Las Vegas Sun

February 28, 2015

Currently: 61° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

GOP attacks aren’t having right effect

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

I don’t understand why the more the opposition attacks the president, the more popular he gets and the better his numbers. It looks like 70 million or 80 million voters will make another mistake and give this guy four more years to destroy our country. Maybe a great offense and no defense (facts) isn’t the way to win.

Keep on believing it and you will end up electing some other “radical progressive” to continue the deterioration further.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 38 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Let's grant for sake of argument that Romney does in fact have the right message (however badly expressed at times.) The reason it is not being accepted is because that he, like President Obama, does not offer a real prescription to implement the cure to what ails us.

    Both of them describe the symptoms, but that is all they can do. They treat the economy like the common cold. Take two aspirin (two Advil and three shots of Scotch is better) and hope you can tolerate your condition until it improves.

    All things being equal, people tend to prefer the devil they know. It is exactly the same as in 2004 when the Bush campaign basically won with the idea that you don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

  2. The attacks did not have the intended effect because they are based on ignorance, arrogance, and lies. The Romney campaign itself claimed they are not concerned of the facts. The 47% claim was never "fact-checked" or they would have found who belonged to that group. Calling these people as moochers who only want free food, health care, and handouts was an outright insult. It was an attack on the very core of American values of hard-work, freedom, and self-sufficiency. It was a failure in understanding socio-economic ramifications influenced by domestic and world-wide leadership, political, and societal behaviors. It was a failure in understanding causal relationships of these factors.

    Such comments disqualify him to lead this country because it was insular, uncouth, and divisive. It gave people a "window" to his soul and entirely opposite to his claims of being a devout Christian who donates millions to charity. My personal interpretation is this: Most churches support charity - the poor - and he donates to his church, yet he despises these people his church is helping as being moochers?

    That is why after that comment, Obama surged in the polls. No millions in advertisements can change people's opinion of him and what he really is during unguarded moments.

  3. In my opinion, there is only one thing that would give an opponent a real chance to defeat President Obama...and even that might not work. It is called the full truth... something our politicians just don't provide.

    The full truth is that we cannot exit the financial and economic path we are on 'just' with more government spending and higher taxes on the rich (Obama) or 'just' by granting more tax cuts (Romney). Those of us that can do math know this. Our debt and deficits are too big now for those prescriptions to work. They are 'very' incomplete solutions and they both equate to fantasies.

    If you doubt this, move your eyes away from the 'eye candy' offered (tax cuts for all!!!, no higher taxes on anybody but the evil rich!!!, more government largess for everyone!!!) and look for the 'meat' of each man's plan.... reductions in spending? What is there is woefully inadequate and with little detail, because that's the 'tough' and 'unpopular' part. Without that, these plans are worthless.

    A combination (over time and not all at once) of increased taxes on everyone and some real tough to shallow spending cuts are absolutely necessary. We are not large enough or rich enough to have America do everything it does around the world and provide everything it provides at home. We never were, but we did it all anyway and financed most of it, just like many foolish Americans do in their personal lives every day. Something eventually has to give.

    No matter who wins in November, if that guy cannot find it in himself to tell the whole ugly truth to Americans and ask us to share in some real tough decisions, 'events' will guide us and our children down a road to an ugly future.

    You can 'say' if we just do these few simple things and that nobody has to sacrifice much at all, that everything will be fine a million times, but that doesn't make it true.


  4. It just proves it's not what Romney says to people who might be unsure of him or disagree with him. It's what he says in the safety of a room full of supporters paying $50,000 a plate that tells us who he really is.

  5. Answer is simple letter writer. Liberal democrat mainstream media is biased toward President Obama. The GOP is not attackingh, it's stating the truth and facts. Obama got a huge blank slate in 2008 and still gets a free pass for his all shortcomings and failings. Voters have to be smart enough to know the difference and make a difference. They are, despite what the mainstream media says and does.


  6. Jim,

    Can we please be honest enough to admit that politicians, all of them, say what they feel they need to say, to the audience they are speaking to. Politicians, all of them, lie for a living. Romney already got $ 50,000 from each attendee but obviously hoped to get more. What better way to get more than to say that only a small portion of the electorate is really up for grabs so I need your money to help me get them to vote for me.

    Do you really believe that Obama or any politician doesn't say things to donors that they would 'never' say in public, in order to further the goal of obtaining money?

    If you don't vote for Romney and vote for Obama due to their 'public' philosophy and proposals, fine. But if any of us were privy to what our favored candidate said in private fundraisers, we'd all think he or she was the biggest hypocrite on the face of the planet.

    Romney might believe what he said in that fundraiser... or not. Obama might believe what he says in private fundraisers...or not. The bottom line is that all say what they need to say to raise money. That's the game they all play.


  7. Michael - OK, so who do YOU vote for? The one that lies the least? The notion that politicians would lie to their most ardent supporters and tell the rest of us the truth is the triumph of optimism over experience. I'm a middle class populist that believes a prosperous country begins with a prosperous middle class and the best candidate is the one that understands and acts toward that interest. Clearly, Mitt Romney is not that guy.

  8. Using truth as the standard for politicians to follow, how does President Obama and his high level appointees, Sec. Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, etc., reconcile their positions to the American people for the last 3 weeks about the murders of AMB Stevens and his security detail? Terrorism or video protest?

    Do they [President Obama and his Admin] and the mainstream liberal media really believe all Americans, regardless of their lot in life, are buying what they are selling? Where's the polls surveying Americans about this?

    One word: Debates.


  9. ASadTeacher appears to be hypersensitive and idealistic. Romney was attempting to tell his donars who he could count on to vote for him.
    He did write off 47% of the votes,which is about the correct number. He was focused on the wrong 47%,however, who are instead the 100 million who are on Welfare(jobless, food stamp recipients, and those on Medicaid). Why would these folks vote for Romney when their bread is being buttered by federal handouts.

    Regardless of the fact that America's economy and our Middle East
    policy are in virtual shambles, the American
    people on balance appear to be satisfied with the Obama administration's
    performance contrasted to the policies and leadership that Governor
    Romney would bring to the nation. Obviously Americans overall are not
    in enough pain to agree to a change in the way the nation's business is
    being conducted. That at least is the current state of the polls.

    America refuses to change until it is in enough personal pain to make
    required adjustments. It appears that an eight year cycle may be
    needed to stimulate the majority of Americans to alter course. Four
    more years of failed and futile policies and an absentee leader may
    just be what America requires before it has had enough. Will it be too
    late to recover by that time? Millions are betting it will.

    Republican pundits such as Karl Rove will tell you that the polls are
    not accurate. That Romney is still in the running. But one thing seems
    clear and that is that to be leading in the polls would seem to more
    advantageous than trailing in them. And that's the situation in which
    Obama finds himself. In the final analysis before America changes it
    must be terribly weary of its existing conditions,and it does not
    appear to be at that point yet.

  10. Jim,

    As I have said, there are only two major candidates and if we vote we must pick one. You pick Obama, which is fine. My point is that what any candidate says in a private fundraiser should not be the 'basis' of anyone's decision.

    I have little to argue with Obama on the bailouts and stimulus because I think most of it was necessary. Here's my problem, and it exists with Romney as well:

    We borrow or print 40 % of what we spend. We can't fix that with tax cuts or increased taxes on the wealthy. We have to start spending less. Obama won't do that and I doubt Romney will either.

    Americans like their lives for the most part and that is because they only pay 60 % of all the taxes required to pay for what they get. If Americans had to pay for everything we are currently provided, I can assure you that we'd decide we don't want some of what we are provided badly enough to pay for it.

    That's the decision any new President should force on us. In my opinion, there is zero chance Obama will do that. With Romney, I would estimate 5 % chance. That tells you who I'll vote for, but it will be with my nose held tightly shut.


  11. Mr. Casler et al:

    Any chance, regardless of how small, is better than no chance at all.


  12. Clifford Allen, Why would you vote for Mitt Romney?

    What is Romney's plan for America?

    Clifford Allen, what you are seeing is the reasonable America coming to the table. The informed America is making their voice heard loud and clear.

    Independent moderate voters will decide this election. This poster has said it from the beginning, the Independent Voter will decide this election. I am an informed independent voter who regularly communicates with many, many other independent voters. We are confident that once you do your homework, any reasonable person will make the correct choice on November 6, 2012. The President will be re-elected, re-election by 6 to 8 points.

  13. The way of thinking in this letter is the exact reason why the entire Tea/Republican Party is going to get crushed on November 6, 2012.

    In the past three and a half years, America has tried to recover from the past eight years of policies of a confirmed totally incompetent President, culminating in the economic crash of 2007/2008 where America lost just about twenty percent of its wealth.

    The progress back is slow. Not only because of the devastation, but because the Tea/Republican Party stands in the way of every piece of legislation which would help our recovery.

    Everybody can see that the Romney/Ryan ticket, along with the crop of rabid howling ultra-conservatives of the Tea/Republican Party that infest the House and the Senate, if they get bigger, will completely destroy the middle class of this country. Not only that, but our chances of recovery will never be achieved. How exactly do you strive for economic recovery if you want to go back to the same politics/policies that got us into this mess? Can't happen. Won't EVER happen. It's snake oil. I'm not buying.

    I really, really do encourage more letters like this to be published in newspapers all across this great country.

    Because it will surely lead the average American to get out there and vote to speed up the complete and utter destruction of this abomination called the Tea/Republican Party.

  14. Carmine,

    I agree with your statement, although it is incredible that such is the case, given our circumstances. It is soooooo obvious that we cannot and have not been able to afford to spend what we have spent for a long time.

    No matter how rich one is, it is possible to spend more than you have.... and America has done it. We need someone brave enough to say that ... and to really start to reduce the spending, while growing the economy.


  15. Michael - I think we have a better choice than between SLIM and NONE.

    It's hard to believe that only 12 years ago we were enjoying a Federal Budget surplus and staring at the possiblity of eliminating the Federal Debt before 2010. It makes me wonder if, in some parallel universe, 480 voters in Florida changed their vote in the 2000 election. Every vote is important.

  16. Jim,

    What is accepted as fact during Clinton's time is often stated without the other factors at work.

    Both Clinton and Gingrich did good work during that time, but we were in the tech and dot com boom during those years and we had much less military involvement around the world because tensions were generally lower. The government was still spending much more than it should have been. We could afford it during that period because of the factors I mentioned, and when those 'other' factors changed, we did not change our spending or taxing habits. Both parties were responsible for that.

    That has led us to today. With all the new fossil fuel energy we now have access to, we might be able to partially re-create the dot com boom of the 90's , but I don't see that happening under Obama. Without that or some unforeseen rocket booster for the economy, we will be forced to cut government spending, just like we are now seeing in Spain and Italy. I'd just like us to start now instead of foolishly waiting until our situation is much worse.

    Neither guy is talking about this and that is why I see it as SLIM and NONE.

    We know what happened after Bush won in 2000. We really have no idea what would have happened had Gore won.


  17. And Jim... there is little need for you to worry or try to change a vote or two to Obama. Unless the polls are completely wrong or something major changes in the next 40 days, Obama will win this election.

    Then, we will all find out just what he will do in facing down the financial armagedden that faces our country.


  18. Give George Bush the six trillion dollars that Obama has spent in the past three plus years, to use to recover this economy and we would be much better off with George W. and his leadership compared to the Obama administration. We would be getting the straight truth on where we stand, have a tougher national security posture and job recovery would have improved. We would have a national energy policy friendly to oil production, and someone who respected American values and an unapologetic foreign's disgusting to hear the left hammer Bush when their own president is such a distinctive failure and is leading America down the wrong path.

  19. So, let's imagine that Mr. Romney decided now to tell us the Truth (whatever that is) and laid out a Plan, supported by details, of how he would fix the economy. Would anyone believe it? Or would most people dismiss it as just another Romney position of the moment which he would later deny, disavow or contradict (as he has so many times before)? Etch-A-Sketch, anyone?

    Aren't Mr. Romney's biggest problems: (1) no one really knows what his core beliefs might be, since he has shifted them back and forth many times to suit, (2) he reads as "phony" as he body language and visual clues do not match what they would be if he were sincere, and (3) no trace of his alleged competence as an executive is visible in any aspect of his campaign?

  20. "Give George Bush the six trillion dollars that Obama has spent in the past three plus years, to use to recover this economy and we would be much better off with George W. and his leadership compared to the Obama administration. "

    The GOP trip to Fantasyland continues without a fact in their heads...

    It's W's policies of lax regulation that caused the financial meltdown in the first place. As banks leveraged themselves into oblivion with the SEC relaxing it's rules, W. spent his time relaxing on his Texas ranch. As banks put TRILLIONS into credit default swaps and derivative schemes, W. pressed for tax cuts which ballooned the debt. As the housing market bubble continued to inflate, W. did NOTHING to stop it.

    And now these jokers want you to believe that if W. was in charge, everything would be great?

    As for the "we have to spend less now!" crowd, why don't they ever cop to the consequences of drastically cutting federal spending in the middle of an economic turnaround? Are they really so naive to believe it would have no effect?

    The reality is that if the government drastically cut spending, our economy would IMMEDIATELY contract. Further, had the government not stepped in and spent when the crisis happened, things would be levels of magnitude worse than they are now. That's the reality they don't tell you when they whine about government spending. Without a higher level of spending, more people would be unemployed, there would have been even less demand in the market, and we could've fallen into a depression.

    They also don't bother to mention that the deficit is both a spending AND a revenue problem. Naturally, as the economy struggles and people are laid off, expenditures increase. Social safety net spending increases and government revenues decrease.

    Most reasonable people understand this. That's why Romney's attacks, at least the ones blamed on the economy and spending, have no traction.

  21. ONLY ONE POLL MATTERS: Nov 6, 2012. All the rest are filler.


  22. Future et al:

    It is self-evident to thinking Americans the reason President Obama by Executive Order eliminated the requirements of welfare to work rules. This is a law heralded and praised with bipartisan support in 1996, and since, and signed into law by President Clinton with sterling words of favor. Reason: In Obama's second term there would no complaints when welfare recipients are taken off the rolls because there are no jobs. Of course the BIG IF, second term.


  23. Leric,

    Romney's run a poor campaign and any fair analysis says that loud and clear. I doubt if he will win the election. That should not be the point here.

    There were several things Obama did to pull us back from the financial cliff. They were not executed as well as they could have been but he did do them.

    We also cannot make large spending cuts in a fragile economy without risking a depression.

    However, in my opinion, it would be prudent (whether 'man made' global warming is a reality or not) to go all out in developing and using all our fossil fuel resources, along with the funding of green energy research. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, President Obama has not done that and will not do it in a second term. This is the one area that could really spur the economy without adding hugely to the debt. The President also shows no interest in really getting serious about finding ways to reduce government spending or in raising taxes on all Americans. None of this could happen quickly or we'd go into a depression, but it does need to should have started already.

    I am not a big supporter of Romney nor am I someone that says everything that Obama has done is wrong, but the three things I think are vitally important going forward are things that the President has said and demonstrated that he will not do.

    I cannot support the man for those reasons.


  24. As long as people who seem to believe all the lies and distortations that both parties say about one another and vote that way.Then we will continue to have the same kind on advertised nonsense, election after election.

  25. Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling

  26. Thanks, Michael. That is one way to decide. Unfortunately, it is not one I will follow because I don't see Mr. Romney as either principled, or truthful, or reliable.

  27. Leric,

    I realize that you'll vote for Obama, but could you give me your opinion on the things I've mentioned as necessary?



  28. Obama and his death-wish / suicide prone "support" systems. Spend your way to an overdose. Result: starvation and bankruptcy.

  29. Mr. Allen asked, "I don't understand why the more the opposition attacks the president, the more popular he gets and the better his numbers?"

    The answer is very simple. Mitt Romney along with the GOP have followed the lemmings over the edge of reason and sanity. The party was pulled so far right that stable minded, reasonable voters, are getting a peak into the padded cells of the loonie bin. The crazies have hijacked the party and most people are very uncomfortable about it happening. It's a repeat of the sixties when the GOP was hijacked by the John Birch Society, and that incident damaged the GOP for years.

    A classic example of the insanity permeating the GOP has to do with right wing extremists whining about the polls, saying the numbers are fixed. Do they release Fox, The Wall St. Journal and other Murdoch owned media did the same polling and had the same results? It's no wonder conservative pundits such as Peggy Noonan, Bill Crystal and Charles Krauthammer are screaming about the failure of Mitt Romney's campaign. He should have tacked back toward the middle, but instead went further right. Wasn't that the plan when his advisor said it was the Etch a Sketch moment?

  30. Future - "Clearly Democrats are happy with Obama's Redistribution policies"

    What was that cliche about glass houses?

    "This welfare for the well-off -- costing billions of dollars a year -- is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations. We should never demonize those who are successful. Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs," Dr. Coburn said.

    These billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316 million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over $9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Additionally, millionaires borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college. On average, each year, this report found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion. As a result, almost 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009."

  31. Restore George W to the Whitehouse and give him the same $6 trillion which Obama was given,and the employment rate would be down to 6%,GDP would be 4%,national security would be strong, Our Libyan Ambassador and staff would still be alive, al Qaeda would not be on the upswing, there would not be 51 troops dead in Aghanistan at the hands of Afghan partners, the Canadian pipeline would be moving forward,we would be producing oil in the federal continental shelf,we would have a proactive middle east policy toward Israel,there would not be a coverup on Libya,our embassies would be protected,we would not be apologizing for America's greatness. The middle East would be treated as much more than a "bump in the road". Obama has been given much and accomplished little. Get him out of the Whitehouse in November.

  32. Vernos,

    Since it seems likely that President Obama will win re-election, let's look at the math that clearly shows that neither Romney's plan or Obama's plan will be successful without large government spending cuts.

    Let's say President Obama is willing and able to remove all the subsidies you mention above. $ 30 billion per year. Let's say he raises taxes on the wealthy to a whopping 67 %, as the NY Times suggested and that the rich sit here and take that (highly unlikely) and that brings in $ 400 billion per year. That's a total of $ 430 billion per year in additional revenue.

    Our yearly deficit is now $ 1.3 trillion, so if everything stayed as it is, our deficit would be at $ 870 billion dollars per a best case scenario.

    Now I happen to agree that a lot of giveaways to the wealthy should be removed and I also think the wealthy should pay higher taxes, although I find 67 % to be excessive.

    Here is the problem I have with both Obama and Romney. It's the math problem. The numbers don't work in Romney's plan but they don't work in Obama's either. Obama pledges he won't raise taxes on the middle class yet he details no 'real and substantial' cuts in government spending and instead pledges to have government spend even more.

    If he won't raise taxes on the middle class, wants to have government spend even more and doesn't detail any substantial cuts in government spending, how does he reach a balanced budget and start to pay down the debt?

    The media is all over Romney because his math doesn't work.... and they should be, but Obama's math doesn't work either and he gets a pass.

    The people that support Obama will cheer his re-election, but Vernos, the happiness isn't going to last. The darn Math just isn't going to allow these voodoo plans to work out when they don't include large government spending cuts.


  33. Without a great boost in growth in incomes,the revenues needed to cut the debt and deficit will be difficult to achieve. Hope for a nice recovery. Expenditure cuts are the most difficult for the sides to agree on. Relief in Social Security and Medicare will come from advancing the elgibility ages and increasing FICA contributions.

  34. I love BobJackHoustonJac's fever dream from Fantasyland. He clearly thinks that if George W. Bush were elected, the United States would be in perfect shape, with no enemies, no wars, a perfect economy, no taxes, etc.

    Unfortunately, BobJackHoustonJac forgets George W. Bush's actual legacy. Two wars, thousands of American troops killed in an unnecessary war, tremendous deficit spending, the single worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the worst recession since the Great Depression, the growth and burst of the real estate market, trillions in unregulated derivatives that threatened our entire economic system.

    BobJackHoustonjac may have amnesia, but the American people do not. We read your blithering fantasies and laugh.

  35. I read ksand's comments and I laugh back.Six trillion dollars later. An economy still plunged into a stubborn recession. 100 million people still on Welfare. The middle east in flames.Our Libyan Ambassodor and three embassy staff members murdered by al Qaeda, in an unprotected embassy.
    51 NATO soldiers dead in the past year murdered by their Afghan partners. Iran marching to a nuclear weapon that will destabilize the entire region, and threatens the world. Houses by the millions still underwater. 370,000 American leaving the job market in one month.Unemployment still above 8%.Raging gasoline prices. Bush faced up to terrorism, and kept America safe. Obama's apologetic foreign policy shames America across the globe. American weakness throughout the world is well known. The governmnent still has not delivered FBI agents to the Libyan site to investigate the tragic events at our embassy. Obama's leadership in areas critical to America's economic and global condition has been a disaster. Bush was a far better leader for advancing American interests at home and globally. Obama's failed leadership is sinking American interests everywhere.

  36. "Posters such as Carmine, have convinced themselves that "mittens" will turn things around once the debates takes place but that's not written in stone....Only the very desperate believe that....."

    No, those who know the history of presidential debates believe that...

    Hence the reason FDR refused to debate Wendell Willkie just one time in 1940, as Willkie, the GOP presidential nominee, challenged him to do.


  37. The electoral vote does not really care what the public thinks, so polls may have no value at all. The elction will be decided by about 9 states, about 20% of the voting population. There is still HOPE for CHANGE.

  38. I have NOT seen a single GOP attack of the President. I HAVE seen negative commentary about his performance, but not about him. Actually, many are complimentary of him but not his stance nor performance.