► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for July, 2011

Bain Capital: Romney’s Achilles Heel

by Phantom Ace ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Elections 2012, Headlines, Mitt Romney, Republican Party, unemployment at July 14th, 2011 - 2:41 pm

Mitt Romney claims job creation is his strength. The reality is it will be an albatross. During the 80’s and 90’s Bain Capital pioneered outsourcing of American jobs. They would buy medium companies that were doing well, ship out the jobs overseas and then sell it to a bigger form. This devastated Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Bain Capital is despised.

The Obama Regime’s battleplan against Romney is to point out, he destroyed American jobs.

A company that laid off hundreds of employees. A federal “bailout” to rescue a failing bank. Mitt Romney, at the center of it all.

It’s a story line from a tough Democratic ad that was teed up for use against Romney in his 1994 Senate campaign in Massachusetts. The spot, which was provided exclusively to POLITICO, never actually aired. But it’s all but certain that some version of its allegations will surface in the GOP primary or the general election, if Romney makes it that far.

[….]

When Romney challenged Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994, it was his connection to those two companies that played a significant role in sinking his campaign as Democrats tied him to plant closings and worker firings.

In 2012, those familiar attacks from his past are likely to take on a new potency: Bain Capital’s involvement in mass layoffs is likely to haunt Romney in a campaign focused on jobs. Other episodes, such as the claims that Romney benefited from a federal bank rescue, could ignite anew.

Although Obama has a bad economic record, he wants to muddle that issue. Romney’s Bain Capital ties will neutralize Romney on the economy. Then it will be a battle of personalities. A battle Obama would win.

Read more:

Essential VDH: Dumb and dumber in Libya

by Mojambo ( 122 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, France, Libya at July 14th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Hanson makes an interesting point, even though it was a stupid decision to go to war in Libya, the consequences of failing to win it might be worse.  This whole Libyan misadventure was a lose-lose proposition from the very beginning.  Shame of the feckless and attention mongering John McCain for referring to the motley bunch of rebels as being his  “heroes”.  Funny how France which instigated this war  (and was violently opposed to the Iraq war), now wants to bail.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Almost daily over the last four months we were told that Muammar Gadhafi was about ready to throw in the towel and give up.

Libya, after all, is not a distant Afghanistan or Iraq with a population of some 30 million. Yet this tiny police state of less than 7 million people, conveniently located on the Mediterranean Sea opposite nearby Europe, continues to thwart the three great powers of the NATO alliance and thousands of “Arab Spring” rebels.

In March, President Obama ordered the use of American bombers and cruise missiles to join in with the French and British to finish off the tottering Gadhafi regime. Obama was apparently stung by liberal criticism that the U.S. had done little to help rebels in their weeks-long effort to remove Gadhafi — after only belatedly supporting the successful revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt.

Months ago, intervention to the Obama administration seemed a short, painless way of ridding the world of a decades-long international menace while gaining praise for helping “democratic” reformers. Oil, of course, is always a subtext in any Middle Eastern war.

[…….]

The more NATO forces destroyed Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, planes and boats, the more the unhinged dictator seemed to cling to power. Western leaders had forgotten that Gadhafi lost a war with Egypt in 1977, lost a war with Chad in 1987, and came out on the losing end of Ronald Reagan’s bombing campaign in 1986 — and yet clung to power and remains the planet’s longest-ruling dictator. Terror, oil, cash reserves and a loyal mercenary army are a potent combination.

The Obama administration asked for legal authorization from the Arab League — the majority of whose member states are not democratic — and the U.N., but to this day strangely has not requested authorization from Congress. As Obama sought legitimacy within international authorizations, he failed to note that no U.N. or Arab League resolution actually had allowed him to conduct a full-scale air war against Gadhafi’s ruling clique. The Chinese and Russians are both happy to keep pointing that out.

Both conservatives and liberals were flabbergasted by the sudden preemptive war. Conservatives who supported the messy efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were reluctant to champion a third one in Libya without congressional authority and with no clearly stated mission or methodology. When we entered an on-again/off-again cycle of operations, Republicans charged that a weakened, fiscally insolvent America was sort of “leading from behind.”

[…..]

The left had also decried Western attacks on oil-exporting Muslim countries, but now liberal-in-chief Barack Obama was doing just that. Indeed, the antiwar president who promised to end the Bush Mideast wars had suddenly expanded them into a third theater. The more the war dragged on, the more the Arab world was torn between hating Gadhafi and hating Obama’s bombs.

The odious Gadhafi has been an international pariah for most of his tenure, funding terrorists, killing Americans and murdering dissidents. But even as the bombs were dropped, he was a monster in the midst of rehab. By late 2010 his jet-setting family was being courted by Western intellectuals, reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States, offering oil concessions to the West, and being praised as a partner in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

Then, with a snap of the fingers, in early 2011 Gadhafi was suddenly reinvented as a Saddam Hussein-like ogre and dodging Western cruise missiles and bombs targeted at his person.

What is next?

The general consensus, from both left and right, is that we should finish the misadventure as quickly as possible. Apparently, the only thing worse than starting a stupid, unnecessary war against a madman is losing it.

Read the rest – A dumb and dumber war in Libya

Americans still blame Baby Bush for the bad economy

by Phantom Ace ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, George W. Bush, Headlines, Misery Index, Republican Party, unemployment at July 14th, 2011 - 1:30 pm

Many Conservatives are still in denial about Baby Bush. He has become some martyred saint to some on the Right, hence my name St. George of the Bush. The biggest joke is, Baby Bush was no Conservative. He was a Progressive Rockefeller Republican. Another fact some Conservatives are in denial is the unpopularity St. George of the Bush has with the American public.

Despite being out of office 2 1/2 years a majority of Americans still blameBush for the bad economy. To be fair, Obama’s policies haven’t helped and have caused long term damage. However, the public still has bad taste in its mouth from the Baby Bush years.

Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy, but by 2-1 they pin the blame on former President George W. Bush rather than Obama, who is now more than 60 percent through his term of office

“Given this public view, it might be reasonable to expect that the president’s re-election campaign will be, as it was in 2008, running against the former president, in addition to the actual GOP nominee,” said Brown. “The key voting bloc, independents, say 49 – 24 percent that Bush is more responsible for the economy than Obama.”

In order to defeat Obama, the GOP nominee must distance themselves from St. George of the Bush. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann were criticized for taking swipes at Baby Bush. However as the poll shows, this is good strategy. The truth is, Americans don’t like Bush. Just because they have soured on Obama, doesn’t mean they have a fondness for the Bush years.

A Non-Bush Republican would make it difficult for Obama to hang St. George of the Bush around their neck.

Moody’s Takes Sides…Shills for Obama

by coldwarrior ( 49 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, government, Politics, Special Report at July 14th, 2011 - 1:21 pm

Moody’s Investors Service put the U.S. under review for a credit rating downgrade as talks to raise the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit stall, adding to concern that political gridlock will lead to a default.

 

The Republicans had better not fall for this threat. Moody’s, and the rest of the Wall Streeters are Obama’s biggest supporters. Hence, they dont want their gravy train to end.

 

Well, go ahead, Moody’s downgrade the US debt. I dare you. This means that your boy the man-child Obama will be the ONLY US President to have managed to gum up the works so badly that bonds getr downgraded. DO IT MOODY’S. PLEASE!!! The fallout from a downgrade would be an epic and indelible reminder of the failure that is Barak Hussein Obama.

 

It will make a lovely campaign commercial. 66% of the American public want no more debt ceiling raises. Time to pay the piper.

 

And for once, Boehner ‘gets it’

 

“As Speaker Boehner has warned for months, if the White House does not take action soon to address our nation’s debt crisis by reining in spending, the markets may do it for us,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio. “This action by Moody’s today reinforces the Speaker’s warning.”

Standard & Poor’s put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing its AAA credit rating unless policy makers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. The firm said at the time that there’s a one-in-three chance that the rating might be cut within two years and that its “baseline assumption” is that Congress and the Obama administration will come to terms on a plan to reduce record deficits.

S&P would lower its sovereign top-level AAA ranking to D, the last rung on its scale if the U.S. can’t pay its payments because of a failure to raise the debt ceiling, John Chambers, chairman of the company’s sovereign rating committee, said June 30. Moody’s said it would probably assign a position in the Aa range, or within three steps of its highest level.

 

COLDWARRIOR UPDATE:

 

OBAMA: THIS WILL BRING DOWN MY PRESIDENCY

 

and

US Will Keep Paying Bondholders After Aug. 2: Bernanke

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday said the United States would keep paying interest on government debt if Congress failed to reach a deal to lift the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.

US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
AP

The central banker’s comments offered the first public indication of how the Obama administration would prioritize its financial obligations after Aug. 2, when the U.S. Treasury says the government would run out of money to pay all its bills.

“The assumption is that as long as possible, the Treasury would want to try to make payments on the principal and interest to the government debt, because failure to do that would certainly throw the financial system into enormous disarray and have major impacts on the global economy,” Bernanke said.