The problem with Obama's anti-Romney campaigning

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Obama campaign has been targeting Romney viciously and unfairly over the last few weeks over his business career. Should I point out that Obama was a lawyer, which are much more disdained than businessmen? We'll leave that for another time.

What Obama is doing is exactly the thing that fires up the crazy "birthers" and the claims that he is a socialist or a communist.

He is attacking capitalism. He is attacking business. Business is capitalism. AMERICA is a capitalistic society. Remember, just over 20 short years ago, we would have had a nuclear war to prevent (or attempt to prevent) the loss of our capitalistic society. Now, we have a President who is blatantly and immorally attacking capitalism, capitalistic careers, ideas, ect.

Then you wonder why the crazies begin to call him a communist or socialist.

If it fires up the birther crazies and rallies them to Romney, well that's Obama's objective achieved. And he's not attacking capitalism, he's attacking those who abuse capitalism - big difference.

You just don't do that. What do you say about the boom of the 1980s? Do you attack the so-called corporate raiders and "hostel" takeovers (eye-roll) or do you consider them part of the 80s economic success machine?

You admit that the 80s economic success machine ran on smoke and mirrors and bullsh**t.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The possibility exists that the world may not now be and may not twenty-nine years ago have been entirely divided into Ronald Reagans and Command and Conquer villains.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

hould I point out that Obama was a lawyer, which are much more disdained than businessmen? We'll leave that for another time.

Well, clearly the fact that FDR, LBJ, and Nixon had gone to law school made them go down in flames in the 1936, 1964, and 1972 elections.

According to his bio, LBJ went "briefly" to Georgetown law school in 1934 while working as a secretary to Rep. Richard Kleberg (D-TX).

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

Yeah, LBJ was definitely a schoolteacher first and lawyer not really at all.

Regardless, a plurality of Presidents, perhaps a majority (I can check if anyone really wants to pursue this or cares), have come from a legal background. People hate lawyers like John Edwards, and with good reason. People don't necessarily hate lawyers like Richard Nixon (well, before certain events, anyway) or Barack Obama.

Similarly, people can like businessmen like Herbert Hoover (well, before certain events, anyway) and George W. Bush (to an extent), but might not necessarily like businessmen like Mitt Romney.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obama was a constitutional law professor at Harvard.

No, he wasn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not.

Who was it who said, "It's not that our friends on the Left know so little; it's that they know so much that simply isn't so"?


Well, whoever said it, truer words were never spoken.

According to the University itself, yes Obama was a professor, just not a full-time one.

Really?  At Harvard?  You may want to fact-check that again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've heard Romney brag several times about the number of bills he vetoed in Mass.  Of course, a lot of those were overridden and not a few of them were probably "just for show" for the presidential campaigns he expected to run.  Anyway, the point is that Romney is NOT basing his presidential qualifications only on the work he did at Bain.

Not 'only', but certainly 'primarily', as Massachusetts knows him as our third (or fourth depending on the numeration of Jane Swift) flagrantly disinterested and in the end absentee Republican governor in a row.