Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound? (Promises, promises)
Hotair ^ | 05/24/2012 | AllahPundit

Posted on 05/24/2012 6:59:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Normally I hate self-imposed benchmarks since there’s plenty of downside to them and little upside. But in this case, what does he have to lose?

Halperin: Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?

Romney: I can’t possibly predict precisely what the unemployment rate will be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we’d put in place, we’d get the unemployment rate down to 6%, and perhaps a little lower. It depends in part upon the rate of growth of the globe, as well as what we’re seeing here in the United States, but we’d get the rate down quite substantially, and frankly, the key is we’re going to show such job growth that there will be competition for employees again. And wages – we’ll see the end of this decline we’re having. The median income in America is down 10% in just the last four years. That’s got to stop. We’ve got to start seeing rising wages and job growth.

What are the odds that the U.S. economy won’t be able to shave two percentage points off the unemployment rate over four years with a much more pro-business regulatory regime to encourage it? There are various “black swan” events that could intervene to make that difficult/impossible, starting with a eurozone meltdown or soaring oil prices during a standoff with Iran, but in that case Romney will simply blame the failure of his prediction on the black swan. As it is, CBO already estimates that unemployment will reach seven percent by the end of 2015 and five and a half percent by the end of 2017, putting his six-percent figure by 2016 right in the ballpark.

Plus, look at it this way: If he’s able to knock only a percentage point or so off of unemployment during his first term, from roughly eight percent to seven, then come 2016 the fact that he broke a campaign promise will be a very minor footnote to the more important fact that he, er, was only able to knock a percentage point or so off of unemployment. The Unicorn Prince has already broken his own promise from early 2009 that he’d have the economy back on track within three years lest his presidency be a one-term proposition. (He’s broken a lot of other promises too, including/especially the implied promise to the left that he’d be dramatically different from Bush on the war on terror.) Most swing voters don’t care, though, I think; all they’ll want to know is how unemployment and GDP are trending come, say, September. If anything, I think Romney’s vulnerable to criticism here that, a la the CBO numbers, he’s not expecting as much economic improvement under his administration as some of his supporters are.

Nice to see someone in the media pressing him on an important subject, though. As a counterpoint to that, via Guy Benson, here’s how the public’s greeting WaPo’s atomic bombshell about Romney forcing a haircut on a classmate 50 years ago:

Exit question: Didn’t Romney suggest a few weeks ago that four percent unemployment should be the target? Click the image to watch.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: romney; unemployment

1 posted on 05/24/2012 6:59:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It shows that Romney knows where his bread is buttered, “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”


2 posted on 05/24/2012 7:00:49 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

sounds like bullshit... smells like it too


3 posted on 05/24/2012 7:02:19 AM PDT by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Breto

Agreed. It can be done but Romney isn’t bold enough to do what it takes to make it happen.

Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.


4 posted on 05/24/2012 7:06:00 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This guy is more of an idiot than I even thought. What have we done to deserve this jerk as the nominee....Please people get on board with one of the conservatives that are running. He is making a fool of himself.


5 posted on 05/24/2012 7:06:00 AM PDT by napscoordinator (VOTE FOR NEWT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If Obama is re-elected, it will be at 20%.


6 posted on 05/24/2012 7:09:22 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Please people get on board with one of the conservatives that are running.

Such as?

7 posted on 05/24/2012 7:11:17 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Agreed. It can be done but Romney isn’t bold enough to do what it takes to make it happen.

Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.

What he should do is qualify it by saying "If I get to calculate unemployment the way Obama has.", and turn the discussion to how phoney the figures we've been getting really are.

8 posted on 05/24/2012 7:11:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Agreed. It can be done but Romney isn’t bold enough to do what it takes to make it happen.

Instead, we’ll get numbers manipulation.

What he should do is qualify it by saying "If I get to calculate unemployment the way Obama has.", and turn the discussion to how phoney the figures we've been getting really are.

9 posted on 05/24/2012 7:12:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

No mention of whether he’d accomplish this though private or public sector jobs.

I don’t think it is beyond Mitt Romney to increase the size of government to meet a campaign promise.

Don’t misunderstand, Obama’s goal IS to increase the size of government.

Romney => socialism is the result
Obama => socialism is the goal


10 posted on 05/24/2012 7:12:48 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It sounds impossible to achieve unless you count on even more millions dropping out of the work force.


11 posted on 05/24/2012 7:14:55 AM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Breto
sounds like bullshit... smells like it too

I don't know. Consider, a lot of American companies are making a profit; but are afraid of hiring due to the unknown business climate. How much will the taxes be next year? What about the rising healthcare costs? What are my manditory expenses in hiring people? With Obamacare on the way, we have already seen healthcare grow before it's even released. The New York Daily News reports today that the cost of healtcare will exceed $20,000 per employee, with the companies paying upwards of $8,500 of that. Now, what will the costs be 'next year'? What about the deficit? How will the business be affected with the goverment meddling with the auto, banking, medical and drug industries?

Would you hire anyone more than absolutely demanded? I wouldn't. Now, with Mitt and his "claims" to abolish Obamacare, to stop the deficit spending, to cut taxes - a lot of these fears go away. I suspect that companies will start hiring again. Will it drop to 6%? Well, if Ronald Reagan was able to make a recovery as significant as he did by following conservative principles; and if Romeny can be depended on following similar Reagan principles , then he may indeed have a point.

Unlike most eveyrone in Congress (RINO and DEM), Romney has actually ran a business and generated both jobs, and a profit.

12 posted on 05/24/2012 7:26:21 AM PDT by Hodar (Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.- A. Schopenhauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Please people get on board with one of the conservatives that are running.

The time for this was a year ago, which was also the time for conservatives to quickly move behind one or two candidates and to move as one to quickly pull behind one. Instead some conservatives repeated 2008 and allowed the process to become balkanized with a lot of petty backbiting that served none of the real conservative candidates well and left the door open for our current, not so conservative, and presumptive candidate.

We may not like him and I still see him as mitt the twit, but what he proposes is doable, if he can take the steps to take an aggressive and sometimes dirty fight directly to the democrat party and our would-be dictator. He won't go anywhere or take any other than the wimpy approach unless ALL conservatives get behind him and put the pressure both on him and his machine as well as extreme pressure and gloves off confrontational politics directly at the democrat field.

If you're willing to drive what most probably is the final nail in the coffin of our Constitution and Republic by passively allowing der Fuehrer to have another term then you are on board for 20% unemployment as another poster noted and you are comfortable with allowing a democrat dictatorship to be established over all of us and our children.

Conservatives were balkanized in the process of selecting a good candidate and now too many are consolidated in doing nothing to help the candidate who could bring us back from the brink in favor of the dictator we have.

Too many acted like spoiled children the last time, taking their dollies and support and going home. There may be no going back this time if the POS kenyan wins again.

13 posted on 05/24/2012 7:32:47 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

While I’m completely on board over the sentiment about Romney... frankly... even a RINO could probably do what he claimed if only departing from BHO2 policies. But a simple plan for economic recovery wouldn’t even be hard:

1. Kill Obamacare
2. Sign any budget proposal the House comes up with. If the Senate is still D-controlled, then just do it anyway... that’s the way they’ve been doing business the past four years.
3. Lower the capital gains tax.
4. Ease restrictions on energy exploration - fracking, the North Slope/ANWR, Gulf of Mexico.
5. Free the Keystone pipeline

Mix well, cook for 12 months: Instant economy boom.
Now will he do it?


14 posted on 05/24/2012 7:37:30 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Now, with Mitt and his "claims" to abolish Obamacare, to stop the deficit spending, to cut taxes - a lot of these fears go away

Amazing what crap some believe to make themselves feel better. RomneyCare, the blueprint for Obamacare, and you believe mitt will abolish obamacare.

15 posted on 05/24/2012 7:37:50 AM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Simple approach to 6%. Do nothing to create jobs. Let the unemployment benefits run out for another 5,000,000 people. Just like Idi Obama, don’t count as unemployed those whose bennies have run out. Voila - 6%.


16 posted on 05/24/2012 7:39:22 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds darn good.

Actually.

Mitt’s right about this. Stop qualifying things.

When he’s right, he’s 100% right. He’s right.


17 posted on 05/24/2012 7:39:43 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
If Obama is re-elected, it will be at 20%.

Don't kid yourself; it is already at 20% if the numbers were actual.

18 posted on 05/24/2012 7:40:50 AM PDT by Bob Buchholz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Our Representative is up for re-election. His current mailing lists all the wonderful things he is going to do if re-elected. My question to him if you say you can do all that the next two years, why haven’t you done it the last two years in the Republican controlled house.

To think that things would change quickly and substantially under Romney with pretty much the same people in Congress is pure folly, IMO. Plus I do believe Romney is a proponent of global warming - a strong driver behind all the increased costs, regulations and growth of government.


19 posted on 05/24/2012 7:42:14 AM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If he can TRULY do this that would be great! It really wouldn’t take much—tax cuts, incentives and a few other business (capitalistic) friendly actions and we’d be good to go.

An aside: You know, some people really need to decide who they are for—Obama or Romney. It’s one or the other, ‘cause if you don’t vote for one you WILL GET “the other.” You may not like that outcome.


20 posted on 05/24/2012 7:46:45 AM PDT by madison10 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Romney has stated, publically that:

Romney said he plans to give a waiver to all 50 states discontinuing the president's plan – known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- and returning healthcare responsibilities to the states. He wants to take Medicaid money administered by the federal government and give it to states as block grants. His plan also includes giving individuals the same tax break that companies get when they buy insurance for their employees, allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and encouraging consumers to shop around for the least expensive medical services, creating competition among healthcare providers.

Source

21 posted on 05/24/2012 7:54:46 AM PDT by Hodar (Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.- A. Schopenhauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mmmm...K

What are the specific plans you have to ensure that happens besides playing on the pass line of roulette and hedging your bets on number that is already being supported.

BTW, is that real unemployment? That is “Of the percentage of available workers in the US how many of those will be employed?

Do you plan to:
Cut back on government size and laying off a bunch of dopes we don’t actually need?
Will you change the baseline budgeting from a phony $700 million by scraping it all together with the result being a reduction in Gubmint Inc. by a requisite closing of departments and a Federal RIF?
Will you reduce the Capital Gains Tax to 10%, 5%, or 2% for your 1st term?
Will you extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts for 4 years?
Will you expand the taxpayer base to include anyone making more than “X” of $Dollars?
Will you make America the IPO Capital of the World, once again, by scraping SOX, Frank-Dodd and other well intentioned BS legislation in order to propel growth in capital markets?

You sound great, like a chocolate cake but, you I ain’t hearing how you get there.


22 posted on 05/24/2012 7:57:33 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live athrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

” Romney has actually ran a business and generated both jobs, and a profit.”

I would argue that working on a venture capital board is not the same thing as running a company. While I don’t question his MBA perspective on business I doubt Romney has and real “feet in the factory” understanding of anything. He got the money and others made the decisions on the ground. Even his touted Olympics rescue was and exercise in lobbying the government for other peoples money to fund the exercise.

Romney record at the hand of government is no demonstration of Reagan principals in fact Romney denied Reagan thrice and ran his state like a progressive.

Replacing reality with our desires creates an illusion that will ultimately bring great disappointment and is dangerous.

Romney is no Reagan.. quite the opposite in fact

On the jobs front you may be right there is some pent up expansion but I believe less than you think. Lots of things have to happen to enable growth in jobs. Tax policy, regulations, capital availability and demand for product to name a few. People don’t conduct business to hire they hire to conduct business and job growth is usually a lagging trend. Romney has no to track record in government that would indicate he would do what needs doing.


23 posted on 05/24/2012 7:58:43 AM PDT by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Four or five percent unemployment is doable.

Just rip out the blue pages of the phone book, and go down the list, eliminating government agencies and departments that are un-Constitutional.

This would put two million government workers on permanent welfare or unemployment, and put twenty million or thirty million productive Americans back to work. If any of these functions really need to be performed, the states can pick up the slack.

24 posted on 05/24/2012 7:59:05 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I do not think Team Romney realizes how ingrained unemployment is in this economy. Underemployment is likewise, ingrained in this economy.I know people who have taken crap jobs when in fact, they were highly qualified. We all do. Ain't nothin' changin'! Not for the better anyway!

But everyone should have a dream...

25 posted on 05/24/2012 8:00:25 AM PDT by donozark (The secret to winning the Vietnam War was in Laos, not Vietnam...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I probably will go for Romney, because of the following.

1. I always enjoy seeing liberals cry hysterically.
2. If not sure of who to vote for, a simple rule of thumb is, always vote out the incumbent.
3. I want that smug expression wiped off of the Kenyan’s face.

If it takes Romney to make those things happen, so be it.


26 posted on 05/24/2012 8:00:25 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Breto

So who is running that has such a business track record? I’d really like to know.


27 posted on 05/24/2012 8:02:38 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Romney has stated, publically that:...... Romney said.....

LOL! You are speaking about a KNOWN LIAR! Did you even take that into consideration? He's POS! Romney spent millions on advertising LIES about Newt who has the proven know how to take our country to greatness. Cult leader Romney lies with every breath he takes.

28 posted on 05/24/2012 8:08:31 AM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
“Agreed. It can be done but Romney isn’t bold enough to do what it takes to make it happen.”

Doesn't really take bold action to get to a six percent unemployment rate. It's kind of like promising you will get on base once during the first ten baseball games you play. The pledge of six percent unemployment is minimal -- even if you account for a larger workforce due to discouraged workers returning to look for work.

You have to be a true economic incompetent to have an unemployment rate in excess of eight percent two years after a recession ends. You have to *work* to keep the economy this bad. All you have to do is yank the choke-chains on the Federal regulators. If we could open up drilling on Federal lands that alone would generate enough economic activity to get to six percent. Remember when “W” was being derided for a FIVE percent unemployment rate because that was too high to be considered a recovery.

Anyone that thinks that six percent unemployment is unachievable is the definition of someone who has been down so long it's beginning to look like up.

29 posted on 05/24/2012 8:10:00 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (Ten years on FreeRepublic and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Thanks for saving me a post.


30 posted on 05/24/2012 8:10:56 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Obama vs. Romney: Zero x Zero = Zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bob Buchholz
Don't kid yourself; it is already at 20% if the numbers were actual.

Should Romney prevail nov 6th, on Nov 7 that will in fact be the headline. No question.

31 posted on 05/24/2012 8:14:36 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound?

How does this sound?

If through some miracle your opponent manages to beat himself and you take the White House by default, you'll pledge to be a one term president.

That way we only have to suffer through two terms of obamination when your sudden but inevitable betrayal swings you inline with our current imperial infection.
32 posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:30 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (With (R)epublicans like these, who needs (D)emocrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Breto
You may be right, I don't know. I've never met Mitt and do not know him as a person.

As Govenor of Mass, he ran as a "Progressive", but here is the part where one must be realistic in his analysis. If you are Govenor of a DEM leaning state (it's more than slightly leaning in the DEM direction, right?); you have to govern as a representative of the people. Obviously, that is what Mitt did;

In the cons we have this

Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[127][143] He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[127][143] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.)[143] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[127][149] Romney did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases

and in the Pro's we have this:

The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[150] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.[127][143] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all were overridden by the heavily Democratic legislature.[151] The cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.[127][143] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but remained below the national average.[127]

Source

Like all of us, we each have our strengths and weaknesses - but unlike the current resident in the White House; no one can deny that Mitt has no experience in running either a govermental body, or a business.

33 posted on 05/24/2012 8:21:32 AM PDT by Hodar (Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.- A. Schopenhauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“So who is running that has such a business track record? I’d really like to know?

Really good question. We got used car salesmen, lifer politicians, couple of ranchers, lots and lots of lawyers, couple of doctors, investment bankers, and a whole passel of fast talkers. I think we mostly have lawyers and fast talkers.


34 posted on 05/24/2012 8:21:55 AM PDT by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This from the guy that turned Massachusetts into Taxachusetts and FeeAchusetts.


35 posted on 05/24/2012 8:40:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just by going after our own natural resources (coal, uranium, oil, shale oil, etc.), we can take a huge step forward in lowering our unemployment, boosting our exports, realigning our balance of trade, becoming more energy independent, and creating viable businesses that will generate revenue to pay down our national debt. Obama is choking America to death with his Green jobs-killing policies. He’s debasing our culture and demoralizing poor and unemployed Americans. His hope and change has led to despair and regression. His administration failed.


36 posted on 05/24/2012 8:52:12 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Produce enough gas in the US that the price falls below a dollar a gallon and see how the economy turns around. We are not permanently stuck with a bad economy unless we accept that big government is the answer and only foreign countries can meet our energy needs. Some people need to snap out of the idea that America is in decline; it’s only in decline if we let Obama and his type win.


37 posted on 05/24/2012 8:58:45 AM PDT by elhombrelibre ("I'd rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party." Norman Podhoretz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Neither candidate understands what needs to be done to bring down unemployment. Romney's economic plan is a band-aid and a dose of poison, to cure an economy that is already toxic with poison.

Romney want's to open more world markets, and doesn't understand that what most world markets have to offer us is labor at rates a fraction of ours.
He wants to come down on China for currency manipulation, which is all fine and good. But correcting for currency manipulation alone isn't going to reverse the damage done to the U.S. by China's abundant cheap labor and the fact that the communist gov't takes most of the chinese profits and doesn't buy U.S. goods with those profits. But instead buys U.S. companies, the source of our production, and buys our debt.

Until they understand that, and start raising import tarriffs to protect our remaining industries, and rebuild lost ones, our economy will be lucky if it manages to tread water for the next 4 to 8 years.

38 posted on 05/24/2012 10:11:43 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

RE: You know, some people really need to decide who they are for—Obama or Romney. It’s one or the other, ‘cause if you don’t vote for one you WILL GET “the other.” You may not like that outcome.

__________________________

Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election….

“…..if Mitt wins the GOP nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:

1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”

So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win... Imagine this: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.


39 posted on 05/24/2012 2:26:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

RE: This from the guy that turned Massachusetts into Taxachusetts and FeeAchusetts.

Since we’re talking about unemployment in this thread... what was the unemployment rate of MA when Romney was governor? Higher than national average, lower, or the same?


40 posted on 05/24/2012 2:28:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Since we’re talking about unemployment in this thread... what was the unemployment rate of MA when Romney was governor? Higher than national average, lower, or the same?

From an article by Deroy Murdock in the American Spectator:

"Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country," the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe. Specifically, they found:

* As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.

* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.

* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.

* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.

"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.

41 posted on 05/24/2012 2:42:36 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; madison10
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”

So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win... Imagine this: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.


Your problem, as a Romney supporter, is that where judgeship nominations are concerned, Romney is not much different than Obama.

Out of 36 nominations, he nominated 27 extreme, left-wing, Progressive Liberal.


Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.

Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.

“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”

Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.

“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”

“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.

Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”

Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:

“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”

Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was “diversity.”

“The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was ‘diversity.’ This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a person’s judicial philosophy,” he said. “Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romney’s lack of a coherent conservative worldview.”

42 posted on 05/24/2012 2:49:00 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I DO NOT care. What do you suggest we do...either not vote, or vote for a third party person and thus get Obama by default? I am a very reluctant “Romney supporter,” but I sure as *&%$# am NOT an Obama supporter like the non-Romney people will be.

My wish would have been for Santorum or Cain. That is NOT going to happen now is it? We were McCained again.


43 posted on 05/25/2012 2:25:47 PM PDT by madison10 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The “official” unemployment rate will be below 3% by November of this year, thanks to everyone dropping out of the market.


44 posted on 05/25/2012 2:32:06 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
I DO NOT care. What do you suggest we do...either not vote, or vote for a third party person and thus get Obama by default? I am a very reluctant “Romney supporter,” but I sure as *&%$# am NOT an Obama supporter like the non-Romney people will be.

You're never going to win your argument with the non-Romney voters or convince themn to vote for Romney with that tact.

You're armed with nothing more than false accusations.

They're armed with Romney's lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal record.
45 posted on 05/26/2012 12:45:49 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson