Sunday, July 15, 2012

Point/Counterpoint -- IBD and Ace Commenter Rich Explain the Obama Campaign

It's just like the old "Point/Counterpoint" thing they used to do on "60 Minutes" back in the 70s, which SNL did a great job of lampooning later on.

First, Investor's Business Daily explains what's happening:

The Obama campaign has reached new depths of hypocrisy and mendacity in accusing its GOP opponent of a felony. Mr. President, let he who is without secrets guarded like Fort Knox cast the first stone.

For a Barack Obama operative to accuse Mitt Romney of misrepresenting his chairmanship at Bain Capital to the Securities and Exchange Commission over a decade ago, "which is a felony," as Stephanie Cutter said, reveals the desperation of a presidential re-election campaign that must distract Americans from its dismal economic record.
But it also raises other issues, including: this president's willingness to run on lies, his refusal to practice what he preaches, and the outrageous negligence of the Democrats' powerful lapdogs in the media.

To which Ace Commenter Rich, comfortable in Chicago-style politics on this issue, responds:
Romney wants to have his cake and eat it too: He created wealth and was incredibly successfull at Bain, except for when it doesn't fit his narrative. Please! So I am not gonna wring my hands over Obama's attention to detail. Obama isn't a journalist, he is a politician. And politucs ain't bean bag. If Romney is gonna leave his flank exposed this much...that's his problem and our advantage. So I am guessing I will be enjoying the Bain atacks till the first week of November. 
Because strategic advantage is more important than the direction of the country. Back to IBD:

First, the Boston Globe, whose July 12 story Cutter parroted, seemed to be intentionally misleading by saying that, "Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control."

Because of the suddenness with which Romney left Bain to save the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games in 1999, during which ownership was being legally transferred to a group of partners, it would have been out of order — possibly unlawful — for Romney's name not to be on the documents Bain filed with the SEC.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker even slapped the Globe with "Three Pinocchios" and "were tempted to award this claim Four Pinocchios ... ."

This is not the first lie the Obama presidency and campaign have propagated. From claiming that U.S. oil output "is the highest that it's been in eight years" (while oil output on federal lands was falling 275,000 barrels a day), to portraying a company fixer and job creator like Romney as an outsourcer, Obama's untruths are legion.

Not so fast, says Ace Commenter Rich:
Moreover, Obama's attacks are legit. And contra Gino, this is not too complicated for your average voter to understand. Romney retainined his titles of owner and CEO at Bain through 2002. This means that he is legally and morally responsible for what happened there during this period. In spite of his practical level of day-to-day involvement, he is accountable. (I thought Republicans were big on personal accountability). Do we really want a guy who refuses to take responsibility for his own company while he was sole owner and CEO as President?
We already have a guy who has spent 3 1/2 years blaming his predecessor for everything that has happened in his tenure, so I take Rich's point -- why change horses now? Wait -- I know! If you have a Republican president, you can hold him accountable! Well, back to IBD:

If the media did their job, Cutter's remark would have made this a story about the Obama campaign smearing Romney by spreading a bogus story, then aggressively making false allegations of criminal behavior.

As Politico commented after Cutter's slanderous charge, when it comes to Romney and Bain, "things are reaching the point where the facts don't really matter."

Indeed, that could be a blanket statement about the entire Obama campaign.
To which Ace Commenter Rich replies:
You guys are just upset because Obama isn't following the "Democrats are wimps" narrative. This Pres ain't Gore, Kerry or Dukakis. 
So there. IBD, you ignorant slut.


Gino said...

Jimmy Carter comes to mind...

Bike Bubba said...

OK, a few thousand people lose their jobs, maybe or maybe not due to Governor Romney's actions.

Now, I can think of a President under whose leadership several million people have lost their jobs. Now who is the worse choice for the economy?

Seriously, part of me just wonders when Romney invites the Blagojevich campaign to look at sign ins for meetings at Bain and to observe whose name does not appear.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

For my part, I'm not the least bit upset that Obama is trying to peddle this story. What else is he going to do, run on his record? And I suspect that the "politics ain't beanbag" is going to come back to haunt the president. If he doesn't have success to run on and he is widely viewed as a jerk... Well, he's going to have trouble putting together a whole lot of electoral votes. It's not going to be close.

Bike Bubba said...

Gino; now let's not pick on President Carter by comparing him to Mr. Soetoro!

Brian said...

Man, if this issue isn't a Rorschach test for one's preexisting biases vis a vis the candidates, I do not know what is. We are clearly co-existing in alternate versions of reality.

Anonymous said...

This gets funner and funner. Romney walked into this. That's not the same as Obama lying. We are talking about facts: Romney WAS the CEO of BAIN from 1999 to 2002. It's in a sworn SEC doc signed by Romney. Romney is running on the notion that he is a successfull businessman. He has repeatdly claimed that his Bain investments have made money and created jobs, and has not hesitated to throw numbers from the period in question around when they suited his needs. And now, with simple facts, Obama's team has Rommey running from Bain "like a scalded cat". Romney's primary personal narrative is out the window. Bwahahaha!

Picklesworth, I am not silly enough to claim that I know who is going to win this election, but I am also not foolish enough to say that it won't be close. It will be close. Probably very close. As Mitt might say, I will bet you $10,000 right now that, regardless of who wins, you are going to be wrong when you say "It's not going to be close." Interested?


W.B. Picklesworth said...


You're not talking to a gambling man. Unless you count plunking down a dollar for a March Madness bracket.

And you're certainly free to think what you like. I made my prediction months ago and will happily stick by it. There will be distractions aplenty in the coming months, gnashing of teeth, folks like you swearing that something about Romney is REALLY important. But at the end of the day, in voting booths across America, people will have the opportunity to say, "I've had enough of FAIL." That's what Obama won't be able to shake: he's a failure and everybody knows it. If he was a loveable failure he might stand a chance. He is not.

Brian said...

WB--What would you infer if you turn out to be completely wrong about the outcome of the election?

I'm not trying to provoke or argue a point here...I'm genuinely curious.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Brian, in the immediate hours I would probably infer that Americans are self-hating retards. I would be angry and frustrated. I would mourn our demise.

Such a mood would last a relatively short time. It would be like shouting an obscenity after hitting your thumb with a hammer.

With some perspective there are two things I'd likely infer:

1) A majority of Americans were not ready to confront financial reality.


2) A significant number of people, even if they were conscious of the necessity were not convinced that Romney would be any better than Obama. (or perhaps that electing a weak conservative would actually hurt the long term goals of limited government and fiscal sanity.)

So the one denigrates the American people, the other does not. I'd rather go with the latter.

There are other possibilities that I'd consider:
3) I'm further out of the mainstream than Obama is.
4) There is a high bar for not re-electing an incumbent president.
5) People were hoodwinked by a biased media.

I'd be willing to go with 3 or 4. 5 bothers me. I do believe that the media is biased. In fact, I think it is a significant issue of injustice in this country, but that can't be a final answer. Even if it were true, it needs to be overcome. To complain is understandable, to set down roots in complaint is to become insufferable.

Finally, there is the answer offered by Occam's Razor: W.B. is a poor prognosticator, out of touch, perhaps even foolish.


An interesting question for me is, "What is to be done, what attitude is to be taken if Obama wins?"

Brian said...

Thanks for the response, WB.

Mr. D said...

Alternative Picklesworth, via Mencken:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.