"As he did earlier at a fundraiser in Baton Rouge, La., Romney accused Obama of funneling government money to his own donors, while neglecting those struggling in the country.
“This is a time when it’s good to be a friend of Obama campaign,” Romney told the crowd at the River Hills Club in Jackson. “Because you might be able to get some money for your business. But it’s not so good to be middle class in America.”
"At the end of 2006 up here in the Commonwealth (God save it!), just as you were preparing to leave the job you had actually stopped doing two years earlier, and just as you were preparing your extended stumble across the national stage, you got caught larding various local government boards with 200 friends of yours from the local Republican party. One of these people was my old Wingo Square running buddy Eric Fehrnstrom, the man who personally revived sales of the Etch-A-Sketch, who found himself with a nifty gig on the Brookline Housing Authority until the Boston Globe went and harshed everyone’s mellow by pointing out that this put Fehrnstrom in line for a nice little pension package.
And then there’s the Salt Lake Olympics, which forced Willard into his retroactive retirement from Bain Capital, so he could finish the job of converting an international bribery scandal into a festival of old-fashioned American taxpayer-supported crony capitalism. In 2002, investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele published a piece in Sports Illustrated exposing in damning detail how, in “saving” the Olympics, Romney and his pet organizing committee kept their friends fat and happy…."
Is this a great country or what? A millionaire developer wants a road built, the federal government supplies the cash to construct it. A billionaire ski-resort owner covets a choice piece of public land. No problem. The federal government arranges for him to have it. Some millionaire businessmen stand to profit nicely if the local highway network is vastly improved. Of course. The federal government provides the money. How can you get yours, you ask? Easy. Just help your hometown land the Olympics. Then, when no one's looking, persuade the federal government to pay for a good chunk of the Games, including virtually any project to which the magic word Olympics can be attached. For the past few years, while attention was focused on the Great Olympic Bribery Scandal-in which Salt Lake City boosters dispensed as much as $7 million in gifts, travel, scholarships, medical care, jobs and other goodies to IOC members (and their relatives and companions) to ensure that Utah's capital city would be chosen to host the 2002 Winter Games-private and public interests have siphoned an estimated $1.5 billion out of the U.S. Treasury, all in the name of those same Olympics.
Not that he wasn't grateful.
This is not to say that the recipients are unappreciative. Mitt Romney, SLOC's president, has acknowledged the U.S. government's contribution by saying, "We couldn't have done it without them. These are America's Games."
You're welcome. Don't mention it."Hey, fat cats, if you want more "free stuff," Mitt's your Man!
21 comments:
Nice misdirect!
Now, let's get back to the subject at hand: Obama's outsourcing of jobs and sending hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars overseas.
To be fair, he did spend taxpayer dollars here, to reward his political donors:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/node/4880/
http://www.nrsc.org/2011/10/casey-obama-stimulus-enriches-democrat-donors-while-failing-to-create-promised-jobs/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48203082/#.UAV3MfKDl8E
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/44/1390-transparently-corrupt-links-between-obamas-campaign-donors-stimulus-and-energy-loans
Obama has an excellent record enriching his fatcat cronies... with taxpayer money.
Time to send this corrupt Chicago pol back to the stinking sewer he crawled out of.
Shaw, the problem I have is not with anyone pointing out that Romney is certainly tainted goods and occasionally disingenuous. Rather it is that those who point this out most often ignore the reality that Obama is just as as tainted and disingenuous (if not more so).
So much for balance. But then again it isn't as much fun being balanced and hitting both hypocritical political organizations and ideologies.
SF completely ignores the post, and takes shots at Obama, like a good little troglodyte.
RN complains about balance, yet, does not include SF in that, nor is RN over at SF's blog complaining about his Romney blog.
Their bad cop, bad cop routine is full of ....
Seriously, SF? You come to MY blog and and tell ME I've "misdirected" on MY post?
No, dude. YOU did that by changing the subject by, um, REDIRECTING it to what YOU want to talk about. Ballsy! I'll give you that.
Romney supporters are quite incensed over the reports of how his "vulture capitalism" operated; where he and his company were responsible for throwing Americans out of work, or destroying their pensions while he and his cronies made millions off of their misery and pain.
Also, the reports on Mr. Romney's dubious claims about not having ANY responsibility for what Bain did because he "retroactively" no longer worked there are pretty devastating because it shows him running away from his work--just as he ran away from his Romneycare when it was used as a blueprint for the ACA.
And now we have him weaseling out on showing the American people his tax returns.
And, rightly, the American people will construe that evasion as a way to avoid showing them how he and his tax lawyers managed to get him to avoid paying taxes to the country he purports to love so much.
It's not a pretty picture of a someone who claims he loves America as much as he does, then shafts it and passes the tax burden to the people he threw out of work.
Les,
I've just skimmed through about two months of your blog posts and out of those two months, I saw ONE that defended Mr. Obama against the charge that he's a Socialist--the one written by Milos Forman.
All the other posts are negative on Mr. Obama or the Democrats. A few sprinkled in--very, very few of Romney--one or two, but many, many negatives on Obama. Remember the one about the gift registry--the one where you claimed was the ultimate evidence of Mr. Obama's venality? You were hopping mad over that.
But Romney's failure to release more than one year of his tax return as every other candidate in recent history has? Nothing.
And in those posts, nothing about Boehner or McConnell, or any other leading GOP Congresscritter.
But you do have several on Democratic Congresscritters--all negative.
Now you come to my blog suggesting that I should use some "balance?"
You are not as "neutral" as you like to sell yourself to others, and it is glaringly apparent on your blog.
I once asked you why you chose to highlight these words
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
on your blog with "Liberty" in red, the color associated with the GOP, and "Tyranny" in blue, the color associated with the Democrats.
It's not exactly a subtle message.
I have never claimed neutrality on this blog. I am a liberal, and I support the Democrats. I've never hidden my true allegiances.
I don't agree with a lot of what SF writes about, but he's never pretended he's "balanced."
Neither have I.
And neither should you.
"As he did earlier at a fundraiser in Baton Rouge, La., Romney accused Obama of funneling government money to his own donors, while neglecting those struggling in the country.
Your words on your blog post.
Yes, Mitt is just another politico like our corrupt Chicago pol currently occupying the White House. Yes, they've both engaged in cronyism.
The difference is, Mitt did it with private money, other than when congress granted money to the olympics, like they do every time they are hosted in the US.
Mitt Romney has saved dying companies, Barack Obama's venture socialism has accomplished nothing, as the green companies he invests in go bankrupt one after the other.
And what's this? Barack and Michelle have investments in companies that outsource jobs!
So, give the choice between two tainted individuals, I'll choose the one that understands how economics works and who has had a real job in the private sector.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investments-in-companies-that-ship-jobs-overseas/article/2502361
SF: "Yes, Mitt is just another politico like our corrupt Chicago pol currently occupying the White House. Yes, they've both engaged in cronyism."
You have not one iota of evidence that President Obama is corrupt. Put your evidence where your slander is.
Please.
When you and others engage in personal attacks like that, you lose.
Again, I repeat. What the Obama campaign is doing is working.
You, Rush Limbaugh, and John Sunnunu have engaged in ad hominem attacks, the sign of people who have lost control of their emotions and the debate.
"In the span of one morning, top Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu referred to President Obama as dumb and stupid, called the Chicago political culture from which he came "corrupt," brought up Obama's admitted use of marijuana as a kid in Hawaii, resurfaced the name of Tony Rezko -- the jailed financier with ties to Obama -- and then questioned the president's Americanness."
Limbaugh: "There's No Evidence" That Obama "Loves The Country"
Limbaugh: "It Can Now Be Said, Without Equivocation," Obama "Hates This Country"
Having investments in companies that ship jobs overseas and ACTUALLY SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS, as Romney did as owner and CEO of Bain, are NOT the same things.
Shaw, skim again, and be sure to read thoroughly and completely absent your bias.
I AM A PROPONENT OF REAL CAPITALISM and INDIVIDUALISM, as well as LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Never said otherwise. Balanced means looking at both sides and being critical of each with respect to how each measures up in comparison to your principles. This I attempt to do. I make no apologies for who I am, nor do I give ground to your obvious misrepresentations of my positions.
Les, I'm still curious as to why "Liberty" is in red--the color associated with traditionally conservative voting states, and "Tyranny" is in blue, the color traditionally associated with liberal voting states.
Also, my comment was in answer to your critique of me and my blog:
Shaw, the problem I have is not with anyone pointing out that Romney is certainly tainted goods and occasionally disingenuous. Rather it is that those who point this out most often ignore the reality that Obama is just as as tainted and disingenuous (if not more so).
Clearly you're talking about me and your "problem" with folks who don't point out that Mr. Obama is "tainted goods," whatever that means. You don't leave it at that you then decide that Obama is not only "just as tainted and disingenuous, but maybe "more so." Which means, by any correct reading of your statement, that he's worse than Romney.
Those are your words, not mine.
Then you say "so much for balance."
So much for balance. But then again it isn't as much fun being balanced and hitting both hypocritical political organizations and ideologies.
The name of this blog is "PROGRESSIVE ERUPTIONS." One should expect a "liberal/progressive" pov on it, not a neutral one.
You often comment over at Silverfiddle's blog, and he is most certainly NOT balanced--that is, he absolutely detests Mr. Obama and all he stands for. I've never read anything positive about Obama there.
Did you ever go to his blog and bemoan that fact? That his blog isn't balanced? Maybe you have, but I've never seen it.
Did you not think I would comment on this? You made the observation, and I responded to it, because your critique wasn't, IMHO, "balanced."
After looking around on the "internets" late this afternoon, I finally found where Silverfiddle got his talking point about Mr. Obama outsourcing jobs and how it's the SAME as what Mr. Romney did!
BillO [O'Reilly]: Sending jobs overseas, The truth about the Obama/Romney controversy.
["How can Obama attack Romney when he did the same thing?. The Obama administration has continued to make billions of dollars of tax payer dollars available to GE mostly through loans.
Here it comes..."]
BIllO: GE employs about 300 thousand people and fewer than half, 131,000 are working in the USA. Let me repeat. Less than half of GE's workforce is employed in America.
["Less than half of 300K workers have jobs in the US. So you see it's the same. Um, no you pinhead. GE is an existing company that BIllO has a personal grudge against since Olbermann's days at MSNBC and is a huge global corporation that any administration would deal with. But Obama did not create a company to gut other companies; he did not fire U.S. workers and outsource their jobs to China or wherever just to turn an extra buck. That's what Romney did with Bain, and he set the benchmark for this behavior. Ergo, the massive migraine for Mitt Romney."]
From a comment by RN today,
"Obama is merely the most recent and perhaps most virulent in his influence in "mixing" the economy and our lives with more regulation for the purpose of growing the nanny state and insuring statistic"
Seems RN's hate for Obama leads him to over exaggerate (lie) about Obama. Surely FDR and LBJ were more "virulent" in "mixing" the economy.
Of course if FDR had not stepped in with government help, the corporate party of the time (Republicans) would have allowed further downfall of the country. Their thinking at the time was the same as the current Republican party - DO NOTHING - and everything will be fine.
I posted my FDR/LBJ comment on RN's blog, but he would not post it. Obviously he cannot defend his position on Obama, because it is a lie, fostered by RN's hate for Obama
@ Shaw, you said and I quote... "Also, my comment was in answer to your critique of me and my blog:
Shaw, the problem I have is not with anyone pointing out that Romney is certainly tainted goods and occasionally disingenuous. Rather it is that those who point this out most often ignore the reality that Obama is just as as tainted and disingenuous (if not more so).
Clearly you're talking about me and your "problem" with folks who don't point out that Mr. Obama is "tainted goods," whatever that means. You don't leave it at that you then decide that Obama is not only "just as tainted and disingenuous, but maybe "more so." Which means, by any correct reading of your statement, that he's worse than Romney."
1) My critique was not of your site specifically, rather it was general critique of leftist dogma.
2) The fact is that your conclusion that I meant Obama was not "just as tainted" as Romney but rather "more tainted" is in fact your personal bias and interpretation as to what my words meant. I'll leave it at that.
3) I remain open to evolving facts and realities, therefore I, unlike you carry no water for any party ideology.
4) My preceding remarks should explain to the active mind why I am critical of both the democratic and republican party.
5) They also should explain, at least to those who unlike you are not so ideologically driven why my "horse" in this race is Gary Johnson.
In conclusion Shaw I have tired of the same old same old. Boredom sets in rather quickly for those with an active mind (as opposed to those with the nebulous "open" mind) and therefore are able to see beyond strict party ideology.
I visit here because your site Shaw actual does stimulate my thought process, unlike many on the left. For whatever that might be worth to a progressive coming from a classical liberal. I assume you, unlike many, actually understand what being a classical liberal actually means.
Good evening my friend.
Tactics speak louder than words, RN.
By your statement you mean what no name? That only actions that satisfy some specific leftist hide bound ideology you personally approve of?
Please clarify.
Your deceptive actions, go against what you wrote.
And of course you, having worked with, worked for, and been my neighbor of course are qualified to make such sweeping generalizations about my "actions". Indeed interesting no name. Talk about deceptive. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Your deceptive writings say plenty.
Deceptive to you perhaps. But like I said, whatever floats your boat, or trips your trigger.
Les,
"Liberty" is a red state value, and "Tyranny" is a blue state value?
Why put those words in any color?
Why didn't you leave those words in the default color of black?
You never answered that.
We're not dumb, Les. You did that for a specific reason. And that belies all your protestations about just wanting to remain "open" to evolving facts.
If you believe only red states value liberty and that blue states value tyranny, then you contradict everything you've said above.
A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. In this case, your deliberate choice of colors tell us everything about how you really view the two parties.
Shaw, yes I did. Sorry you missed it.
Red - capitalism, classical liberalism, individualism, libertarianism
Blue - Everything not capitalism, statism, collectivism, lack of individualism
They represent something beyond politics for me. The colors equate for me the concepts of Tyranny and Liberty.
Sorry you don't approve of the colors. But it is after all my choice. Just as it is your choice as to how you wish to interpret them.
I color concepts and philosophy, you color sates. Again, your choice.
I view the two parties as corrupt and mutually supportive of each others corruption. Are their individuals in both parties who are not corrupt? Of course. However, the party themselves have become corrupt, both of them. AND THAT IS WHY I AM NEITHER REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRAT. I am pro classical liberal limited government and pro individual rights, and pro capitalism, and pro honesty etc. all things that both the republican and democratic party have move away from in their own direction.
It is why the only choice for me, and I have said in many places and to many people is the Libertarian party and Gary Johnson.
I can not make it any clearer for you. Nor will I respond to the same question if asked again.
Post a Comment