advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Romney, Ryan and Republican National Convention are highlights for GOP

Wednesday, September 5, 2012 | 4:39 p.m. CDT; updated 7:47 p.m. CDT, Thursday, September 6, 2012

COLUMBIA — By the time you read this, the Republican National Convention will be history — its pomp and oratory supplanted by the Democrats re-endorsement of President Barack Obama for another four years. The Founding Fathers were wise in making this a quadrennial affair — the four years between each state and territory "casting its votes for the next President of the United States" is a welcome respite.

A New York Times editorial saw fit to remind the nation that "Tropical Storm Isaac is more than just a logistical inconvenience for Republicans gathered in Tampa: It is a powerful reminder of Republican incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina seven years ago and the party's no-less-disastrous plans to further cut emergency-related spending."

In its usual "fair and balanced" mode, the Times failed to mention the utter incompetence of the first responders in their failure to activate an emergency response to the storm at the city (New Orleans) or state (Louisiana) level during Katrina in 2005. In lieu of ordering the evacuation of those in danger, former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a Democrat, relocated to Houston, leaving the 500 city and school buses he claimed to have in his emergency plan driverless and underwater.

Kathleen Blanco, then Louisiana's governor and also a Democrat, was urged by President George W. Bush on the Friday and again on the Saturday preceding Katrina's coming ashore to sign the authorization required for the federal government to legally come to the state's assistance.  Instead, Blanco decided if she invited federal assistance, it would appear that the  state had failed; accordingly, the political decision was not to ask for federal help.

There was also the Todd Akin inspired cloud over the convention as neither the pundits, nor Democrats nor GOP would permit it to go away. I won't attempt to excuse Mr. Akin for his utter ignorance under fire — a candidate for the U.S. Senate should be smart enough to stick to the politically sound "I am unapologetically pro-life" instead of venturing into areas in which he is unlearned.

It is easy to assume that Mr. Akin, the father of two daughters, acted in ignorance rather than with malice — however, once uttered, a politician's words are public domain. It is a pity, though, that Todd Akin's behavior did not mirror the same sensibility and respect for women oft demonstrated by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President Bill Clinton and Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.

The delay caused by Hurricane Isaac did not materially detract from the convention business. The speaking performances by Ann Romney, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, New Mexico Gov. Susan Martinez, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, Puerto Rico's first lady Luce Vela and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice effectively erased the myth of a Republican "war on women" among reasonable and thinking voters.

Ann Romney was particularly effective in bridging the wife and motherhood gap invented by the class warfare adherents by enumerating the commonalities of raising children and balancing household duties.  She also humanized the candidate. Rice electrified the crowd with her personal experiences, highlighting, without malice, the journey from segregation to positions as national security advisor and secretary of state for President George W. Bush.

Probably a victim of too high expectations, the convention's keynote address delivered by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was not the anticipated barnburner. Although well and convincingly delivered, it received mixed reviews with several critics opining that Mr. Christie appeared to be feathering his nest for 2016 rather than promoting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. I take this with a grain of salt — the keynote address's purpose is to promote the party, and Christie left no doubt as to the identity of the candidate.

Republican Party favorite, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, solidified his position as the GOP gold standard with a fiery and good-humored performance that earned standing ovations from an appreciative crowd. Throughout his speech, he alternated descriptions of his own vision of America, dovetailing it with the manner in which he and Romney would govern, and some good-natured and not so good-natured criticism of Obama.

Romney's acceptance speech was neither flashy nor self-aggrandizing — instead it accented the competent, confident and compassionate man recognized by those who know him best. He "humanized" himself by stressing the family values he learned in growing to manhood while opening the book on his own family, faith and love of country.

His discussion of his differences with his opponent were not personal, instead he registered disappointment for the nation that had embraced the hope and change offered by Obama that did not come to pass in the ensuing four years. Romney stuck to a theme of America first by taking care of the families whose love of freedom and work ethic are the bedrock of the nation.

Romney will never appear faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive nor able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. However, his record of near unblemished success in business and in governing promises that he can enter by the front door and do the job with which he is entrusted.

There is a choice on the November ballot — what is past is past. Do we choose charisma or do we opt for demonstrated competence?

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

hank ottinger September 5, 2012 | 8:35 p.m.

A fairly tepid review from the good Marine. Interesting, I think, that there was little if any mention of the wars during the convention, nor the plight of Colonel Miller's colleagues, i.e., active, retired, and injured soldiers; I would think the Colonel would be pulled up short by that, as well as little if any mention of foreign policy and what Mr. Romney would do differently from what President Obama has done. And how can any review of the R's convention highlights omit Mr. Eastwood's performance? And how come neither W. nor H.W. Bush were around, nor former Vice-President Cheney, nor General Powell, among other Republican luminaries?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons September 5, 2012 | 10:31 p.m.

Nice little speech from President Clinton tonight don't you think Colonel?

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 5, 2012 | 11:28 p.m.

I thought President Clinton did a very fine job as would be expected. There is a nobility of numbers that both sides can use selectively to make their point. Some of his seemed to be at odds with what has been in the newspapers lately; but, those seem to change more than the wind and depending on the newspaper's leanings. Didn't he say they had a plan to erase four trillion in debt over a decade? If that is so, that means it will take a decade to cover 4/5 of debt the current administration amassed in just 3.5 years. Well, in two months we'll know which feet need be held to the fire to bring this country out of fiscal mess we're in.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote September 5, 2012 | 11:54 p.m.

I would say that Obama has been very competent in his first term. One can assess the presidency by any number of different metrics, but job growth in the private sector is surely an important one. Using this metric Obama has far exceeded the previous presidency in generating private sector growth:
http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.c...
The Romney-Ryan ticket offers the very same policies that were in place for the 6 years preceding the economic collapse and coincided with the weakest job growth since Herbert Hoover.
Perhaps Mr. Miller could specify the area in which Mr. Obama has not "demonstrated competence". Admittedly besting the previous president is a low hurdle, but I fail to recall any columns by Mr. Miller questioning the competency of the Bush administration. It is also unclear why he would endorse a ticket that would embrace the Bush era economic policies that not only led to anemic job growth but also "built" a substantial deficit.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 6, 2012 | 6:37 a.m.

In either case, the only credible choice then is President Obama.

The Good Colonel: "There is a choice on the November ballot — what is past is past. Do we choose charisma or do we opt for demonstrated competence?"

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 6, 2012 | 6:56 a.m.

Colonel, you'll have to remind of your factual basis for this statement; sources, please:

"In lieu of ordering the evacuation of those in danger, former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a Democrat, relocated to Houston, leaving the 500 city and school buses he claimed to have in his emergency plan driverless and underwater."

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 6, 2012 | 8:44 a.m.

B. Brandon - "you'll have to remind of your factual basis for this statement; sources, please:"

I can help here, check any news source in the country! Pictures of the buses should be readily available. Were you somewhere else, during this period in time?

Oh wait! I should have stipulated any Reliable news source. There are those which may have overlooked the show of total incompetence of the Democrat Mayor, Governor and a Senator.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking September 6, 2012 | 9:35 a.m.

Here's a timeline of Katrina, and nowhere does it say that Nagin left New Orleans.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/projects/hom...

Response to the storm was lackluster and incompetent, but that has nothing to do with party affiliation. Nagin's and Blanco's party affiliation is irrelevant here.

DK

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 6, 2012 | 10:40 a.m.

Mr Foote,

You seem to be at odds with the Democratic Party's talking points with your allegation: "The Romney-Ryan ticket offers the very same policies that were in place for the 6 years preceding the economic collapse and coincided with the weakest job growth since Herbert Hoover." The Obama administration, the Democratic spin meisters and the main stream media all accuse Romney/Ryan of failing to offer any plan/policies at all. Perhaps you could offer the source of your information to the above.

As for demonstrated competency by President Obama, have you looked at the unemployment percentage, the failure of new hires to stimulate sufficient growth to keep pace with that required to break even, that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 700,000 less people employed that there were on Inauguration Day 2009? Oh, and let's not forget the 5 trillion plus dollar deficit increase run up in less than four years.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, George W Bush is not and has not been President for nearly four years. Inasmuch as the "Bush Recession" was declared over in the summer of 2009, I believe that dead horse has been beaten long enough. I realize that blaming Bush is still President Obama's "Linus Blanket:" however, it is time for the rest of the country to move on.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote September 6, 2012 | 11:44 a.m.

@Mr. Miller,
Regressive Tax cuts coupled with spending cuts to programs that benefit the disadvantaged and reduced regulations in all areas of the economy has been the standard Republican economic platform for the last 30 years.
As to job growth, it is curious that you would include both private sector and public sector jobs in your analysis. There has been a substantial reduction in the public sector workforce, i.e. the public sector has lost approximately 600,000 jobs since Obama was inaugurated. I thought reducing the public work-force was universally embraced as sound economic policy for all card carrying conservatives.

As to bringing up Bush, I was helpfully pointing out that the team you have deemed competent is advancing the exact same economic policies that were in place during 2001-2008. Is it my fault that your team has embraced economic policies from an era of historically poor economic performance, when he-who-must-not-be-named was president? Perhaps you would prefer to pick a different era for evaluating the effectiveness of Team Romney's economic policies. If so please identify one in which large tax cuts coupled with deregulation and reduced spending led to substantial economic growth. (In all fairness, the Bush era lacked the spending cuts. Perhaps that was all that was needed to spur growth?)
Note that 1993-2000, in which 22 million private sector jobs were created, began with tax increases that your team described in apocalyptic terms.
Before you mention the Reagan era, keep in mind that the non-mythical Reagan was a Keynsian through and through and greatly increased government spending to spur economic growth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinio...
Following large tax cuts, he also than raised taxes numerous times (the horror! the horror!).
I look forward to your enlightening response.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 3:28 p.m.

The economy under President George W. Bush did not begin to tank until one year after the Democrats took over the House and Senate on January 2, 2007. Until then we had what appeared to be a robust economy. This illusion was foisted upon us by the Democrats who forced lenders to make home loans to people who couldn't afford them. When confronted by the financial precariousness of the situation, Democrats Frank and Dodd denied there were any problems at all. Of course this is all on youtube video. At least three times they were warned. Couple that with the tens of millions of dollars in unearned bonuses given to Democrats Raines, Johnson, Gorelick, Moses and others based on cooked books which falsified performances at Freddie and Fannie, and you had the perfect recipe for a domino effect to the economy for collapse. Why the Bush administration did not prosecute these individuals is a mystery to me.

Civics 101 teaches us that all spending bills originate in the House. President Bush could not sign any bill during the last two years of his presidency that were not approved by a Democrat controlled House and Senate. So trying to lay the financial problems inherited by President Obama on President Bush isn't going to fly when the facts are given. The only blame I have for Republicans is they did not force a fix to the situation when it was known to them. But then very few in the industry and Wall Street were clamoring about it either. And the public in general was pretty ignorant regarding bundling and derivatives. The hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in my personal portfolio is adequate proof of that.

Further, President Obama controlled 100% of a filibuster proof congress for his first two years. President Reagan inherited a far worse economy from Jimmy Carter. And Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for all four years of Carter's administration. The financial problems of the country inherited by President Obama were virtually non existent when compared with Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan came into office with an unemployment rate just one tenth of one percent less than President Obama.

However, President Reagan, while never controlling the House during his entire administration, produced dramatic results in improving the economy in just three years.

While Democrats will whine and blame, this economy is 100% Democrat. The 2010 elections showed the voters know this. So will the elections this November.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 3:30 p.m.

I thought it amusing to hear President Clinton recall what the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence regarding "our sacred honor". That's the last phrase that should have come out of his mouth. But it does reflect the arrogance of the man and his party.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 6, 2012 | 4:06 p.m.

Isn't it obvious by now, that a significant number of "fact check" websites are in themselves political? What is needed is a Paul Harvey (RIP), that can say: "Now, for the rest of the story!"

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 6, 2012 | 4:30 p.m.

The late great Vern Gross (RIP), America's number one professor of system safety, and President of the Tustin Institute of Technology (CA) wrote a paper 30 years ago. It was titled "The Emperor Wore No Clothes". It was a classic of how numbers could be manipulated to prove a point. It demonstrated how you could use the same numbers to show your were doing well, or not doing well, depending on how you presented them. Regardless of what the Democratic persons do, you can't throw away the fact, that on the beginning of the DNC convention, debt went to 16 trillion, the USA was again downgraded on international credit rating, and persons applying for food stamps reached an all time high. A strange time to claim success and creation of jobs....don't you think?

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 6, 2012 | 4:39 p.m.

Mark F.- Nagin's move to Houston as I recall was personal. It was reported widely, but all I can find on google and yahoo is this in the sub sentences or whatever they are called below a story about Nagin being interviewed on Katrina: "Step 1. Move to a penthouse in a Houston.." You have read about the submerged buses I'm sure.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 4:46 p.m.

The first two years of the Clinton administration, Democrats controlled all of the congress. With the passage of the massive tax hikes by the Clinton administration, the economy was very anemic. Only after the GOP took over the House on January 2, 1995 did the economy pick up. And that was because the GOP House forced a substantial slowing (NO CUTS) in the growth of government. This, followed by the GOP gaining control of both the House and Senate with the 1996 elections brought yet further controls on the growth (again, no cuts) in government spending. The economy exploded. The only thing President Clinton contributed was his signature to GOP bills.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 6, 2012 | 5:19 p.m.

Skip - Mr. Foote is an Ace at collecting derogatory numbers as you have shown and then attributing them to the perpetrator of his choice. As with Reagan, neither he nor Krugman, his guru, can afford to mention Tip O'Neill and his Democrat Congress which lied to Reagan at least twice. (They had promised to reduce spending with the tax cuts they agreed to, but as we know they spent more, not less, and he signed a bill raising taxes with closing of loop holes in the code. with the understanding that a multiple of spending cuts would accompany every tax dollar that came in from the loop hole closing. He has stated the new taxes came as expected, but "I have never seen a dimes worth of spending cuts".) Having been around in those days, but not into "computer land" until lately, I was thunderstruck at the false information, abundant, on Reagan, conservatives and the "hated" United States. These are the people that have falsified our history at every turn.

Can't imagine how Foote will deny the debt, downgrade and food stamps, but my bet is, he will think of something.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote September 6, 2012 | 5:48 p.m.

@Frank,

You are a Missourian treasure. Sometimes I wonder if you are not a gifted comedic writer, a la Andy Kaufman, parodying the ridiculous fact free agitprop emanating from the right-wing noise machine.
What numbers have been misattributed to Saint Ronnie?
With respect to the debt, the majority of it over the last 4 years is due to the recession. A distant second are the tax cuts. A distant 3rd are stimulus measures. Obama's addition to the deficit has been solely in response to the Great Recession. A sizable portion of that was tax cuts. Absent spending to right the economy, which was temporary and therefore does not continually add to the deficit, what new spending has Obama (and congress) added to the deficit? Please elaborate so I might reevaluate might assessment of Obama. As it stands now, I don't view him as a big spender and do not think he is responsible for the lion's share of the debt which has accumulated since his inauguration.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 6:14 p.m.

I must research this. I'd swear Nagin went to Dallas, and not Houston.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 6, 2012 | 7:22 p.m.

Frank....

It is very much all about what we think America should be...and the fiscal condition this country is in. I am at great odds with the socialist/Democrat position..apparently. I have traveled the world many times and discussed this country with counterparts in foreign lands. I have also lived in several as a resident...Spain, Japan, Austria, and BWI (St. Lucia). I just think they, and many are my friends, just don't understand the importance of this country as a leader in the free world....and the significance of the Office of the President of the United States. Nor do I think President Obama understands that...being he dislikes our arrogance, etc. That being said, I am also one which a card-carrying, loyal socialist, new Democrat should despise: Old white male, conservative, Republican, heterosexual, and military. And, of course, for them, based on the on-going convention, I am a also a racist and at war with vagina's.......:-)

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 6, 2012 | 8:59 p.m.

Thank you Skip! I represent little or few of the experience and achievements you profess except those last, which now are presented as reason for one to doubt, by the progressive liberals. We are the ones who know the truth, as opposed to the liberal lie.

Mr. Foote, now asks for more times than most could remember. "What numbers have been misattributed" to R. Reagan? That he would ask this after reading my above is a wonder, but allows another chance to rectify the liberal lie. Much of "his" spending was in truth, was for our defense. After the D' Frank Church committee of the U.S. Senate (destroyed our world wide intelligence network) and the Carter decimation of our defense in general, Reagan had to rebuild what had been torn down. This was grudgingly admitted by the Keynesian, Krugman.

", he also than raised taxes numerous times (the horror! the horror!)." The last, I believe Foote and Krugman, (should make Chris proud)can identify as wild Keynesian spending would be from the Committee he promised to form to save SS from insolvency. This issue cost this newspaper my subscription. Daily, daily (no Fox News), we all got the effort to scare seniors to death. "Reagan wants to destroy social security for our old people!" This because he formed the bipartisan committee to save SS that he had promised in his campaign. No Fox News, none of us knew that the Democrat Congress was spending that money collected "off budget" The committee decided to raise the SS pay roll tax. That has now, according to Foote, his guru and the other liberal economic experts, become another Reagan Tax Hike!

I'm tired, I'll address your Obama crap later, unless someone else sticks a finger in your dike.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 6, 2012 | 9:15 p.m.

Don M. - Re the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

"The only blame I have for Republicans is they did not force a fix to the situation when it was known to them"

I found at least four major legislative attempts by W. Bush and J. McCain to stop the heinous lending rules put into practice by 1993 Democrats. All were killed in the U.S. Senate by Democrats.

Bush wanted to put Fannie and Freddie under the Treasury Dept. I doubt he had thought of "Timmy" Geithner as Sec.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons September 6, 2012 | 9:48 p.m.

Ahhhhhhh Frank, Colonel et al...didn't you just love John Kerry's speech tonight? And President Clinton's last night? Colonel, I look forward to your column describing the highlights of THIS week's convention. Let's not fall into the trap of splitting hairs about where Mayor Nagin rested his weary head or what taxes President Reagan increased.........this is Convention time! And as John Kerry just uttered so memorably......."Ask Osama Bin Laden whether he's better off now than he was 4 years ago". Wonderful stuff! The President is speaking now so excuse me while I sit and smile.........

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 9:51 p.m.

Frank, they didn't try hard enough.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 6, 2012 | 10:08 p.m.

Mark, try this about Nagin and Dallas: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa...

It's not a right wing blog. It's from the June, 2006 issue of Vanity Fair.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 6, 2012 | 10:30 p.m.

STEVE: I have to smile when you talk about John Kerry. I knew him when he was an Ensign on one of the ships I flew off of (I flew North SAR over PAK 6, North Vietnam). I think it was the USS Mahan, but not sure. He was a nice young officer and talked normally. Then next, I saw him on TV, as an ex-Lieutenant, with 3 purple hearts after a few months in the South, talking to Congress, in his utilities, and sounding like JFK in that JFK brogue, wearing the medals he supposedly threw over the White House fence. At the convention tonight, he again talked normally. Despite marrying into money, divorcing the first one to marry into yet more money, he just didn't realize his dream of becoming the next JFK. I know nothing of his work with CTF 116, the Riverine forces....leave that up to those that discredit his heroics there. I don't follow him, he may be doing very good things as a Senator; but, in my mind, he is hardly a man of personal integrity.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 6, 2012 | 10:44 p.m.

As long as I'm running away with thoughts, you all have to admit that no commentator brings more interesting and lengthy comments than Karl Miller. I particularly liked the guy that called him Colonel Klink and made an avatar of him in a German uniform. I wonder if most of you know what tremendous tenacity of purpose it takes to be (before the invasion of political correctness) a Colonel of Marines......???

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 1:25 a.m.

Who inherited a bad economy?

All figures are based on the end of the third calendar year in office.

President Reagan came in with a 12.6% rate of inflation
President Obama came in with a 1.7% rate of inflation

President Reagan came in with a 11.8% 30 year fixed mortgage
President Obama came in with a 3.25% 30 year fixed mortgage

President Reagan came in with a 21.5% prime rate
President Obama came in with a 5.01% prime rate

President Reagan came in with a 7.5% unemployment rate
President Obama came in with a 7.6% unemployment rate

President Reagan never controlled the House, where spending bills originate. President Reagan cut taxes. 3 years into
office, President Reagan reduced the inflation rate to 3.27%. The 30 year fixed rate did go up to 15.4%. But the prime rate dropped 10.5%. Unemployment dropped to 7.2%.

President Obama for his first two years controlled the house and senate with a filibuster proof majority. He also controlled the senate for the last two years. President Obama got a $787 billion stimulus package, projected to add another $350 billion in debt over 10 years.

President Obama's inflation rate almost doubled to 3.2%. President Obama's 30 year fixed rate went up to 3.96%.
President Obama's prime rate did drop a whopping 1.75%.
President Obama's unemployment rate went up to 8.5%

President Reagan cut taxes and was able to work with a split congress. President Reagan was successful at improving the economy.

President Obama got a huge stimulus package. Debt skyrocketed, and unemployment went up dramatically. And President Obama wants more taxes (not less spending).

President Obama flouts laws passed by congress and rules by decree.

President Obama never learned that which has been stated so well: That government which governs least governs best.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking September 7, 2012 | 5:18 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Mark, try this about Nagin and Dallas:"

But they reelected him in 2006. He served until he had to leave office in 2010. And again, the issue of his being a Democrat is irrelevant to the job (or lack of it) he did during Katrina. It would be just as irrelevant to point out that he's black. Incompetence (or competence) comes in all party affiliations, colors, creeds and ethnic backgrounds.

DK

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 5:25 a.m.

Colonel, not "security blanket" as "cancer in remission."

You wrote: "I realize that blaming Bush is still President Obama's "Linus Blanket:" however, it is time for the rest of the country to move on."

This, of courses is exceedingly lame. Simply declaring that the Bush recession was over in 2009 - based solely on technocratic economic criteria - is a bit like telling a patient that his/her cancer is officially in remission, and they can go back to their working lives pre-cancer as if there are no collateral health consequences.

Spoken like a FIGMO socialist, by the way.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking September 7, 2012 | 5:32 a.m.

Here's some interesting figures regarding "job creation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_create...

Looking at the table "job creation by term" we see that Obama's average annual job growth has been +0.84%, which is better than either of Bush 43's terms (+0.51 and -0.84%). Other notable job gains have been in Clinton's first term (+2.60%), Reagan's second term (+2.53%), and even Carter's term (+2.30%). Looking at the chart further, the highest percentages of job growth since WWII have generally been under Democratic presidents.

How does that square with the ideology that only Republican policies can grow the economy and create jobs? I'd say from these data that it doesn't have much to do with who's President or the makeup of Congress.

DK

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 5:33 a.m.

I suspect that Mr. Christian - can't help of think of Charles Boyer writing that - is not adept at the internets.

He wrote: 'I can help here, check any news source in the country!"

A veritable fountain of information, this Mr. Christian.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 5:35 a.m.

So, you prefer to believe bad things about people without evidence?

Mr. Yates: "I know nothing of his work with CTF 116, the Riverine forces... but, in my mind, he is hardly a man of personal integrity."

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 5:37 a.m.

I prefer to think "target rich environment."

Mr. Yates writes: "As long as I'm running away with thoughts, you all have to admit that no commentator brings more interesting and lengthy comments than Karl Miller."

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 7, 2012 | 7:59 a.m.

Bob Brandon - The lazy liberal. Have you still not found out about Nagin, the buses, and how he left the flood scene with the refugees? I'll ask again, where were You during this dilemma? I understand that you may have watched it all but, was merely practicing the common, lazy liberal demand of "link, please", when one finds one knows not, what one is talking about.

More "as a % of" charts, Mark F., to try to prove that, 8.2% is smaller than 4.6%? Didn't you like Brandon's cancer comparison?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. September 7, 2012 | 8:02 a.m.

I don't visit the Missourian nearly as much as I used to but it's still nice to come back and see Frank and Don spouting the same old regurgitated message.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 8:32 a.m.

Then, Mr. Christian, you'll certainly have no problem with providing your sources for this information.

"Have you still not found out about Nagin, the buses, and how he left the flood scene with the refugees?"

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 7, 2012 | 9:12 a.m.

Speaking of job numbers....sheesh, one day after his reelection speech, this happens. Guy can't catch (or make) a break:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.

The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy...
__________________________

I remind y'all that it takes ca. 150,000 NEW jobs/month to just break even. Obama is in the hill mud and the wheels are spinning....ain't losing ground (except in the "patience" arena), but ain't going nowhere either.

Gold market sez we're about to print a whole buncha money. The grandest of all grand gambles....with your money. Cool.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 7, 2012 | 9:13 a.m.

All,

Just for the record, it was not I who declared the recession over in June 2009 rather, it was the National Bureau of Economic Research. Accordingly, at that point, the economy, for better or for worse, belonged to President Obama. It makes little difference whether he continues to blame his predecessor, the Republican House of Representatives, the Tea Party, the Japanese Tsunami, the Gulf oil spill, the meltdown of the European economy, the Middle East unrest, Rush Limbaugh, ATM's or underinflation of tires, it became his responsibility at that juncture.

As for those who question choosing competence over charisma, I ask only that you look at the record. One of the candidates has a record of success in governing, business and rescuing the Olympics while the other is deemed "more likeable."

Finally Mr Brandon, were you sound asleep during Katrina and its aftermath? Most of us have a vivid memory of the fleet of buses under water and Mayor Nagin claiming that, in the entire city of New Orleans, there were no drivers for those buses?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 7, 2012 | 9:16 a.m.

Mr Yates,

Lest I forget to make my manners, I thank you for your kind words.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 7, 2012 | 9:18 a.m.

Mr Yates,

Lest I forget to make my manners, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 7, 2012 | 9:50 a.m.

Is this them?

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/03/2...

One commenter thought they were submarines from the New Orleans Navy, but I'm doubtful.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 7, 2012 | 9:51 a.m.

"Then, Mr. Christian, you'll certainly have no problem with providing your sources for this information."

No Mr. Brandon, I simply ask you to accept this information. If you cannot, then get off your duff and find it, or disprove it, Yourself.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 7, 2012 | 11:39 a.m.

"No Mr. Brandon, I simply ask you to accept this information. If you cannot, then get off your duff and find it, or disprove it, Yourself."

This statement just confirms my long time suspicion that Frank Christian is really a liberal who is trolling these boards as a satirical modern conservative. No one can make that statement and mean it without being a troll or incredibly simple minded and I don't think Frank is that simple minded.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons September 7, 2012 | 11:50 a.m.

Colonel Miller earlier stated;

"As for those who question choosing competence over charisma, I ask only that you look at the record. One of the candidates has a record of success in governing, business and rescuing the Olympics while the other is deemed "more likeable."

In "rescuing the Olympics" Mitt Romney depended heavily on taxpayer money. In the words of former Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum;

"He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Games in an earmark."

In the words of Mr Romney himself, "If you work at it long enough, there is always another way to get the help you need in Washington." (Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership and the Olympic Games, 2004).

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

I have pictures of those school buses amongst my hundreds of other pictures I took in New Orleans when I went there to help do cleanup three weeks after the flood. Amazing how Nagin could find drivers for those buses to take people to the polls on election day, but not to drive them to rescue thousands from imminent peril.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 1:49 p.m.

Rich, what is it about the numbers I posted that you find incorrect or objectionable?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 1:51 p.m.

Mark, all my numbers are coming from official US govenment websites. Not from Wiki. Do you have any dispute with any of the information I provided?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 2:01 p.m.

When Romney was governor, his state unemployment fell from six percent to 4.7%. That's a 21.7% decrease in unemployment. And he managed that with a 100% Democrat legislature in a very liberal state.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.

Post hoc, non propter hoc.

"When Romney was governor, his state unemployment fell from six percent to 4.7%."

(Report Comment)
Rich C. September 7, 2012 | 3:25 p.m.

Don,

You merely copied Breitbart's so-called "fact check" on Clinton's speech above when comparing Obama to Reagan.

"Breitbart". That's as far as I need to read into an article to know exactly what stance the article will take.

(Report Comment)
R. Whitfield Smith September 7, 2012 | 4:22 p.m.

Did Romney forget that the president's greatest power lies in foreign policy? Not much offered there. Romney apparently forgot that the president is commander-in-chief with about 90,000 troops still fighting a war in Afghanistan. No mention of the sacrifice inherent in that mission. Not much leadership demonstrated there.

Good politics, however. Romney said he'd create 12 million new jobs. He never, however, said how. But then management consultants wait until after they're hired to provide details.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 4:37 p.m.

Rich, you are 100% wrong. All of that research is my own research off of government websites. I copied nothing from any other source. I expect your apology for making that statement since it's entirely untrue.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop September 7, 2012 | 4:45 p.m.

Rich, FYI, I sent this information out Colonel Miller on September 4th:

Subject: Who inheritied a bad economy, and what did they do with it?
Date: 9/4/2012 15:30:11 Hawaiian Standard Time

This was the day before the Clinton speech, so unless I could read Breitbart's critique before he wrote it, that's pretty much proof your statement is a complete falsehood.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 7, 2012 | 4:57 p.m.

Mr Simmons,

If you can possibly wait until next week's column is published, you will learn exactly what I think of Senator Kerry and his speech.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons September 7, 2012 | 5:52 p.m.

Colonel Miller, I await your comments on Senator Kerry's rousing speech with bated breath. I'm sure you enjoyed it every bit as much as I did! I hope you will also give us your opinion of the rest too...such as Emanuel Cleaver's magnificent oratory, and of course President Clinton's wonderful, albeit lengthy, presentation.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 7, 2012 | 6:39 p.m.

If not a troll, then, for such a political religion as his, Mr. Christian lives by faith and not by sight.

"This statement just confirms my long time suspicion that Frank Christian is really a liberal who is trolling these boards as a satirical modern conservative."

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 7, 2012 | 9:16 p.m.

Steve Simmons - "and of course President Clinton's wonderful, albeit lengthy, presentation."

I'll post this whenever Bil Clinton is mentioned as a hero in this country. Please read book Sell Out, written by the Democrat that handled his impeachment. In discussion of the Clinton-Gore mishandling of their INS dept, by the incorrect and illegal act of running as many naturalization applicants thru the process as humanly possible in time to be voting citizens for a Clinton-Gore 2nd term, they used four major cities and certified applicants without tests or required FBI investigations for citizenship in our country. The oddity of swearing in 50,000 citizens at one time in Yankee Stadium, in New York City, was announced on radio and press. Page 49 of this book, last sentence in first paragraph, states: "In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore". And liberals love them! Right, Brandon?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 7, 2012 | 11:47 p.m.

I'm glad you like my rebranding of the Colonel, Skip.

I was smart enough to know, very early on, that the military wasn't for me. While I registered for the Selective Service when I came of age, I was never called to duty, so I never voluntarily went, any more than you would ever voluntarily pay extra taxes.

I have still managed to make great and positive contributions to society as a private individual, working for a full spectrum of public, private, and personal interests.

Yes, judging from reactions from all sides, I very effectively mocked Karl by branding him "Colonel Klink" (someone else supplied the photo). I have laid out my case for mocking him well enough, regardless of how you see it.

I will also invite the Colonel (and the rest of the offended right-wingers) to take an equivalent shot at me, if y'all feel so inclined. That seems fair enough to me, and there's plenty of material there. I'd even laugh at the good ones myself.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller September 8, 2012 | 9:39 a.m.

Mr Fogle,

Pardon my ignorance, but what would anyone taking an "equivalent shot at you" add to the political discourse? I take no offense at the silliness demonstrated by many contributors rather, I attibute it as efforts at "cuteness" designed to impress others with similar thought processes.

I offer a quote from a very obscure but also perceptive Addison Withecomb “When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
That is an excellent piece of advice for all would be critics.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements