John Boehner Approaches The Cliff … Poorly

GOP SPEAKER SAYS HIS PARTY IS OPEN TO REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS U.S. Speaker John Boehner says that Republicans are open to “closing loopholes” and “eliminating deductions” to raise revenue however he is insisting that any such “revenue enhancements” be accompanied by income tax relief. Notice Boehner didn’t say he was insisting…

john boehner


U.S. Speaker John Boehner says that Republicans are open to “closing loopholes” and “eliminating deductions” to raise revenue however he is insisting that any such “revenue enhancements” be accompanied by income tax relief.

Notice Boehner didn’t say he was insisting that these tax hikes be “offset” by income tax relief … just accompanied.

Translation? The GOP speaker is letting Democrats know that he is open to raising the overall tax burden on the American people to pay for Washington, D.C.’s ever-escalating addition to deficit spending.

What a surprise, right?  Boehner has sold taxpayers down the river at every opportunity – refusing to hold the line against spending hikes and completely caving on last year’s “debt dereliction deal.”  Accordingly the fact that he’s now caving on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations is sad … but not surprising.

Boehner’s latest sellout could hurt him with his base, though.  According to the latest polling data from Rasmussen Reports, four out of five Republican voters say that the GOP should stick to its guns rather than compromise with U.S. President Barack Obama.


Related posts


Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality


Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks


? November 8, 2012 at 4:46 pm

It’s gonna be hard to blow the real estate bubble back up if you’re not giving away interest deductions.


Pardon me while I engage in some schadenfreude while I watch the whole affair unfold. Both the pols and much of the populace deserves what is coming.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 6:21 am

Maybe your right. should have read this post first.

SSA 2.0 may become a necessity.

Have a Great Day, John!! :)There’s not to many left wih Oshitforbrains in charge

Frank Pytel

? November 9, 2012 at 7:59 am

“Maybe your right.”

Awe Frank, you just sang a melody to me that I tell me wife I can never stop hearing enough of.

lol….I keeeeeed!

Christopher Larson November 9, 2012 at 11:40 am

Yeah. It was mortgage interest deductions. Because those never existed before 2002. It wasn’t those unreasonably low interest rates that Bush had Greenspan impose for waaayyyy too long in order to get re-elected.

The numbers didn’t add up. Bush was heading into a recession for his second term after the WTC attacks. So he did 2 thing:

1. Had Greenspan lower interest rates; and
2. Told people to go out and “spend, spend, spend”(Remember that)

You live in a bubble, and rarely see reality. When your opinion is given, it means next to nothing because it isn’t your opinion and it certainly wasn’t formulated with any logic. Pardon us if we treat you like you don’t know what you are talking about most of the time. We accept that you have a vote, but we don’t have to respect ignorant opinions.

Ron Swanson November 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm

“Yeah. It was mortgage interest deductions. ”

Did I say that? Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Petey November 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm

With 3% mortgage rates how much money are we really talking about putting back in peoples pockets? 15% of what they paid in interest. If you have an average of $100,000 balance on your mortgage at 3% that’s $3000 you declare on your taxes, of that you get $450 back. If you can afford to pay the mortgage I don’t think getting back that extra $38 per month is going to break you. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction does one thing, makes people buy houses they can afford.

Mohanna November 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Cantor will stab Boehner in the back.

johnb November 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm

hope so

SC legislator November 8, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Fratricide. I love it. Especially when it includes evangelists. Billy Graham, Ralph Reed, all the homophobes. Heal, I say, Heal!

Jan November 8, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Giving away interest deductions?????. What other investment do you know of where you are not allowed to deduct the interest you pay out on the money you borrowed to purchase the investment. Why should the largest investment by the average American not be treated the same as borrowing money to buy an apartment building or factory?

Look at what Republicans have done with the Bush tax cuts. They reduced the tax on capital gain, but not for capital gains earned in IRAs, 401ks and other retirement accounts. They reduced the tax on dividends, but not on dividends earned in IRAs, 401Ks and other retirement accounts. 95% of all capital gains and dividends earned by people making less than 300k a year are earned in retirement plans. The Bush tax cuts were very small for the vast majority of Americans. They were totally geared toward the very wealthy. That is why we need to let the tax rate on capital gains and dividends return to their level under Clinton on everyone.

? November 8, 2012 at 5:55 pm

*What other investment do you know of where you are not allowed to deduct the interest you pay out on the money you borrowed to purchase the investment.*

Why so incredulous Jan? This is what is *needed*, right? (increased taxes)

Btw, there are LOTS of investments where you dont get interest rate deductions. I could literally type you pages, go do some google if you dont believe it.

Anyway, you miss the whole point of my earlier comment. I know sarcasm is hard to detect sometimes in print, but really that was my main stab.

It is fun to see your response though, it shows me that there are still some sacred cow deductions left even on the left and how selectively appalling the idea of raising taxes can be to even Democrats like yourself when the topic/target is directed properly.

Dont be surprised though if pols float that idea Jan….let us just hope more Democrats like you recoil in horror at the notion the home mortgage deduction might go on the altar of budget balancing/deficit reduction(which cant happen anymore anyway…lol…but I digress).

major boehner November 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm

a home isn’t an “investment” (unless you happen to be in the middle of an asset bubble). It’s personal use property. Add the $250k/$500k home exclusion and govt backed mortgage loans and you’ve got plenty of subsidies to go around, AKA market distortions.

It’s a reasonable point to raise whether tax-deferred accounts pay off. A function of the tax rate on invested money, the tax rate when you pull out, the benefit of tax free compounding, available investments, etc. I don’t think anyone is out get 401k owners though. It’s simly too hard to split out and calculate capital gains on the funds a 401k would invest in decades later.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 6:24 am

Anything purchased with a Credit Card for personal use.
Lay a way (fees, Its money down the tubes)
Any Service that requires you to take out a loan (How many dentists offices have you seen without one of those little pamphlets.)

Have a Great Day, John!! :)There’s not to many left wih Oshitforbrains in charge

Frank Pytel

Jan November 9, 2012 at 9:48 am

Fine, if you want to eliminate ALL interest deductions, not just interest deductions that impact the average American so be it. That is what Romeny planned to do. Cut taxes on the top earners and pay for it by cutting deductions that benefit everyone else.

But, unless you are very rich, if you don’t treat your primary residence as an investment you are crazy. You should not invest in a home unless you reasonably believe it will go up in value, and you should hope that at some point it will produce a monthly cash flow for you in that you do not have to pay rent. You have to live some where.

Cars, except for those you use in business, for which you do get an interest deduction if you want to do it that way, are not an investment. You do not expect a return on a car unless you are a car dealer and then you can deduct the interest on money borrowed to buy the car.

Actually I can’t think of any investment you undertake with the goal of producing a profit where an interest deduction is not available to you. Your deduction may be delayed, by the passive loss limitation rules or the investment interest rules; but if you are investing for profit, interest on the money you borrowed is generally deductible.

Ron Swanson November 9, 2012 at 11:38 am

“That is what Romeny planned to do.”

lol, you actually have some special line on what Romney was going to do if he got elected? Hell, I’m not even sure god knew what Romney was going to do.

“Actually I can’t think of any investment you undertake with the goal of producing a profit where an interest deduction is not available to you.”

Seriously Jan, I’m not going to be your accountant. Frank is on the right path, but there is much, MUCH more when you’re outside the conventional box.

But generally speaking, why is it we favor business tax breaks over “people” tax breaks? Or the other way around for that matter? As Ron Paul said, things have basically devolved to a fight over loot and which special interests get which breaks and what loot.

major boehner November 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Jan, you can generally deduct business interest (on the theory of net taxation of business income). You generally cannot deduct personal use interest unless there is an exception (on the theory of gross taxation of personal income). I don’t know what else to tell you.

If a renter finances stuff on a credit card so they can pay rent, that’s not deductible. Why should a mortgage interest be deductible so you can use your spare cash to buy a car?

Jan November 9, 2012 at 3:57 pm

I never said personal residence interest was not an exception to the normal personal interest rules. I contend it is a justified exception, because for most Americans their personal residence is not just a personal use investment, it is their largest investment and they do hope to make a profit on it or gain cash flow from it in the future.

Just like an investment in a piece of rental property.

BigT November 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm

Obama is the President…Why are you STUPISD sons of B!*ches discussing The Speaker…as if it’s his fault…

When has the Senate offered a budget???

He should just tell of you liberal Failed dolts to do it his way or Go %^&* yourselves…and just LHAO at Obama….

Thiese House meners should be ready to risk losing their House seat if the media can blame it on them…so be it….Let the country CRASh…and eventually the people will put 2 and 2 together and figure the Democrats are the architects of FAILURE…

Part of the problem is that Dumb@$$#$ like FITS take the Bait, and just like Blame America First, they blame the GOP first (and Only…

The democrats have almost all the power…but the Idiots like FITS give them None of the Blame for the COMPLETE shambles Obama has made of the Economy….

Mohanna November 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Stop cursing so much Big T, it is unseemly and not necessary to prove any point. Also most stupid people curse because of a dearth of vocabulary.

dwb619 November 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

big idio”T”,
Should we ask Sarah”The HALF Governor” for economic advice?
BTW, where is Sarah?

BigT November 8, 2012 at 6:56 pm

I’m not cursing…but if I did it would just add to my vocabulary…

Anyway: I agree that I should stop insinuating curse words. Thank you for caring…but I’m still Fuming over the election and the miserable state of my nation….

That said: I have a WONDERFUL life…and if we can just figure out a way to Stop the bleeding, and make sure Obama has NO money to ruin us anymore…we may be able to make it….

Carl Spackler November 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm

Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. Two days after getting your ass handed to you yet again, you come back with the same rhetoric and propaganda. I’ve never seen someone that never learns from their own mistakes.

Common Sense November 10, 2012 at 11:08 am

the same fucking idiot who swore everyone was a stupid dumbass, he had all the answers and swore up and down Romney had this in the bag. Im laughing my ass off at you you fucking idiot and those like you..YOU and those LIKE YOU are what caused Romney to lose this election. Period. Your extreme right views, hatred for your country and those that live in it, your hatred of anything non white, non old and non extreme religious nutbag, that hatred so alienated most of the country that a President with terrible numbers and no chance for reelection crushed your out of date, old white people only party. Bang up job loser. Bang up job and thanks, from all the moderates and reasonable Americans across this great country..thank you.

Alan Greenspan November 8, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Say “Ka-Ching!” for Bush’s war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Say “Ka-Ching!” for Bush’s deregulation of subprime mortgage secondary markets.

Thank you, W, for the 2009 worldwide recession.

Now, boys and girls, empty out your pockets because it’s checkout time.

Smirks November 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm

Good, raise taxes on the rich and “accompany” it with tax relief on the working class. Accompany, not offset, because we need more revenue.

This country can’t afford the spending? It can’t afford letting money walk out the door via cuts, loopholes, and shelters. As long as people like Mitt pay a lower percentage than us, there is no question we should raise taxes on them.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 6:27 am


Sometimes you can be a real prick. Who ultimately pays for 100% of the taxes in this country? Anyone, anyone?????

Have a Great Day, John!! :)There’s not to many left wih Oshitforbrains in charge

Frank Pytel

? November 9, 2012 at 7:54 am

lol, Smirks has absolutely no regard for property rights. He’s actually not a bad guy if you can completely ignore that major character flaw. Like most lefties, “fair” means “good” people know how much of your shit you should be allow to keep.


? November 9, 2012 at 7:54 am

edit: “allowed”

Smirks November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am

Like most lefties, “fair” means “good” people know how much of your shit you should be allow to keep.

Fair means, at the very least, that people making shitloads of cash shouldn’t be paying a lower effective rate in taxes than those who use a far greater share of their money paying for necessities of life.

Fair means, at the very least, that taxes on businesses should be structured in a way that smaller businesses are no more burdened in taxes than large corporations.

Property rights are fine once you pay your fair share back into the society that provided you the opportunity to earn your wealth, just like everyone else has to. What isn’t fair is when the rich and powerful shift more and more of their burden, which they can easily afford, onto those who can’t. If anyone is getting dictated to as to how much shit they should be allowed to keep, it is the middle class.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 10:03 am

So then its “Fair” for the lazy to just say ‘He’s rich enough. Give me some of his money because I just don’t feel like working. I don’t want to work and you can’t make me.’?

Have a Great Day, John!! :)There’s not to many left wih Oshitforbrains in charge

Frank Pytel

Ron Swanson November 9, 2012 at 10:09 am

“Fair means, at the very least, that people making shitloads of cash shouldn’t be paying a lower effective rate in taxes than those who use a far greater share of their money paying for necessities of life.

Fair means, at the very least, that taxes on businesses should be structured in a way that smaller businesses are no more burdened in taxes than large corporations.”

Ahhhh….I see, so you’re for a flat tax now Smirks? That’s the definition of “fair” for you?

Jan November 9, 2012 at 11:37 am

I supported Obama in this election, but I am an independent. I run a small business. I employee people. I earn all the money I have. I work 50 to 70 hours a week with few vacations. In a world where the Republican party was not dominated by the far right and focused on BS, I would almost certainly be a moderate Republican.

That said, that is not where the party is. Where I disagree with ? and today’s GOP is that I believe there is a role for good government in creating a stable society. Today’s GOP is unwilling to discuss the fact that we do not all benefit from this country equally. They argue that Mitt Romney and my secretary receive all the same benefits from this country. They do not. I receive far more benefits from the services government provides and the infrastructure of this country than people who live in poverty. I receive more benefits from this country than my secretary. I receive less benefit from this country than Mitt Romney. I think taxes can be both progressive and fair. I don’t agree that taxes are stealing. They are the cost of living in a civilized society. I don’t believe reasonable taxes violate property rights. Governments must tax to survive. They are inherent in the governing compact. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter what form it takes. Every government in all of history has collected taxes. The Government supplies services and infrastructure in exchange for the taxes they take in.

I also believe there are significant monetary benefits to risk sharing on the cost of health an long term care for the vast majority of Americans, and that we can afford to assure people who work their entire lives they will not be left in poverty without health care when they are to old or to sick to work. This allows people to plan for their future and the future of their children, and take risks in the market place without fear of starvation for themselves and their family.

Ron Swanson November 9, 2012 at 11:41 am

So what kind of business do you run Jan?

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 12:17 pm


Everyone, including me, believes there is a role for “good” government. The problem is that there is none.

Christian or not (I’m sure this exists in some form in the Koran, Budhists, Hindus and the like) check out 1Sam8. In my opinion that is all there is to need to know about “good” government.

You say a whole lot in your post, but it doesn’t really apply to anything relevant. The question that is being put forth is not (or should not be) who is receiving ‘more’ or better services. The only relevant question to be answered is should those services be provided.

Many of the various politbureaus of the federaly’s should not even exist. They are strictly states rights. Others should not exist because of their socialist agenda. If you feel blessed by this countries existance then by all means, feel free to give the money to whom and when you want. Don’t make me pay for your guilt/pleasure/desires. If I choose to donate, that’s my business, not yours or the governments. I don’t want some bean counter telling me, ‘Oh well, you see you earn $x.xx per year and therefore you should be paying 15.1% to charity/community projects instead of the 15.05% you’ve been paying.’

WTF? What I do with my money is my business, not yours. If I want a service, I pay for it from my pocket.

You NEED services (water,highways,school,whatever. Pick your poison). No I don’t need services. Your secretary needs services. Well maybe she needs services because you don’t pay her enough? Or maybe she needs services because she is irresponsible with his/her money? Or maybe your secretary is ready to be like the other 45% of the country and she needs services because she just doesn’t feel like working.

Jan, you are the problem with the GOP. You are not conservative. You are a libtard in libtards clothing. You are not different than the Demlicans and the Republicrats in DC and statehouses across this nation. You think Everyone should have to pay because Services Services Services.

HAGD!! :) There won’t be many left with Oshitforbrains in charge!!

Frank Pytel

Jan November 9, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Ron, my partners and I own a consulting business. I guess you would say our primary area is cost containment. Particularly health care cost containment. I have a couple of other small side businesses as well.

Frank, I guess the problem I have with you is I don’t believe you. I think you are a lying hypocrite. If you did not need access to government services or infrastructure why would you even live in this country. I think you believe the government should provide the services and infrastructure that benefit you and nothing more. I think you do not even know what you benefit from, what that benefit is worth, and in the event of certain truly unexpected circumstances I don’t believe you would be willing to accept for yourself and your family the full consequences of not having them.

For people like you, I would be in favor of opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. I would be in favor of giving you land in the middle of the wilderness, letting you convert all your assets to gold and take that with you, and let you truly live with no government services or infrastructure, no access to anything government helped create and no taxes. That would be true liberty. But even then you would have access to government services. If the Russians came and tried to take your land, our military would defend you. So perhaps an unclaimed island in the middle of the Pacific would be a better choice.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 2:48 pm


Wow. That’s pretty harsh. My ex wife doesn’t even call me a hypocrite. I guess I don’t know exactly what I am being hypocritical about. I even tried to be reasonable with you here and talk on your libby level.

Ok. Lets see. I didn’t say anything about infrastructure, so I’ll stick with servcies at the moment. I obviously failed to properly state that the US Federal Government has no business having many of the departments and agencies active as they are currently (that would be federally politbureaus). The DOEng, DOEdu, SSA, FBI, CIA, FED (the Federal Reserve), BIA (Burea of Indian Affairs), Homeland Security, DOA (Dept. of Agriculture), FDA, etc. (There’s way to fracking many to list. Lets just say everyone but DOD) are all one of two types of government agencies:

1. States Rights

These are agencies that fall directly under the control of the soverign states that enjoin to form These United States of America.

2. Unconstitutional

These agencies, while I agree that the Supreme Court has said they are legal, clearly exceeds the bounds of the Constitution of These United States.

I have always said this and I believe it. You are free to disagree to any tune you like. But I am not hyprocritical for stating my beleifs. I pay my taxes and use the services that I use. Roads, Water (unfortunately. Lord I want to get back to my well water), whatever. But using the services after the money has been stolen from me to fund these things is not hypocritical. That’s called ROI. Your in business (doubt it). Look it up on WIKIPEDIA if you don’t understand it.

Again, regarding hypocrisy. It is not hypocritical to benefit from a service and state that it is wrong, bad, unconstitutional or otherwise. If you are a consultant, surely you can understand this. Would you call your clients hypocritical if they don’t like the service you provide, but use the service because its the only game in town. What that last sentence means is that so many, myself included, are so heavily taxed that there is no money left to purchase proper goods or services that would fill that need. Services that would likely fill that need at a greatly reduced cost.

As to Alaska. I’ll take it. I’ll even go you one further. You can have all my assets, excepting my Buck and the clothes on my back. I promise to never build anything on the property and not to hunt or fish for sport. Hell, I won’t even plant an extremly small garden. The only thing These United States of America have to promise is to leave me the hell alone. Me and mine will be all good.

As to the Russians, Tough shit Chicken Little.

HAGD!! :) There won’t be many left with Oshitforbrains in charge!! I think even less if Jan were in charge.

Frank Pytel

Jan November 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Frank, I only call people names in response to being called a name. Its school yard stuff, but heck why not. I consider lying hypocrite no more hars than libtard.

Jan November 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm

excuse me “harsh”

Jan November 9, 2012 at 4:21 pm

Regarding the nature of hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to want the government to pay for what benefits you and nothing more. I think that’s what most people who want to cut government spending want. They want to cut spending they perceive does not benefit them. Also most people dramatically undervalue what they receive in benefits, and fail to fully appreciate all the benefits they receive and what actually benefits them.

It could be you and your family would truly would be willing to live in the wilderness. But if that is true, there are plenty of places you can do that. There are even plenty of places you can move to with very few government services, very low cost of living, and very very low taxes. Why haven’t you tried it? My brother-in-law and his wife did. They hated it and are back in the good old USA after two years.

Frank Pytel November 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Oh. I see Jan. Anyone that disagrees/disputes your point of view, is a liar. What they actually feel, believe and say is irrelivent.

Ok. Now I know where your at.

HAGD!! :) There won’t be many left with Oshitforbrains in charge!!

Frank Pytel

See you in Aruba, republicans !! November 8, 2012 at 10:58 pm

The Wall Street Journal
November 8, 2012
“How Race Slipped Away From Romney,” by Sara Murray


BOSTON —- Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

WSJ’s John Bussey discusses how Mitt Romney lost the presidential election despite having large support from the business sector.

Take a look at some of the most memorable moments from the Romney and Obama campaigns in the 2012 Presidential Election night.

The election pointed to the nation’s demographic future: white men had no purchase in the presidential election and for the first time they will be a minority in the House Democratic caucus.

Watch Off Duty Videos on YouTube

Big Bird, Binders & Bayonets: Best Political Memes

President Obama has turned his focus to how he will work with Congress in his second term, while also preparing for the expected departure of many senior administration officials. Jerry Seib joins The News Hub with details.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers — that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

The campaign’s fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama’s coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney’s and the party’s approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign’s biggest worry was money. So the campaign’s finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama’s robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney’s heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don’t pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

Voters headed to the polls Tuesday in a presidential contest defined by its intensity and razor-thin margins.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn’t, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters’ negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn’t begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn’t totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate’s time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign’s mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the “Bain way.”

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney’s vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan’s fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney’s finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign’s state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

If the local finance chairman fell short of their targets, the campaign sometimes canceled its fundraising stops there, a finance staffer said.

The real cost, though, was in the lost opportunity to use Mr. Romney to do other campaigning to introduce himself to general-election voters on his own terms. Aside from a five-day bus tour of six, mostly Midwestern states, Mr. Romney’s highest profile summer campaign event was a problem-plagued overseas trip one aide called “total chaos.” Even in that trip’s schedule were nestled two fundraisers, one in London, another in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign and a super PAC helping it, Priorities USA Action, had unveiled ads attacking the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s resume, his record as the head of private-equity firm Bain Capital. The ads portrayed Mr. Romney as the heartless leader of a company that gobbled up companies and then slashed jobs.

The cash shortfall hindered the Romney campaign’s response; to get through the sparse time, the campaign took out a $20 million loan.

Bob White, a former Bain executive who has long followed Mr. Romney, formed a team to research Bain investments so the campaign was prepared with a rapid response whenever one was questioned. Mr. White sought out more than a dozen chief executives of companies that benefited from Bain Capital investments to offer narratives of prosperous investments to balance out the ones that had soured. The campaign posted more than a dozen of them on a website lauding Mr. Romney’s “sterling business career.” But they couldn’t afford to air the testimonials in television ads, an adviser said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Romney’s two top strategists, Russ Schriefer and his partner Stuart Stevens, started to craft an ad strategy around their slim bank account. In focus groups, swing voters kept asking: What would Mr. Romney would do if elected?

They prepared spots explaining what Mr. Romney would do in the opening days of his presidency: approve construction of an oil pipeline to Canada, cut taxes and replace Mr. Obama’s health-care law with “common-sense reforms.” Yet the team didn’t even have enough money to air their ad in the Washington, D.C., media market, therefore ignoring the sprawling suburbs of Northern Virginia—a key to a swing state that Mr. Romney badly needed to win.

As Mr. Romney struggled, a group of flush Republican super PACs stepped in to lend the presumed GOP nominee air cover. The biggest, American Crossroads and its affiliate Crossroads GPS, realized early that the Obama team would front-load its advertising to attack Mr. Romney when he couldn’t return fire.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Crossroads adviser, referred to this phase as “the interregnum,” and he reminded the group and its donors that former President Bill Clinton used this phase to undercut then Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 before he became the Republican presidential nominee.

Between mid-April, when Mr. Romney effectively locked up the nomination, and the Republican convention at the end of August, the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp $173 million to $75 million, according to data compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

But thanks in large measure to super PACs, Republicans outspent the Obama campaign and its Democratic allies over the same period by roughly $50 million, shelling out nearly $250 million compared with $198 million for Democrats, according to the same figures.

Still, the super PACs were better at attacking Mr. Obama than building up Mr. Romney, and the Republican’s “likability” ratings with voters stayed low. With few public appearances and little to spend on ads, the campaign couldn’t gain any momentum. An adviser described it as a campaign of “fits and starts.”

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, kept making his conservative talking points to donors and never moved to the political center. It was during those months that Mr. Romney was filmed at a fundraiser in Florida dismissing 47% of Americans as Obama supporters because they receive government benefits or don’t pay taxes and wouldn’t be amenable to Mr. Romney’s message of small government and lower tax rates. “My job is not to worry about those people,” Mr. Romney said in the video. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

The campaign also never figured out how to get beyond a damaging policy position from the primary season, a tough line on overhauling immigration laws. Mr. Romney refused to embrace legislation that might give some illegal immigrants long in the U.S. a path to citizenship, and instead advocated what he called “self-deportation.”

Struggling to win the primary, the campaign’s political team decided Mr. Romney needed to draw a contrast on the immigration issue to differentiate himself from the other Republicans on stage. The candidate’s hard-line stance alienated Hispanic voters, which would prove a critical failing in the fall general election.

By early September, the Romney campaign was slumping and trailing badly in the polls. The first presidential debate offered what might be its last shot at a turnaround.

On a dreary Tuesday in early September, Mr. Romney and his top brass descended on the remote Vermont estate of Kerry Healey, Mr. Romney’s former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, for debate preparations.

Beth Myers, a senior campaign adviser who was managing preparations, decided Mr. Romney had better dive into debate preparations—which the candidate disliked—head first. After just one mock session, senior Romney staffers were blown away—with Rob Portman, the Ohio senator picked to portray Mr. Obama.

Mr. Portman mastered Mr. Obama’s policies and mannerisms so completely that Romney aide Peter Flaherty referred to him as “Mr. President” even when they bumped into each other on the trail.

“It was game on,” said Mr. Flaherty, who played each of the three debate moderators.

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, worked on compressing his responses into two-minute tidbits. Just days before the first debate, Messrs. Romney and Portman, dressed in suits, took the stage at the Back Bay Events Center in Boston for a final rehearsal. Aides there said Mr. Romney’s answers were crisp, and he parried Mr. Portman’s attacks with ease. Afterward, Lanhee Chen, the campaign policy director, called his wife and told her, “Mitt’s ready.”

Minutes into the first debate Romney advisers saw their candidate was poised and relaxed with an easy grasp of the facts behind his answers. Obama advisers could tell the president was off his game.

Throughout the debate, the Republican nominee highlighted his work with Democrats during his four-year stint as Massachusetts governor, reassuring voters he planned to reach across the aisle as president, too.

Romney advisers say he always intended to make that point, because it cut to the heart of voters’ main complaint against Mr. Obama.

Ending partisan gridlock “was his biggest promise, and so therefore, it may be his biggest failure,” Mr. Schriefer said.

The first debate reshuffled the race. Obama aides traded concerned emails about how to get their campaign back on track even before it concluded.

In the end, postdebate bumps in polls and money weren’t enough to change his fate. On Tuesday, Mr. Romney managed to flip just two states Mr. Obama won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. (Florida remains too close to call.) Mr. Obama won the Electoral College contest easily.

By early evening Mr. Romney said he had only written one speech: A victory speech that stood at 1,118 words, unedited. Late that night, he delivered a concession speech that came in at just 646 words.

“I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes,” Mr. Romney told a somber crowd in a not-quite-full ballroom at the Boston convention center. “But the nation chose another leader.”

The day after his loss, Mr. Romney stopped by headquarters to visit staffers and thank them for their efforts.

He didn’t hint at what he would do next, only saying “I’m not going away,” one staffer said.

Smirks November 9, 2012 at 9:56 am

Jesus dude, don’t post an entire article, just link to it.

Frank Pytel November 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm

yep yep

HAGD!! :) There won’t be many left with Oshitforbrains in charge!!

Frank Pytel

major boehner November 8, 2012 at 11:11 pm

Man I was hoping the last part of that sentence was “accompanied by spending cuts.” If these folks get out of the cliff 100% I’m going to lose my mind. How much is a 2% reduction in the unemployment rate worth anyway? $1 trillion a year? How long would it take those extra employeed to pay that back? Furthermore, is it really a recession if you have to artificially inflate the GDP in the first place? We’re a service economy now. Our deficit “investments” are not creating wealth like it might have in the old days.

This just in. . . November 9, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Boehner’s 48 Hours of Pretending to Work with Obama Sets New Record

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — House Speaker John Boehner today called for an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, thus ending a streak of pretending to work with President Obama that lasted forty-eight hours.

“We knew he couldn’t hold out much longer,” said Carol Foyler of Guinness World Records.

“Still, John Boehner pretending to be bipartisan for forty-eight hours is pretty darn impressive,” she said, noting that his previous record stood at twenty minutes. “This is David Blaine territory for him.”

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Boehner downplayed the significance of his record-setting performance, saying merely, “It just feels good being a dick again.”

Booyah November 12, 2012 at 2:18 am

“But, unless you are very rich, if you don’t treat your primary residence as an investment you are crazy.”

I paid my modest home and acreage off ASAP and will not have to rent for the rest of my life.

Not everyone buys for resale, some buy to cut OVERHEAD and live in the home.

The folks who overbought often lost their homes. Not me. I heeded the advice of my old “Greatest Generation” mentors. “Keep it small and own it all.”


Leave a Comment