet ski side hatches, huge tender (larger than many yachts) and splendid appointments make it historic in a thousand ways.

    Allen took his Microsoft share and his place in the top 50 wealthiest people in the world. Due to his wealth, investments, philanthropy, and connections, Allen is considered to be one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

    Allen lives under enormous security and his every movement is highly synchronized and guarded. This is of no particular consequence, financially, to the man. He built his billions and he is extremely competent at growing his fortune. $14 billion is a lot of money. And any part of it makes a big impression on places where it is invested.

    Basically, Paul Allen can well afford to turn his back on any country and to live independently of any political jurisdiction on the planet. That is to say, if the greed of the state (any state) were to be aligned against him, he is in a very comfortable position to move to a place where he is more welcome. After all, he already lives in a hermetically sealed environment, so what difference does it make where that environment is located for tax purposes?

    What little fascists like Levi dare not understand is that the greed of statism and social engineering is limited by the realization that killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is just plain short-sighted stupid.

    Progressives dream of snatching $14billion from Allen to pee out the window in a few seconds of statist excess. But Paul Allen is totally attuned to bureaucratic profligacy and he has a built in stubborn resistance to being raped by petty clerks, bureaucrats and grifter politicians who get high on spending other people’s money.

    The cost of fuel alone in moving Octopus from Seattle to the Virgin Islands is beyond imagination. The transit through the Panama Canal would exceed $200,000 dollars one way.

    That is Allen’s calculation to make. Not Levi’s.

    On the other hand, perhaps Nancy Pelosi could hire union workers to pick her grapes and just maybe she did not have to have all that government booze on her government jet.

    If she is paying the tab from her own pocket, it is her call. But what kind of representative of the people does such a thing?

    Levi’s fascist belief system is for state supremacy. The state choses who to bail out and who to back and the loses and failures are written off with other people’s money. There is no risk. The state does not build it’s wealth, it “earns” it by the barrel of a gun.

    The little fascist is fine with that, because he has allowed himself to be trapped within the confines of entitlements. He has no vision beyond the grasp of the government dole.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 4, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - October 4, 2012

  43. The Cultist tried to deflect his attention from his inability to find a single example of his Cult Leader offering a compromise to the Republican Heretics by screeching that Mitt Romney inherited his wealth, but Clinton and Obama earned theirs honestly.

    So Levi’s takeaway from this should be… don’t argue with gay conservatives because they’re smarter and better informed than you are and won’t let you get away with your bullsh-t.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - October 4, 2012

  44. …perfectly describes Democrat nominees, like both Barack Obama and John Kerry. And, come to think of it, Bill Clinton in his day.

    As I said, leftists are fine with “a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about”… if it’s the *right kind*: one who doesn’t create wealth and jobs. but who gets rich the leftie way, by marriage, inheritance, market manipulation, grift or extortion; one who understands that those who create actual wealth and jobs (and accordingly, who have significant abilities and knowledge that lefties will never have) are The Enemy, to be preyed upon if they don’t stand up for themselves, or to be feared if they do.

    Franklin Roosevelt, incidentally, was in the 1920s what we would now call a “hedge fund manager” or a “speculating vulture”. That’s the leftie game. Rig the system, for the benefit of the non-productive (both the non-productive rich, and the non-working poor). Hide the fact, under populist rhetoric. It is no accident that, in 2008, Goldman-Sachs employees were Obama’s number one donors.

    The middle class and the “working rich” are the targets. It’s not about rich vs. poor; it’s about PRODUCER (whether rich, middle or poor) vs. LOOTER (whether rich, middle or poor).

    Okay. So. Your terms: ‘self-made’ versus ‘inherited wealth.’

    How would we classify both parties’ Presidential nominees for the past few decades?

    Self-Made
    Michael Dukakis (D)
    Bill Clinton (D)
    Bob Dole (R)
    Barack Obama (D)

    Inherited Wealth
    George H.W. Bush(R)
    Al Gore (D)
    George W. Bush (R)
    John Kerry (D)
    John McCain (R)
    Mitt Romney (R)

    So tell me one more time who the lefties are voting for? Among recent Presidential candidates, who is getting rich the ‘lefty’ way?

    Comment by Levi — October 4, 2012 @ 7:57 pm - October 4, 2012

  45. No way Clinton parlayed his long political life into the Oval Office and then build enormous wealth trading on his place at the political table. Nope. He didn’t have any wealthy network of good old boys who lined his pockets and now line up to curry his favor. Nope. Why, little Chelsea had to work at McDonald’s for ages just to get her own posh home.

    And Barack, he worked how many jobs to earn his way through Columbia? He spent so much time toiling for his meal ticket that he became entirely invisible as a Columbia student. It is almost as if he wasn’t really there. Remarkable. But, by golly, when he finished up as the star of the Harvard law school, why he went to Chicago to be a social worker. And, lo and behold, he met high placed wealthy people and they helped him be a state senator and a U.S. Senator and then POTUS and he even grabbed the Nobel Peace Prize before he was even inaugurated. Just a remarkable comet who happened to become a millionaire on books nobody ever read. But, somehow people with money attached themselves to him and he was able to help them in “small” ways and …… oh, how great it is be caught up in the highest clouds of wealthy political power brokers.

    Who do you think will have more clout: Former President Clinton or Former President Clinton or Former President Carter?

    Uh huh. So apparently there is some sort of super secret, all-powerful cabal of socialists and commies who arbitrarily picked Barack Obama out of a crowd at random and decided to elevate him to the Presidency. They are completely responsible for all of his accomplishments and Obama deserves no credit at all for any part of his career. Everything was handed him to, as is so often the case with black males in America, and without this decades-spanning conspiracy to capture the White House that was undertaken on his behalf he’d be living in a 1 bedroom apartment and vacuuming floor mats for a living. Sure, sure, that’s it.

    And remember, Mitt Romney never enjoyed any advantages being the son of a nearly credible Presidential candidate, because he gave his inheritance to charity in his fifties! He’s a self-made man that owes nobody nothing. He built it!

    Comment by Levi — October 4, 2012 @ 8:05 pm - October 4, 2012

  46. And as expected, linked and referenced facts are too much for the screaming child.

    Just as they were for his imbecile Obama last night.

    Liberals know nothing but strawmen. Nothing but lies they make up.

    Levi can’t deal with facts. He just screams more lies like the pathetic six-year-old child he is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2012 @ 9:05 pm - October 4, 2012

  47. Simple question for the cultie, in acquiring wealth for themselves, how many non-Government, private sector jobs did Obama and Clinton create?

    Answer: None. You don’t create any jobs when the Saudis are giving you millions, you’re selling speeches at $200,000 a pop, or putting your name on a book someone else has written that members of your cult snap up to adorn their bookshelves.

    Conspicuously absent from the Cultist’s list: John Edwards, who made himself millions and millions of dollars and bought the biggest tackiest house on the East Coast … by suing baby doctors out of business with junk science lawsuits.

    That’s pretty much the story of the Cultist’s “self-made” heroes. They create no jobs, no wealth, no prosperity for anyone but themselves.

    And the cultist thinks this somehow makes them superior to those men who used the advantages life dealt them to grow their fortunes AND start companies that created jobs and improved the lives of others.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - October 4, 2012

  48. Michael Dukakis (D)
    Bill Clinton (D)
    Bob Dole (R)
    Barack Obama (D)

    Huh? Dukakis’ father was an obstetrician and his mother was a college graduate in the days when a college education was really rare and especially for women. Dukakis got a degree from Harvard Law School and went into politics two years later. He rose through the Massachusetts House to become Governor with Tip P’Neill as his L. Gov. He had a second term as Gov. with John F’n Kerry as his Lt. Gov.

    He made his money by “wisely investing his small salary.” Right? He didn’t have any political connections whatsoever. Right? No Kennedy’s, no O’Neill, no Boston machine, no nuthin’.

    Bob Dole’s plans were interrupted by WWII. He graduated from Washburn University Law School and went into law in Russell, Kansas. He spent eight years as County Attorney for Russell County. He went on to the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Whatever money he acquired was from his public servant salary, speaking fees and whatever came his way from his political connections.

    This crap about humble origins applies only to Dole of the four people the little fascist has cited. But even in Dole’s case, he did not seem to want to go back to the porch in podunk Kansas.

    The little fascist has some sort of mental block about catching the brass ring by getting on the political merry-go-round in Washington. Somehow, these Congressmen seem to be able to come alive and become brillian financiers once they get a seat in Congress or become President. What do you suppose there is in the water in Washington, D.C.?

    Why it seems just yesterday that I heard Lyndon and Lady Bird yakking on and on about the cheap wedding band from Sears.

    The little fascist is probably too protected by his ignorance to understand that the amoral and bloated ego types are the easiest to bribe and to own. What, do you think that Clinton has in the way of useful input at the Bilderberg meetings? I suspect they all laugh at him and give him small strokes and a little gelt just to wind him up and watch him dance.

    Poor levi. He is so selective in what he hates about the rich. Even Mussolini finally learned that the higher you climb, the harder you fall. And just look at all the fascists who gathered around and tried to save him and then welt at his non-funeral.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 4, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - October 4, 2012

  49. Once more, Levi moves the goalposts. I said this:

    (25) People who acquire wealth by inheritance, marriage, *etc.* [emphasis added for clarity; Levi may not know that "etc." means "and so forth", meaning that I did originally have additional criteria in mind, to form a broad concept of wealth which the person did not create by their productive economic activity vs. wealth which they did]

    (33) also…extortion (whether that be politics/lobbying/bureaucracy, or sometimes criminal racketeering) …the key is… [to] be a “government rentier”, someone who will join with leftists in seeking a Big Government that will rig the system to benefit the politically well-connected

    (33, quoting V) Romney gave away his inheritance to charity. His fortune is, in fact, self-made

    (34) Living off the taxpayer doesn’t count…Obama and Clinton have only ever lived by exploiting their connection with government. They haven’t created wealth. They have no idea how to create wealth. That’s the point.

    Meanwhile, Levi said:

    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.

    Levi’s implication is that Democrats would never do such a thing. To disprove his implication, all I have to do is cite a couple Democrat examples of “a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about”. Which I did: Kerry, Obama and Clinton. All three are well in the proverbial “one percent” or better (in fact, the “one tenth of one percent”), and none of the three created wealth – such as a new and productive business – in the general economy. Kerry married the bulk of his wealth, getting it from someone who had herself married it. Obama and Clinton supplemented their public salaries with huge fees, trading gains, etc. that wealthy people arranged for them as bribes, basically (Tony Rezko, anyone?). All three courted super-rich donors (and lots of them!) at private events, where they made remarks dismissing Republican supporters (close to half the country).

    So, Levi’s point is negated. What does Levi do about it? Pretend that he has somehow negated mine, because HE made a list which classifies Presidential candidates in ways that VIOLATE criteria which I had stated specifically.

    in acquiring wealth for themselves, how many non-Government, private sector jobs did Obama and Clinton create? Answer: None.

    Precisely. Only change I would make is that I might have referred to “productive, economically sustainable” jobs (which bureaucratic, political and campaign jobs certainly are not).

    The simple fact is that Romney did GIVE AWAY the bulk of his inheritance and make his own fortune; and, did CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS – the productive, economically sustainable kind of job – by way of making his fortune. And leftists fear and hate that. To my point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2012 @ 11:36 pm - October 4, 2012

  50. Leave it to Levi to once again celebrate the parasites and denigrate the contributors.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2012 @ 6:18 am - October 5, 2012

  51. Once more, Levi moves the goalposts. I said this:

    You’ve completely changed the argument.

    (25) People who acquire wealth by inheritance, marriage, *etc.* [emphasis added for clarity; Levi may not know that "etc." means "and so forth", meaning that I did originally have additional criteria in mind, to form a broad concept of wealth which the person did not create by their productive economic activity vs. wealth which they did]

    That’s bullshit. Based on the context, your *etc.* might have been referring to people who win the lottery, found a dufflebag full of money down by the railroad tracks, or who got hit by a city bus and are living off a settlement. Those are all examples of people acquiring wealth by complete accident and who didn’t have to do anything at all but show up. There’s no way you can argue that a career in politics fits in that category. Successful careers in politics aren’t guaranteed.

    (33) also…extortion (whether that be politics/lobbying/bureaucracy, or sometimes criminal racketeering) …the key is… [to] be a “government rentier”, someone who will join with leftists in seeking a Big Government that will rig the system to benefit the politically well-connected

    Yeah, I understand that this is the point you were going for and this is what I’m refuting. If you’re worried about people getting into office and rigging the system, then you should be worried about the Republican Party. Again – between the Bushes, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, you have 4 of the last 5 Republican nominees that acquired enormous amounts of wealth through their politically-connected families. I know you’re worried about Barack Obama and the billionaires that he’s friends with, but how many more billionaire friends do you think Mitt Romney has? How many more decades has Mitt Romney known these billionaires? And you want to tell me that the lefties are voting these people into office? It’s absurd on its face, regardless of how much you’re willing to strain to make believe that all careers in politics should be considered ‘inheriting wealth’ more than how the Bushes, McCain, and Romney got their money.

    (33, quoting V) Romney gave away his inheritance to charity. His fortune is, in fact, self-made

    Willing and eager gullibility. Romney is rich, and he worked to become rich, but he’s not self-made in the sense that anyone talks about being self-made. Giving away your inheritance after you’ve comfortably became mega-rich with the lifelong assistance and convenience of your father’s enormous wealth, business associations, and political connections does not make you a self-made man. Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and pretending like he’d be the same venture capitalist Presidential candidate if his father had been a shoeshine or flight attendant is disingenuous.

    (34) Living off the taxpayer doesn’t count…Obama and Clinton have only ever lived by exploiting their connection with government. They haven’t created wealth. They have no idea how to create wealth. That’s the point.

    That’s completely arbitrary. Anyone that lives off the taxpayer doesn’t count…. so I guess that’s all elected representatives, government workers, and military personnel? If you’ve had a career in these fields, you’re ‘inheriting wealth.’ And if you give your inheritance away after the guarantee of an inheritance eliminated barriers and provided opportunities for your entire life, you’re ‘self-made.’ That’s stupid.

    Meanwhile, Levi said:
    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.
    Levi’s implication is that Democrats would never do such a thing. To disprove his implication, all I have to do is cite a couple Democrat examples of “a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about”. Which I did: Kerry, Obama and Clinton. All three are well in the proverbial “one percent” or better (in fact, the “one tenth of one percent”), and none of the three created wealth – such as a new and productive business – in the general economy. Kerry married the bulk of his wealth, getting it from someone who had herself married it. Obama and Clinton supplemented their public salaries with huge fees, trading gains, etc. that wealthy people arranged for them as bribes, basically (Tony Rezko, anyone?). All three courted super-rich donors (and lots of them!) at private events, where they made remarks dismissing Republican supporters (close to half the country).

    Your efforts to dismiss Romney’s 47% comments as irrelevant and standard political boilerplate are noted. All politicians routinely dismiss 47% of the population as lazy good-for-nothings that can’t be taught personal responsibility. Got it.

    Yes, Democrats trade favors. A good number of them are corrupt and all that. But the idea that they’re any worse than the Republicans, especially in the context of your ‘inherited wealth vs. self-made’ formulation, is demonstrably untrue. I mean listen to yourself – you’re complaining about Barack Obama and Bill Clinton because they get paid for speeches while pretending that Mitt Romney’s vast fortune isn’t completely a function of his father. Consider the scale as well – you’re complaining about Obama’s and Clinton’s public salaries, measured in a few hundred thousand dollars at most, and comparing them to vast family fortunes that enabled the lives of the Republican candidates measured in the hundreds of millions!

    So, Levi’s point is negated. What does Levi do about it? Pretend that he has somehow negated mine, because HE made a list which classifies Presidential candidates in ways that VIOLATE criteria which I had stated specifically.

    Precisely. Only change I would make is that I might have referred to “productive, economically sustainable” jobs (which bureaucratic, political and campaign jobs certainly are not).

    The simple fact is that Romney did GIVE AWAY the bulk of his inheritance and make his own fortune; and, did CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS – the productive, economically sustainable kind of job – by way of making his fortune. And leftists fear and hate that. To my point.

    Whether or not the government creates wealth and jobs is a completely different subject. Obviously, government does create wealth and jobs, and elected officials that craft the economic policies that do so deserve a lot of credit for creating those jobs. I’m sure you disagree with this point vehemently, but Mitt Romney seems to agree with me. He’s promising 12 million jobs in 4 years.

    Comment by Levi — October 5, 2012 @ 9:22 am - October 5, 2012

  52. So, in Levis formulation, a Democrat like Bill Clinton who accepts an eight million book deal and makes million dollar speeches for the House of Saud (creating Zero jobs) should be lionized for his “self-made”.fortune. But wealth is a liability when a Republican like Mitt Romney builds a fortune, makes other people wealthier (including middle class people and pensions invested in Vain Capital) and creates thousands of jobs.

    That’s a really effed up way of looking at it, IMHO.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2012 @ 10:25 am - October 5, 2012

  53. The little fascist, in maggot form, says this:

    Those are all examples of people acquiring wealth by complete accident and who didn’t have to do anything at all but show up. There’s no way you can argue that a career in politics fits in that category. Successful careers in politics aren’t guaranteed.

    Now, this is going to be very hard to understand: Money does not measure success.

    There are honest politicians who take no more than their salaries and have no more than their salaries. They don’t end up millionaires that way. Then there a politicians who take “tips” on how to buy IPO’s and cash in for a quick bundle. They use their “insider knowledge” to leverage a fortune. Ask Harry Reid, he is a particularly “shrewd” investor.

    The little fascist has no idea of where all that cash thrown around by K-Street ends up. The little fascist thinks Charlie Rangel’s properties in Harlem and the Dominican Republic are all just the result of scrimping and saving. The little fascist doesn’t understand how Chelsea Clinton started out in her first job at a salary greater than the highest paying government pay scale job.

    The little fascist thinks that money in politics is regulated and controlled so that only the “brilliant” politicians get rich and they do it by “accidentally” buying land and by some magic coincidence the government builds something there.

    Again – between the Bushes, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, you have 4 of the last 5 Republican nominees that acquired enormous amounts of wealth through their politically-connected families.

    The little fascist has a snoot full of sewer gas. Samuel Bush graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken and apprenticed as a mechanic in various railroads. He became the manager of a steel company in Ohio where John D. Rockefeller’s brother was the head honcho. Through the company, Bush became associated with E.H. Harriman who controlled the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Illinois Central railroads, the Wells Fargo Express Company and the Pacific Mail Steamship company. Bush took over the steel company when Rockefeller retired and remained at that post throughout his career.

    Notice the connections? So, what about Prescott Bush? He became president of several companies and eventually partners with Averell Harriman major banking and investment firms. Notice the connection?

    George H. W. Bush went to west Texas and got into the oil business and became a millionaire by the age of 40. Did connections help? Undoubtedly. That is why they call them connections.

    George W. Bush also went into the independent oil producing business and forged a financially successful career. Undoubtedly, connections played a role. People tend to put faith in successful families.

    The little fascist would have us believe that once Samuel Bush made a small fortune that it all came passing down through the generations and that the ensuing generations just lived in the lap of luxury and traded on their family name and wealth. Sort of like Jay Rockefeller or John Kerry or Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy had done.

    The little fascist needs this narrative to fuel his bile. He can’t accept that each generation of the Bush family made its mark and own success. That doesn’t fit the narrative. Nope. They all were coddled, lavished with unearned money and they bought their positions. That is the theme and the little fascist is going to stick to it.

    Like Kerry, McCain married money and it is his wife who managed and spends the money. McCain seems to be able to get along very well on his Senate salary and not get caught flaunting the wealth in the way John F’n Kerry does.

    Romeny is totally unknown to the little fascist. He prefers his comic book version of the man to the truth. The little fascist does not understand that the “good old boy” network does not shelter bimbos and numbskulls in high risk positions. They will hide away a Chelsea Clintoon and her mate or Caroline Kennedy or the Kerry girls and even Monica Lewinsky. But they don’t let them become the face of genuine capital risk.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 5, 2012 @ 11:39 am - October 5, 2012

  54. Well, V the K, Levi is an eff’d up little boy.

    After all, I already pointed out how Levi screams that money should be taken from working people to buy alcohol for drunks, diapers for people playing adult babies, and private airliners for insider-trading multi-millionaires.

    It’s really pretty simple. Liberals are lazy parasites. Romney worked for a living, and thus liberals hate him. Levi and Barack Obama want free phones, free welfare checks, free handouts, free health care, all paid for at everyone else’s expense, and you are a racist homophobe if you don’t give it to them.

    One really can’t express how sick in the head Levi’s values and morality are. He is a grifter who believes that everyone else should have to pay his bills, just like Barack Obama and just like the overwhelming majority of Barack Obama supporters and liberals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2012 @ 11:51 am - October 5, 2012

  55. The little fascist does not understand that the “good old boy” network does not shelter bimbos and numbskulls in high risk positions. They will hide away a Chelsea Clintoon and her mate or Caroline Kennedy or the Kerry girls and even Monica Lewinsky. But they don’t let them become the face of genuine capital risk.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 5, 2012 @ 11:39 am – October 5, 2012

    Bingo.

    I can’t think of a single Kennedy child holding a position anywhere outside of government or some “non-profit” think tank.

    Chelsea Clinton is an affirmative-action poster child.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2012 @ 11:55 am - October 5, 2012

  56. Aww, cut Levi some slack. He’s right! Dems worship serious money regardless of whether it’s inherited or self-made. With this little caveat that Levi conveniently leaves out, namely, affluence while Democrat is virtuous, especially when accompanied by a little rock-star glitz. Affluence while Republican is evil, period. Levi might sum it up like this: a Kennedy brother can do no wrong, a Koch brother can do no right.

    Comment by JuJuBee — October 5, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - October 5, 2012

  57. So, in Levis formulation, a Democrat like Bill Clinton who accepts an eight million book deal and makes million dollar speeches for the House of Saud (creating Zero jobs) should be lionized for his “self-made”.fortune. But wealth is a liability when a Republican like Mitt Romney builds a fortune, makes other people wealthier (including middle class people and pensions invested in Vain Capital) and creates thousands of jobs.

    That’s a really effed up way of looking at it, IMHO.

    Blah, blah, blah. Look, the only point I am making is that ILC’s assertion that lefties love inherited wealth and hate self-made wealth is completely bogus. In practice, it’s conservative who keep nominating and electing the inherited wealth guys, with liberals nominating and electing the self-made ones. You might not like how Obama and Clinton made their wealth, but you can’t deny that they did most of the work themselves and didn’t have nearly as many advantages as Mitt Romney had. I’m not exactly thrilled with the way that Mitt Romney made his money, (he negotiated a $10 million bailout for Bain in the 90s) but that’s beside the point. Whether or not the public sector creates jobs is also beside the point (though it does, quite clearly.) The only thing I was disagreeing with is the idea that lefties love people that inherited their money more than the Republicans do. Republicans are nominating exactly those kinds of people, over and over again, despite poor results, and the Democrats aren’t. Bottom line.

    Comment by Levi — October 5, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - October 5, 2012

  58. The little fascist has a snoot full of sewer gas. Samuel Bush graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken and apprenticed as a mechanic in various railroads. He became the manager of a steel company in Ohio where John D. Rockefeller’s brother was the head honcho. Through the company, Bush became associated with E.H. Harriman who controlled the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Illinois Central railroads, the Wells Fargo Express Company and the Pacific Mail Steamship company. Bush took over the steel company when Rockefeller retired and remained at that post throughout his career.

    Notice the connections? So, what about Prescott Bush? He became president of several companies and eventually partners with Averell Harriman major banking and investment firms. Notice the connection?

    George H. W. Bush went to west Texas and got into the oil business and became a millionaire by the age of 40. Did connections help? Undoubtedly. That is why they call them connections.

    George W. Bush also went into the independent oil producing business and forged a financially successful career. Undoubtedly, connections played a role. People tend to put faith in successful families.

    The little fascist would have us believe that once Samuel Bush made a small fortune that it all came passing down through the generations and that the ensuing generations just lived in the lap of luxury and traded on their family name and wealth. Sort of like Jay Rockefeller or John Kerry or Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy had done.

    The little fascist needs this narrative to fuel his bile. He can’t accept that each generation of the Bush family made its mark and own success. That doesn’t fit the narrative. Nope. They all were coddled, lavished with unearned money and they bought their positions. That is the theme and the little fascist is going to stick to it.

    Allow me to clear something up for you. I didn’t attach all of the negative connotations to self-made wealth and inherited wealth, that was ILC, he did it in comment #25, and he then made a statement about lefties generally supporting the inherited wealth people (whom he classified as negative) and hating the self-made people (whom he classified as positive.) I have not exactly taken issue with how he characterized these groups, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it completely. People that inherit their wealth aren’t necessarily untalented in their own right, and people who are self-made aren’t necessarily pure geniuses. What I took issue with was his assertion about who the lefties support. Republicans have been nominating inherited wealth people and the Democrats have been nominating self-made people. That’s simply true, regardless of how much you guys want to parse words and add a bunch of retroactive qualifiers to the original statement with which I disagreed.

    I think the Bush political dynasty is a perfect example of everything that can go wrong with an individual that inherits wealth. Again, there’s nothing necessarily wrong or disqualifying about someone who inherits their wealth, but there are some pretty severe risks you have to look for in each successive generation, and I think it’s pretty well settled that George W. Bush was someone that had no business being the President based on his own merits. Not ever having to worry about financials is something that can be very liberating, but if you didn’t have to work for that privilege you run the risk of never having faced a challenge or pursue an opportunity.

    Comment by Levi — October 5, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - October 5, 2012

  59. Again, there’s nothing necessarily wrong or disqualifying about someone who inherits their wealth

    Says the pissing, screaming boy who insists that Romney should be disqualified from the Presidency because of his wealth.

    Meanwhile, you guys nominated a super-rich candidate that goes behind closed doors and talks to super-rich campaign contributors about how half the country are losers that they shouldn’t care about.

    Comment by Levi — October 3, 2012 @ 6:56 pm – October 3, 2012

    Oh, and I forgot this one:

    Of all the lazy, dishonest, and nonsensical attacks you guys launch at Obama, the idea that there is any plausible scenario wherein conservatives would unite with liberals behind Obama is the worst. The bottom line is that conservatives would rather the economy completely crater than to ever willingly give credit to Obama for anything.

    Unity is a two way street, and Republicans never do it. Democrats are always more willing to go along with Republican legislation and policy proposals, and Republicans hand back goose eggs to Democratic ideas.

    Which once again shows what an unhinged, malicious liar Levi is.

    As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush’s major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November.

    And there’s plenty more.

    Remember that liberals have no morals, no values, and no compunctions whatsoever. Liberals are invariably violent bigots, intolerant and hateful, who will make and spread malicious lies for the sole purpose of gaining power. Like Heliotrope correctly pointed out above, liberals have no virtue or value other than short-term raping and pillaging, and will say and do anything, including violence, for the purpose of holding on to power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - October 5, 2012

  60. So now Levi is excusing his Cult Leader’s failure to offer any incentives to Republicans to build cooperation by claiming “They would never have worked with him anyway?”

    Does he have any idea how little that resembles an adult argument and how much of resembles a petulant child whining “I didn’t ask because you would have just said no.”

    I honestly don’t think he does

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - October 5, 2012

  61. In Massachusetts, one of the Kennedy trustafarians is running for Congress. The liberal media have given him glowing profiles despite his complete lack of personal accomplishments. They are just Gaga over the thought of “a Kennedy in Congress.once more.” Meanwhile In Utah, a daughter of Haitian immigrants is running for Congress after beating establishment candidates in an underdog primary campaign. No interest from the liberal media. Tell me again how liberals don’t adore inherited wealth.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - October 5, 2012

  62. The little fascist says:

    I think it’s pretty well settled that George W. Bush was someone that had no business being the President based on his own merits. Not ever having to worry about financials is something that can be very liberating, but if you didn’t have to work for that privilege you run the risk of never having faced a challenge or pursue an opportunity.

    On what basis did G.W. Bush not have to “worry about financials”? His father is still alive. He didn’t give his large family anything more than life and an education. If you have some sort of information that GW and Neil and Marvin and Dorothy and Jeb are trust fund babies, bring it on. George H. W. Bush is worth about $15million. I suppose his five kids will inherit some of the estate after #41 and Barbara Bush are deceased.

    The little fascist puke knows nothing about G.W.’s amassing his own wealth and what he went through to do it. The little fascist is just assuming that money fell into his lap as it did with the Kennedy clan and Rockefeller kids.

    It is actually a rampant case of Bush Derangement Syndrome that infects the little fascist’s brain and prevents him for telling the truth about anything connected with the Bush family.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 5, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - October 5, 2012

  63. Dick Cheney is an entirely self-made man. Born into modest circumstances, built a fortune in both politics and business. Wonder how much the cultist admires him.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - October 5, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.