Barack Obama’s campaign insults voters
By Washington Post Editorial Board, DRAFT: November 1. NOT FOR RELEASE.

THROUGH ALL the flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Barack Obama for a second term: a contempt for the electorate.

How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided his college records, and despite claiming to be the most open administration in history, has clamped down on release of public records, and moved crucial meetings outside the White House to avoid public scrutiny.

How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Obama has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then an apologist for America's past, then a purveyor of peace. He championed bipartisan health care reform, then pushed through Obamacare without allowing time for the public, or even Congress, to see what they were being sold, and pushed the drastic cost increases to the outyears when he will be long gone. Gay marriage was bad, then good. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup by the feds was great for a photo op, but the suffering exposed the next day was the fault of everyone else. Benghazi was the fault of an obscure film maker, then it was not.

The same presumption of gullibility has infused his misleading commercials (see: Everything is Bush's fault) and his refusal to lay out an agenda for a second term. Mr. Obama promised to improve his Affordable Care Act but never said how. He promised an alternative to Mitt Romney's budget plan to reduce the deficit, but never deigned to describe it.

And then there has been his chronic, baldly dishonest defense of mathematically impossible Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid costs. He promised to cut income tax rates without exploding the deficit — but he refused to say how he could bring that off. When challenged, he cited “studies” that he maintained proved him right. But the studies were a mix of rhetoric, unrealistic growth projections and more serious economics that actually proved him wrong.

This last is important — maybe the crux of the next four years. History has shown that it’s a lot easier to increase spending than to cut federal programs. Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter promised to do both, managed to do only the first and (with plenty of help from Congress) greatly failed on the second.

Now President Obama promises finally to balance a budget by increasing income tax rates only on the so-called rich, which include the small businesses that employ forty percent of Americans. To do so, he would reduce other spending — unspecified — and take away deductions — unspecified. One of the studies he cited said the President could make the tax math work by depriving every household earning $100,000 or more of all of its charitable deductions, mortgage-interest deductions and deductions for state and local income taxes. Even Governor Romney rejected this wild analysis.

Does President Obama favor increasing other taxes? He won’t say. But he does take issue with accepting any responsibility for the ongoing economic malaise. High unemployment: not his fault. Jobs moving overseas: not his fault. Green energy companies failing after taking hundreds of millions of tax dollars: not his fault.

Within limits, all candidates say and do what they have to say and do to win. President Obama also has dodged serious interviews and news conferences. He has offered few specifics for a second-term agenda. He aired commercials that distorted his opponent’s statements.

But President Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His first two years in office he controlled both houses of Congress and could do whatever he wanted. He failed. His budget plan is inadequate, and will make things worse.

Mr. Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that voters have memories of the past four years, real arithmetic skills and seek the ability to look behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him right.

Does the GOP really have to alter history to make their reality bareable?

l;dr wah wah, my guy hasn't been in office for the past four years (and the next four lololololol)

shut the fuck up and take this shit elsewhere.

Did you get that from a Florida paper? No way the Post would write that.

Wednesday will be a happy day, either way. All this shit will go away.

Here's the actual article from the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-election-campaign-insults-voters/2012/11/02/69fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

If that link's broken, here's the Google Search string that found it (first hit):

https://www.google.com/search?q=maybe+the+crux+of+the+next+four+years.

A Parody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack Obama’s campaign insults voters
> By Washington Post Editorial Board, DRAFT:
> November 1. NOT FOR RELEASE.
>
> THROUGH ALL the flip-flops, there has been one
> consistency in the campaign of Barack Obama for a
> second term: a contempt for the electorate.
>
> How else to explain his refusal to disclose
> essential information? Defying recent bipartisan
> tradition, he failed to release the names of his
> bundlers — the high rollers who collected
> hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He
> never provided his college records, and despite
> claiming to be the most open administration in
> history, has clamped down on release of public
> records, and moved crucial meetings outside the
> White House to avoid public scrutiny.
>
> How, other than an assumption that voters are too
> dim to remember what Mr. Obama has said across the
> years and months, to account for his breathtaking
> ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants,
> then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend.
> He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then
> an apologist for America's past, then a purveyor
> of peace. He championed bipartisan health care
> reform, then pushed through Obamacare without
> allowing time for the public, or even Congress, to
> see what they were being sold, and pushed the
> drastic cost increases to the outyears when he
> will be long gone. Gay marriage was bad, then
> good. Climate change was an urgent problem; then,
> not so much. Hurricane cleanup by the feds was
> great for a photo op, but the suffering exposed
> the next day was the fault of everyone else.
> Benghazi was the fault of an obscure film maker,
> then it was not.
>
> The same presumption of gullibility has infused
> his misleading commercials (see: Everything is
> Bush's fault) and his refusal to lay out an agenda
> for a second term. Mr. Obama promised to improve
> his Affordable Care Act but never said how. He
> promised an alternative to Mitt Romney's budget
> plan to reduce the deficit, but never deigned to
> describe it.
>
> And then there has been his chronic, baldly
> dishonest defense of mathematically impossible
> Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid costs. He
> promised to cut income tax rates without exploding
> the deficit — but he refused to say how he could
> bring that off. When challenged, he cited
> “studies” that he maintained proved him right.
> But the studies were a mix of rhetoric,
> unrealistic growth projections and more serious
> economics that actually proved him wrong.
>
> This last is important — maybe the crux of the
> next four years. History has shown that it’s a
> lot easier to increase spending than to cut
> federal programs. Democratic Presidents Bill
> Clinton and Jimmy Carter promised to do both,
> managed to do only the first and (with plenty of
> help from Congress) greatly failed on the second.
>
> Now President Obama promises finally to balance a
> budget by increasing income tax rates only on the
> so-called rich, which include the small businesses
> that employ forty percent of Americans. To do so,
> he would reduce other spending — unspecified —
> and take away deductions — unspecified. One of
> the studies he cited said the President could make
> the tax math work by depriving every household
> earning $100,000 or more of all of its charitable
> deductions, mortgage-interest deductions and
> deductions for state and local income taxes. Even
> Governor Romney rejected this wild analysis.
>
> Does President Obama favor increasing other taxes?
> He won’t say. But he does take issue with
> accepting any responsibility for the ongoing
> economic malaise. High unemployment: not his
> fault. Jobs moving overseas: not his fault. Green
> energy companies failing after taking hundreds of
> millions of tax dollars: not his fault.
>
> Within limits, all candidates say and do what they
> have to say and do to win. President Obama also
> has dodged serious interviews and news
> conferences. He has offered few specifics for a
> second-term agenda. He aired commercials that
> distorted his opponent’s statements.
>
> But President Obama has a record; voters know his
> priorities. His first two years in office he
> controlled both houses of Congress and could do
> whatever he wanted. He failed. His budget plan
> is inadequate, and will make things worse.
>
> Mr. Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that
> voters have memories of the past four years, real
> arithmetic skills and seek the ability to look
> behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday
> prove him right.

You actually wasted hours and hours of your life to write this drivel? Sad

Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You actually wasted hours and hours of your life
> to write this drivel? Sad


This single forum posting is going to win it all for Romney. Don't you libtards get it? We sit in front of our TV watching Fox and Friends all day being told we will all die if Obama gets another 4 years.

Just ask patriotic Clint Eastwood, he'll tell you this country won't survive another 4 years.

Join me and Katy and Natalie Portman at the Belagio for the crab leg buffet!

more like "All 'bout ignorance".............
Attachments: