Mitt Romney’s “Attempt” to Compare Obama to Carter – Romney’s Clear Sense of History – “Those who Ignore the Past are Doomed to Repeat It”

Carter and Obama Comparison - from the Wall Street Journal

In an article from Reuters this morning, the headline “Romney wants voters to see Jimmy Carter in Obama”, leads into an article that makes anyone with a sense of history (or who lived in reality during the Carter Administration) shrug – the story line:

“Romney accused Obama of being anti-business and compared him to Carter, seen by Republicans as an example of a weak Democratic president. Carter served from 1977 to 1981.”

(Reuters)

During the Carter Administration errors were made that had not only “Republicans”, but a majority of the voters sitting up and taking stock of one Ronald Reagan (or anyone actually could have replaced Carter) – at the time, Democrats were so disenfranchised from the administration that they voted for Reagan in droves, coining the term “Reagan Democrats” – after four years of Carter, Ronald Reagan made a clean sweep of the electoral map, and one has to note, that included Massachusetts. There were the bailouts, the jobs bills, the budget, the cost of oil and gasoline, and then the scarcity and the gas lines, the Middle East fiasco and Iran – from the economy to foreign policy – Jimmy Carter was a disaster. That is not, however, how he is portrayed by the modern day press nor by the Progressive professors – Carter is portrayed as someone who got the raw end of a deal. It is best to blame the Republican predecessor - familiar? Those “rascally Republicans” getting the blame once again for something they warned the public about!

However, in the late 1970’s, individuals were introduced to the misery index (a combination of the rate of inflation and the unemployment rate under Jimmy Carter), a man who was elected as a nice Governor, who was a peanut farmer, and purportedly had a sense of busies and government combined – he was also a first term Governor.
Warning bells should have gone off left and right, however, desperate to see a fresh face (the American Way) in office, the people duly voted party line, (hook and sinker) for the man who would “save America”. They did so without thinking that someone with little to no experience might not be the best fit for the job of CEO – it’s a risk American’s take, when choosing a President, one might have reams of experience or not, a vision or plan or not, and in Carter’s case, the systematic destruction of the economy, his bailout of Chrysler, his jobs plans that relied heavily on the government rather than the private sector – one could go on.

The problem is – it sounds all eerily familiar – as if someone took a blueprint of what not to do to the United States of America, and did it anyhow. Surely Mitt Romney (given his age) would have seen some of the effect of the Carter era; many others might recall giving up a car for public transportation since there was little use in paying for insurance on a mode of transportation for which there was no fuel. Hamburger became the new steak, and those on fixed incomes, well; they started to find cat food to be quite the delicacy. Although at the present time, we are nowhere near that catastrophe, we are at a point where there are significant numbers of people out of work; we see the costs of groceries, and clothing rising, due to the rise in gasoline and diesel prices (bringing the goods to market). We do see bailouts, and we do see Job’s programs, and we do see a pattern. Some are Republican’s, others are not.

Therefore, Romney is not looking to make it appear that Obama is like Carter, he’s just giving everyone a simple history lesson. It is not as if the Obama Campaign isn’t comparing Romney to Bush (of course, they are using Bush as that is considered recent history, and it is quite obvious to those who have followed the Obama Administration from day one, that Romney’s comparison is – honest.

It is not that this blog is enamored of Mitt Romney, one only needs to read the material contained herein to understand there may be some flaws involved when it comes to Romney’s path to balancing budgets (get ready for fee’s!), however, set that aside, and one finds a man who actually understands business, and the business of running a government, (States, even small Sates like the Bay State count), and now we find, understands history – making him less likely to repeat mistakes made by say, George W. Bush. Therefore, comparing historical knowledge of both candidates for Presidency and the ability of one to grasp facts, while the other ignored the facts, and followed the Carter path, makes Romney infinitely more appealing to those who would prefer not to live in “misery”, and in addition more qualified from the perspective of being able to look at past mistakes and take a different tactic.

As to Carter-Obama Comparisons, one is invited to peruse this blog, and one would think others, whose opinions link to credible news sources from the late 1970’s – with a bit of personal historical recall included. Exhibit A: ”Obama - Shades of Jimmy Carter! – Unemployment at 8.5%, Government Creates 60,000 Temporary Jobs – Cuts Defense – Analysis” (the Date: May 9th 2009)

Exhibit B: ”Obama Repeating History – Calls for Increase in Tax Revenue – Increased Public Sector Stimulus, Recipe for both Fiscal and Electoral Disaster” (the Date: Sept. 19, 2011)
(There are more, depending upon the year, but available in search of blog or simple Google)

It was in amazement that one was able to watch the Obama Administration mirror the tactics of the Carter Administration, knowing full well that there was sufficient data available that would have allowed one to read and understand – what one was about to unleash on the American Public, had been tried before and filed – miserably.
Therefore, in fairness to the Obama campaign comparing Romney to Bush – yes, they are both Republicans. However, Romney on the other hand, is going a bit beyond the party affiliation and to the core of what went wrong, and how it could have gone so right – had President Obama done exactly the opposite of Jimmy Carter, he may have been extremely successful, (yes, even the deficit under Carter, adjusted for inflation, is equal to the current deficit), and Romney merely a foot note.

However, as it stands now, one can see the writing on the wall come November, even if, there is a miracle and the economy makes a slight recovery – to have that happen, gas prices would have to drop significantly before summer, otherwise, there simply will not be enough time for the economy to adjust, specifically when it comes to prices of food and necessities that are driven to market, and affect the daily lives of the population. Cutting the corporate tax rate to zero now, would not show effect until 2013 – again too late (See the Reagan plan, and the rocket that was the economy in his hands.)

Therefore, to all those who know that Carter was well-meaning and a giving and caring man (see Habitat for Humanity), as the leader of the free world, he was – in a word- disastrous – One can re-write history, but one cannot erase the memories of millions of Americans (now in the largest voting bloc in history (baby boomers) who saw the similarities from the beginning. To Mitt Romney, kudos for the history lesson, although the Press is not pleased that you may have gotten a point or to right and that you have the nerve to try to equate Obama and Carter – as if on purpose!


Bush Romney Comparison - rather old/new tactic from the Obama Administration - it may have worked on McCain - but that is history - image via Salon dot com

President Obama’s Uncle Arrested on DUI in Framingham, MA – Second Relative Found in US Illegally – In State of Massachusetts

Obama escorts his Aunt (deported in 2004), to hearing in Massachusetts post election - image The Austrailian.com via AP

It goes without saying that the United States is a great country and that our nation is made up of immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, and in many cases trying to escape the tyranny of dictatorships, or the specter of famine and disease. Many of the “tired, wretched and poor” come here through a long process of legal immigration, which is costly to boot. Others take a slightly different approach – they simply come here and set up camp. The fact that one’s nephew is now the President of the United States, appears to be a bonus for those Kenyon’s bent on escaping whatever deplorable conditions exist in that nation. Once here, they somehow manage to obtain public assistance, illegal social security numbers, and drivers licenses – especially if the state of choice is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In 2008, Zeituni Onyango, the Presidents “aunt” (half-sister to his father) was found living in Boston Massachusetts on the public dole. (CBS News) “Auntie Zeituni” had given to her nephews’ election fund (funds returned), and after her arrest (the second time she was politely asked to leave (i.e. deportation), the President appeared at a hearing and she was summarily granted asylum.

It appears the President will be heading back to Massachusetts, as his Uncle suddenly surfaced, in police custody, in Framingham, MA:

Official records say Onyango Obama, 67, was picked up outside the Chicken Bone Saloon in Framingham, Massachusetts, at 7.10pm on August 24. Police say he nearly crashed his Mitsubishi 4x4 into a patrol car, and then insisted that the officer should have given way to him. A report filed with the Framingham District Court said that a breathalyzer at the police station registered his blood alcohol at 0.14mg/100ml of blood, above the state limit of 0.08mg.

The President, as with his Aunt, most likely has “no knowledge” that his Uncle is also in the Bay State – however, when arrested, Onyango Obama told officers in Framingham his one call would be to the “White House”.

Uncle Omar like Aunt Zeituni will most likely stay in the Bay State, regardless of the fact that he had been deported once before (whether he left or not is not stated).

According to one passage in President Obama’s book, “Dreams of My Father”,

Two thirds of the way through the book Mr Obama’s half-sister talked about Africans who had emigrated to the West and were never heard of again, “like our Uncle Omar, in Boston . . . They’ve been lost, you see”.

This gives rise to speculation as to how many of the President’s relatives will surface between now and October 2012 – talk about an October Surprise!

In all seriousness, the fact that individuals come to this country and obtain illegal documents, (one must have a valid social security card (only given legally to U.S. citizens) in order to obtain a Massachusetts license), live on public assistance, flagrantly break the laws, and then, to boot, pull the “my relative is the President get out of jail free card”, is a bit over the top.

One has to feel almost sorry for the President – his poll numbers are in Carter territory at 38% approval (Gallup), and suddenly criminal, illegal immigrant, relatives, come popping out of the woodwork (otherwise known as Massachusetts). There is an old saying, one can choose one’s friends, but one cannot choose one’s family – most appropriate here. That said, should his Uncle enjoy the same largesse from the people of Massachusetts, and a direct intervention on his behalf by his nephew, the President, it may not play well in the press, perhaps especially in the Bay State.

2012 – Obama versus the Republican Potential Candidates: Timing and History and the State of the Presidents Poll numbers - Analysis

Second Term? Obama and the Numbers - image itmakessense blog

Rasmussen Polling Reports on the 11th Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, that the President’s “strongly approve” had fallen to a low of 19% - with 39% strongly disapproving. The pollster uses answer options approximating strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove; the overall approval rating (or disapproval) is a blend of the strongly/somewhat responses. It is with these types of numbers that the President and his campaign for reelection must go forward with in 2012. In addition, a recent Gallup poll on the President’s 2010 overall approval state by state, showed a large gap in approval, with ten states giving the President approval ratings over 50% Those 10 states include: DC, Hawaii, MD, NY, DE, MA, RI, CA, CT and IL. Therefore, the question remains, is Barack Obama electable to a second term, and part of the answer lay in the polling numbers, the balance in the overall health of the economy, the nation’s debt, and personal finances as it pertains to the rising costs of essentials such as food and fuel. Should there not be a vast improvement in the later, the old adage “The buck stops here”, will apply to Obama in his quest for a second term. Although pundits and media are downplaying the ability of the GOP to field a candidate “strong” enough to appeal to a majority of voters, it is not without some historical context, as the same scenario was played out prior to Carter’s reelection. Another historical note regarding the timing of announcements of intent to seek the office by either the GOP or DNC; prior to 2007, announcements of intent to run for President came mid-way to late in the year preceding from June-July through August, with debates held in October.

Therefore, the timing of some of the GOP candidates who have contractual obligations that would prevent them from formally announcing a candidacy until June or July of 2011 would not be out of the norm, historically speaking. Those candidates would be Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump.
As of today, the field of potential and on the verge of announcing includes: (Announced, or Exploratory Committee Announced) Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota), Rick Santorum (Former Senator PA) and Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts) (In the top tier polling to date). Those semi-announced, with contracts noting a June decision are: Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas) and Sarah Palin (former Governor of Alaska). In the top tier of polling to date, but yet to announce, New Gingrich, former speaker of the House. Other potential candidates include Michelle Bachman, Congressional Representative, Minnesota, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Should even half of the above referenced decide to run for the highest office, it would allow the American voting Public an opportunity to see a variety of Conservative think, the majority of those running strong fiscal conservatives with a record either in business and or government, with these announcements coming mid to late summer of 2011, and should the state of the economy not improve drastically in a very short time, those on the debate stage will garner a great deal of interest from the general public, there is, as of now, a greater interest in this election, than in any other personally witnessed in over four decades. The most interest in an opposition campaign camping being the 1980 general election between former President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter, who faced a challenge from Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy in the primary, also added to the drama. That election was also economically driven.
When one looks at the options objectively, it will be the strong fiscal conservatives with a record proving that they were able to put a business/state in the black, social issues, or hot topic issues, will not play as large a role in this election as some pundits believe.

From this perspective, it will be those candidates who have a cross-ideological fiscal policy appeal, with the additional attribute of proving an ability to negotiate across the political spectrum, taking party politics out of the mix. With that in mind, the field narrows to the following: Donald Trump, who has a clear advantage in business, also has given financially to candidates from both sides of the aisle and will not shy from making though decisions when it comes to either party, Mike Huckabee, as the former Governor of Arkansas (2 and ½ terms), also left the State of Arkansas in fine fiscal shape, and took “heat” from the GOP conservatives for crossing the aisle in a mainly Democrat controlled state in order to get things done, Sarah Palin, although possibly until Trump, the one potential candidate the media chose to denigrate daily, also brought the Alaskan fiscal house in order, while working both sides of the aisle, and to take it a step further, outing and prosecuting top Republican’s in the State. Finally, Mitt Romney, who only served one term in Massachusetts before running for the office of the Presidency in 2008, also had put Massachusetts in the black, no mean feat; when one consider the makeup of the State Legislature as possibly the bluest state in the Union. Romney had to cross the aisle and make compromises in order to accomplish anything. Although he is facing criticism for his health care plan, which the national plan is modeled after, one must understand that Romney’s concept had been “hijacked” by the Massachusetts Legislature and – the rest as they say is a history of mandated coverage and the usual shenanigans that has turned this program into a budget millstone.

As to timing, it would behoove those who are seriously considering a run at the Presidency to hold until a later date to announce, giving the public a respite from the constant campaigning that wearies the public, there will be those voters that will vote strict party lines, while there will be those that make up their minds in mid to late 2012, somewhere between September and October. In other words, there is more than enough time available in order to run campaigns, without starting too early, in need of billions of dollars in campaign donations from a populace that will have wearied of giving just another $5.00 to any candidate from any party.
The independent candidate: In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump who has announced his intent to run as a Republican, noted that he would run as an independent should he fail to win the GOP nomination.
Trump should be aware that the model for Barack Obama’s success is based on David Axelrod’s assessment of the campaign methodology used by one Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. David Axelrod, mentor to both men, watched the Massachusetts elections very closing in 2010. In the end run, Patrick, who had dismal poll numbers, pulled out a win by 1 percentage point, to Republican Charles Baker, with the aid of an independent candidate, Tim Cahill (a Democrat turned Independent just prior to the election). This is, of course, a gamble on anyone’s part, and depends a great deal on who the players on the proverbial chess board are: however, in a scenario with two of the aforementioned GOP potentials, sans Trump, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, either man, now polling is capable of besting the President. Trump, given another two months of polling and exposure, appears able to compete with the current “crop”, given a Wall Street Journal poll that tied him with Huckabee. However, should Trump prevail and the GOP not put their full support behind Trump, and should Trump run as an independent, the vote would be split, among those who would vote Republican under any circumstances and those that would vote for an independent fiscal conservative candidate, the balance of those who would vote a pure Democrat ticket under any circumstances would allow Barack Obama, despite all odds, a second term. However, there is no historical basis to defuse that theory, and the last election in which an Independent candidate truly factored, was the 1992 Presidential race between President George H Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, Perot as the Independent was pulling votes from across the spectrum, and managed 18 plus percent of the vote, after he announced he would no longer be seeking the office.

However, Donald Trump, as it appears now, as a GOP candidate, should have little problems in effectively competing within the GOP field as well as picking up crossover votes from both independents and Democrats. The fact that the media is picking up mainly on the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, which Trump has appeared to embrace and or more to the point, questioned, along with others in the U.S. who are called “birthers” by the media, belies the man’s ability to run business empires successfully, while connecting with the average voter. The fact that Trump’s life is a virtual open book, leaves both the Obama Campaign and the media with little to attack, without that one issue, which, may resonate with a percentage of voters, but it is the other “Trumpisms” that have caught the attention of the majority: his no holds barred, tell it like it is approach to immigration, (Troops on the border, decide each individual that is in the U.S. now on a case by case basis), his stance towards China, his stance on going to war, righting a nation and then paying out of pocket (taxpayers) without getting anything in return (oil); all of the aforementioned resonate with voters across the spectrum. It is to the peril of those who are hanging their hats on one issue with this particular multi-faceted candidate that may be the ticket to the nomination and the Presidency.

Obama and GOP Tax Cuts Deal – Progressives in Democrat Party Clearly Upset with President!

Obama moves to middle on Tax Cut Deal - photo European Press Agency via WSJ

From the AP: President Obama and the GOP have brokered a deal that included keeping all the Bush Tax cuts, plus additional tax cuts offered by the President for two years, with an extension of the unemployment benefits for over 2 million people in 26 states that expired this month. One has to give credit where credit is due, Obama and the GOP worked together, regardless of where one stands on the ideological scale of Democrat vis a vis Republican, the move by both camps to ensure the continued aid to the unemployed while taking the burden off businesses in order to begin hiring shows compromise is alive in D.C. In fact, the President offering to put more on the table for American’s working class in the form of a cut in the Social Security payroll deduction. Therefore, kudos to Obama for taking the steps necessary to at least, temporarily , move into the middle of the road, and to the GOP for meeting the President on common ground.

Not every member of the political class is excited about this “new deal”, with left wing Progressives clearly upset with the Presidents willingness to work for the people rather than the Progressive Party. NPR reports that Progressives within the Democrat Party are against any type of deal that takes away from their mantra “Tax the Rich”. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is a Socialist, not a Democrat) is threatening to filibuster while “Progressive Democrats in the House wrote a letter of opposition”. One Adam Green, who is with an organization called the “Progressive Change Committee, went blathering on about the President appearing “weak” in the wake of his coming to an agreement with the GOP. The latest round of “no’s” from Progressives who have held sway over the American public with the election of Pelosi and other hard-left Progressives in 2006. With this mini-tantrum, one can better understand the gap that exists between the Democrats and the Progressives, who should, in all fairness, should move to form their own political party, and leave the Democrat party to fend for themselves in the political arena. The problem with that scenario, Progressives do not do well unless they hide behind a brand as they are socialists who merely mask themselves as Democrats. Perhaps in the best case, those Unions would do best to join with the Progressives and do everyone in the U.S.A. a favor by taking up their actual “brand” instead of co-opting some other.

Progressives and Tea Party members differ in that the Tea Party, although most closely aligned with the Republican Party ideologically, does not pull any punches in warnings to both parties regarding the purity of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. The Progressives on the other hand, speak for the Democrats, which, even if there were one Democrat left standing in the Senate or the House, that elected official should call them out, and tell them to shut up and speak for themselves. The formation of additional parties would serve the Republic in that these parties would offer more choices to the American people, and push the two older, dominant political parties to be a tad more honest.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the “tax deal” package is the fact that it is not permanent, and is set to expire in 2012. This sets up an “us versus them” clear line in sand over economics between President Obama, who will campaign for reelection and growing field of Republican contenders. Progressives, for some unimaginable reason, believe the “tax the rich” mantra is a “winner” with the public, and while it may have appeared to work in the last election, it is a risk to believe it would work a second time. First, the last election was not necessarily about “taxing the rich” and some pie-eyed idea that the American public was welcoming Progressive (socialism) with open arms. What the more likely rise of the Party can be attributed to are those on the hard left and in the middle, afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, voting in order to rid the nation of any Republican (including McCain). However, now as a consequence, they are experiencing buyers remorse. (The Progressives appear to have missed that development with the 2010 election.)

Should the tax cuts work, the economy begin to see a positive reversal, the job market improve, which is, historically, highly probable, then it would be a folly to campaign on “taxing the rich” who, any one of those GOP candidates would be able to say – “are providing the jobs American’s need”. They would have the proverbial proof in the pudding. Obama literally fell on the political sword for the American public in working with the GOP, and brought to light the reality of the Progressives as the “Party of No”. As Obama has clear Progressive leanings, the decision to meet in the middle to save the nation from ruin, puts him on the road to being less Carteresque. The tax cuts aside, there are myriad issues one can pick that still places the President in the ideological Progressive camp, and although one may agree to disagree on any of those points (legion), it is important for Conservatives to acknowledge that President Obama indeed broke rank and, as of this moment, should be applauded for the action. It will not diminish the fortunes of the GOP field of contenders for the Top Job in 2012 given the big picture.

One may call his move political expediency (saving one’s own hide), or what have you, however, regardless of motive, (which unless one is a mind-reader, there is no way to determine what the man is thinking), give him his due. One can also add courage to that list if one is a follower of the Beck school of thought, who has claimed that the President is in danger from “Progressives” within his own sphere that may attempt to physically harm Obama. Either or, today, the President deserves a pat on the back for stepping up.


Side note: Historically, one has to concede that Beck has a point as far as Progressives throughout history using any means possible to further Socialism, however, those murders, assassinations, concentration camps, etc., were part of the early to mid 20th century, pre-information age. One would hope, the consistent bungling of Progressives in the House and Senate, coupled with their current ability to hide nothing, (even state secrets from junior hackers who should retire to their mothers basements in Australia), would render any “plots” against the president (other than protests and strongly worded letters of condemnations and perhaps another wiki leak or two directly aimed at Obama instead of potential Progressive opposition in the form of current target, Hillary Clinton) useless.