Originally Posted By skinnerbox This isn't merely living in a bubble. This is living in another galaxy: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-man-the-right-fight/2012/11/28/5338b27a-38e9-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ory.html</a> <> Opinions Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight. By Stuart Stevens, [Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.] Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate. I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency. In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics. When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same. On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain. The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins. But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire. In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics. There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate? Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day. On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future. <> "Came very close to winning"? Seriously, what is the dude smoking? Talking Points Memo nailed it perfectly: <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/stuart-stevens-poor-minority-voters.php?ref=fpa" target="_blank">http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...?ref=fpa</a> <> Top Romney Adviser Brags About Losing Poor, Minority Voters To Obama Benjy Sarlin November 28, 2012, 12:56 PM Mitt Romney can take some solace in his devastating loss on Nov. 6: at least he won the voters who really count. That’s the thesis anyway of top adviser Stuart Stevens, who penned an op-ed in the Washington Post on Wednesday arguing that by winning wealthier and whiter voters, Romney secured the moral victory over Obama. “On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income,” Stevens wrote. “That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift.” According to Stevens, “The Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.” As a result, “Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.” The implied argument that poorer votes are inferior seems to undercut the campaign’s central message over the last two years: that Romney’s top concern was providing jobs for the jobless. The unemployed Americans Romney highlighted in ads, speeches and photo-ops make under $50,000 a year almost by definition and campaign videos like the one below are jarring next to Stevens’ latest piece. [embedded campaign video] Stevens notably never mentioned jobs and unemployment in his op-ed, instead focusing on how Romney championed “the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.” Unfortunately for Romney, poor and minority votes counted just the same as the allegedly superior votes Stevens favored. The result was an electoral college blowout for the president powered by strong turnout and margins among young voters, Latinos, African Americans, and women. But Stevens had an explanation for that, too. Obama was “a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and a media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?” <>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.<< Someone should email him the election results at some point. People heard the arguments, voted, and those "Republican ideals" did not win. Some of today's seniors may think Paul Ryan's ideas about social security are fine because it spares them any of the effects. That's called selfishness, and from what we learned in this campaign, that is indeed now a Republican ideal. I continue to hold out thin hope that the GOP will wake up and stop listening to the same people that helped them be defeated this election. They have got to join us in the current century, not some whitewashed 1950s version of reality.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Some of today's seniors may think Paul Ryan's ideas about social security are fine because it spares them any of the effects. That's called selfishness, and from what we learned in this campaign, that is indeed now a Republican ideal.>> I'm in that age bracket, where the Ryan budget goal of privatizing Social Security and Medicare won't personally affect me. But it severely pains me to know that the majority of aging white folk like me, over 55 years of age, voted for Romney. It's embarrassing to be a part of that demographic. Ozzie and Harriet, The Cleaver Family, even Dobie Gillis are long gone relics of Americana. They're not coming back. Only dope-smoking Maynard G. Krebs remains. And he's been transformed to gay Latina biotechnologist. Time for the Angry Old White Guys to finally get over themselves.
Originally Posted By mawnck The Dems win the election, while the GOPpers win "the votes that really count". I'm not seeing the problem here. Everyone's happy.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Some of today's seniors may think Paul Ryan's ideas about social security are fine because it spares them any of the effects. That's called selfishness >>> Uh huh. Kind of like anyone over 65 that opposed Obamacare because they feared it might affect their Medicare benefits.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Uh huh. Kind of like anyone over 65 that opposed Obamacare because they feared it might affect their Medicare benefits.<< It's not "welfare" or "free cheese" when they are on the receiving end.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Just a reminder here. Medicare is something that people paid into for most of their working lives. It is not an entitlement by definition. It is closer to a prepaid insurance, just like social security. We all paid into it for 30 to 40 years. Hardly a gift and no way comparable to welfare. Some of us will get lucky and outlive our payments, but many will not and that just goes into the fund. No returns to the estate unless you consider the $250.00 death payment a payback. I don't!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox ^^ Thank you! Yes, I paid dearly into this program for decades. Not a few years... decades. It is an INSURANCE program, NOT welfare. This is a GOP talking point being repeated over and over and over again, in a stupid effort to make the infamous 47% feel guilty for being "freeloaders" even though they're not.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Stevens' remarks don't surprise me a bit. America is increasingly a nation divided between "haves" and "have nots" with little understanding on each side of what the other side faces. We need to rebuild a STRONG middle class, and additional tax breaks for the wealthy is NOT the way to do it!
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I would love for the Republican leadership to try and live on a true middle class budget for awhile and see how the other 98% really survive.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Medicare is something that people paid into for most of their working lives.<< I agree. But it's also woefully underfunded and will soon be needing a bailout. And I also believe that keeping Medicare alive is the right thing to do. Just saying that Medicare recipients sometimes forget this when they bellow for cuts elsewhere. Medicare is going to need some "free cheese" to stay solvent,
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I would love for the Republican leadership to try and live on a true middle class budget for awhile and see how the other 98% really survive. >> I would love to see members of BOTH PARTIES to try and live on a true middle class budget for awhile and see how the other 98% really survive.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, people paid into Medicare but most paid in at a time when both health care costs and life spans were considerably less. For the most part they are getting far more than they ever paid in (including interest that would be earned over time). That is not to say the program should be scrapped, but changes in contributions are essential... especially during a period when the cost of medical care is rapidly increasing but the wages the deduction is based on are not.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That's an easy fix. Just take the ceiling off the income number that is eligible for contributions. I have never understood the logic. Perhaps when it started the ceiling was believed to be reachable only by a few, but now with wages what they are it is no longer an oddity that someone would go above the ceiling. And why, when everyone benefits the same, wouldn't that be a continuing scale up to the top wage earners. Yes, they will pay more in dollars but they also are able to afford more. .6% of wages (or whatever it is now) is as affordable to a person making 100K a year as someone making less then 50K. Why when you make more money and are more able to afford it then others, would you suddenly be excluded. Never has made sense to me. That percentage has the exact impact on someone earning 20K as someone earning 200K. The difference is that someone making 200K has a whole lot more left over after paying then someone making 20K.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost To continue my thoughts on this...if people with higher income were to forgo Social Security or Medicare because they don't need it...then maybe an argument, but they don't forgo anything. They take it just like the rest of us. Maybe they use it to buy sun bonnets for their race horses but take it they do!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That percentage has the exact impact on someone earning 20K as someone earning 200K.<< Much less, actually. For the $20K person, it could be the difference between eating or not eating. For the $200K person ... well, they probably don't have a racehorse to put a bonnet on, but they're well out of the food/clothing/shelter realm at that point.
