Same ol’ – Same ol’

This past Friday in Pittsburg, while campaigning, President Obama said this (22 seconds):

Apparently Obama’s new “hope and change” message is that he “hopes” we Americans have no memories while he blatantly tries to “change” history. If it was a few million dollars one way or the other an argument supporting this claim might be made. It, however, wasn’t even close. In 2008 the Obama campaign outspent all candidates by a margin of over 2 to 1. This brazenly obvious and flippant lying worked in 2008 because the I’m-not-Bush candidate was never fully vetted by the MSM and he had little, to no footprints in the sand. In 2008 this tactic was ignored or overlooked as brilliant campaigning – in 2012 it is a sign of desperation.


  1. J. Strupp says:

    I’d be very uncomfortable using the word desperation at this point.

    It’s July, he’s an incumbent and he’s winning or within the margin in the polls with 8%+ unemployment.

  2. Couple of things… using clips like that where he is clearly cut off before the end of the sentence is generally not good. People rightfully argue all the time that context is easily lost when using tiny gotcha clips. Don’t feed into it by doing the same. Provide the extra material, even if it doesn’t add or detract, if for no other reason than to show that it was a fully legitimate clip.

    Second, and more important, is that you’re missing the larger more important argument to be made. He’s saying that he’s been outspent before, and still won! Even if its not actually true that he was outspent in the last election… he’s essentially saying that the amount of money spent during a campaign doesn’t affect the outcome all that much.

    He’s saying that you can’t buy an election! After all, if he was outspent, and still won, then how could it have been bought?

    Don’t call out the supposed lie that he wasn’t outspent.

    Call out the lie that we need to control the amount of money in politics because it buys elections. Repeat Obama’s message far and wide… you can still win an election if you’re outspent! There’s no need for campaign finance reform after all.

  3. Obama doesn’t need to fool all the people all of the time. He just needs to be able to fool a plurality of the voters one more time. He’s doing a pretty good job of it. He’s back on the offensive with his tax cut plan, and now he has people talking about Romney’s offshore bank accounts. He’s sitting pretty and can pretty much just mail it in from here. He’s a lock. Blame the weak opposition. No one good ran on the GOP side, perhaps because they realized he’s a good campaigner and could explain his way out of 8% unemployment by changing the subject.

  4. J. Strupp says:

    So Obama’s desperate AND can he pretty much just mail it in from here?

    Good Lord, Team Republican, it’s July.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    Nick. I read your comment. I read it twice.

    When I use a video I do so to convey the exact words someone says. Don’t lecture me on how to do that. What Obama said is what he said. If what came before or after changed his message I would have included it. His speech was 33 minutes long – I listened to it all. Putting a longer video in a post is a sure way to have people not view it. That’s why I give the video length.

    You paragraph 2 is ridiculous. If raising money doesn’t matter why is Obama spending most of his time doing just that?

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    I couldn’t disagree more with your opinion.

  7. my post was deleted and may be re-posted. the question for Randy is how can Romney be commander in chief when he evaded the draft and spent 3 years in Paris/France as a missionary. his mission was in the battlefield along with the courageous Priests, Ministers, Preachers and others who served in a spiritial way or did not use a weapon. we called them “draft dodgers”.

  8. Randy in Richmond says:

    Well Dick, I called them people with legal deferments. If you can show where Romney or Clinton did anything illegal to not serve in the military, please do so. I guess according to you I was a “draft dodger” also as I was deferred to attend college.

  9. Randy. this is not about legal deferrments. there were plenty to go around. Romney was deferred to go to Paris, France as a missionary, which he could have rejected and voluntered like both myself and many, many others did. this same is true for Clay/Ali who claimed to be a religious zealot. lets be real. there are many places for those who do not want to go to war to help the war effort. one of them is nowhere to be found in France. this is not a question of legality. it is a moral issue of patriotism. in my opinion the federal government under Eisenhower (Korea) Nixon/Johnson(Vietnam) and Clinton/Bush (Bosnia and Gulf wars) were wrong in granting deferrment to men who used religion as a cop-out. I just want to hear a clear explanation from Mr. Romney who so far says he dreamed of being in the war. just say i was afraid and he will join those who served while having the same fears. believe it or not the joint chiefs of staff under a Romney administration will have no respect for a boy who cried wolf. no, you are not a draft dodger because you took advantage of the most common deferrment which was for the purpose of the continuing education of the Amercan people. we all understand, including myself who had college deferrments until time ran out and i decided to volunteer and put my education on hold. at minimum, Romney could have done “something” to help the war effort. maybe his Dad gave money until he got brain washed, which was an unfair press story. tell us something, anything, to avoid the idea that he (MR) was a coward. PS. looks like his sons are a chip off the old block. no reason to offend. just the facts maam. or maybe he will just dream on.

  10. Romney paid lots of taxes over the years, some of which went to defense spending. He also created many, many jobs for other people, and some of the taxes those folks paid also went to defense spending. Just my opinion, and you are free to disagree, but I think Mitt did much more to help his country in the private sector than he could have in the military. And I’m not sure he would have been as successful as he was without the experience of being a missionary in France.

  11. The realization that our president is a pathological liar who invents a history in his mind that bears no resemblance to reality is kind of sad.

    Reminds me of Hilary’s “under sniper fire” moment.

  12. The Lorax says:

    “Romney created many, many jobs.”

    LMAO. Who the *&%$ cares, even if that was true? The job of the president is not to be a job creator – that’s a myth of Republican fantasy land.

    Being an executive or having business experience has nearly zero correlation to whether or not one is a good president.

  13. J. Strupp says:

    What a complete pile of crap, Ryan.

    Mitt Romney and his boys bought, sold, dismantled companies and, oftentimes, used the U.S. bankruptcy laws to socialize the debt obligations all while using the carried interest loophole to funnel most of their profits through the 15% tax rate. These guys don’t produce anything and provide little to no worth to this country’s prosperity whatsoever.

    Mitt Romney has made a lot of money, sheltered whatever the law would allow and sent a bunch of money to the magic show they call Mormonism (tax deductible of course). Mitt Romney is not some patriot because he did the absolute minimum the tax laws required of him. Where I come from, they call that, “paying taxes”.

    Oh and don’t for one second think that he’ll hesitate send our kids to fight and die in some useless war halfway around the world because he chose to avoid fighting in a different, useless war years ago. Guys like this never have any problems doing that.

  14. Randy in Richmond says:

    Attacking Romney changes not the fact that our President is a liar.

  15. The Lorax says:

    Let’s not get into a contest of tallying lies among these two candidates, Randy. That would surely be a losing bet for you.

    Not to mention as someone had already addressed so I didn’t originally see fit to comment, the clip is pretty bad–thought standard stuff for you and yours–and really leaves any guess as to the context up in the air.

    This is some real hard-hitting stuff…

  16. Randy… look at what happened in the Wisconsin Recall. How much more money to Walker raise and spend total over Barrett? And how much did it swing the vote compared to the original governor’s election? 1 point? Maybe 2?

  17. @J Strupp, private equity does a lot more to finance startups than any other industry. It’s certainly a lot more effective at job creation than community organizing.

    Let’s face it. Obama is a typical politician. He’s no patriot. He’s motivated by power and greed, and couldn’t care less about the people. He’s also sent troops halfway around the world to fight in useless wars. Guys like him never have any problems doing that (witness the failed “surge” in Afghanistan). He was against his own healthcare bill before he was for it. He’s all about getting on TV and looking important.

  18. @Nick, if that’s the case, then it’s a really good argument against limits on campaign donations. It proves you can’t buy elections. The people voted for Walker because they supported him, despite Citizens United making it easier for Barrett to close the funding gap by obtaining support from labor unions.

  19. Randy in Richmond says:

    I guess my understanding of the meaning English language differs from others–the same others whose previous leader wanted to discuss the meaning of “is” as reflected in another lie. That incident even involved pointing one’s finger at the country while telling the lie.

  20. The Lorax says:

    Yet again, job creation in the private sector is almost wholly irrelevant and isn’t a skill that is transferable to the presidency. Show me when that’s been a valuable trait. Historically, no one cared about it either.

    @KPOM. You’re right, Obama isn’t a patriot for spending years working on community interests–working for vulnerable Americans and speaking up from them by helping them exercise their rights. Sure, disagree with his politics, but how in the world does that make him unpatriotic?

    Nothing about offering your name, and life, and career to be a public official (instead of groaning and moaning on a blog, for example) when one could certainly have made more in the private sector (case in point: Romney) as Obama would have had a promising and profitable law career had he so chosen. Nevermind the President’s efforts to do what he thinks is right (what you guys always called “courage” when Bush made bone-headed decision) and fighting for ordinary Americans.

    KPOM, you’re good at the dog whistle here. Power and greed? Obama didn’t become president just for fun. Or because he needed a paycheck. Get real. Your suppositions are so offensive and off the reservation.

    The capriciousness of the right in calling out President Obama for not being a patriot should be a federal offense, and worse, a national outrage, and shame.

  21. “The capriciousness of the right in calling out President Obama for not being a patriot should be a federal offense, and worse, a national outrage, and shame.”

    Right. Because that so happened when you did it to Bush.

    Double standards always lose the argument.

  22. J. Strupp says:

    Double standards always lose the argument. Feel free to call out your guy Randy directly for this Cindy and not just someone you disagree with.

    His hero spent over a trillion of our tax dollars sending thousands of Americans kids to die in the sand fighting a bullshit war based on bogus yellow cake uranium intelligence and he’s worried about the definition of “is”.

    These guys are all liars to a certain degree. Some more than others. I went back and read the transcript of Obama’s speech and Randy’s link was definately in context. Obama was either misinformed or outright lying. It’s unfortunate and wrong. But it’s what politicans do and this lie happened to cost me and my country virually nothing which is more than I can say for past liars that have occupied the office.

  23. Nah. Randy is inciting a riot. I won’t mess with him.

    J. Strupp, pull back from that ledge, please.

  24. J. Strupp says:

    “It’s certainly a lot more effective at job creation than community organizing.”

    Yeah I don’t believe it. Unfortunately, there’s no way to quantify job creation/losses from private equity deals but given the “industry’s” mission of generating returns via downsizing and outsourcing to boost productivity, using the corporate bankruptcy laws to their advantage and cutting real wages of workers in order to maximize returns, I’d say private equity is probably a net negative to jobs in this country. Maybe it’s closer to zero. Either way, they don’t produce anything of real value to society and we, as a nation, did just fine in the past without these glorified bookies, “allocating capital” to businesses that actually produce goods and services of value.

    They do make a lot of money though.

  25. J. Strupp says:

    I’m always on the ledge, Cindy.

  26. @Lorax, you are either naive or stupid if you think politicians run out of a sense of “public service.” Obama is an egomaniac, and ever since his first day at the Illinois State Legislature has manipulated his way to power (first by knocking off all his opponents from the ballot). First it was by playing poker (literally) with the big shots. Once he got their attention, he got them to install him as Senator. Anyway, stop bringing in Bush. This isn’t a binary world we live in. Just because I no longer support the person I voted for President in 2008 doesn’t mean I’m a Bush supporter.

    @J. Strupp, in general, private equity funds the riskiest of businesses, often time startups or failing enterprises. DNC talking points aside, usually the businesses that they go in and downsize were on the verge of failure. Open minded liberals like you think that jobs are created either out of thin air or by the government, but in reality, it’s a lot of hard work creating work, and a lot of risk taking.

  27. Randy. you fell into a trap or a deep hole and cannot get out. ROMNEY PAID TAXES TO HELP THE WAR EFFORT. then everyone shold get a draft deferrment for paying taxes. if that is your best shot you cannot protect import from sunny France. We just want an explanation from the next President who will be commander in chief. yes, he will be elected—-for being patriotic enough to pay taxes? I pay taxes for the priviledge of living in the USA. this is not comforting for military personnel who also pay taxes. where did you get that quote? the USA is more than ever in history being threatened by war from many sources and we need more than taxes to defend our country. just say he contributed to the Red Cross, USO or veterans groups, or say it ain’t so.

  28. J. Strupp says:

    “…businesses that they go in and downsize were on the verge of failure.”

    Oh, so they go in and strip the company, squeeze whatever margin they can out of it before the company goes BK and, in some cases, stick the federal government with the pension liability after they walk away. Sounds like a lot of valuable, hard work, KPOM. Especially since the company was going BK anyway.

    I’ve worked in a small business my whole career and deal with other small businesses daily. We all actually build things. I know full well who creates jobs in this country. And it ain’t Bain Capital.

  29. Randy in Richmond says:

    No wonder my ears were burning as I played a ridiculously bad round of golf.

    Dick, I think your bone to pick is with Ryan, not me.

    My using the “is” example is about lying – not decision making. Making wrong, bad, well-meaning, or agenda driven decisions based on the best info available is not lying. One example that comes to mind was when Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden and others in Afghanistan and based on his best info at the time he opted not to. There’s no double standard here–but if you have a link that shows accurately that Bush directly lied to the American people, please provide it. Not political spin or double talk that all politicians use but direct lies like ” I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky…” or “…You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent if it wasn’t for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, that last campaign I ran in 2008, I’ve been outspent before…”

    Let’s do get into a contest of tallying lies between Romney and Obama. I have my list but you can go first. Throw out your first one and I’ll follow. This’ll be fun.

  30. correction: Yes it is Ryan.

  31. J. Strupp says:

    16 words:

    “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    President Bush
    State of the Union Address
    January 28, 2003

    This beauty cost us about a trillion bucks and a Shiite dominated Middle East, among other things. How much did “definition of ‘is’, is” or Obama’s recent zinger cost us?

  32. The Lorax says:

    Bush was accused of a lot of things, but was never tore down as unpatriotic. Nice try, Cindy.

    KPOM, your history of Obama is far from reality. You’re entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts. “Installed as Senator” LOL. Learn history.

  33. Lorax, OBAMA called Bush unpatriotic. Gears slipping or something?

  34. Randy in Richmond says:

    That isn’t even close. I think FactCheck says it best. “He may have been wrong but he wasn’t lying”.

    My point is not to debate subjective decisions or those made on poor or misguided intel. I’m talking about objective lies as the examples given that cannot be debated. And you keep referring to the “is” statement while I have highlighted my point is about Clinton’s direct lie to the country, not his pitiful defense of what he said.

  35. I’m really shocked that anything I said is all that controversial.

    Premise 1: Countries who have stronger economies also tend to have stronger militaries.

    Premise 2: Romney was instrumental in saving numerous companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Sealy, Brookstone, Dominos, etc.

    Premise 3: Saving companies leads to a stronger economy than if those companies go bankrupt (which is the course they were on before Romney/Bain intervention)

    Conclusion: Romney’s efforts in business helped strengthen our economy, which also had positive effects on our national defense.

    And no Dick, unless you have some huge economic successes I’m not aware of, you paying your taxes is not equivalent to transforming failing entities into billion dollar companies.

    Successful entrepreneurs like Romney make the world a better place. They create products that bring joy to their customers and jobs for employees that never would have existed if the initial financial risk was not taken. Yeah, Bain had some failures too, but the net result of their actions is definitely positive. The idea that demonizing such folks might be a winning campaign strategy speaks very poorly to the depth of thought of most Americans today.

  36. @The Lorax, you need to learn history. Obama faced no real opposition in the Democratic primary in 2004. Jack Ryan was the odds-on favorite to win until the media in Chicago decided to dredge up personal details. The GOP being as hapless as they are, they decided on the unelectable Allan Keyes to replace him.

    In Illinois, politicians aren’t really elected, as there aren’t really free elections there. The power brokers control the whole process. Obama befriended State Senate President Emil Jones, who was instrumental in getting him the nomination. And Obama did start his days by playing poker with the big shots. Just ask Will County executive Larry Walsh. He was one of Obama’s poker buddies.

  37. J. Strupp says:

    “He may have been wrong but he wasn’t lying”.

    President Bush and his people were either too stupid to believe, now proven to be phony intel. or they used this phony intelligence as a means to lie to Americans in order to build a case to go to war. Given the overwhelming evidence brought to light over the past 10 years (a lot by his former administration) I refuse to believe that President Bush and his administration were too stupid to understand blatantly doctored intelligence about enriched uranium in Niger. That quote is a blatant lie.

    Look, none of this should be surprising as the man was a habitual liar. We can go on and on:

    “a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

    “Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.”
    President Bush
    September 12, 2002

    “The regime…has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
    President Bush
    March 17, 2003

    “But for younger workers, Social Security is on the road to bankruptcy.”
    Jan. 15th, 2005

    They’re all blatant, provable lies.

  38. J. Strupp says:

    “Yeah, Bain had some failures too, but the net result of their actions is definitely positive.”

    Really? So there’s actual evidence out there that private equity firms like Bain make a positive net impact on jobs, productivity, growth, wages, prosperity in general?

  39. Randy in Richmond says:

    All statements made based on the best intel at the time. Those making the accusation that these are lies are looking back and making opinions based on information not available or wrongly available at the time. The Social Security quote can be proven true if no changes are made to the system and arguments can be made it’s not true. Opinions. How often are governmental economic predictions accurate? Bush may have been wrong, but he wasn’t lying.

    Here are what a few others said about the issues you refer to:

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    Madeline Albright

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State

    “There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI)

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    Al Gore

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    Al Gore

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA)

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV)

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA)

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV)

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA)

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
    Sen. John F. Kerry

    Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production…. Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits…. It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of ma destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…. Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…. President Clinton ~

    Anyone can have 20/20 hindsight. President Bush was not a habitual liar. Neither do I believe this list of the Democratic Who’s/Who at that time were liars, as you obviously must, if one applies the same criteria to them you apply to President Bush. Most all of these high ranking Democrats had access to the same information as Presidents Clinton and Bush.

    Perhaps someone, anyone, could supply us with a similar list of any politician(s) of either party that believe Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he pointed his finger at all of us, or that Barack Obama was outspent in the 2008 election. Those are proven, previously linked, videotaped, lies–one of which was the very reason this post was originally written.

  40. The Lorax says:

    KPOM, I lived in Illinois. I don’t quite see the election process like that, but okay.

    And yeah, so it was wrong to dredge personal details on Ryan but not on, say, Obama in 2008 with Jeremiah Wright, Weather Underground etc. Hypocrisy.

    Cindy, I missed where Obama called Bush unpatriotic. I’m not omnipresent. I certainly never have though.

    Obama began his political life by *unsuccessfully* primarying Bobby Rush. And the scenario you describe of knowing the *right* people is one that plays out in every corner of the country. Chicago (not Illinois as a whole) is just more notorious for it.

  41. Randy in Richmond says:

    I’m not sure what goes on in Illinois politics but I do know recent history shows that if you become governor there’s about a 50% chance you’ll go to prison.

  42. J. Strupp says:


    1. Social Security can’t go bankrupt, even if no changes are made to the system. There is no scenario in which SS goes “bankrupt”.

    2. People are “looking back” because a continuous stream of new information has come to light, year after year, proving previous allogations that the Iraqi invasion was in planning well before any evidence of WMD was brought forth. When the evidence didn’t support the conclusion, they just lied about phony evidence to keep the ball rolling. You can call it opinion and just say Bush was a terrible decision maker but the evidence to the contrary is clear.

    The people you list screwed up because they listened to our leadership at the time and our leadership was living a lie. Oh and I’m sure some of them wanted war and were perfectly fine with believing phony intelligence too. But these people were not the President of the United States. George W. Bush was. He is fundamentally responsible for the lies told leading up to the war, the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on it year after year and thousands of American soldiers we lost.

  43. J. Strupp says:

    I guess I treat the lies from politicians like I pick my battles with my kids. You can point the finger and yell at them all day if you want but it’s probably more productive to point out the really bad things they say and do.

    “I’ve been out spent before” just doesn’t get me going.

  44. Randy in Richmond says:

    Ah, it’s Bush’s fault all those diverse Democrats made their statements. As the title of this Post points out : Same ol’ Same ol’. There has been no proof offered that President Bush lied to the American people. Speculation, subjective reasoning, and 20/20 hindsight is not proof.

    Our current President told a bold-faced lie.

  45. Randy in Richmond says:

    Apparently Romney’s a liar also, according to the Obama campaign. And he may be a felon also. They’re accusing Romney of lying to the SEC about his status at Bain Capital. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  46. Romney’s campaign is probably officially sunk. Obama is making a HUGE deal of this, claiming that Romney may have committed a felony. The GOP didn’t do their homework, and nominated a candidate who lacks character, which is a basic requirement to be president.

  47. J. Strupp says:

    Geez KPOM, you jump off the cliff more than I do.

    “The GOP didn’t do their homework, and nominated a candidate who lacks character, which is a basic requirement to be president.”

    Possibly. But I think that, given the economic events of the last 5 years, nominating a candidate who made his fortune in private equity was the biggest mistake. There aren’t a lot of Americans on either side of the political spectrum that have a lot of love for the cesspool that is the American financial sector.

  48. Private equity is probably the cleanest part of financial services. I know that’s not saying much, but at least those guys are honest that they are in it for the money, and get their funding from rich people, who know and understand the risks they are taking. It’s a lot better than what people like Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Russ Wasendorf did by treating the funds of small customers as their piggy banks.

    It wasn’t private equity that caused the financial crisis, or the scandals of the early 2000s.

  49. My little cliff jumpers. 🙂

    No, it was Bill Clinton’s decision to give everyone and their dog a loan that started the financial crisis. Foreclosures are up. Hold on to your backside for the second wave.

    KPOM, the Obama campaign regurgitated this claim, which makes me think someone is nervous.

    J. Strupp. Whine about wealthy candidates all you want. Be sure to read the current post.

  50. Randy in Richmond says:

    When I made this comment I did so figuring it was a lead ballon. First, it was released during a conference call by an Obama deputy campaign manager. The publication that released the story was BuzzFeed. The MSM stayed off the story originally.

    Bain has released a statement that Romney left them in 1999 to run the Olympics and never looked back. His name may have appeared on some forms as a result of Bain’s filings–nothing initiated by Romney. Now a statement released by Romney’s campaign states that “Obama’s staff is out of control” and “desperate”.

    The left side of the blogosphere will enjoy this for awhile.

    But it is dead on arrival.

  51. political rhetoric is as old as our country. speeches are given for publicity, popularity and purpose. the purpose was to oppose the bad guy and let him know that we know. people now hate Hitler, and well they should, but they really do not know how he was accepted by certain Americans as the savior for a better Europe. There is absolutely no credible proof that Sadaam had the ability to reach the USA with his weapons or have a military complex to destroy us. Castro came closer. The Mafia caused more damage to our society. The KKK ruled the south with an iron fist. With a blink of the eye Iran and Israel could have wiped Iraq off the map. 911 was a terrible event. so was our national defense. attack the Pentagon in broad daylight. unheard of. it matters not WHY we attacked Iraq. it does matter what we accomplished. answer: killed a dictator. BTW, Gov. Romney will be the next President for at least one term. it may be impossible for our future Presidents to serve more than one term.

  52. Romney’s issue is that, in addition to being Obama-Lite, is that he’s “playing it safe” and running a positive campaign. There is no better way to lose an election than “playing it safe” and running a positive campaign. You need to be nasty. Truth is just a five letter word.

    Going negative is the only way to win. Obama gets it. Stephanie Cutter calling Mitt Romney a felon was a stroke of political genius. It doesn’t matter if she needs to retract it eventually. For the next week or so, Romney is on the defensive. Romney is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    He needs to start getting nasty. Dredge up personal details. If he can’t find any, make some up. If he can’t make them up, then put some innuendo out there. It worked for Bush I in 1998 (Willie Horton), Bush II in 2000 (the innuendo that McCain adopted a black baby), Bush II in 2004 (Swiftboat), Barack Obama in 2008 (the visceral attacks on Sarah Palin, plus the nasty primary), and it is working so far for him in 2012. The one exception in recent times was Bill Clinton, but he is a much slicker politician than anyone else in recent history and could sound positive while attacking. Romney isn’t like that.

    Romney isn’t in it to win it. Heck, he’ll probably pick former Bush budget director Rob Portman because he’s a “safe” pick.