After winning 5 states in a walk, Mitt Romney made his case and it was all economics. It wasn’t pretty, but it drove home his point. Then there was this:
Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?
Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?
It’s Mitt’s answer to Reagan’s one-liner, are you better off than you were four years ago? The follow-ups were familiar, yet different too.
I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents – some successful even beyond their wildest dreams – and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.
This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.
In the America I see, character and choices matter. And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded. And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.
It was a man putting bromides together that wouldn’t upset anyone, so he could be anything to everyone.
But who thinks poverty can be “defeated” through “respect and achievement”? What is he talking about?
Absolutely nothing and he intends on doing it through November 6th if he can. It’s not that Mitt Romney can’t put something of substance on the table. It’s that he’s scared to death if he tells people what he’d actually like to do, especially if his win ushers in a Republican Congress, independents and moderates will bolt.
If Romney wins the election, it’s almost a sure bet that Republicans win control of both the House and the Senate. And that matters. Right now, the GOP’s agenda is the Ryan budget, and that’s entirely fiscal: It’s a premium support plan for Medicare, and tax cuts, and deep cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other domestic programs. All that can be passed through budget reconciliation — which is to say, all that can be made immune to the filibuster. – Ezra Klein
In Krugman’s Monday column he brought up an interesting point; most of the job losses have come from states laying off teachers and other government workers. The states with the biggest government layoffs have been in GOP states, especially Texas. Why Obama does not say this loud and clear can be cataloged with all the other things he does not say. The Republicans have obstructed him every step of the way and he needs to say that to, loud and clear, every day until the election. It is no secret that I have not been a big supporter of the man, but to allow Romney to paint Obama as a total failure who is responsible for everything that has happened is political suicide. To let Romney completely ignore the Republicans hand in all of this will cost him the election; knowing Americans as I do, I am sure of it.
It was a man putting bromides together that wouldn’t upset anyone, so he could be
anything to everyone.
Sounds like Obama, to me. The only difference, of course, is that Romney actually has a real resume.
Oh, I don’t know. I think that both resumes read like the career of someone for whom being merely useless would be a step up.
There is a troubling connection between Obama and the laying off of teachers. By cozying up to the likes of Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein he’s alienating a key constituency. Also, I wish someone would call Mitt and others on the claim that unions use dues money for political donations. That is illegal. They have to form PACs which collect voluntary donations from members.
“voluntary donations”? You’ve obviously never belonged to a union.
“which is to say, all that can be made immune to the filibuster”
Funny how that filibuster’s power is so immense when wielded by Repubs yet non-existent in the hands of a Democratic majority.
With folks like Young Ezra schooling us on politics, it’s amazing that Americans know anything about the process at all.
ugh…I can still remember his post at American Prospect just after he drank the Koolaid…so very embarrassing…that he passes for “punditry” these days is quite sad
@elliesmom: http://congressionalresearch.com/97-618/document.php?study=The+Use+of+Labor+Union+Dues+for+Political+Purposes+A+Legal+Analysis
particularly paragraph 3 “Labor Union Political Activity Under the Federal Election Campaign Act Of 1971 As Amended.
Emphasis added, of course.
It’s not just non-members’ dues. It’s the general funds of the unions. From the link I provided above, paragraph 3:
“First, the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 prohibited labor union
contributions to federal election campaigns. Later, the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as amended, (FECA), generally continued this broad prohibition of labor
union activities and funds in federal elections.”
They are allowed to communicate with their membership and conduct non-partisan get-out-the-vote activities and this as well:
“(3) the establishment and administration of a political action committee
or separate segregated fund (commonly known as a PAC) for the purpose of the
solicitation of contributions to such fund for political purposes.”
The point was whether such contributions are compulsory or not. The only thing proved by your link regarding that point is that it’s not compulsory for non-members who contribute to the union that represents them.
The most telling part of your post is the part where Ezra Klein points out that the Repubs are not afraid and will in effect gleefully use reconciliation to push through their destruction of the social safety net and all programs that benefit the the poor and middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy.
That in a nut shell demonstrates the difference between a Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid spent the better part of three years trying to play nice with Repubs. Mitch McConnell on the other hand could care less about playing nice with Dems. Repubs are unafraid of pushing there agenda while Dems want to play nice in the sandbox and beg for niceness from the Repubs. Just look at the Repubs lining up to kill the debt/budget deal thatthe Dems bent over backward to pass with the Repubs. And lets not forget Pres Obama’s play nice in the sandbox mantra which contributed to the mess-despite his all of a sudden populist fighting tone on the campaign trail
The point is that unions cannot use dues money, compulsory or otherwise, from members or non-members for political campaigns. If you don’t see the proof you’re not reading the text. I don’t want to paste it all here, but if you read the whole link you’ll see it.
If dues were the only possible way that money could get from a union member’s pocket into the hands of the union, you’d have a point. Sadly, that’s not true. Paste all you want from that link, it won’t change that fact.
Please tell me with some sourcing how a union maintains its general fund. What other ways does money find its way from a member’s pocket to the coffers? Are these legal?