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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.