GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/12/the-man-without-a-plan-won/trackback/

  1. Not having a plan makes good campaign sense. If you present a plan, the other side will rip each detail apart. Why give them ammunition? It’s best to speak in bland generalities that make the electorate feel good about themselves and thus about you.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 12, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - November 12, 2012

  2. Massive cheating and a corrupt media are not good for our republic.

    Comment by Annie — November 12, 2012 @ 11:27 pm - November 12, 2012

  3. It is fascinating how many Obama supporters criticized our candidate for his absence of specifics when the Democrat himself put forward no proposals to address some of the nation’s pressing problems.

    Just as they criticize(d) Ryan’s budget, when the Democratic Senate hasn’t passed a budget in years, and Obama’s budgets are so ridiculous that His own party votes unanimously against them.

    Dems whine about what the grownups want to do (or won’t let Dems do), rather than put forth solutions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2012 @ 12:58 am - November 13, 2012

  4. Personal appeal? What’s the personal appeal of a scumbag thug?

    Democrats vote with their lowest instincts. Their scumbag in chief told them that it was ok to vilify opponents, Republican blacks, children with downs syndrome, moral women, people of faith, entrepreneurs who made money through honest means. What’s not to like about it if you are a scum yourself in need of validation?

    See people like Levi, he needs someone to tell him it’s ok to treat women as sexual objects because that’s what women are.

    Shut yourself off from any charity, eliminate anybody on fb that voted for the scumbag. If you receive a help request from someone make sure they voted for rt in 2012 and McCain 4 years ago. All the rest tell them to ask to the messiah in Jonestown.

    Comment by susan — November 13, 2012 @ 3:49 am - November 13, 2012

  5. mistake n.1

    “I was talking with a friend from my college alumni association who wondered at my support for Mitt Romney given that Republican’s failure”

    people like that are NOT your friends.

    This is the first mammoth mistake of the conservative movement. The leftists came to understand that we need them to be happy, healthy, productive, they think no matter what happens we will crawl back to them because we need them.

    This gives a sense of superiority, ego boost, self assurance. This is what wins elections.

    Rule n.1: DISSOCIATE

    Comment by susan — November 13, 2012 @ 5:08 am - November 13, 2012

  6. Obama had and has a plan, just not one he was willing to run on, openly.

    In just the week since the election, he has —

    1. Shut down over a million acres in the west to oil and gas development.

    2. Reopened gun control talks at the UN.

    3. Unleashed the “Justice” Department to sue companies he thinks don’t employ enough minorities.

    Do you think this wasn’t his plan all along?

    Comment by V the K — November 13, 2012 @ 5:58 am - November 13, 2012

  7. What I think would be a good plan for the Gay Conservatives and the Conservatives in general is to stop wining and get out there and sell “America” to those who have no idea who She is.

    I cringed when I saw the report of the college students cheering for Socialism/Communism as the election resuts were announced in Obama’s favor.

    Comment by Mike — November 13, 2012 @ 6:44 am - November 13, 2012

  8. I’m leaning with #6. He’s always had a plan. Just not one he’d
    Spell out. And his supporters are being wide open about their liberal socialist president, and extolling the virtue’s of socialism, if not out & out communism. They aren’t doing this because he has no plan. They understand he does. And I think we’d be fools not to be aware of that, or at least of the possibility.

    We wouldn’t be first to be fooled, and saying our Constitution prevents this is shortsighted. It means nothing when unscrupulous people are in power who see that document as meaning nothing (it’s fluid, remember?), and will frankly disregard it altogether at the first opportunity.

    I think we are going to find out exactly what his plan and definition of fundamental change and flexibility is.

    Comment by Kate — November 13, 2012 @ 6:54 am - November 13, 2012

  9. We win with specifics. The Contract With America was all everyone talked about. Even the D’s sputtered about the “Contract ON America.”

    Admittedly, even now, I can’t recall much about Romney’s 6-point plan, let alone the 59-point version.

    We might mock the D reliance on talking points, but if you put them all together, poof, you have a 6 point plan.

    Comment by BigJ — November 13, 2012 @ 7:22 am - November 13, 2012

  10. Perhaps it really was his personal appeal.

    That’s it?

    No mention of his race?

    Don’t you recall that if Romeny said something like piano that Chris Matthews and a legion of drool cup camp followers would be yelling it is a racist slur code word for white men in black face minstrel men acting out shucking and jiving?

    A bazzillion of his votes were for giving the black man, who really has been trying, another chance. Another bazzillion of his votes were cast by black people who allegedly gave him 100% of the votes the precinct. Add that to the party base, the pandered to hordes and the dependent on government crowd and where is the mystery?

    There is never any nod to the Alinsky tactics on this site. Fine. But it would be interesting to discuss if and how Axelrod strayed from them. They are as cynical and dirty as you can get and they wiped out Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.

    Right now, Obama could be trapped up to his ears in Benghazigate and he could not be impeached, because America does not think it is fair to hit the black boy-President.

    Perhaps it really was his personal appeal.

    The man is half white. Nobody cares a thing about the “appeal” of the white half.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2012 @ 8:49 am - November 13, 2012

  11. Not having a plan worked in much the same way “Hope and Change” worked.

    By not providing any details, voters were left to fill in the blanks for just what they thought the plan should be and of course their own “should be” plan was going to win the day because it is the plan they would choose.

    Obama is a master at being vague and saying absolutely nothing but convincing people he said everything perfectly.

    Comment by Just Me — November 13, 2012 @ 9:29 am - November 13, 2012

  12. I’m sticking with the election was stolen. His ‘win’ does not make sense. The lines, the excitement for Romney, Obama not filling his venues, Romney not as distasteful as McCain and loses by 2million less? No.
    He wins Ohio by 100k votes? With over a hundred districts turning out more than 100% for obama, with military ballots down 73%. All the problems with touch screen machines all over swing states?
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html#.UKJyNH-yx_M.facebook

    Comment by Annie — November 13, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - November 13, 2012

  13. I prefer a ‘man without a plan’ over a ‘man with a plan, a perceived mandate, and illusions of greatness.’

    Comment by Niall — November 13, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - November 13, 2012

  14. Obama won an election from demographic trends. He won a small minded election. I thought Romney’s strategy was small minded (47% was ignored); however, his small minded strategy was rewarded with complacency and lack of enthusiam. Romney fell short.

    In a way, Obama’s reelection mirrored Bush’s reelection in 2004. Didn’t we see the parallel’s?

    What I can see is more disappointment from Obama’s second term. The recession will continue. More years of dispair. Will it be a cultural war election in 2016 or is it the economy stupid election? It should be both.

    Comment by anon322531 — November 13, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - November 13, 2012

  15. “It is fascinating how many Obama supporters criticized our candidate for his absence of specifics when the Democrat himself put forward no proposals to address some of the nation’s pressing problems.”

    If the Obama administration were to really lay out their plans, they would go something like this. In November, President Obama will reiterate, clearly and firmly, that he will veto any attempts to extend the high-income tax cuts or lift the big, dumb spending cuts without finding equivalent savings elsewhere. …

    That veto threat is the center of the Obama administration’s second-term strategizing. The Obama administration believes – and, just as importantly, they believe Republicans believe — that they’ve got the leverage here. The Republican position on taxes is less popular than the Democratic position. The outcome of gridlock is much higher taxes, which is more anathema to Republicans and arguably cheering to Democrats. The big, dumb spending cuts, despite being poorly timed and inanely constructed, are very progressive in their effect, falling heavily on military spending while exempting Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare beneficiaries.

    I’ve called this the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare. It’s bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts more progressive than anything any Democrat has dared propose. Republicans absolutely can’t let it happen. But the only way they can stop it from happening is to make a deal.

    The administration hopes this deal will include more than just deficit reduction. They also see it as a vehicle for infrastructure investment and tax reform. They think there’s some chance that parts of the American Jobs Act, like the hiring tax credits, could sneak through the door, too. There’s even talk of using it to address climate change, though everyone agrees that’s unlikely. Whatever ends up in the final deal, there’s little doubt that it will be a big deal, and it’s likely to come together fairly quickly in the first year. The White House — and the expiring tax and spending provisions — won’t give Republicans any other choice.

    …To put it plainly, in 2008, the Obama campaign hoped Republicans would work with them. In 2012, they have a plan. Their plan stands a good chance of working. But it doesn’t sound as good as hope does in a speech. That’s why you’re not hearing much about it.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 13, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - November 13, 2012

  16. I love this delusion.

    I’ve called this the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare. It’s bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts more progressive than anything any Democrat has dared propose. Republicans absolutely can’t let it happen. But the only way they can stop it from happening is to make a deal.

    Which is, of course, why the Obama Party and Barack Obama himself are screaming and shrieking so loudly to stop it.

    Which means that they won’t reduce the deficit.

    Or which means that they will break their promise to lower taxes and keep spending high.

    Republicans know the obvious: Obama and the Obama Party purchased this election with goodies and promises that they cannot possibly finance or keep.

    Therefore, people will get to see what is obvious: Obama lied.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - November 13, 2012

  17. I am not sure I can adequately decipher the inside whispers of Passing Gas @ #16. But here is what I think is being rolled out as a great Machiavellian scheme which comes from Ezra Klein who created the Journ-o-list cabal of Obama loving MSM in order to make him succeed:

    1. Obama will veto anything that extends the tax “cuts” on the rich.

    2. Obama will not lift the sequester (big, dumb) spending cuts without finding equivalent savings elsewhere.

    3. Gridlock leads to automatic expiration of Bush “tax cuts and the sequestration which is “anathema” to Republicans.

    4. The big, dumb sequestration cuts are progressive in nature in that the military gets a big hit but Medicare and Social Security do not.

    5. This would be bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits.

    6. Republicans absolutely can not let it happen; therefore they have to make a deal.

    7. Such deal would include infrastructure investment, tax reform, American Jobs Act, tax credits for hiring, climate change, and blah, blah, blah.

    If # 1 is true, then everything else is moot. This is because if Obama does not get the Bush “tax cuts” killed, he will not cooperate on anything else. That is implicit in the understanding that #1 is the key to what follows.

    Obama can not lift the sequester. It is law. He can demand away, but he has no power. So that takes care of #2.

    Gridlock does lead to the expiration of the Bush “tax cuts” and the rules laid out in sequestration. So, #3 is true. But, is it anathema to Republicans?

    Obama thinks he can blame the economic effects of #3 on the Republicans, but how? He got his tax without a veto and he trashed the military and Social Security and Medicare were shielded. What is he blaming on the Republicans? They made him follow the law? They made him allow the Bush “tax cuts” expire? They are to blame that the military got decimated? How? By not fighting Obama? I need help on this one.

    The clever Democrats believe as #4 indicates that the sequestration cuts are their actual friend and very Progressive. Fine. I agree. Why are Republicans to blame for their agenda?

    However, this course will be “bad for the economy.” Oh, yes indeed it will. Depression bad. Doing what the Progressives want to do is Depression Bad in terms of the cost to America. So, the Republicans are to blame for letting the Democrats do what they demand to do?

    Where I get really confused is this idea that at this point of economic depression we find that it also effectively ends our deficits. Really? Tax revenues rise in a depression and all the jobs lost in the military and military procurement and community service around closed based will not cost a dime in unemployment and depressed economy? Wow!

    Republicans absolutely can not let it happen. I guess that is because they will lose the Presidency? And they lost it for letting the guy who won the Presidency have it his way?

    What I treasure in #7 is this quaint notion that Obama would suddenly get all the pie-in-the-sky statist, socialist dreams come true as a result of Republicans letting sequestration happen. Is that during the depression economy or after the country is wandering around stunned?

    I would love to avoid this whole baptism by fire exercise where Obama and his drool-cup Utopian camp-followers and pure whores get their butts burned along with the butts of honest and honorable and good people. But the lazy and stupid in this country asked for four more years of this *hit Parade of Marxist pablum and malfeasance, so it appears that getting the crash over and done with is our best option.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - November 13, 2012

  18. “Which is, of course, why the Repub Party and [insert Repub leader of choice here] himself are screaming and shrieking so loudly to stop it.”

    Now, there’s a straightforward argument for why the fiscal cliff is bad but long-term deficit reduction is good — namely, that you really don’t want to cut deficits when the economy is depressed and you’re in a liquidity trap, so that monetary expansion can’t offset fiscal contraction. As Keynes said, the boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity. But the deficit hawks can’t make that argument, because they have in fact been arguing for austerity now now now.

    So they’re left making a mostly incoherent case: it’s too abrupt (why?), it’s the wrong kind of deficit reduction (???)…,”

    Comment by Passing By — November 13, 2012 @ 5:59 pm - November 13, 2012

  19. Heliotrope, one thing you left out of your equation… the massive and burdensome regulations that are about to explode across all sectors of the economy. Obama already shut down oil and gas exploration on a 1.6 million acres out west; the Obamacare mandate is already leading to layoffs; 200 coal fired power plants to be shut down by 2014 to comply with the environmental extremist regulation of the EPA.

    And just wait until the EPA outlaws fracking and the Justice Department starts suing companies en masse for not hiring as many minorities as the bureaucrats think they should have.

    Add up massive Government regulation + massively increased taxes + the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs due to sequestration and whatever you get does not add up to a vibrant, growing economy.

    The USSR collapsed when its economy could no longer support its military, the USA will collapse because its economy cannot support its social spending.

    Comment by V the K — November 13, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - November 13, 2012

  20. Also, even if sequestration happens and even if the massive tax increases have no negative economic impact, the deficit is still over half-a-trillion dollars a year.

    I AM MATH! ENEMY OF PROGRESSIVE ECONOMICS!

    Comment by V the K — November 13, 2012 @ 6:15 pm - November 13, 2012

  21. Passing Gas,

    Your links are pathetic. If your troll assignment is to rattle the knuckle-draggers here, you need to post well above your ability level.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - November 13, 2012

  22. Your links are pathetic. If your troll assignment is to rattle the knuckle-draggers here, you need to post well above your ability level.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 15, 2012 @ 11:21 am - November 15, 2012

  23. “Where I get really confused is this idea that at this point of economic depression we find that it also effectively ends our deficits. Really? Tax revenues rise in a depression and all the jobs lost in the military and military procurement and community service around closed based will not cost a dime in unemployment and depressed economy? Wow!”

    Call it a teachable moment.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 15, 2012 @ 11:29 am - November 15, 2012

  24. Poor Passing Gas can’t read and have any comprehension of what he read.

    He links to Paul Krugman babbling on about watermelons and uses it to refute a quote that was dealing with oranges. Watermelons / oranges ….. well neither one is a dog collar so they must be the same.

    Hey, my neighbor has a two door car. You have a neighbor so he must have a two door car too! And if he doesn’t if must be because of global warming or maybe his aunt’s donkey is about to hurl.

    Passing Gas is so alive with intellect that it just makes your fleas have kittens and impress you with his skill as a rocket surgeon.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 15, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - November 15, 2012

  25. “He links to Paul Krugman babbling on about watermelons and… oranges. Watermelons / oranges ….. well neither one is a dog collar so they must be the same.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 15, 2012 @ 11:23 pm - November 15, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.231 Powered by Wordpress