Romney’s praise of Chicago mayor draws snarky response

Mitt likes Rahm, but the feeling is far from mutual, as we see HERE:

Mitt Romney has praised an array of Democrats for their policy ideas at various points in the campaign, part of an effort to boost his bipartisan bona fides.

It’s a good strategy, in theory, to try and drive a wedge between President Obama and his allies. That is, until those living, breathing examples inevitably shoot down Romney’s claims with something akin to: “You know nothing of my work.”

The latest example is Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, whom Romney praised for standing up to teachers unions in ways Obama wouldn’t.

That didn’t sit well with Emanuel, who responded by reinforcing Obama’s own attacks against Romney over education.

“If he wants to help, he could then determine that when it comes to his tax cut, he will never cut the Department of Education and the funding that’s necessary, and he will make sure that there will never be a cut in any education to pay for his tax cuts for the most fortunate,” Emanuel told reporters on Monday. “So while I appreciate his lip service, what really counts is what we’re doing here, and I don’t really give two hoots about national comments scoring political points or trying to embarrass — or whatever — the president.”



  1. Ah yes, when Mitt offers cuts they are evil, when Rahm offers cuts they are necessary.

    Classic. It has to be so disappointing for liberals when the math facts catch up with them.

    If I was a liberal I might even consider voting for Mitt just to make the Republicans do the heavy lifting in trying to fix the federal budget disaster.

    God knows that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have been able to do it in the past. Once the math facts come home to roost somebody is going to have to be an adult and play the role of bad man.

  2. Luke Fredrickson

    LOL @ exdoc speaking for God. Perhaps you can speak just for yourself while answering this:

    Did Clinton leave office with a budget surplus?

    And I respectfully request you leave Monica Lewinsky out of your response.

  3. doc: I think Bill Clinton deftly laid to rest last week any notion that the Republicans are good at arithmetic.

    Remember, we’re talking about the people who brought the global financial system to the brink of total collapse. And now they’re bitching that the cleanup crew hasn’t finished its job yet.

    But, hey, feel free to buy into that GOP crapola. I’d be surprised if you didn’t.

  4. Clinton and the House Republicans in Clinton’s second term excused from my initial comment. However, none of that changes the math of today or the last decade for that matter. Math facts gentleman.

    The people who brought the global financial system to the brink of total collapse? You want to blame who? The Republicans? The 1%? Which class warfare tack would you like to take today.

    There is plenty of blame to go around and for a solution to work the pain will be shared by all of us. Some pain now, big pain later. We get to decide, but only if we have real leadership in place.


    Mr. Obama created the panel in February 2010, without a trace of irony, after he had raised federal spending to post-World War II highs. His political goal was to blunt attacks on his overspending, while also trying to lure Republicans into becoming tax collectors for his agenda in the name of a balanced budget. Mr. Simpson is the kind of Republican who had fallen for this in the past.

    So it was a pleasant surprise when Messrs. Simpson and Bowles instead endorsed a more efficient and competitive tax code. Their draft swapped fewer brackets and lower rates for fewer loopholes and “tax expenditures.” The appeal for Democrats is that tax revenue would grow with a faster-growing economy, and Republicans would have to accept a net tax increase reaching 21% of GDP. That’s far higher than the historic average between 18% and 19% and above the modern high of 20.9% in 1944.

    The political myth is that Mr. Ryan was the spoiler because he’s an anti-tax purist. His real objection at the time was that the Simpson-Bowles Democrats refused to offer an equal trade on spending. Their non-negotiable demand was that ObamaCare was off the table and there could be no structural reforms in Medicare and Medicaid.

    How is that a real compromise? Everyone agrees that Medicare and Medicaid are growing too fast for revenues to keep up. Mr. Obama himself told the 2010 House GOP retreat that “The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health-care spending. Nothing comes close.” The fiscal reality is that if health care is off the table, then the only possible not-so-grand bargain is permanent tax increases that chase an explosion of federal spending.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *