Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats are PUSSIES! [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)25. Paul Krugman? This week? Obama spokesman? Yesterday?
But Romney's poor choice of a factory for his photo-op aside, I guess accusing Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it's not much better, since Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he's hoping that you don't remember how badly those policies worked.
For the Bush era didn't just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Obama's jobs record has been disappointing -- but it has been unambiguously better than Bush's over the comparable period of his administration.
This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration's early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Bush took office.
...
But that's not the critique Romney is making. Instead, he's basically attacking Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people -- and perhaps more to the point, the news media -- forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we'll find out.
http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_20470664/krugman-amnesia-candidate
For the Bush era didn't just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Obama's jobs record has been disappointing -- but it has been unambiguously better than Bush's over the comparable period of his administration.
This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration's early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Bush took office.
...
But that's not the critique Romney is making. Instead, he's basically attacking Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people -- and perhaps more to the point, the news media -- forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we'll find out.
http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion-columnists/ci_20470664/krugman-amnesia-candidate
President Obamas campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt responded to Mitt Romneys victory speech on Tuesday by tying the Republican standard bearer to George W. Bushs economic policies. His statement offers a good summary of how the Obama camp plans to frame the overall race as it heads into the general. Notice the lack of any flip flop attack on Romney, an angle that has been largely sidelined in recent days as the Obama camp has instead tried to emphasize Romneys conservatism and wealthy background. From LaBolt:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-spokesman-romney-vision-is-back-to-future
The title for Governor Romneys speech tonight should have been Back to the Future, because he has proposed a return to the same policies that got us into the economic crisis in the first place forcing the middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, letting Wall Street write its own rules, and eliminating investments in the security of the middle class. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Governor Romney believes that showering the wealthiest Americans with special giveaways will make the middle class thrive. We have tried those policies before. They didnt unleash growth, they didnt spur job creation and they didnt boost the middle class. And while Mitt Romney praised those policies in 2004, they led to a recovery that produced seven times fewer private sector jobs than the Presidents policies, despite a significantly milder recession compared to the one the President faced coming into office.
This election will be a choice between two candidates, two records, and two visions for the country. The President brought the economy back from the brink of another Depression, bet on American workers to spur the comeback of the American auto industry and American manufacturing, kept his promise to end the war in Iraq and refocus on al Qaeda and fought every day to build an economy where hard work paid off and responsibility are rewarded. Governor Romney referred to himself as the ideal Tea Party candidate, and his policies earn him that title. He would stack the deck against the middle class, pull the rug out from under growing sectors of our economy like manufacturing and clean energy and promote giveaways to Americans who can afford to lobby for them.
Mitt Romney has spent the past year out on the campaign trail tearing down the President with a negative message that even Republicans who have endorsed him have criticized. This marks the end of that monologue. Now he must put his record and his agenda next to the Presidents.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-spokesman-romney-vision-is-back-to-future
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
153 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"what's new pussy cat?" is now "what's new, cat?" will "puppy" dog be banned next? nt
msongs
Apr 2012
#14
Mathematically possible, but implications made in previous posts render that unlikely.
LanternWaste
Apr 2012
#36
Men have so thoroughly fucked up the planet I say we bring back matriarchy, along
coalition_unwilling
Apr 2012
#86
Yeah, I hear you, MM. I cannot believe the jury allowed the OP to stand. Simply
coalition_unwilling
Apr 2012
#91
I'm not sure any of the other political/economic structures lead to anything different.
MineralMan
Apr 2012
#103
Sorry, but saying 'minuscule in size' when talking about male strength is slightly sexist.
Dawgs
Apr 2012
#126
there is always the little boys that need slurs to feel all manly. sad, really. nt
seabeyond
Apr 2012
#29
when you have the very men that need this to feel like men, voting, .... not much will be done
seabeyond
Apr 2012
#34
As a woman, I prefer to choose those who presume to speak for me more carefully.
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#114
Interesting, since I used Democratic in the first line and my whole message is how I hate the GOP.
SmellyFeet
Apr 2012
#31
Nope. Krugman is one of a very few, and the spokesman NOT ONCE uses the word Bush.
SmellyFeet
Apr 2012
#35
We know, but since M$M didn't cover those events, it never happened, you know?
freshwest
Apr 2012
#72
Well said. Republicans are promoted by the media. Dems are treated very differently.
emulatorloo
Apr 2012
#79
And Democratic Party bashing in general. Not about policies, but as a group deserving disdain.
freshwest
Apr 2012
#140
He is one of several low-post trolls I have been trying to tell people about. nt
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#68
Yep, we blocked him from the BOG at the time but it was clear he was here to disrupt.
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#105
and so many duers on jury vote for this ass that is escorted out the door. women,
seabeyond
Apr 2012
#73
The list of recommenders reads like a list of those who object to calls against offensive language
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#148
Exactly what I was thinking. Bush was a huge fuck up and they act like he was never in office.
craigmatic
Apr 2012
#102
Author of OP is PPR'd. Wonder what's going to happen to those who rec'd his post?
Kaleva
Apr 2012
#108