Romney Earns Opportunity To Lead Nation

Posted: November 4, 2012 at 2:34 a.m.

Conventional wisdom says Arkansas goes for Mitt Romney on Tuesday.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 12 on 11/04/2012

You have got to be kidding, surly the News isn't so stupid as to support such a liar and crook. I used to think the News had some sense but this beats all.

Obama will win by large margins and your guy will whine and moan. I never thought the News would be racist in their views but I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: rummy

November 4, 2012 at 5:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What's racist in that opinion? Did I miss something?

Posted by: JailBird

November 4, 2012 at 6:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We sure don't need change to disrupt our economy or foreign policy right now. They are both going in the right direction but maybe not as fast as some would like. There is an old bit of wisdom that applies here - "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream."

Posted by: ajm

November 4, 2012 at 7:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ray, I'm with you. It's such a shame people are so narrow minded in looking over a real patriot like our President who overcame extreme odds and saved our nation from economic ruin. Gov. Romney is no doubt a fine man but it takes more character and vision to lead our great nation than he has shown during this campaign.

Posted by: rk1985

November 4, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well it looks like Arkansas will be batting 9 out of 11 after this election, once again 'going against the tide'...

Posted by: Dexter

November 4, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Duh, what was racist.

Posted by: JailBird

November 4, 2012 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It looks like the Fayetteville Free Loader and Acey have adopted some new screen names, although, as usual, the comments have no basis in reality.

There is no sane individual who can view what has occurred in the Middle East and claim that we are moving in the right direction. Allowing Iran to build a nuclear device and undermine our allies at every turn is not sound foreign policy.

And there is no sane individual who can look at the economy over the past four years and say that we are moving in the right direction. The only people who will vote for the current ruler are those who would rather starve their children and grandchildren so that they can enjoy their current lifestyle of mooching off the sweat of their parents. They are nothing more than punks.

Posted by: IrishMensa

November 4, 2012 at 10:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IrishM: "Allowing Iran to build a nuclear device and undermine our allies at every turn is not sound foreign policy.">>

Who has a policy of allowing Iran to build a nuclear device Mr. IrishM? Really, do tell us.

IR: "[no one] can look at the economy over the past four years and say that we are moving in the right direction.">>

Actually, here are 16 specific lines of evidence with charts and careful reference, showing, without question, that the economy is moving in the right direction:

Let me know if you would like me to go through them one at a time with you.

IR: "[those who vote for Obama] would rather starve their children and grandchildren...">>

Mr. IrishM likes to pop in and do drivebys where he calls everyone liars, and calls everyone names, but he doesn't respond to questions or requests to back up his wild claims. And he doesn't respond to data that directly refutes his fanciful mere assertions based upon faith and anger. There's a good reason for this and I suspect he knows the answer better than anyone:

He can't.


Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 5, 2012 at 12:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let's look at the reality and not Chart and Bars.
I'm an analyst and that is how I make my living. Statistics can mean whatever you want them to mean.
I also travel a lot in different areas of the country.
If you quit looking at the data and look and talk to the people you will find out that the economy is no where as great as we are led to believe.

Sorry it's just not happening, despite what the studies show.

Posted by: P5harri

November 5, 2012 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As a further note, I'm not saying your statistics are in error.
I'm saying the people I'm around and talk to are more worried about their jobs and income then they were 4 years ago. Plants are still closing and people are losing their jobs, despite the numbers that we see.

Posted by: P5harri

November 5, 2012 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Let's look at the reality and not Chart and Bars.">>

But those charts and bars represent the reality of the objective data they refer to. That's where one needs to starting if their goal is to measure/discern the *reality* of the situation.

P5: "Statistics can mean whatever you want them to mean.">>

That's completely false.

P5: "If you quit looking at the data...">>

You know, I think if the data supported what you wanted to believe, you wouldn't want to "quit looking at the data."

P5: "and look and talk to the people">>

Anecdotal. Unless you can show a systemic analysis and measurement of "talking to the people" (which I happen to have in stock), then your anecdotes aren't worth diddly.

P5: "the economy is no where as great as we are led to believe.">

You would already know that if you had looked at my charts and understood the question being addressed, which was:

"Has the economy turned around, is it better than 4 (or 3.5) years ago.?

Yes. Absolutely. Bigtime. Even Mitt admits that. But considering the size of the hole Bush put us in, even much improved does not necessarily get us to "great."

P5: "the people I'm around and talk to are...">>

Anecdotal evidence. P5, check out this:

Also, you live in red state central and probably have a circle of similarly minded friends. This provides a bias and as the link above shows, the sample is too small to mean anything.

Look, under the terrible experiment of Bush, we lost a decade, 42,000 factories and more jobs than the previous 4 recessions combined.

"Dec. 2007 to June 2009: 7,490,000 jobs lost"

It may take a decade or two to make that up. None of this is Obama's fault, not a drop of it. And I completely disregard your suggestion that we should dismiss the data that shows consistent and sustained improvement even though it is tempered by the fact that we started from the depths of a very deep ditch.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 5, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry. Doesn't matter. Reality overrides data.
Not necessarily Red State anyway. I'm talking PA, IL,NJ.

These aren't friends, they are people I talk to while traveling.

Your anectodal reference is as bad as your genetic fallacy reference.

Obama will lose tomorrow, get use to it.

Posted by: P5harri

November 5, 2012 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"P5: "Statistics can mean whatever you want them to mean.">>

That's completely false."

This statement alone tells me that you are not really that familiar with statistical analysis.

I spent several years working with the goverment on labor data. Trust me, it's easy to manipulate.

Posted by: P5harri

November 5, 2012 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Reality overrides data.">>

It's actually hilarious that you would say that. And revealing.

P5: "people I talk to while traveling.">>

Anecdotal. Worthless.

P5: "Obama will lose tomorrow, get use to it.">>

Oh, I hope not. I just sent a grand to Intrade on Friday. If the good professor loses, I'm gonna be hurt'in.

Anyway, here are a few reasons why you probably aren't right about that:

Round up of prediction markets from around the world (you know, where people put their money where their mouth is):

Barack Obama:
Betfair: 78.4%
Intrade: 66.5%
Smarkets: 79.1%

Mitt Romney:
Betfair: 21.5%
Intrade: 33.7 %
Smarkets: 21.1 %


Dem average: .77
Rep average: .26

Princeton model: "Probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 98.4%, Bayesian Prediction 99.9%"

Nate Silver:
Obama: 86.3%
Romney: 13.7%

Nerdwallet: "Romney's election odds: 17%"

Huff Po electoral map:
Obama: 277
Rom: 191

The pro bookies put Obama at 80% (4/1) and 83% (5/1); Romney between 23% and 25%"

Guess we'll see in a few hours about that "reality overrides data" claim eh?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 5, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

People I was around and talked to 4 years ago were in UTTER FEAR, all the time. The stock market was falling fast, their home values were collapsing and banks were failing across the country. My peers were very anxiety-ridden because just about all of them had retirement accounts that were losing value EVERY DAY.

That was the Reality four short years ago.

There were too many business failures to count.
Newspapers folded or were bought up all over the reality world. This paper had to join with WEHCO Media to survive.

Along came John McBush promising more of the same policies plus a war with Iran.

There was plenty to be fearful of FOUR YEARS AGO.

Now the market is back, home values are increasing, employment is on the rise.

Sell that Fux News Fear, sell it P5.

Note to those who may not know: This paper is owned by Stephens Media which is owned by Warren Stephens in Little Rock, a billionaire inheritee. HIs political philosophy is extreme conservative Republican. Even Huckabee was too liberal for Mr Stephens.

Don't expect anything but this type of right wing endorsements from this paper. All who work at this paper know who butters their bread, esp the editorial staff.

Now comes RomBush promising more of the 2001-2008 agenda.
No thanks. Some things are writ larger than life.

Posted by: cdawg

November 5, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Arkansas has voted for the eventual winner, mostly Republicans, in nine of the last 10 presidential contests.....
So the writing’s pretty much on the wall.<<

So sayeth the editor(s). Wonder why they stopped at TEN contests? That's 10 and if you count them you end up at 1972. Why just 10?

Because if you counted the last 11 you would have been in 1968 and how did Ark vote that year?

George Wallace won the Arkansas' votes for President. He also carried four other Southern states.
Just so you know that Ark has voted racist in the past.

Posted by: cdawg

November 6, 2012 at 1:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry free thinker , Cdawg the paper can endorse whomever they want. You can disagree and whine all you want, the republic will survive no matter who is elected. Do you really think their endorsement will sway that many folks, I do not. Seems to me most folks have already made their minds up. either way I am glad folks have participated in the process of electing our next president for this republic. Here's a hint you also will not sway folks by calling them racists or citing partisan sites such as media matters, although I will say I liked some of the other links. If our current POTUS wins fine, if his challenger wins fine again, so long as the constitution is upheld and we move forward as a nation who cares. If you think this paper is a right wing rag don't read it, publish your own. Either way be thankful you have a forum they provide to vent, and that we live in a country were that is still an enshrined freedom.

Posted by: drummer1369

November 6, 2012 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am better off than I was 4 years ago and so are most of my friends. My company is doing better than we were during the recession, the entire year has been strong and October was a record month. We have ended one war, are in the process of ending another, and have not started any new wars. People have gained freedom (DADT repealed) and access to health care.

I am not a fan of big government, but the government seems to be moving this country in the right direction. If the parties can work together to address spending, the next 4 years could be really good for America.

Posted by: TheHunter

November 6, 2012 at 6:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead.

Small businesses are growing.

Trickle down doesn't work. Never has, never will.

A vote for Romey is a vote against the American middle class.

Posted by: puzzleman

November 6, 2012 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

But wait. Romney promised me a "a chicken in every pot and a car elevator in every garage." Think of the business that will produce. The economy will be saved.

Posted by: mljirka

November 6, 2012 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

drummer1369, if you don't like our posts then don't read them or start another online commentary of your own. We pay so we have the privilege.

Now that makes as much sense as the tripe you posted.

Posted by: cdawg

November 6, 2012 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sensitive aren't we cdawg, I liked some of things FFT posted,just not some of the links. Truth is everyone is entitled to their views, and your posts were very entertaining. Even if they paint this great state a bevy of racists and on the wrong side of History. Sorry you thought what I wrote was tripe. But I'm sure I'll get over it. To each their own. I stand by what I said, this papers endorsement doesn't really carry that much weight and the republic will survive no matter who is elected.

Posted by: drummer1369

November 6, 2012 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Welcome drummer1369! The liberals democrats on this thread take themselves REAL serious.

Posted by: JailBird

November 6, 2012 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm just loving the articles that the Arkansas Republican Gazette is having to run this morning, tee hee! Wonder how they'll wrap their heads around the fact that Americans voted *again* for Obama?

Posted by: SPA

November 7, 2012 at 7:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's a beautiful thing for the forces of good.

‎"The Republicans Bet Everything, and Obama Won It All"


"...Republicans greeted Barack Obama’s presidency with a calculated wave of total opposition. They would not cut a deal on health care or on the federal budget, each time accepting the risk of total defeat rather than settling for half-measures, like giving Democrats some kind of token health care reform or small tax increase.

The gamble was that by denying Obama any support, they would render his presidency wholly partisan at best, and a dysfunctional failure at worst. They would increase their own chances of denying him a second term, and that their return to power would allow them to claim a full and absolute break with the past. They shoved all their chips onto tonight’s election. When the networks called it at 11:15 pm, the totality of the right’s failure was clear. And because they bid up the stakes as high as they could, their loss was unusually devastating."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 7, 2012 at 9:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Morman or a Muslem was no choice at all. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

Posted by: JailBird

November 7, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

PSharri: Those people in Illinois, NJ and Pennsylvania despite the fact that many are hurting, ended up voting Obama back in.
Exit polls show the majority of voters think Bush had more to do with the bad economy than Obama does.

Posted by: Coralie

November 7, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The problem with the razorback football team is Bush's fault.

Posted by: JailBird

November 7, 2012 at 3:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor republicans, do you need a tissue ?

Posted by: rummy

November 7, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Politics is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top.

Posted by: JailBird

November 7, 2012 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Even if they paint this great state a bevy of racists and on the wrong side of History. <

I have no idea of how long you've been around The Land of Opportunity but I've had over six decades of it,while in business worked at one time or another in every County.

Yes, it is a racist state. Ark is still paying for the White Citizens Councils of 1957. We are still under Federal Court supervision of our schools because of the lingering racism practiced over 50 years ago at Little Rock Central which Eisenhower called in Federal troops to enforce a Supreme Court ruling that "separate" is not equal. The White Citizens Council fought it by packing school boards to fight every attempt to desegregate our schools. As a result school districts have had federal monitors since that time making sure they comply. Over the years the Ark Dept of Education had to spend millions of dollars paying attorney fees for something that should have been settled over 50 yrs ago. But White Citizens Councils across the state would not let it die. Jim Johnson was an avowed racists and a very proud one. He led segregation efforts in Ark for years. He ran for governor twice. He ran for U.S. Senator once. He served on the Ark Supreme Court for 10 years.
Jim Johnson switched to the Republican Party in the 1980s.

In 1968 Ark sent it's electoral college votes to George Wallace, a known and proud racist.

During Nixon's second election in 1972 his strategist Pat Buchanan had devised his "Southern Strategy" which worked well in Arkansas.

In the 1980s someone discovered a computer file on the UofA in Fayetteville's computer labeled "Nigg*rs at UA." When revealed it caused quite a stink for the University.

My partner is a nurse at an area hospital and hears about "that nigg*r in the White House" routinely, from patients and staff. Two Christmases ago I was with relatives in central Ark and heard over and over about the "nigg*r in the White House" from family members and how they detested him. They had friends over to their 8,000 sq foot lake home and they all laughed about it.They knew Obama would be finished this year.

So, yes, racism is very alive in Arkansas and all the slave states. Obama didn't bother to campaign in any of them. Who could blame him.

Posted by: cdawg

November 8, 2012 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee cdawg, what brought that on? I'm just a narrow minded provincial: Sad to say but true--I am more interested in the mountain lions of Utah, the wolves of Yellowstone, and the ecology of the Grand Canyon than all the rights of blacks, the fate of Latinos (legal or otherwise), and the muslims of Araby. Humans can take care of themselves. Are people more important than the grizzly bear? Only from the point of some people. God bless America. Let's save some of it.

Posted by: JailBird

November 8, 2012 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Damn, I love ya cdaig. if it was nof for that pardner business I thank you and I could become and item. Love ya long babe.

Posted by: JailBird

November 8, 2012 at 9:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

change the subject this is old news.

Posted by: troutjig

November 10, 2012 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree. He's been elected, again. Let's just be thankful he's not gay, or - worse yet - a chick.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

November 10, 2012 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A "chick"? Thank Goddess we have Obama. We could've had a prick.

Posted by: SPA

November 12, 2012 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coulda had Hellery.

Posted by: JailBird

November 12, 2012 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mrs. Clinton would've been better than what we got, right? At least she knows how to stand by her man - she might even know how to bake cookies, if I remember correctly . . . .

Posted by: CaptainQuint

November 13, 2012 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A few decades back there was a very well-regarded Congresswoman from Congress--black woman--can't remember her name, can you help me out cdawg?
Anyway, she was a great leader and I would have voted for her for President against most of the Republican candidates I've ever seen.

Posted by: Coralie

November 13, 2012 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, I meant to say a Congresswoman from TEXAS. This was Barbara Jordan, who served 1972-1979. Wikipedia says:
"In 1976, Jordan, mentioned as a possible running mate to Jimmy Carter of Georgia,became instead the first African-American woman to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Her speech in New York that summer was ranked 5th in "Top 100 American Speeches of the 20th century" list and was considered by some historians to have been among the best convention keynote speeches in modern history."
Can you imagine what it took for a black woman to be elected from Texas in the 1970s?

Posted by: Coralie

November 14, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Government should be weak, amateurish, and ridiculous. At present, it fulfils only a third of its role.

Posted by: JailBird

November 14, 2012 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )