Romney's "Summer of Bain" = Swift Boat 2.0 ?

[AmericanNation]

1.  I recall John Kerry strolling to the podium to accept his nomination in 2004 and the first thing he did was give a military salute and say something like "John Kerry reporting for duty!", and as a military veteran myself, I sat agog thinking "Oh no he didn't, oh no he didn't just do that!"

You see, no military veteran forgets that in 1971 John Kerry went on national TV and, under oath, swore that his fellow veterans were war criminals!  (And he threw his (or, he later claimed, someone else's) medals away, also on national TV.)  Thus, in our eyes, he gave himself a permanent, political discharge from the U.S. military.  And we could live with that:  If you don't have pride in the team, you should get off it.  Fine.  Then here comes 2004:  Kerry saw that, unlike 1971, now soldiers -- even Vietnam vets -- are popular; and that unlike Kerry, Bush and Cheney did not serve in Vietnam.  So Kerry decides it's to his political advantage to re-enlist!!

"Oh no you don't!"  I wasn't a bit surprised when men who'd serve with Kerry -- the men he called war criminals in 1971 -- decided to speak up.

Of course, a lot of these guys were former officers -- that means they're college graduates, pretty smart.  So they don't just "speak up", they get organized.  They organized as one of those 501(c) groups that are allowed to be political but aren't part of any candidate's campaign.  This allowed Bush, whenever he was asked to condemn them, to say that (1) he "honored Sen. Kerry's service" and then (2) he would condemn "all the 501(c) groups".  In other words, Bush remained above the fray.

2.  Kerry's mistake:  Because it was not the Bush campaign doing the hits, but an independent group of veterans, Kerry erred by responding directly and personally.  He should have let his surrogates do it (and he did to some extent, but he also waded deep into it himself).  

3.  That's one of the key difference between the Swift Boaters and the Bainers:  Bush did not put his own personal credibility on the line to back the Swift Boaters.  Bush didn't say, "Kerry absolutely needs to answer these questions" or anything remotely like that.  Bush kept his distance and even condemned the Swift Boaters (along with all the other 501(c) orgs).  In the case of the Bainers, on the other hand, Obama has put his personal credibility on the line.  (That's also why it's fine for Romney to respond personally even where it was not fine for Kerry to -- because it's not an independent group making the charges but the president's campaign and the president himself who're making the charges.)

4.  In the case of the Swift Boaters, Kerry's credibility was at stake, but Bush's was not.  In the case of the Bainers, Romney's credibility is at stake, but so is Obama's.  If, as now appears likely, even the media is portraying Obama's attacks as false, it will be a blow to his credibility as much as -- if the Bainer claims prove true -- it would be a blow to Romney.

Correct.  The Bain-ers are almost nothing like the swift vote veterans for truth.  The Bain-ers are more like the birthers and Obama is planting the seeds of his own destruction by making himself the leader of this witch hunt.  Now for the next 4 months, Obama can be correctly portrayed as a lying, un-serious, and small person which shows he isn't much of a leader.  Accusing   

Isn't THIS "Recovery Summer"? I heard about it last year and the year before that.  Or is it "Recovery Summer 3.0" ? LOL.     

[AmericanNation]

Now I'm reading an article suggesting that the production of the 2002 Olympic uniforms was 'outsourced' to Burma, then under the control of a brutal military regime.  This after politicians from both parties are lodging complaints about the outsourcing of the production of 2012 uniforms to China.

It certainly builds into the narrative that Mitt Romney, running on his record of job creation, seemed not to enjoy creating jobs in the USA.

OMG, who cares?


Mitt Romney(as a private citizen)=created thousands of private sector jobs in the USA (Net). 
Mitt Romney(as MA Governor)     =oversaw the creation of thousands of jobs (Net) AND full employment

Barrack Obama(as a private citizen) = created zero jobs (net)
Barrack Obama(as president of USA) = created zero jobs (net)

hmmm...

[AmericanNation]

Obama has created about as many private-sector jobs as were created in the same amount of time in George W. Bush's first term in office -- not a great record, in other words, but definitely positive private-sector job creation. The thing is, the size of government ballooned during the early Bush years, while it's shrunk under Obama, so while Bush also had a lot of public-sector jobs to add to his numbers, public-sector job losses under Obama cancel out private-sector gains.
In other words, conservatives should like Obama, since he's created what are, from their point of view, "real" jobs, and destroyed lots of "fake" jobs.

except "stimulus" was largely diverted into propping up government "jobs" and spending, so to call him "like(-able)" to conservatives is a complete joke.  You think your statement makes a point or sounds good, but it doesn't.   

Bush inherited a recession and a terrorist attack.  Credit markets and hiring froze up in 2001.  He worked toward fixing the problems.  He didn't make them worse like BO.  The private sector isn't "doing fine" and government isn't "shrinking."  I mean what are you talking about ?? census workers? They should be let go BECAUSE THE CENSUS IS OVER!   

 

[AmericanNation]

AN, are you intentionally misrepresenting your statistics, or are you just really that dim?

I didn't use any statistics, so I have a hard time with you calling me dim for something I couldn't even mistakenly be thought to have done.  If you're talking about jobs numbers... those are the numbers I can't change that, sorry.  

[AmericanNation]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

[AmericanNation]

You used these charts as evidence that Obama made the recession worse, when in fact they show nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry you can't look past a minor semantic error.

I posted the charts (didn't say anything about them).  The first one juxtaposes this recession vs. the previous 10.  The second shows the beginning of it for timeline purposes (people like to pretend dates are different).  Sorry that they bother you.   

OK. The recent economic meltdown looked more like the first half of the economic collapse of 1929-1933. The fundamental rules after so severe an economic downturn are much different than for those of the shorter and less severe recessions.

Speculative activities that normally underpin an economic boom are no longer possible. The quick-buck, high-yield opportunities vanish, and what is left is either big government spending or the return of economic choices that look good only in desperation. Such is low-yield, bet-everything-that-you-have, slow-return activities that first build capital before they turn an attractive profit. That's small business trying to assert itself in the interstices that such giants as Wal*Mart, McDonald's, Bank of America, and Exxon-Mobil allow.

It may be tougher this time. Remember: the corporate giants own the political process, have control of media access through advertising, and have a tax structure that offers the same tax rate for a marginally-successful small business and a vertically-integrated oil company.     

this is the most reasonable response to my post thus far...  interesting group in here.