LibriumArcana.Games

TPM

Mitt Romney has a simple explanation for donors as to why his presidential campaign came up short: President Obama gave out too much stuff.

According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, the former Republican nominee said during a call with donors on Wednesday that Obama had been “very generous” in doling out “big gifts” to “the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people” as well as to women throughout his first term. Benefits such as access to “free health care,” guaranteed contraceptive coverage, more affordable student loans, and “amnesty for children of illegals,” all combined to give the president a decisive edge in popularity.
“The President’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things,” Romney said. “Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

His explanation contained strong echoes of a leaked fundraiser tape earlier this year in which he told campaign backers that Obama’s strength came from the 47 percent of Americans who consider themselves “victims” and “dependent” on government.

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he said at the time.

At first Romney defended those remarks in a press conference, but weeks later he changed his tune and said his comments were “just completely wrong.” His latest conversations with donors suggest that he has moved closer towards his original views.

Despite complaints that the Republican’s campaign missed the mark badly on polling and turnout operations, Romney said he stood by his organization, which he called “a very solid team that got along.” He said there was “no drama in the campaign — not that everybody was perfect; everybody has flat sides, but we learned how to accommodate each other’s strengths and weaknesses, to build on the strengths.”

Romney told donors that he believed up to election day that he would win.

“I am very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win. We expected to win. … It was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.”

Oh Dear Lord. "I lost because that mean Obama bribed people!" Here's my view... Hey man, doing policies that benefit large populations... That's not bribery, you idiot, it's good government! How the fuck did someone like you even get so close to the white house? Besides, pot and kettle man, you were promising to slash taxes on the wealthy. What, health care is a bribe but I'll give you more money isn't?

But who calls him out on this? Would you believe Bobby Jindal of all people?

Yahoo

ouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday for saying that he lost the 2012 election to President Barack Obama in part because Democrats promised "gifts" to minority groups, calling Romney's remarks "absolutely wrong."

According to The Los Angeles Times, Romney told donors on a conference call after the election that the Obama campaign "focused on giving targeted groups a big gift" and was "very generous" to ethnic minorities and young voters. Speaking to reporters here at an annual meeting of Republican governors, Jindal said such rhetoric could divide voting groups.

"I think that's absolutely wrong," Jindal said. "We have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote. ... So I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think it's absolutely wrong. I don't think that represents where we are as a party, where we're going as a party. That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election."

Jindal, who is set to become chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has called on the party to reshape its tone when presenting ideas, especially to constituencies that traditionally vote Democratic.

"I'm passionate about it because I think it's extremely, extremely important," Jindal said. "This is just something that's fundamentally important for the future of our party."

Credit where credit is due. This is a move that is braver and more honest then I expected from Jindal and I applaud him for it. I hope he's willing to make this a trend.

No kidding, especially if that line is true about him being up to become chairman of the Republican Governor's Association. If that's true and he's still saying that... yeah, I have to at least give Jindal points for that.

That or Jindal is staking a bold course toward the next nomination.

Regardless of the sincerity of motive, the rhetoric is beneficial. Jindal's been one of the darlings of the ultraconservative wing since he got elected, so him making a move toward sanity is very profound and necessary for both the party and the country.

He's been a darling of the ultra-cons, but gods has been horrible at actually doing his job as a Gov.

The man has been systematically gutting a lot of Louisiana's programs and budgets, slashing Education budgets to less than bare bones, starting that gods forsaken retarded voucher program for private schools. . . . and generally ignoring everything about his state.



The sad thing? If he gets the nod in 2016, Louisiana will go for him, just because the fact he's a Republican.

fuck I hate Jindall, give me back Mike Foster or Edwin Edwards any day.

Hell, ressurect Huey P Long! Let the Zombie Governor return!

This calls for a 'solidarity in the face of shitty governors' brohug.

Frig, if I may...

Hey man, doing policies that benefit large populations... That's not bribery, you idiot, it's good government!

I have to give a qualified disagreement. This can be true.... but it can also be false. It's not good government to enact policies to financially benefit groups of people, or even everyone, if the costs can't be effectively borne. Good government means knowing what is possible and doing only that, not trying to expand benefits to everyone regardless of economic feasibility.

I'll grant that qualification.

But I find little of that in Obama's policies. While I doubt you have much against him Steve, I'm going to expand on my position just so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

For example in regards to education, we should not look at those costs as a burden but as an investment. In the global world, only highly skilled, well educated populations have any surety of good work and even then it may be a slender surety. Not to mention, while I honestly feel loans should be repaid, let us be blunt, every dollar that goes into repaying those loans is an economic lost. The buying power of the these young men and women is much less then it could be because of the high debt our system forces them to rack up. When it is the buying power of the population that is one of the main economic engines of the nation... That is a problem that must be addressed somehow. Lower interests rate and easier conditions is a good start!

Let's add in contraceptives, something that will lower our health costs over all and help raise the standard of living. To be blunt, this reduces the amount of children that will be ill cared for. While I prefer a replacement level birthrate or slightly higher, even the most conservative estimate of the US population growth reveals that we currently are in no danger of falling into Europe's mistake. What I would really like to see however are policies that make it easier to have family and reduce the strain placed on them but that's another topic. One last note, I wish to make clear that I see a firm and clear limit as to the government's role in the family. There is a limit as to how far the government should go in the pursuit of the ideal family life.

Amnesty for the children of illegals? I admit, I am no fan of illegal immigration. To be blunt I believe we the citizens of the United States have a right to decide who gets to move into our country. That said I also grant that the system we have in place requires reform and our border should be secured anyways (if nothing else to help crack down on modern slave traders but I won't bore everyone with that rant again). But anyways, these children speak English, they grew up here, they salute our flag, some of them have fought in our wars, why shouldn't they be citizens? Yes, their parents broke the law and that's an issue but even almighty God ended up declaring he would not visit the sins of the father on the son!

Healthcare, the system before Obamacare was one of the most expensive in the world. When you break down the numbers, the Canadians and British spend less then we do on it and get better results. They have a lower infant mortality rate. More people live longer. Many of them are in better health. I do not care ideologically speaking for the idea of the government playing such a large role in healthcare. I never have. I never will. But I cannot argue with results. Frankly, they have better results for lower costs.

It's not like Barry is engaging in Greek or French nonsense like telling people to retire at age 50 on the government dime, while not collecting any taxes. Or building up such a massive government machine that it accounts for half of the jobs in the country. Or expanding benefits to government employees to a ridiculous degree. No we can well survive and pay for Barry's mild reforms as long as we do not engage in tea party idiocy (I would also like to state that I well know Steve has nothing to do with that brand of insanity).

Futhermore, I will categorically state that I found nothing of good government in Romney's suggested vague policies. If he had made a bloody argument beyond ill defined notions and buzz words, I would have listened! But he did not. Can you push taxes to high? Yes! Most Certainly! We are not anywhere near that danger as far as I can tell however.

Steve wrote:Frig, if I may...

Hey man, doing policies that benefit large populations... That's not bribery, you idiot, it's good government!

I have to give a qualified disagreement. This can be true.... but it can also be false. It's not good government to enact policies to financially benefit groups of people, or even everyone, if the costs can't be effectively borne. Good government means knowing what is possible and doing only that, not trying to expand benefits to everyone regardless of economic feasibility.

It's far more telling about how Romney and his ilk think. There is no conception of "common good" or the overall health of the society or country. There are "factions" to be "bribed". Romney's world view is everyone out for themselves and it shows. It shows in the 47% remark, it shows in his pride in paying less than 13% tax, it shows in his nonpresence on social issues like gay and women's rights, and it shows in his bribery remarks. To his ilk there are overlapping circles of interests, not a greater society.

This might sound familiar to some of you. Yes, it is the way I describe drow society working in D&D.

Spiders and sadism are optional.

So you're saying that a vote for Romney would have been a vote for Llolth?

Damnit, why do I only find out about this when it's too late to change my vote?

So you're saying that a vote for Romney would have been a vote for Llolth?

Impossible. A Llolth candidate would not have had binders full of women. He'd be taking orders from temples full of screaming whip wielding women. Very different, hard to miss.