Anyone but Obama

[oladub]

firstandten: "Oladub you don't consider Romney to be a corporatist ? I would think he would be one of the biggest ones out there."

" Romney is not as perfect as Ron Paul."

Romney, in my opinion, falls far short of Ron Paul for, among other reasons, being a corporatist. Obama and Romney have both had Goldman-Sachs as one of their top campaign donors. That is a fairly reliable indice of being a corporatist tool. Goldman-Sachs knows better than to give money to candidates like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. GS wants a return. I was answering the OP which suggested that the Republican-Democratic divide was more black and white than I see it.

[rb336]

I hope everyone reads the article that Zacha341 linked in post 7. It is one of the better articles explaining his political style. His is a style that takes some getting use to since most politicans are

facts matter not a bit to much of the electorate. Obama's been a pragmatic, central-right president. I've pointed out many of the facts included in that article numerous times to no affect. Ideology rules here.

[Papasito]

2. Obama is black.

Yes, Obama is black. Well, partially anyway. Get over it. The Civil War is long over, when those slave importing Northern States fought those Slave Buying Southern States. MLK lived and died. We've had minority politicians in all levels of Government. Time to stop beating the old race drum and turn the page past the Jim Crow days...

[old guy]

The best line I heard yesterday was when Gingrich said that Romney shouldn't be the chosen candidate because he actually lost to the guy that lost to Obama in the election.
Someone mentioned that he was actually the guy that was losing to the guy that lost to the guy that lost to Obama. He didn't have much to say about that.

[coracle]

That's just brilliant wonderful humor big guy. Thanks for the laugh.

[everglade carl]

At the risk of being a "thread-Nazi", there's been a lot of tangents, albeit interesting topics, but I haven't heard a lot of answers to refuting the reasons why Obama deserves way more than a "Anyone But Obama". I hear a lot of conservatives say it. Is this from Fox News or Rush? I watch or listen to neither. I understand the nuance of the troop removal from Iraq, but Obama could have handled it with dare I say, a banner hanging from an aircraft carrier, parades, and other way over the top things. He didn't take much of a victory dance, the same way he took down Osama. I just don't see a villian when I look at him. No sense of a left-wing conspiritoral effort to nuke capitalism; no extremeist who is trying to steal guns, and tear down the Mexican border. I hear conservative friends say, "he has an agenda". Who doesn't have an agenda? He was elected to have an agenda. Has it been so long since 2008 when he was elected on a mandate to improve health care, remove troops from Iraq, and catch Bin Laden? I see him as a president who governs a nation, not one who wants to appease a segment of it. To be fair, I know the candidates are playing to their bases right now, but all of the Republican contenders do have prior, non-election records. All have done a pretty good job of exposing these prior faults, but maybe I'm drinking the koolaid, but their attacks on Obama just seem like vague rhetoric, seeming like they only need to allude to an assumption that "Anyone But Obama" and can just focus on their republican opposition. I've asked friends who say it, and none of them can give me a straight answer. With the intelligent conservative and liberal minds on this forum, I'm hoping for more output. I vote both R and D, but have not found a solid reason to vote against Obama.

[rb336]

I just don't see a villian when I look at him. No sense of a left-wing conspiritoral effort to nuke capitalism; no extremeist who is trying to steal guns, and tear down the Mexican border....their attacks on Obama just seem like vague rhetoric, seeming like they only need to allude to an assumption that "Anyone But Obama" and can just focus on their republican opposition. I've asked friends who say it, and none of them can give me a straight answer. With the intelligent conservative and liberal minds on this forum, I'm hoping for more output. I vote both R and D, but have not found a solid reason to vote against Obama.

This is how the republicans have been acting since Obama came to office. No ideas, just "anti" -- even on Obama's more conservative measures, like cuts to entitlement programs. They seem thoroughly trapped in that cycle

[bartock]

This is how the republicans have been acting since Obama came to office. No ideas, just "anti" -- even on Obama's more conservative measures, like cuts to entitlement programs. They seem thoroughly trapped in that cycle

This is how BOTH parties play it when the other party is in office. That being said, I agree with your assessment of President Obama. He has been far more conservative than he is given credit for [[though the Dems seem to criticize it) and has had to work against another party majority. Tough climate to get anything done in [[the budget thing was grandstanding on both sides, and completely ridiculous), but he has managed to move a few things forward. I don't see where the sky is falling, but fear is the ammunition du jour in any election season, regardless of party.

[rb336]

This is how BOTH parties play it when the other party is in office..

I don't recall anything NEAR the obstructionism the republicans have conducted during dubya's administration, or his father's, or reagan's. The repubs didn't go anywhere near this far during clinton's

[oladub]

I'm hoping for more output. I vote both R and D, but have not found a solid reason to vote against Obama.

Any of these reasons are sufficient for my taste.
1) Obama's perpetually high unemployment levels Democrats would other wise deem unacceptable.
2) Endless and expanded warring in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan.
3) His attempt to negotiate keeping US troops in Iraq.
4) The use of an executive order to bomb a foreign capitol without so much as asking Congress.
5) Trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see caused by overspending and extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
6) Corporate tendencies such as being a cheerleader for the Wall Street bailout, putting so many Monsanto and Goldman-Sachs executives into his administration, creating a health care plan which did nothing to boot legal, paperwork, and insurance company costs out of US medicine, while protecting and expanding the powers of the mega-bank owned Federal Reserve.
7) Picking and choosing which laws his administration chooses to enforce.
8) Recent uses of executive orders to legislate and spend without the approval of Congress.
9) His attacks on civil liberties [[civil rights) and support of other manifestations of our expanding police state.

Maybe Democrats can stomach the above but this is an offhand short list of reasons I wouldn't consider voting for President Obama [[or most for the Republican candidates). That said, Obama is no different than W. Bush on many of the above counts; amplifying rather than reversing Bush's policies. Also, I suspect that three of the five Republican presidential candidates would be even worse than Obama, Romney pretty much the same, and only Ron Paul would reverse the Bush/Obama legacy.

[firstandten]

At the risk of being a "thread-Nazi", there's been a lot of tangents, albeit interesting topics, but I haven't heard a lot of answers to refuting the reasons why Obama deserves way more than a "Anyone But Obama". I hear a lot of conservatives say it. Is this from Fox News or Rush? I watch or listen to neither. I understand the nuance of the troop removal from Iraq, but Obama could have handled it with dare I say, a banner hanging from an aircraft carrier, parades, and other way over the top things. He didn't take much of a victory dance, the same way he took down Osama. I just don't see a villian when I look at him. No sense of a left-wing conspiritoral effort to nuke capitalism; no extremeist who is trying to steal guns, and tear down the Mexican border. I hear conservative friends say, "he has an agenda". Who doesn't have an agenda? He was elected to have an agenda. Has it been so long since 2008 when he was elected on a mandate to improve health care, remove troops from Iraq, and catch Bin Laden? I see him as a president who governs a nation, not one who wants to appease a segment of it. To be fair, I know the candidates are playing to their bases right now, but all of the Republican contenders do have prior, non-election records. All have done a pretty good job of exposing these prior faults, but maybe I'm drinking the koolaid, but their attacks on Obama just seem like vague rhetoric, seeming like they only need to allude to an assumption that "Anyone But Obama" and can just focus on their republican opposition. I've asked friends who say it, and none of them can give me a straight answer. With the intelligent conservative and liberal minds on this forum, I'm hoping for more output. I vote both R and D, but have not found a solid reason to vote against Obama.

If you have read the linked Newsweek article there are more than enough reasons why one should vote for Obama in the upcoming election. Of course you will have the" just because" percentage who will vote against him. Overall he has a solid record while having to deal with political and economic crazyness in DC Besides while the Repubs candidates are all playing to there bases right now, can you see any of them able to move back to the middle to appeal to folks such as yourself if they get the nomination. Only Romney, and he has enough political baggage that he will be a tough sell in the general election.

[firstandten]

Maybe Democrats can stomach the above but this is an offhand short list of reasons I wouldn't consider voting for President Obama [[or most for the Republican candidates). That said, Obama is no different than W. Bush on many of the above counts; amplifying rather than reversing Bush's policies. Also, I suspect that three of the five Republican presidential candidates would be even worse than Obama, Romney pretty much the same, and only Ron Paul would reverse the Bush/Obama legacy.

Paul is unelectable, Americans are not ready for a libertarian candidate. Repubs are not ready for such a candidate to lead the party. His best bet is to run as a third party candidate and build for the future of libertarian candidates, however in the short term by doing that he will ensure Obama's re-election.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

romney is not as perfect as ron paul.

vote ron paul for the michigan republican primary!!!

[Jimaz]

Pat Paulsen for President

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.

[maxx]

Yes, Obama is black. Well, partially anyway. Get over it. The Civil War is long over, when those slave importing Northern States fought those Slave Buying Southern States. MLK lived and died. We've had minority politicians in all levels of Government. Time to stop beating the old race drum and turn the page past the Jim Crow days...

You seem to forget how Reps. played the race card against McCain not so long ago.

Everglade carl:

Reps. have absolutely nothing positive to say about any Dem. When Obama tried to adopt past Rep. issues, they rejected those issues. They are getting so rightwing Reagan couldn't get nominated by the RNC today.

First and foremost we need to get big money out of our elections. The money Rep. candidates are spending to bad-mouth each other is outrageously wasteful when you consider all the healthcare those millions could supply to Americans.

As for Ron Paul, just imagine the sort of life we would all lead if Ron Paul's policies were implemented, i.e., no FDA, no EPA, no regulations of any businesses like coal and nuclear. Obama is attempting to reduce the outrageously bloated Defense Dept.. I hope he does the same for Homeland Security.

And if you watch the Colbert Report, you'll get lessons in how super PACs work. Unbelievable.

[rb336]

in the short term by doing that he will ensure Obama's re-election.

I think the atrocious field and internal divisiveness is dooming them in November.

[lit joe]

Now he given military contracts to Brazil for air craft. What you don;t hear george soros got big stock in it, It;s only 1299 jobs losted at beechcraft and 38% more cost to taxpayers.

[Gistok]

Now he given military contracts to Brazil for air craft. What you don;t hear george soros got big stock in it, It;s only 1299 jobs losted at beechcraft and 38% more cost to taxpayers.

Got a viable news source on that?

[old guy]

Now he given military contracts to Brazil for air craft. What you don;t hear george soros got big stock in it, It;s only 1299 jobs losted at beechcraft and 38% more cost to taxpayers.

He's right Gistok. Well kind of. Well, not very. The Brazilian corporation is located in Jacksonville Florida where the planes will be built, providing about 50 American jobs and dumping 355 million dollars into the Florida economy. They'll be partnering with the Sierra Nevada Corporation, an American based company.

[maxx]

re: George Soros

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010...-brothers.html

"...George Soros founded the Open Society Institute which is his primary philanthropy organization. According to the website, "The Open Society Foundations fund a range of programs around the world, from public health to education to business development." While the foundation spends much of its resources on democratic causes around the world, OSI has also contributed to political advocacy groups such as the Tides Foundation. In 2004, Soros pledged $3 million to the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress. Soros is also a major financial backer of the Democracy Alliance, an organization committed to drive progressive activist funding and the recently formed Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was jump started by a $50 million pledge from Soros..."

[Certainly sounds like some sinister programs.lol]

[lit joe]

They are passing out dollar for a liberal agenda.

[Big Dog]

lit joe, Watch fox much? LOL

[everglade carl]

Oladub: You bring up good points. Some of them I could go along with. So far, the only thing for me that borders on unelectability was his handling of the wall street bailouts. Taking into account that most of the bailout was continued through the Bush administration, I still think, in the aftermath, while he still had more of a grasp on Congress, he could've set forth stronger regulation to prevent the current and future misuse of wall-street offenders. It seems like he was caught flat-footed. I know much of this was due to his counseling by Larry Summers, but he still had the final say, and these brokers got away with murder. At this point it seems too late to do anything, but what do I know? I know opinions vary because of how dire you might have thought the economic circumstances were at the time [[for the record I think they were extremely severe and the "bailouts" did help us from getting worse) but he missed the chance to do more. With this said, I guess what happens in the future with the economy will tell me how much this means to me, but as it stands now, I see us in being in a slow recovery. I'm anxious to see how the inevitable debate over raising the debt ceiling will turn out. I've heard great points, many things I haven't heard, but unless Romney actually stands for something, he seems like a stammering, defensive, aloof, man whose desperation for the office is unpresidental. // I wonder how a 3rd party involvement might effect things. Coming from the far right would obviously be republican suicide, but is there someone with a moderate record that could pull people from both sides? Right now, I'm still on the Obama wagon, until something more than vague contempt is coming from the other side. Maybe this will change when the Obamba/Romney bout goes into full swing.Thanks for entertaining my questions.

[Zacha341]

I'm getting resigned that president Obama may win. With the repub offerings and the 'wild card' Paul to split the difference[[s)... Barack Obama may get four more years.

[lit joe]

lets get this straight fla right to work state you can build planes. but south carolina a right to work state you can't build planes. whats up with that.