Does everyone here think Mitt will beat Obama?

BUT how do you sway congress when they are soooo partisan....How did Bill Clinton do it!...Do you really think that Romney will bring the olive branch?....Because of his past history, I have to give him a 5...Really looking forward to the debates and hopefully everyone will tell the truth!!!!

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

These politicians who claim "I was a businessman, I created jobs, I know how to create jobs, I will create jobs if you vote for me", crack me up. While knowledge of economics, business management etc. are useful, these people have little or no clue how to run a national economy or fix our problems, much less actually create jobs. I don't care how large or successful the business you ran, it in virtually no way relates to running the government, either in scale, or power. A CEO can decide the business is going to take a new direction, and within a month his/her vision can be put into reality. In government there is no ability to that by oneself, unless you are FDR, and he could not do it today with the current D.C. environment.

I remember when Mitt was our Gov. in Ma. he had to deal with some pretty tough Liberal Dem's and I have to say he was very good at it.

Originally Posted by jebartle

BUT how do you sway congress when they are soooo partisan....How did Bill Clinton do it!...Do you really think that Romney will bring the olive branch?....Because of his past history, I have to give him a 5...Really looking forward to the debates and hopefully everyone will tell the truth!!!!

Clinton was the ultimate politician. He knew when to push and when to pull, when to stand firm and when to capitulate, when to use the bully pulpit and when to use the backroom. Obama is nowhere near the polished politicain Clinton was, but in fairness, he has encountered bitter partisan opposition that was not nearly as fierce in BCs time. Is Romney in that class - I doubt it, however IF he gets in office, chances are he will have a republican majority for the first two years. Would he use it wisely? That is the 64 billion dollar question

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Clinton was the ultimate politician. He knew when to push and when to pull, when to stand firm and when to capitulate, when to use the bully pulpit and when to use the backroom. Obama is nowhere near the polished politicain Clinton was, but in fairness, he has encountered bitter partisan opposition that was not nearly as fierce in BCs time. Is Romney in that class - I doubt it, however IF he gets in office, chances are he will have a republican majority for the first two years. Would he use it wisely? That is the 64 billion dollar question

I just need to remind you that despite the "popular" feeling, the partisan rankle was caused mostly, not all, but the most by the President himself. THAT is why the elections in 2010 went the way it did. It was obvious he was off and running and could care less about any congress, thus no budget, no communications and he HIMSELF walked away from some bi partisan opportunities. He clearly sent the message...it is my way or the highway. Was he totally to blame..heck no, but he has the con right now and he could have, had he wished, done anything he wanted for 2 years and he made his choices.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I may be backward in my thinking but if that IS the conservative viewpoint, I hope I never understand it. It is one thing to point to a leader and say, "see he failed because of flawed policies or flawed idiology", but to want him/her to fail before the fact, and then doing everything possible to assure his failure is sad and unpatriotic. I see Bush as a failed president largely because of Iraq, but I sure as hell didn't wish him to fail when he took us there.

Let me try to explain simply. I believe that Obama plans on devolving this country. He does not really want to elevate this country. He wants to punish the achievers who "steal" what they earn and give that wealth to those who's share has been "stolen".

I believe without any doubt in my mind that Obama is a Marxist at heart and is advancing a socialist agenda with the exact purpose of cutting this country down to size.

I want him to fail at that.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Let me try to explain simply. I believe that Obama plans on devolving this country. He does not really want to elevate this country. He wants to punish the achievers who "steal" what they earn and give that wealth to those who's share has been "stolen".

I believe without any doubt in my mind that Obama is a Marxist at heart and is advancing a socialist agenda with the exact purpose of cutting this country down to size.

I want him to fail at that.

When this entire thing started with Limbaugh, it was made very clear and was clear to all , EXCEPT those who politicize everything, that he meant exactly as you explain it. All this crap for years about this stuff is just hot air !!!

Obama has only been trained...remember this is a man who never held a job except that of a community organizer and if you check the commmunity orgranizer website (yeah they have a great training website) you will see nothing but extreme ideas in play. No job and ALL OF HIS TRAINING ....all of his past associates fit the bill as described by RICHIELION.

Given his training and background which is all we had or have....there is nothing wrong with wishing him to fail at what he has been trained in.

Originally Posted by Bucco

First of all, you are correct in what you say about claims and promises to do anything, however it does ring a bit truer from someone who actually performed in the real world in some capacity, and not spent his entire life running for office of some kind.

Secondly, the most pressing need to your point, of our next president is to build bridges in Washington and create dialogue. Again, our current President has had three years and has failed miserably. He flat out stopped when he realized he could do what he wanted the first two years and THAT ACT OF JUST PLAIN NOT CARING...is what allowed the right wing tea party type folks to get elected in 2010 and destroy any chance.

Seems like a pretty easy choice to me on all your points. One is and has been NOTHING but a politician and the other a proven leader in a number of areas in his life.

One had a chance to build bridges and failed totally...the other has done that in a number of areas as well.

Nobody is perfect but this choice is easy and important.

Hey Bucco, glad you're back. However, I must remind you that you still are EXAGGERATING to the maximum degree, and BLASTING us with CAPITAL LETTER EMPHASIS, in case we don't get your point.

Without question, the President is quite a bit more than a politician. He fought hard to blunt the traumatic effects of the recession, bring Wall Street and the banks under control, initiate important consumer protections, combat terrorism, and steadily move us out of land wars. He risked everything to finally establish a promising "beachhead" on national health care. Why is it that this list, and other examples of Obama's leadership have to be repeated over and over? You cannot simply wipe them away with another 'he's done NOTHING'.

And I'm baffled how you can conclude that Obama did even MORE nothing after the mid-term elections. Your descriptive exaggeration is "THAT ACT OF JUST PLAIN NOT CARING..." Of course he has faced unprecedented opposition, but don't you recall anything about the immigration executive order which virtually everyone, including Marco Rubio, admits was a sensible move? How about addressing bin Laden and other terrorists? And arguing everywhere for a Jobs Bill that economists agree would really jumpstart employment, improve the economy overall and our infrastructure, especially when businesses continue to sit on trillions? You can't force businesses to invest that money, but it is likely they would if a Jobs Bill got things started.

Just give a little credit where it's due, and if you're so set on Romney, a moderate who will likely work with a stubborn Congress, ask yourself what and how he will do better. That's what I've been doing, and my jury's still out.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Hey Bucco, glad you're back. However, I must remind you that you still are EXAGGERATING to the maximum degree, and BLASTING us with CAPITAL LETTER EMPHASIS, in case we don't get your point.

Without question, the President is quite a bit more than a politician. He fought hard to blunt the traumatic effects of the recession, bring Wall Street and the banks under control, initiate important consumer protections, combat terrorism, and steadily move us out of land wars. He risked everything to finally establish a promising "beachhead" on national health care. Why is it that this list, and other examples of Obama's leadership have to be repeated over and over? You cannot simply wipe them away with another 'he's done NOTHING'.

And I'm baffled how you can conclude that Obama did even MORE nothing after the mid-term elections. Your descriptive exaggeration is "THAT ACT OF JUST PLAIN NOT CARING..." Of course he has faced unprecedented opposition, but don't you recall anything about the immigration executive order which virtually everyone, including Marco Rubio, admits was a sensible move? How about addressing bin Laden and other terrorists? And arguing everywhere for a Jobs Bill that economists agree would really jumpstart employment, improve the economy overall and our infrastructure, especially when businesses continue to sit on trillions? You can't force businesses to invest that money, but it is likely they would if a Jobs Bill got things started.

Just give a little credit where it's due, and if you're so set on Romney, a moderate who will likely work with a stubborn Congress, ask yourself what and how he will do better. That's what I've been doing, and my jury's still out.

I think you need to understand...I will and have given him credit.

I think if you read the posts, I was specifically referring to his not even trying to cross the aisle and bring congress together. It was not all his fault, but he had a chance and just because he could get what he wanted without trying with congress that is what he did and basically snubbed his nose at even his own party in congress. Thus he didnt even try..he was actually insulting during any conversation he allowed the other party to take part in on healthcare.

THAT action or inaction....that is what lead to the TEAPARTY movement among other things and thus the election in 2010 became a reaction to what he was doing in ignoring the other side.

Are Republicans guilt free...heck no.....but just look at the bills piled up in the Senate in the last years....do you really think that Reid is blocking everything without Obama knowing or approving it.

He has shown ZERO leadership in pulling congress together..he has shown either he does not care or that he cannot do it. To me, that is sufficient...he wants to do what HE wants to do...pretty obvious. Of course some of this ideas are just fine but it is without any input from anywhere else

Allow me to make a prediction.....after he is out of office...either this year or in 4 years, you will read so many books and quotes FROM DEMOCRATS who are simply disgusted with their leader ! Just remember where you heard it...they will not turn while he is in office but just keep it stored in the back of your mind and that includes Bill Clinton who will be his best chance this election and will do whatever the party needs.

PS.....the JOBS bill you alllude to was JUST introduced about 8 months ago Where was it and if you read you will find many Democrats who oppose it. Secondly there are and have been over 30 bills sent to the senate over the last year of so....that would create jobs all of different levels that the Democrats, under Obama leadership will not even discuss or vote on. This is a terrific politician and he is shooting wildly since the election season came into play...but I simply ask you to be fair also...why these things in an election year ? Why is the Health care law being paid so retroactively ? Why will not the senate enteratain ANYTHING from the House

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Let me try to explain simply. I believe that Obama plans on devolving this country. He does not really want to elevate this country. He wants to punish the achievers who "steal" what they earn and give that wealth to those who's share has been "stolen".

I believe without any doubt in my mind that Obama is a Marxist at heart and is advancing a socialist agenda with the exact purpose of cutting this country down to size.

I want him to fail at that.

Richie, you're off the deep end again. You get hooked every time on this "Marxist' crap, and "stealing from those who have sweated for every one of their billion dollars'.
Calm down. Recognize that no country can exist without effective ways of recirculating it's wealth directly and continuously into it's domestic economy. Those who have amassed great wealth (and I won't even mention how high the percentage of them did little or no work to acquire it) were able to do so BECAUSE of the stability and security of their nation. They would not have achieved that wealth if they lived in Somalia. The privilege of living in a protected free enterprise system therefore requires paying something back. Some taxes. You accept that, right? But the facts are that those who have wealth, many in amounts which they cannot even calculate or ever spend, are paying less in taxes than at any time in history. Many are sitting on millions they don't even pay attention to, depriving the economy of their stimulus. Many spend millions out of the country on business and luxury items, to further avoid taxes and deprive the domestic economy of what they are capable of contributing at little or no sacrifice.

A country doesn't remain great if large segments contribute little. Many millions of lower and middle class folks work hard for every dollar. Contrary to what some say here, that most of those people pay no taxes, they all pay a significant amount of their modest incomes in sales taxes, interest fees etc., just trying to survive. The proportional sacrifices of the wealth are of no comparison.

Despite your repeated insistence, Obama is not a socialist or a marxist. He is a moderate forced to accept the unhappy agenda left him but previous administrations, namely that we have to move back toward the center where enough money is circulated to finally overcome the recession and begin to reduce the deficit.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Richie, you're off the deep end again. You get hooked every time on this "Marxist' crap, and "stealing from those who have sweated for every one of their billion dollars'.
Calm down. Recognize that no country can exist without effective ways of recirculating it's wealth directly and continuously into it's domestic economy. Those who have amassed great wealth (and I won't even mention how high the percentage of them did little or no work to acquire it) were able to do so BECAUSE of the stability and security of their nation. They would not have achieved that wealth if they lived in Somalia. The privilege of living in a protected free enterprise system therefore requires paying something back. Some taxes. You accept that, right? But the facts are that those who have wealth, many in amounts which they cannot even calculate or ever spend, are paying less in taxes than at any time in history. Many are sitting on millions they don't even pay attention to, depriving the economy of their stimulus. Many spend millions out of the country on business and luxury items, to further avoid taxes and deprive the domestic economy of what they are capable of contributing at little or no sacrifice.

A country doesn't remain great if large segments contribute little. Many millions of lower and middle class folks work hard for every dollar. Contrary to what some say here, that most of those people pay no taxes, they all pay a significant amount of their modest incomes in sales taxes, interest fees etc., just trying to survive. The proportional sacrifices of the wealth are of no comparison.

Despite your repeated insistence, Obama is not a socialist or a marxist. He is a moderate forced to accept the unhappy agenda left him but previous administrations, namely that we have to move back toward the center where enough money is circulated to finally overcome the recession and begin to reduce the deficit.

May I ask with all due respect....at what point in his "career" was he even exposed to moderate politics ? When where and who ?

This country, in my opinion, is getting sick of the rich versus poor stuff...the racist stuff.....Romney may be a terrible president but in my opinion the country is just plain sick of it.

I would like you to comment however on my question. Look at ALL of his training and give me just ONE person, place or thing that even exposed him to moderation in policies or politics. Review his appointees, especially in the first two years...who was moderate ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I think you need to understand...I will and have given him credit.

I think if you read the posts, I was specifically referring to his not even trying to cross the aisle and bring congress together. It was not all his fault, but he had a chance and just because he could get what he wanted without trying with congress that is what he did and basically snubbed his nose at even his own party in congress. Thus he didnt even try..he was actually insulting during any conversation he allowed the other party to take part in on healthcare.

THAT action or inaction....that is what lead to the TEAPARTY movement among other things and thus the election in 2010 became a reaction to what he was doing in ignoring the other side.

Are Republicans guilt free...heck no.....but just look at the bills piled up in the Senate in the last years....do you really think that Reid is blocking everything without Obama knowing or approving it.

He has shown ZERO leadership in pulling congress together..he has shown either he does not care or that he cannot do it. To me, that is sufficient...he wants to do what HE wants to do...pretty obvious. Of course some of this ideas are just fine but it is without any input from anywhere else

Allow me to make a prediction.....after he is out of office...either this year or in 4 years, you will read so many books and quotes FROM DEMOCRATS who are simply disgusted with their leader ! Just remember where you heard it...they will not turn while he is in office but just keep it stored in the back of your mind and that includes Bill Clinton who will be his best chance this election and will do whatever the party needs.

PS.....the JOBS bill you alllude to was JUST introduced about 8 months ago Where was it and if you read you will find many Democrats who oppose it. Secondly there are and have been over 30 bills sent to the senate over the last year of so....that would create jobs all of different levels that the Democrats, under Obama leadership will not even discuss or vote on. This is a terrific politician and he is shooting wildly since the election season came into play...but I simply ask you to be fair also...why these things in an election year ? Why is the Health care law being paid so retroactively ? Why will not the senate enteratain ANYTHING from the House

Your first sentence here is a direct contradiction to the post I responded to. You can't say he was "NOTHING but a politician", then say you've given him credit for some accomplishments.

And now you 'clarify' that Obama's real fault was showing "ZERO leadership in pulling Congress together". Wait! You just said he was "NOTHING but a politician". Politicians by definition are successful if they build the coalitions which get things done.

So Bucco, which way is it? You have really waffled on the above post. You know full well that Obama had to pull out all the stops to get the legislation which was passed in his first two years, especially the ACA. In 2010, the annual survey of american history and political science professors placed him as the 15th most effective President in history. Obama had to be the consummate politician and leader during that period. Many in his own party were fearful of the 'drastic" measures (see bailouts, especially auto companies), he proposed. The ACA was the biggest risk because of the fear of the unknown, which had to be accepted to redirect our awful current system, denial of coverage, etc. From the start the Republicans painted themselves into Mitch McConnell's corner. Their mantra, and that of the newborn teapartiers is "it can't be done". Their whole agenda now is to frighten the American people with every bad fantasy which can be conjured up. We are no longer the Can Do Americans.

As I've said before, my glass is half FULL. I am convinced the actions of the Obama administration including ACA have put us in a better position than we were in 2008, the deficit notwithstanding. I am concerned about the polarization between the administration and Congress, which is why I have not yet decided who will get my vote in November.

Originally Posted by tucson

Does everyone here think Mitt will beat Obama?

Noooo.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Your first sentence here is a direct contradiction to the post I responded to. You can't say he was "NOTHING but a politician", then say you've given him credit for some accomplishments.

And now you 'clarify' that Obama's real fault was showing "ZERO leadership in pulling Congress together". Wait! You just said he was "NOTHING but a politician". Politicians by definition are successful if they build the coalitions which get things done.

So Bucco, which way is it? You have really waffled on the above post. You know full well that Obama had to pull out all the stops to get the legislation which was passed in his first two years, especially the ACA. In 2010, the annual survey of american history and political science professors placed him as the 15th most effective President in history. Obama had to be the consummate politician and leader during that period. Many in his own party were fearful of the 'drastic" measures (see bailouts, especially auto companies), he proposed. The ACA was the biggest risk because of the fear of the unknown, which had to be accepted to redirect our awful current system, denial of coverage, etc. From the start the Republicans painted themselves into Mitch McConnell's corner. Their mantra, and that of the newborn teapartiers is "it can't be done". Their whole agenda now is to frighten the American people with every bad fantasy which can be conjured up. We are no longer the Can Do Americans.

As I've said before, my glass is half FULL. I am convinced the actions of the Obama administration including ACA have put us in a better position than we were in 2008, the deficit notwithstanding. I am concerned about the polarization between the administration and Congress, which is why I have not yet decided who will get my vote in November.

Perhaps this is getting lost in the translation but you r comment "the deficit notwithstanding" is awesome. THAT it simply a HUGE and tremendous negative which cannot be passed off with "notwithstanding" and maybe we just do not share the same priorities. I see the healthcare bill as pushing us so far over the cliff in about 6 years we may as well give it up an I see the deficit that this man has ignored totally as ONE of the basics of what is killing this country. Just a very small example but this country is losing so much money right now as being an owner of GM but nobody cares. We will never every pay for this healthcare bill, and nobody cares (mostly because if was structured to be paid when he is gone)

I am sorry.....I see this country as being in really deep trouble, and we need somebody who can get us talking again. Is it Romney...I dont know....what I do know is that it is not the current occupant of the WH...he has failed at it and he can blame Bush all he wants...he can blame the rich all he wants...he can blame the house all he wants and he does blame all those people by the way, but he had three years and failed !

And allow me to close by saying that I disagree totally with you....A great politician is good at getting elected and making speeches. A leader gets things done and accomplishes bringing folks together and he, the President, has divided this country along so many different lines in the past 3 years which he learned in his community organizer days for sure.

Wow, strong talk that means absolutely NOTHING!

First, President (YOUR President) has his signature piece of legislation upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act will help millions of Americans. Be grateful. It is a good thing. Do not be like the GNopers of saying anything the president has done is crap. Stupid answer.

Secondly, this President saved millions of jobs with the saving of the American automobile industry. He saved it from plunging the country into a Depression. GNopers say bankruptsy would have been the answer. Stupid answer, again.

Americans like President Obama. He is a good man and will provide great support for America for the next 4 years.