Here’s one paragraph, from Bill Voegeli on Romney’s secret message to the rich guys, with which I agree:
It’s worth noting that Obama and Romney were both attempting to describe Americans making less than half the median income to an audience of people making much more. Both politicians ran into trouble because they didn’t really know very much about the people they were trying to explain, having much more in common with the ones they were speaking to. The most offensive aspect of Obama’s assessment was its crude anthropological reductionism, the assumption that he understood the people of the small towns better than they understood themselves. The most offensive aspect of Romney’s is its crude application of the theory that economic incentives not only influence but determine political behavior, including voting.
Neither candidate knows much at all about the challenges facing and the beliefs ennobling ordinary Americans these days. Obama thinks, like so many rich libertarians, that most people live in the thrall of redneck fantasies. And Romney thinks, like so many rich libertarians, that most people are living lazy and personally irresponsible lives, thanks to our soft despots.
The craziest libertarians are now suggesting that Romney should go with the flow and carry the election by campaigning against the scandal of the untaxed. One such commentator on NRO compares Romney’s moment to Lee’s at the Battle of Gettysburg. Well, what did Lee do? He effectively brought the Confederacy to an end by a reckless strategy that sent so many men to their slaughter.
Here’s the real scandal: Who would have confidence now in what ought to be the true message of Romney-Ryan? We’re the guys who can save our minimalist entitlements by mending them effectively in light of our crises of demography and debt.
That Romney and Obama now appear as separate but equal kinds of elitists means advantage Obama.
September 19th, 2012 | 2:13 pm
Or conversely, the glass is half full view:
By exposing both candidates as out of touch making a stronger case for restricting their influence over our lives, aka limiting government.
Advantage: Republicans.
September 19th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
The dynamic duo of Romney and Ryan would drive the entire economy into a nose dive as long as it benefits the richest Americans. Income inequality is endangering the Middle Class and making paupers of us all who don’t have those millions upon millions of dollars. Read more about the role of Romney’s riches in this election and the power of his sacred undergarments at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html The working class of our country can’t AFFORD to allow this election to be bought and sold!
September 19th, 2012 | 6:26 pm
The fact that Romney unequivocally fails to offer substanitive policy even when expressing how he really feels is the reason I will not vote for him.
September 20th, 2012 | 5:24 am
Brandt, to what or whose benefit would Romney or Ryan drive the economy into a nose-dive? Surely prosperity is power for the wealthy. It is an economic laissez les bons temps rouler that keeps them in power (and is a moderate’s excuse for the choice of them,) whereas the Democrats seek that in the social realm. For Democrats, if the economy is not doing well, then unions are far more powerful and much of their policy is driven by unions.
September 20th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Ben Bell. Get real. Its clear from your comments that you were not going to vote for Romney anyway. Obama has not “offered substantive policy” in four years, except for a slow continual push for the redistribution of wealth. You are among the 47% of the population blind to reason, blind to the evils of socialism, and willing to give away your freedom for your lord, Obama. Please go back to your MSNBC and CNN talking point cocoon and we 53% will try to support you.
September 20th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
Blind to reason? Ad hominem attacks are by definition illogical. Instead of ranting, try offering exactly what Romney’s policies are regarding taxes and entitlements. I won’t vote for President Obama either, unless he officially comes out in favor of eliminating tax loopholes in accord with Bowles’ recommendation.
September 20th, 2012 | 1:13 pm
Oh, it breaks my heart but you are right about Lee. He trusted in those men in butternut and grey, he believed in them for he had seen their courage and determination on so many glorious fields of valor. But, against those damn guns, eighty-eight of them in all, so few made the Yankee lines even though the Virginians broke the Vermonters and sent them a-runnin’.
If only he had moved the army between the Army of the Potomac and Washington City and forced Meade to assualt an entrenched position…if only, alas!
September 20th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
Robert, He should have done that! Was it Longstreet (I forget) who made that recommendation? But Lee loved the glorious gore of the big battle too much. Not a good strategy for the South.
September 20th, 2012 | 2:21 pm
Ben Bell: As evidence that you are not really looking for “evidence” here from a quickly googled campaign website are some policies offered by Romney.
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Corporate Taxes
Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
You may not agree with them, that’s fine. But don’t play us for fools. The readers of FT are not mindless robots taking MSNBC CNN talking points. Again, get real. You never considered voting for Romney and you’ve never heard Romney’s policies because you have never looked for them.
September 20th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
Well Dr. I don’t think he ‘loved’ the gore. You do recall his remarks during Fredricksburg when he commented about the Union assaults against the entrenched Rebels? He said something about the senselees assaults, the horrific loss of brave men (bodies piled one on top of another, and the fact that because of that, ‘we’ should not ‘love’ war so much. Yet, no general fought so hard, engaging the whole of the army with alacrity when his ‘battle blood’ was up. “Lee to the rear” was a common chant among the troops. And, we should remember it was at the same battle where he referred to the Yankees as ‘those people’, as I recall. Ironically, he loved his ‘country’ (Virginia), and he served his nation with valor and honor, he even freed his slaves long, long before Gen. Grant, but to experience national troops marching into his country was just too much for that olde republican.
September 20th, 2012 | 6:01 pm
You see the problem is those are not substanitive policies. In case you haven’t noticed we have a huge budget deficit. You don’t solve the deficit by adding to it. Romney has to explain or come out in favor of policy that deals with the problems viz. Simpson Bowles.
September 21st, 2012 | 7:47 am
Brilliant! That would be the same Simpson Bowles Plan that Obama rejected. Try to focus on my original point. You never were going to vote for Romney, substantive policies or no.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact