Willard Admits He’s Not The Job Creator He Said He Was

THE LIE:

Mitt Romney helped create more jobs in his private sector experience and more jobs as Governor of Massachusetts than President Obama has for the entire nation. — Romney press secretary Andrea Saul

THE FACT:

Trickle-down economics is all Romney is offering. Think Progress:

In its effort to sell Mitt Romney as someone who understands the economy and knows how to create jobs, one of his campaign’s early talking points was that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his tenure at Bain Capital.

…Romney eventually stopped repeating the talking point, which advisers had difficulty defending under pressure, and now it seems Boston has completely Etch A Sketched the number and severely lowered the number of jobs Romney is supposed to have created at Bain.

…This time, the campaign is asserting that Romney created a meager and vague “thousands of jobs” at Bain and “tens of thousands” of jobs as governor of Massachusetts.

This is nothing less than an admission from the Romney campaign that their 100,000 jobs claim was entirely bogus, and acceptance that Romney created vastly fewer jobs than he claimed he had just a few months ago.

Romney’s business career was all about throwing people out of work and looting their company pension funds for profit. When Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, his state ranked 47th in job creation.

UPDATE: Romney Flips Back To Claim That Bain Capital Created 100,000 Jobs.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is back to claiming that his former private equity firm, Bain Capital, helped create at least 100,000 jobs, telling conservative radio host Ed Morrisey that “we were able to help create over 100,000 jobs.” The Romney campaign used the 100,000 number at the outset of the campaign, then admitted it was bogus, started using it again, couldn’t answer challenges from reporters, and finally gave the number a massive downgrade to a mere “thousands” earlier this week. There’s still no evidence backing up the claim…

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on May 14, 2012 - 7:01 pm

    Nice video. Thanks again Robert!

  2. #2 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 6:48 am

    Well, half the jobs Obama claims to have created were created in the oilfields, and Obama has nothing to do with that. Oil production on Federal lands is down 15%. The boon comes from drilling on private land.

    Good for Mtt figuring out how to game the system which is inhabited by benefitted pensioned parasites intent on gaming the public. The outcome of people finding ways to make it and avoid government as a destroyer of real wealth is certainly hardly surprising. The illegal drug industry comes to mind, it’s a fast and furious business.

    The claim of job creation falls short, there isn’t anyone who thinks there are enough jobs, if I were running for office I wouldn’t claim squat, the situation is only an indictment of whosoever it is that claims leadership.

    That today would be Obama.

    You aren’t doing yourself or Democrats any favors posting garbage from RR.

  3. #3 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 7:57 am

    There are those who need ‘baby-talk’ econ. curtainly not the big boyz.

  4. #4 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 8:02 am

    There are those who need ‘baby-talk’ econ. Certainly not the big boyz. And, when I think about all of the ‘dumbing-down’, and diversion from the big picture, I don’t get much from this sort of presentation at all.

    It is, however, infinite roads above the Ryan Budget swindle obfuscation.

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 9:32 am

    Titus (is that your real name?), where do you get your information? Obama is the “drill baby drill” President that Republicans could only dream of.

    From 2004-08, well into Bush’s tenure, oil production on federal lands and waters fell in four of five years, for a net decrease of 16.8 percent.

    From 2009-11, the Obama years, oil production rose two of three years, for a net increase of 10.6 percent.

    For one thing, the leasing frenzy of the Bush years was bound to lead to more drilling. For another, Bush was afraid to expand offshore leasing in the Gulf because his brother was governor of Florida. Even after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, Obama is promoting more offshore oil exploration.

    Bush presided over the first net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover. President Obama has increased the number of jobs, despite Republican economic sabotage and the loss of more than 600,000 public sector jobs due to government budget cuts (Bush added 900,000 public sector jobs in his first term).

  6. #7 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 9:57 am

    Even if what you post were true, and it isn’t, no one will believe it.

    So in your mind Bush is entirely responsible for increased drilling on public lands, and the ripening of the environment that led to mass drilling on private lands? Obama cannot claim to any of that.

    As for jobs, no one would care if they even knew, our current blowhard in chief stated he would keep unemployment under 8%.

    He failed.

    I realize the blame the other guy is the only rap Democrats have for their completely blowing a controlled congress and the presidency. I blame this drubbing on Obama’s personality, one that looks full of hubris and narcissism, he seemed to want to make republicans “pay” for losing and was so confident he lost track of the ass kicking they were about to give him and Democrats.

    No! Like the captain of a ship that wrecks, all the details are noted but the blame falls upon the Master..no matter what. If you don’t want the job and think that it is unfair that this is how the hatchet falls…don’t take the job.

  7. #8 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 10:07 am

    A question to Jamie Dimon, and all of the wonderful folks at Haliburton and Co.

    If I blow something up, can I get some free money?

  8. #9 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 10:11 am

    Once oil and gas leases are issued, it’s almost impossible for the federal government to cancel them. They are good for ten years. So, even if Obama wanted to stop drilling on federal lands, he didn’t have the power. Of course, in reality, he’s “drill baby drill” all the way and then some!

    The Obama administration didn’t do enough, or even propose enough, government intervention to keep unemployment under 8 percent. But what was the Republican plan? More tax cuts for the rich, and trickle-down economic theory?

    You accuse Obama of hubris, but he went to incredible lengths looking for compromises with the Party of NO (aka GOP) long past the point where it was obvious they only wanted to sabotage the economy.

    Sorry, but Bush was Captain when the shipwreck occurred, so he gets the blame. Check the polls.

  9. #10 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 10:38 am

    They are contractual property rights, no doubt they cannot be rescinded.

    We saw the republican plan, obama ran it. Once one skipper is gone, the replacement inherits it all, and then owns it. If you cannot understand that basic rule, then the way your campaign will be run if you are a failure is to look backwards not forwards.

    Do we watch the same news Richard? Obama basically flipped republicans off, told them elections have consequences…well I s’pose they do.

    The mistake of NDAA? Not bush, gitmo, not bush, 5 trillion in more debt, not bush, Libya and Yemen, not bush…

    Here is your politifact Obameter..good for a laugh after reading your ‘scuses for his dismal performance.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

  10. #11 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 10:47 am

    A Wapo poll? Try to be unbiased. Only 54%? That is great news for a republican coming from Wapo. As you well know Richard, elections are not about what happened then, they are about what is happening now. As in child fight, the adults no longer care who started it, just want it to end. I suspect Obama will be sitting in a corner in time out pretty soon.

    Would people keelhaul bush if they could? Perhaps, but that isn’t the issue now, the issue is this president and his statist desires, and violent imperial foreign policy, and massive debt spending. The politically immature glom on to their special interests, abortion, gay marriage to define who they will vote for, though those issues are just window dressing to the fact that the house is burning down. (finacially)

  11. #12 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 11:13 am

    Titus (is that your real name?)–

    President Obama crawled before the Republicans, offering up one GOP policy proposal after another — to the intense annoyance of progressives. Except for more tax cuts for the rich, Republicans even rejected their own ideas rather than cooperate with Obama in any way. Some examples: payroll tax cuts, cap and trade, the individual private health insurance mandate, the deficit commission, and the DREAM Act. I can give you more if needed.

    It’s amazing to me that right-wingers claim to hate Obama for failing to deliver on campaign promises made to progressives. That makes no sense at all.

    The poll said 29 percent blame Obama for the state of the economy. You are welcome to look for other similar polls, in every one I have seen Bush gets most of the blame.

  12. #13 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 12:01 pm

    He never went far enough, and republicans like most of the country, do not trust him and want him to fail, he has complied as best he can.

    No, he will lose the presidency and now Democrats could lose the Senate. There will never have been a greater squandering of power by a president. It will gnaw at progressives for years that they invested their nut in this moldy dirt hole of a president.

    The best part is people just don’t like obama, no matter who they blame or what ever poll goes up. I have maintained that republicans really don’t need to win the presidency as obama is their bitch, but who likes a bitch? They want their own guy.

    If he wins they(reps) will use him, he hasn’t the fortitude for anything else, but I don’t see that happening. You are far too focused on the details, forget them. Democrats need to be telling their constituency that he’ll give them free money, even if they never get it..that is his best shot, to activate the welfare underclass army that lives on federal largess.

  13. #14 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 12:07 pm

    Yes, Titus is my name, named after the Roman Emperor responsible for the Jewish diaspora and destruction of Jerusalem.

    A man of great clemency that though offered, was never accepted in defeat by the “stiff necked people”.

    Without him what would be be?

  14. #15 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 12:17 pm

    “People just don’t like Obama?” You must never read the polls.

    64% said the president was a more friendly and likable person, compared to Willard at 26%

    56% say that Obama will win re-election

    Where do you get your information? There is no “welfare underclass army,” because Republicans and Bill Clinton made it almost impossible to qualify. Poverty and food stamps went up during the Bush presidency and Bush’s Great Recession, but there was no corresponding increase in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

  15. #16 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 12:29 pm

    They don’t like him as president. Do you actually go outside, talk to people outside your group? If this is a poll depicting that people “like” obama, this is the sentiment they have before kicking him to the curb..sure he’s likable, but that isn’t what they need in president and have had over 3 years to prove it.

    Hence the job approval poll that places him as badly defeated in November.

    So your polls claim he will win, even if he did, we have all the unmet promises of politifact I linked.

    Here’s the rub in your poll, the only part of it you can take to the bank.

    “Fifty-five percent say the economy would get better over the next four years if Romney were elected president, with 46% saying the economy would improve if Obama was re-elected”.

    Pretty clear here, like him or not, they won’t vote for him.

  16. #17 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 12:42 pm

    OK, let’s look at the converse:

    By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him.

    The Obama campaign is going to shine a spotlight on Willard, so they can get Democrats to vote for Obama as the lesser evil.

  17. #18 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 1:12 pm

  18. #19 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 1:17 pm

    It’s too late Richard, Obama’s problem is that of a known quantity by now, and bad one at that.

    Plenty of folks are likable, not all are electable.

    What mitt has wrong does not matter to the majority who view obama as a political disaster. This vote has nothing to do with the issues arguments, if you hadn’t noticed, it’s a referendum on Obama, as much as that isn’t what democrats or obama want it to be.

  19. #20 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 1:58 pm

    And I’m saying that the Dems won’t let this be a referendum on the economy or on President Obama. They will get the Obama administration re-elected as the lesser evil.

  20. #21 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 2:07 pm

    Ok, time will tell, but as usual the party doesn’t know where it sits, or you don’t.

    I’m sure if obama is re-elected, this either way plays into republican hands as obama does most of what they want anyway already. It has been pretty good for republicans, and I’ll admit that democrats didn’t appear so desperate to me to stick with this president.

    The congress will be the decider of whether obama gets to do anything with any possible win but issue presidential orders ala dictum.

    Should be a pretty good season of gridlock until any power he holds is disposed of.

  21. #22 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 2:10 pm

    Or we could elect a better President. Rocky Anderson.
    http://www.voterocky.org/

  22. #23 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 2:17 pm

    I don’t think the democrats have a choice or can in any way control how the public perceives obama, most people’s minds were made up a long time ago. Bunko polls don’t mean much for either side. What i’m telling you about is what I see walking around, and this in a very pro obama state and environment.

    Democrats with control of both houses and the presidency could not even repeal the bush revenue breaks, why should the man be re-elected? Fear of the opposition? Why democrats waited so long and chose to keep him as a candidate I guess we’ll never know.

    I see obama getting “cartered”. We all liked Jimmy too..

    I have stated a manikin in a cheap suit could beat obama at this point, and I am pretty sure we’re going to see that, at least maybe a manikin in a costly suit will beat him.

  23. #24 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 2:24 pm

    Sad to say that Rocky the Squirrel has more name recognition than Rocky the uh…who?

    I’m certain if obama were shamed into it he would step down, maybe Rocky would be better, but his ego won’t let him..he is quite a flawed character.

    The golden rule of American politics still stands in my book….”never allow anyone from Chicago to reach the high levels of national office”. The corruption is endemic, the Chicago way scurrilous.

  24. #25 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 2:27 pm

    Interesting reading:

    5 Reasons Obama Will Win in November
    The election is six months away, but here’s why the president already has this one in the bag.

    Key insight: “You can’t beat something with nothing.”

  25. #26 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 3:10 pm

    “You can’t beat something with nothing.”

    So true, which is why obama is done.

  26. #27 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 3:15 pm

    Indeed Americans might re-elect you if you aren’t great, they just might not re-elect you if you are terrible. This is what happened to Jimmy Carter.

    As for the foreign policy there is nothing, absolutely nothing that is not a simple continuation of bush neo con policy. Competent indeed..

  27. #28 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 3:22 pm

    Kool-aid’s all sugar – no shame.

  28. #29 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 3:23 pm

    Romney has nothing to base his candidacy on except that he’s hoping the economic recovery stalls out. That and an Etch-A-Sketch.

  29. #30 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    Oh Richard!! You have either on purpose or by accident let the cat out of obama’s BAGGAGE!! Foreign Policy is a magazine written and edited by none other than neo con scum bag SAMUEL HUNTINGTON!!

    He of “Clash of Civilzations” fame, the NEOCON BIBLE concerning our policy and behavior in the Middle East.

    Huntington: oh yeah obama gonna get re-elected and be our neo con bitch!!

    Look around over in the middle east and we can see that bush’s 3rd term at least in foreign policy is alive and well!!

    Astounding, I now know, so much better and surely that there is absolutely no chance that the US will cease it’s Empire gathering ways.

    It won’t matter a hill of beans who is president.

  30. #31 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 3:29 pm

    Titus–

    You have yet to give a single source for any of your extremely-hard-to-believe claims. Check this out:

    Steve Kornacki in Salon (emphasis added):

    The electorate tends to exist perpetually in the present tense, with little collective memory or foresight. Republicans began banking on this the moment Obama was sworn in: Just stand against everything he’s doing, and if the economy remains in rough shape, sooner or later the public will hold him responsible, just because he’s the guy in charge. As it turned out, it took only about nine months for Obama’s approval rating to fall under the 50 percent mark, and it’s hovered around there ever since, putting him in danger of losing this fall.

    One way the Obama campaign is attempting to counteract this is by challenging Romney’s own economic and job-creation credentials. The presumptive GOP nominee has been relentlessly touting his business (and not government) experience, hoping that voters will assume he knows how to fix the economy because of his private sector success. Polls suggest voters are buying it, at least to a degree, with Romney generally outpacing the president by several points on which candidate would be better on creating jobs and boosting the economy. This is the reason Obama’s campaign unveiled a brutal two-minute attack ad yesterday on Romney and Bain Capital; the idea is to convince voters that there’s not necessarily a connection between making money in business and understanding how the economy works.

    …In this way, Bush’s very brief reemergence today raises the question of whether Obama ought to be invoking his predecessor more frequently and more explicitly, and to make him a more central figure in the campaign. Polls show that voters still remember what happened on Bush’s watch and still hold him responsible for at least some of the country’s current problems. Obama does frequently make reference to what he inherited, and to the failure of the GOP to come up with a new economic platform during its White House exile. But more than anything else, it seems that Romney’s campaign fears being tied to Bush. And Bush, as his elevator trick shows, is willing to help them out by remaining inconspicuous. If Obama’s team wants it, there’s some slack to be picked up.

    In other words, it’s tricky to run for President as a Republican when the last GOP President was the Worst President Ever. Especially when you are offering the exact same economic policies that almost destroyed the economy in 2008 — more tax cuts for the rich, fewer rules on Wall Street, dismantling the social safety net, and leaving the middle class without affordable health care — one illness or injury away from bankruptcy. It’s just a recipe for poverty and despair.

    Willard is a candidate of, by, and for the 1 Percent. If you don’t like that, he says “vote for the other guy.” Most voters will, especially as Romney’s history as an economic and social parasite is laid out in detail.

  31. #32 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 3:54 pm

    And the wingtards then go on to suggest Obama’s presidency is just Bushes third term – all the while obstructing, obstructing, obstructing.

    It just doesn’t make sense.

  32. #33 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:05 pm

    Look it up Richard, your FP magazine was founded and edited by non other Sam Huntington. father of neo con scum, don’t tell me you have not read “Clash of Civilizations”.?

    It is the template for all of our policies in the Middle East.

  33. #34 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:09 pm

    Richard, we are STILL running on bush policy..it is then little wonder things are still haywire…

    Hey, Brezezinski helped in writing that book and is a solid adherent. You do know that Bresezinski is obama’s foreign policy mentor.. right?

    It’s how I knew that all wars of choice would continue unrelenting under Obama, and he would even start new ones…it’s all in the book..read it.

  34. #35 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:13 pm

    There will be hope, there will be no change with regard to the neocon empire building policy under any leadership.

    Obama especially, completely a product, completely controlled.

  35. #36 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 4:13 pm

    The Republican National Committee conceded recently that a Romney presidency would be the same as Bush’s presidency, “just updated.”

  36. #37 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:17 pm

    So then.. since this bush’s 3rd term we have shown that obama did nothing but continue bush economic policy, and is in fact running bush’s (actually huntington’s) neocon policy all the while having progressive peaceniks support him.

    I have to give the oligarchy credit….it’s beautiful.

  37. #38 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:20 pm

    Thanks for the link Richard, it really placed the final nail in what obama really was made for..he is the progressive that will do republican things.

    He’s like that Terminator that looks human but is out for another master. “you can fool some of the people, all of the time”.

  38. #39 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 4:25 pm

    Titus–

    You bring no facts to the table. That makes for a boring discussion.

  39. #40 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:35 pm

    What fact do you want? Huntuington is a neocon, and really that is who is leading obama by the nose. You can’t see that? It won’t be spoon fed to you Richard.

    Look it up, do your own work, you will find that the neocon cretins Breziznski and Huntington have long been at a plan that will allow for western domination of the Middle East, not like now, but utterly. Obama is the vehicle for now.

    READ THE BOOK! and know that Breziznski is obama’s FP handler. The fact that you know nothing of this is what makes the conversation irrelevant and that is boring.

  40. #41 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 4:36 pm

    “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

    Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann

  41. #42 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 4:48 pm

    Fascinating. No matter the perceived odds of the two party system, the policies stream to the center of power, neocons. Bush is neocon, Obama is neocon. We are an empire now, and make our own history..or something like that.

    The ruse is very complete, no matter who wins were going in the direction were headed. Banker bailouts and wars of Empire. Same as Patrician favoritism and Legions on parade..

    Waiting for dimes worth of difference.

  42. #43 by cav on May 15, 2012 - 5:03 pm

    And that direction is the very same one we’ve been headed in for quite some time now.

    It would be helpful if a bigger slice of the population were as discerning of both the direction of, and creating modern, effective mechanisms for steering our society. Too often it is left to the already rich and powerful. That being the case -empire and war for same are the only cards we’re being dealt.

  43. #44 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 5:37 pm

    The crazy aspect of GOP drives the wishful into the arms of obama, who is waiting with Huntington’s book in his hand. They look for help with their mortgage, he bails out a corrupt bank, we can loan you the money to get you into trouble, but we are not much at helping you out of it.

    The crazy aspect of the democrat party drives the faithful and evangelical into the arms of GOP, as it stands the nation is kept as divided as possible. How Hegel works. The chaos ensues and the standing policies of the neocon rulers is set into motion with a healthy dose of false promises and lies. Oh yeah, and there is money in it.

    It’s a trip when you start seeing it. Start soon.

    This conversation and the relevant link Richard sent has caused an epiphany concerning US foreign policy, no matter who is elected, when the right opportunity presents itself, we’re going for all the marbles “over there”.

  44. #45 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2012 - 5:53 pm

    Congratulations on your foreign policy “epiphany.” American presidential elections are almost never about foreign policy, however.

  45. #46 by Titus V. on May 15, 2012 - 6:01 pm

    Which is worse for Obama than ever, he certainly wishes it was about what he claims as his “success”.

    Have you read “Clash of Civilizations” Richard? Quite a read and to see it in actual working policy, it will clear up why the wars are fought and why we are destroying Muslim culture. Huntington says it must be destroyed for Western control to prevail. Western civilization cannot in their minds be reconciled with the Muslim theocratic culture.

    In figure the last dozen years would give at least some people pause as to the reality.

  46. #47 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2012 - 9:01 pm

    The Romney campaign must be staying up late after finding out Bush Jr. verbalized his support.

    I love it!

    Let’s face it, Obama has the Latino, gay, Black, women, youth, and poor, (99%), vote locked up already and he’s got plenty more time to drop bombshells like his support of gay marriage. That is what the majority wanted him to say and there are lots of other things people really want to hear which have nothing to do with the lies we’ve been fed by the right wing looneys.

    Give it up Titus. But, by all means, remain anonymous.

  47. #48 by cav on May 16, 2012 - 7:53 am

    As the elevator doors were closing…Tell me, Was any attention paid to the fact the ‘el’ was on the first floor -headed to the basement parking garage?

  48. #49 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2012 - 8:55 am

    Titus–

    You may be surprised to learn that approximately 1/4 of the world’s population is Muslim. Their culture isn’t going to be destroyed by us, even supposing that’s the neocon goal.

  49. #50 by Titus V. on May 16, 2012 - 9:23 am

    Yes agreed, but take a look at what has been done and what is now planned. It is an interesting prospect that just about everything we do over there allows hard line or Shia crazies in charge, justifies more involvement, the never ending crisis mentality needed for trans-generational war. The clash of civilizations. Huntington’s CFR approved plan.

    I have always considered the CFR plan in which bush and obama have been useful cogs to be uh….nuts Richard.

  50. #51 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2012 - 9:36 am

    If you said it was all about grabbing the oil, that at least would make sense from a neocon perspective. Any plan to wipe out the Muslim religion would be self-defeating to put it mildly.

  51. #52 by cav on May 16, 2012 - 10:04 am

    Our ‘liberal’ media helped Reagan skate through Iran-Contra; helped the Rs impeach Clinton; failed in persuing a plethora of issues from voting machine manipulation to ‘supreme’ court precedent setting after the 2000 election; helped again when W lied us into Iraq; and on and on.

  52. #53 by Titus V. on May 16, 2012 - 10:32 am

    It isn’t about annihilation, it is about incorporation my good man.

    Muslims will be assimilated is the meme. For the part involving Russia the plan is to surround her with short range nuclear weapons, and constantly evolve groups who for our support are willing to serve our aims in the region, which is of course. hegemony, and the eventual incorporation of Russia into the corporate yoke that the western banking cartel and oligarchy own and control.

    Putin has put a spanner in that work, and the Middle East/Parthia, is proving more than the drivers of this mad policy bargained for.

  53. #54 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2012 - 10:57 am

    Ahh, Parthia. So “Titus” is Glenn Hoefer. Welcome back.

  54. #55 by brewski on May 16, 2012 - 1:04 pm

    I suppose the public teachers of California should return their ill-gotten gains from their investment in Bain. Shame on them.

  55. #56 by Larry Bergan on May 16, 2012 - 2:31 pm

    Glenn – they’re all the same, so give up – Hoefer.

    I knew it!

  56. #57 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2012 - 2:38 pm

    Willard hilariously cannot bring himself to name the last president… even after George W. Bush endorsed his candidacy.

    Speaking to a crowd of supporters in St. Petersburg, Florida on Wednesday, Romney would only refer to Bush as President Barack Obama’s “predecessor.”

    “[Obama] was very critical of his predecessor for the debts the predecessor put in place,” Romney remarked. “It sure is true that you can’t blame one party or the other for all the debts this country has because both parties, in my opinion, have spent too much and borrowed too much.”

    “But he was very critical of his predecessor because the predecessor put together four trillion dollars of debt over eight years,” the former Massachusetts governor added.

    The candidate later returned to the “predecessor” line again: “I find it incomprehensible that a president could come to office and call his predecessor’s record irresponsible and unpatriotic, and then do almost nothing to fix it.”

    I don’t know which is worse, Worst President Ever or He Who Shall Not Be Named. ;-)

  57. #58 by Titus V. on May 16, 2012 - 4:05 pm

    It all bears itself out from the beginning . Any progressive, ask yourselves if you imagined you would have lost the House, have the president in strait jacket, and be facing what will be a very tight election for the presidency. That gitmo would be still around, and torture still the order of the day. That new wars for empire would be spawned under this president…and realize, whatever you support in obama now, has evolved from the train wreck of what this man has agreed to with elements of his own and republican parties.

    There isn’t much change any of you wanted. This was predictable, and some people stated it from the beginning.

    Who is who shall not be named? bush? These statements don’t make any sense.

  58. #59 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2012 - 4:54 pm

    I’ve said it before. In 2008 we had a “change election.” Unfortunately, for politicians that only means the winner is the candidate who promises the most change.

    So yeah, Bush remains unpopular as ever but somehow his disastrous policies continue unabated while politicians are afraid to say his name in public. Romney even proposes more tax cuts for the rich while at the same time complaining about deficits – as if one had nothing to do with the other!

  59. #60 by cav on May 16, 2012 - 4:57 pm

    What seems to really be needed is for the larger base of the democratic party to figure out how to better pull the strings. taking them from the one percent and compelling – Obama or Clinton or Kerry you know the type – some adherence to the platform – just as the tea-partiers do with the right. In fact the two party system seems to have been rejected – except as a default in-place continuum by both progressives on the left and those on the right. The two hands (wings) need to meet in front of our face instead of behind our back and to figure out what we all have in common.

  60. #61 by Larry Bergan on May 16, 2012 - 5:12 pm

    Cav said:

    The two hands (wings) need to meet in front of our face instead of behind our back and to figure out what we all have in common.

    Ain’t that the truth. Both sides of our two dimensional political system have been deceived and should meet face to face using the type of civil discourse and respect that is omnipresent in the Occupy movement.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: