Mitt's Needed Response To Bill Clinton & The 2012 Democrat National Convention

"There's almost nothing the president has done in the past 3 1/2, four years, that gives the American people confidence that he knows what he's doing when it comes to jobs & the economy."  Mitt Romney

 

"President Obama is not a bad guy. He's good at giving great speeches, he's just really bad at creating jobs."  Paul Ryan

 

"Our problem is not that he is a bad person. Our problem is that he is a bad president."  Marco Rubio speaking about BO 

 

 

The Democrat National Convention (DNC) produced one speaker after another who told stories of the destitution they were born into & how they turned the adversity of their poor humble beginnings around with hard work doing a good job of hiding their real Socialist-Marxist agenda by just sprinkling in words & phrases like "helping hand...we're all in this together...build it together...bound to each other...cooperation is what counts...shared opportunity...shared responsibility...& (Carol's favorite) lay the foundation for a shared prosperity."  I even heard respectful mention of our Founding Fathers who these people hate.  There was not one single mention of ObamaCare or the stimulus but BO stunned me when he talked about his second term being a "bold, persistent, experimentation that FDR pursued in the 1930s."  What more does anyone, including Mitt Romney, need to know?

 

About halfway through the convention we learned that Democrats not only don't read the 2,000 page bills they put forth in Congress but they also don't read their own party platform.  The platform as written @ the start of the convention had taken out references to God & Jerusalem being the capital of Israel – both being in the 2008 platform.  None of the three separate voice votes produced the needed two thirds majority needed to put the references back in the platform but the voters in the hall were not suppressed from voting – they were just ignored. 

 

Bill Clinton was the second speaker @ the two conventions that has a superb reputation for being a financially responsible politician – the other is Paul Ryan.  In Ryan's case the reputation is not totally justified & in Clinton's case it is not justified @ all.

 

Clinton's reputation comes about because he was president during good times which occurred despite him not because of him.  The last six years of Clinton's administration were controlled by the principles of the Contract With America, people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, & NJ's Dick Zimmer, & of course his impeachment.

 

Clinton started his first administration by unsuccessfully unleashing his wife & Ira Magaziner (still with Clinton's Foundations yet today) to develop HillaryCare.  He pushed through a huge tax increase that included increasing gasoline taxes, raising the corporate income tax rate a point to 35 percent, & substantially raising the top personal/small employer income tax rate—from 31 to 39.6 percent.  Bob Kerry is running for the Senate in Nebraska & was the deciding vote on Clinton's tax bill in 1993.  Kerry's Senate opponent is Deb Fischer who won her primary with the support of Sarah Palin & could use your support.  If Deb wins this race she would replace Senator Ben Nelson who was the 60th & deciding vote for ObamaCare.  A tremendous pick-up & turnaround.

 

Clinton also unsuccessfully pushed a BTU energy tax & his own $31 billion stimulus in his first two years.

 

After showing his true colors as indicated above Clinton's biggest farce was his so-called signature issue of ending welfare as we knew it.  After vetoing two other welfare bills he signed a third one in August 1996 - shortly before the presidential election - only after he knew a third veto would be overridden. 

 

So in Clinton's last six years he moved to the center after being just about as far left as BO.  He triangulated himself by taking credit for many of Newt's ideas like controlling government federal spending to 18.2% of GDP in 2000 from 21.9% in 1992 & dropping the capital gains rate to 20% from 28% in 1997.  Clinton accordingly has an undeserved fine fiscally responsible reputation today.  This will pay dividends in November if enough people believe he was speaking as a person of economic integrity vouching for BO.

 

Now it's one thing to let Clinton get away with his masquerade as a financially responsible politician for the last twelve years if he is doing no real harm to the country but quite another thing for Mitt to let Clinton's remarks about BO go unchallenged without setting the record straight & then driving the proper message home again & again.

 

For starters, & its getting late for this, Republicans have to stop making character witness statements about BO like the three quotes @ the very top of this posting.

 

BO knows exactly what he is "doing about jobs & the economy."  He is trying to destroy it to make everyone more government dependent – just look @ the above graph to see the deterioration of over $4,000 in real inflation adjusted median annual household income between January 2009 & June 2012.  The graph is virtually straight down with a fortuitous bounce (for BO) in 2012 with the election @ hand.  With re to Ryan's & Rubio's statements that they should stop making about BO "not being a bad person" – I guess that King George lll would be likewise regarded - just a bad king but a guy they would love to have lunch with.  BO is not regarded as a bad president by the 50% of the people who are on one government program or another – these people were well represented @ the DNC.

 

Instead of saying what a bad economic hand BO was dealt @ the start of his presidency Mitt should explain that it was government under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 & pushed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s that is The Menace That Is The Root Cause Of The Financial Crisis.  The more severe the recession the larger the bounce should be coming out of it instead of the anemic growth we are experiencing – but of course the (non) recovery is by BO's design.

 

Mitt needs to articulate the dangers America faces (& already partially realizes) under BO's insidious skillful training as a community organizer following Saul Alinsky's Socialist-Marxist method described in the book "Rules For Radicals."

 

Mitt is scared to death to present his own growth message because it includes lower income tax rates which he knows will bring on the shouts of tax cuts for millionaires & billionaires.  BO will continue to make these claims whether Mitt presents them or not.  They are on Mitt's website so why not present them in person forcefully?

 

BO wants to continue his redistribution of wealth by spreading it around even more in a second term which could easily include Pelosi's four year old idea of copying economic basket case Argentina's power play of nationalizing private pension money by seizing or otherwise confiscating 401(k)s.  A VAT with a low starting rate & plenty of exceptions initially will be on the agenda when everyone realizes the wealthy just do not have enough money to finance all of BO's government programs.

 

The sooner that Mitt & Ryan start to address the above problems by identifying them to the electorate the better off they will be.  At least they will have defined the problem correctly instead of portraying BO as a regular politician who just has some different ideas.  BO showed his priorities his first two years in office when he had control of both Chambers of Congress & the result was the passage of ObamaCare & the failed stimulus.

 

Now even if Mitt takes the type of approach detailed above from this point forward it is still an uphill battle.  Welfare recipients are not interested @ all in what the capital of Israel is.  Rules For Radials makes clear that the "haves nots" outnumber the "haves" & BO wants to get all of "have nots" & enough of the other unsuspecting souls to win the election.  The Democrat coalition consists of affluent libs, voters who depend on government, & members of public sector unions.

 

Now Mitt went back to full campaign mode today by appearing on Sunday morning TV shows saying he would keep certain parts of ObamaCare.  Is this what it takes for Mitt to earn your vote?