Why should Romney be president?

**Zacha341** · July-25-12, 01:24 PM

Many repubs are going to pinch their noses as they vote for Romney - he has his baggage and issues. Some indies/ libertarians etc. will do neither [[Romney or Obama). Got that memo.

Setting that aside, when Obama gets back in [[and I think he will), concern and questioning of his policies, results, and outcomes going forth will continue to increase from 'within' the party.

The 'hate' factor will be less an issue of influence, perhaps? Certainly less an excuse to deny problems entering a fifth year...

....a fifth year beyond Bush... Will we be free and clear to evaluate and respond then?

Originally Posted by rb336

^^Typical Obama hater^^

ever listen to anything but right-wing nutcase radio?

**rb336** · July-25-12, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Setting that aside, when Obama gets back in [[and I think he will), concern and questioning of his policies, results, and outcomes going forth will continue to increase from 'within' the party.

almost certainly true, especially regarding his corporatist tendencies.

The 'hate' factor will be less an issue of influence, perhaps? Certainly less an excuse to deny problems entering a fifth year...

....a fifth year beyond Bush... Will we be free and clear to evaluate and respond then?

You are ALWAYS free and clear to evaluate and respond. However, to do so intelligently requires context. Is the country better off now than it was in 2008? absolutely. Have republicans obstructed many job creation initiatives? Absolutely. just look at the cloture vote last Thursday [[I think it was last thursday, maybe earlier) and other actions where the republicans clearly aimed their policy not at creating jobs but at getting Obama out of office. Are other things outside of our government's control influencing things? Absolutely. Europe, riding on the failed coattails of austerity hysteria, is an economic black hole, and the perfect example of what would happen here under a republican administration, and why intelligence dictates that you do not cut govt. spending in an economic crisis

**firstandten** · July-25-12, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Romney is touting his business background as well as a strong reason for him to be elected. However, running a business & running government just aren't the same. They never can be regardless of how many people demand that "gov't be run like a business".

Paul Krugman addresses your point in this link

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10...not-a-business

President Obama "When some people question why I would challenge [Mitt Romney's] Bain record," he told CBS News on July 13, "the point I've made there in the past is, if you're a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business — it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor."

After finding out where the B-school is located on campus, thats the very next thing you learn about business.

**oladub** · July-25-12, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

How many times must I say that because of Senate filibustering rules a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can get your agenda passed. You need a super majority [[60 votes) which Obama had for a quick minute when Franken got in then lost it when Kennedy died. The only reason Obama was able to get the ACA passed was because he did have majority control of the House the first two years and then did a reconciliation thru the Senate. Of course the last two years he neither had the majority in the House or the super majority in the Senate.

As far as Mitts record in MA here is a balanced view of his achievements

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys...best-or-worst/

Going back to the first point for a minute. The reason why having a super majoriity is so important that unlike other Congresses were generally somebody will cross party lines to vote for a bill, The Repubs said we are voting NO ! we can talk, read the bill, talk some more... still voting NO !

If that isn't obstructionism then I don't know what is.

The supermajority excuse is even lamer than blaming Bush. It implies that Democrats are too aren't willing or able to outlast a filibuster. Democrats in Wisconsin occupied and put wear on the State Capitol for months after their leaders came back from their stay in Illinois at the motel with the dancing ladies. If Wisconsin Democrats are up to all that, why can't Democrats in Washington out filibuster aging Republicans unless they are not really willing to do so. Kind of like promising the most transparent administration ever, excuses replaced action. The tax breaks for the rich were extended by whom? What does it matter anyway now that President Obama has found his magic executive order wand to wage wars and otherwise overturn or ignore acts of Congress and otherwise legislate? Dictatorial acts trump Republican obstructionism.

Regarding Romney, the subject of this thread, Factcheck did a good job of answering imaginary questions that I've never heard asked. It failed however, to mention that MA was faced with a $3B deficit the year Romney entered office, Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases, and that everything he passed was supported by a Democratic legislature. If only our President had been able to accomplish the same.

Fact is that a trillion dollars a year has been billed to our children and the Fed secretly distributed $16T for good measure and it hasn't worked to the point that the Fed is considering QE3 to slap some more bandages on our cancerous economy to make it seem better. While I'm on that subject, the House voted today 327-98 to fully audit the Fed; a veto proof majority, no obstructionism necessary. Surely, the most transparent administration ever will support this bill.

**firstandten** · July-25-12, 09:54 PM

I don't think the abuse of filibustering is lame. Most any DC insider will say it has been abused to the extent that you can't even get day-to-day business done in the Senate. You are one of the few people who doesn't think that its a big reason why DC is broken

One reason is people aren't actually filibustering. They aren't getting up and talking for hours on end, now days they just state there intentions and everything grinds to a halt

"With a de-facto filibuster attached to virtually every piece of legislation entering the Senate, a supermajority is needed to get almost anything done; this is not conducive to a functional government, nor is it how the filibuster, as originally designed, was intended.

"Originally, the filibuster required a senator who wished to continue the filibuster to speak continuously for the duration of their filibustering – if there is nobody willing to continue the filibuster, debate ends and the voting begins. In 1957, Strom Thurmond set the current record of longest continuous filibuster [[fighting the Civil Rights Act) by a single senator at 24 hours and 18 minutes. Unfortunately, the current operation of the filibuster has changed to allow a senator to simply declare a filibuster then go home, making it a tactic without a cost."

quote from Forcechange.com

Give it to the Repubs, its a strategy that works, filibuster everything, grind the political process to a halt, blame the Dems, guess what ? more Repubs in power next election.

As far as the Mittster is concerned he did what he had to do in MA and according to you many Dems supported it. Why couldn't Obama have the same kind of support from the other party with his agenda ?

Its hard to accomplish much if not anything when the other party says NO
NO, NO At least the Dems in MA put the people of the state ahead of just trying to make Mitt look bad.

BTW nice backhanded complement of the fact check article.

**rb336** · July-25-12, 09:59 PM

Maybe Ola just forgot this, from 2010:

**Zacha341** · July-26-12, 07:22 AM

I wish it were so true and consistent that everyone - at all points along a presidents time in office - were able to clearly evaluate, respond. I think the freedom to do so becomes constrained [[especially during an election cycle) by partisan loyalty, and or not wanting the other 'guy' to win. I understand this. I'm not rallying for Romney, but IMO we have problems, withstanding Romney, particularly when president Obama returns to office.

And regarding other outside governmental influences? Yes, agreed per your examples, coupled with the 'rights and obligations' factor!

Nearly all politicians engage in such as they strategically or otherwise obligate themselves [[and us), evoking their 'rights' [[usually as a mode of defense or justification) ala our positioning. Or policy local and internationally in their quest of legacy building and garnering constituents; repaying favors.

I'm particularly concerned to know where this 'politi-king' is in our best interests individually and as a nation, and when course correction IS NEEDED! Whoever is in, dem OR repub!

Originally Posted by rb336

You are ALWAYS free and clear to evaluate and respond. However, to do so intelligently requires context. Is the country better off now than it was in 2008? absolutely. Have republicans obstructed many job creation initiatives? Absolutely. just look at the cloture vote last Thursday [[I think it was last thursday, maybe earlier) and other actions where the republicans clearly aimed their policy not at creating jobs but at getting Obama out of office.

**firstandten** · July-26-12, 03:24 PM

Well, Mitt is in London today, I'm sure he's there to root the men and women of Team USA on to victory and lob a few bombs at Obama's foreign policy.

Naw ! Here's the real reason he's hanging out in London at the same time as the Olympic Games

"Mitt Romney will show his true colors tonight, when he slips behind closed doors in a foreign capital to collect money from international bankers who are mired in scandal.
The presidential contender is officially in London to cheer on the US team in the Olympics. But Romney doesn’t always cheer for Team USA. When it comes to global economics, Romney remains very much the “vulture capitalist” his Republican primary foes decried. And tonight, he’ll be swooping into central London to party with masters of the universe who know no country—and, it would appear, no ethical bounds.
London is abuzz over the Libor [[London InterBank Offered Rate) scandal, which saw some of the biggest banks in the world report false interest rates in order to fool investors and game the international economy. Bob Diamond, the top man in Barclays Bank, had to resign from his position after that bank paid almost $500 million in fines"

"As the investigation of banks implicated in Libor rate-fixing expands, Romney’s decision to go ahead with the London fundraising events is an act either of boldness or recklessness. The presumptive Republican nominee for president seems to think he can get away with raising as much as $2 million at a series of fund-raising events held on foreign soil. The cheapest of Romney’s “lavish” London events has a $2,500-per-person entry fee, while the evening gathering where the most scandal-plagued of international bankers will mingle with their favorite American charges from $25,000-per-person to $75,000 a head."

Quote per Nation Magazine

Then its off to Israel and Poland.

If Mitt really wants to show leadership why not stop in Afghanistan or Iraq
like candidate Obama did in 2008. I guess if there aren't rich bankers there to give him money then its not worth the time.

**rb336** · July-26-12, 09:34 PM

And the stated purpose of his visit - to show his foreign policy chops - went up in smoke faster than Cheech's van as one of the first things he did was insult his hosts

**firstandten** · July-26-12, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

And the stated purpose of his visit - to show his foreign policy chops - went up in smoke faster than Cheech's van as one of the first things he did was insult his hosts

I think Mitt is a legend in his own mind.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105430...sulted-cameron

**Debbie** · July-27-12, 01:25 AM

Yes... but he has more balls than the current "thing" Just my opinion... as we are entitled to. Lesser of two evils??!

**firstandten** · July-27-12, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Debbie

Yes... but he has more balls than the current "thing" Just my opinion... as we are entitled to. Lesser of two evils??!

Of course you are entitled to your opinion as a matter of fact we would like to hear the ""why" part of your opinion as well

**Wingnatic** · July-27-12, 07:34 AM

I'll get back to you when and if I can think of a reason

**Danny** · July-27-12, 09:09 AM

Should Romney be President.

NO, NO. NO!

1. He's a corporate venture capitalist [[ a corporate vulture) that never reveal his tax returns.

2. He strongly supports corporations and job outsourcing to foreign nations.

3. He opposes any social welfare and government and community services programs that could help the American People get back on their feet.

4. He loves privatizing Social Security and urges governments not to help bailout main street American cities.

5. Most Republicans dislike him for his 'Romneycare' program in Massachusetts.

6. He wasn't a millitary man nor very athletic.

**rb336** · July-27-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Debbie

Yes... but he has more balls than the current "thing" Just my opinion... as we are entitled to. Lesser of two evils??!

tactlessness does not equal balls. Romney doesn't even have the balls to stand up to a minor right-wing nutjob broadcaster. You really think he has the balls to stand up to Putin? Maybe you think he has balls because he bullied a gay kid at Cranbrook. Or maybe its the dozens of other incidents in his life that scream poor judgement and show him for the pampered, self-entitled bully boy he really is. You do know what happens when that type come up against someone who is actually tough, don't you? they tend to wet themselves and run home to mommy.

**Papasito** · July-27-12, 01:22 PM

You guys dare talk about Romney's balls when you your idol bows to everyone and their brother? Haha.

Romney may not be the best guy in the world to pick, but Obama's had his 4 years. He couldn't turn it around. Next!
The healthiest thing you can do for a democracy is bring in new leadership every 4 years.

**TKshreve** · July-27-12, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

You guys dare talk about Romney's balls when you your idol bows to everyone and their brother? Haha.

Romney may not be the best guy in the world to pick, but Obama's had his 4 years. He couldn't turn it around. Next!
The healthiest thing you can do for a democracy is bring in new leadership every 4 years.

Why don't we start with Congress? After all, their approval ratings are well below the lowest of lows that Obama ever touched. Also, you don't need to be a scholar to know that it is in fact them [[Congress) who are gumming up the system.

I'm sure you'll agree.

**poobert** · July-27-12, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

Well, Mitt is in London today, I'm sure he's there to root the men and women of Team USA on to victory and lob a few bombs at Obama's foreign policy.

Naw ! Here's the real reason he's hanging out in London at the same time as the Olympic Games

"Mitt Romney will show his true colors tonight, when he slips behind closed doors in a foreign capital to collect money from international bankers who are mired in scandal.
The presidential contender is officially in London to cheer on the US team in the Olympics. But Romney doesn’t always cheer for Team USA. When it comes to global economics, Romney remains very much the “vulture capitalist” his Republican primary foes decried. And tonight, he’ll be swooping into central London to party with masters of the universe who know no country—and, it would appear, no ethical bounds.
London is abuzz over the Libor [[London InterBank Offered Rate) scandal, which saw some of the biggest banks in the world report false interest rates in order to fool investors and game the international economy. Bob Diamond, the top man in Barclays Bank, had to resign from his position after that bank paid almost $500 million in fines"

"As the investigation of banks implicated in Libor rate-fixing expands, Romney’s decision to go ahead with the London fundraising events is an act either of boldness or recklessness. The presumptive Republican nominee for president seems to think he can get away with raising as much as $2 million at a series of fund-raising events held on foreign soil. The cheapest of Romney’s “lavish” London events has a $2,500-per-person entry fee, while the evening gathering where the most scandal-plagued of international bankers will mingle with their favorite American charges from $25,000-per-person to $75,000 a head."

Quote per Nation Magazine

Then its off to Israel and Poland.

If Mitt really wants to show leadership why not stop in Afghanistan or Iraq
like candidate Obama did in 2008. I guess if there aren't rich bankers there to give him money then its not worth the time.

Dear sweet Jesus. Honestly: Is there something wrong with this guy? Is he a sociopath? Does he have a communication or social anxiety disorder? It seems like every chance for normal communication is laid out to him on a platter and he manages to blow it up. You would at least think a businessman would have some degree of charisma, if not with the common folk, but with his economic peers like Cameron.

Also take into account that Britain has been our ally for a good century now - and we speak the same language, have a common heritage, common legal system, are fighting two wars together...slam dunk, right?

Nope. Not this freakshow. What would happen if this Frankenstein were elected and had to deal with nations that are vastly dissimilar to ours?

Oh yeah, his draft-dodging Mormon hocus-pocus in FRANCE should provide plenty of insight.

I don't get what the deal is with the pictures of Obama with foreign leaders. I think objectively he has at least done an adequate job in foreign affairs.

**rb336** · July-27-12, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

You guys dare talk about Romney's balls when you your idol bows to everyone and their brother? Haha.

Romney may not be the best guy in the world to pick, but Obama's had his 4 years. He couldn't turn it around. Next!
The healthiest thing you can do for a democracy is bring in new leadership every 4 years.

yet another papasito entry into the "most moronic posts of all time" sweepstakes. In every one of those photos, bowing is the traditional greeting in those cultures. That is part and parcel of diplomacy. Romney, on the other hand, has no concept of the term. He's a spoiled brat - as his behavior throughout his life has shown - who will end up having a nervous breakdown trying to deal with anyone who isn't awed by his pedigree and money

**Crumbled_pavement** · July-27-12, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

The healthiest thing you can do for a democracy is bring in new leadership every 4 years.

So if Romney were to win, would you be up for replacing him in 4 years? Or would you be content with him getting 8 years? Hmmm...

**oladub** · July-27-12, 08:12 PM

lest anyone forget Bush's hot date...

**firstandten** · July-27-12, 08:25 PM

Its funny how some folks can negatively label Obama very easily based on very little evidence. Names that have a negative connotation like socialist, Muslim, etc. People could say these things and many folks do believe it.

However if someone were to call Romney a psychopath/sociopath they would be roundly criticize. As a matter of fact one could probably make a stronger case of Romney than Obama.

Dr. Robert Hare Phd has done studies which showed that
"Apparently 4% of CEOs are psychopaths. That's 4x the percentage of psychopaths in the population as a whole. Thanks to Robert Hare there is a check-list for judging if someone is a psychopath e.g. he enjoys firing people, he lies, lacks guilt or remorse, has an inflated sense of self-worth, lacks self-control, is easily bored, irresponsible, impulsive and promiscuous."

Or 1 in 25 CEO's and I would venture a guess that CEO's of venture capital firms that number would be slightly higher .

Thom Hartmann discusses that in relation to their high pay. He asks the question why in a free market are they not more people competing for those jobs which would drive down the pay. His answer is that very few people have the skill set that is needed to do the job and the skill set he refers to is the sociopathic part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-h..._b_245373.html

I think as a people we need to stop equating business with gov't and that the skillset to run a multi-national business is not necessarily transferable to running a country.

**Jimaz** · July-27-12, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

Its funny how some folks can negatively label Obama very easily based on very little evidence. Names that have a negative connotation like socialist, Muslim, etc. People could say these things and many folks do believe it.

However if someone were to call Romney a psychopath/sociopath they would be roundly criticize. As a matter of fact one could probably make a stronger case of Romney than Obama.

Dr. Robert Hare Phd has done studies which showed that
"Apparently 4% of CEOs are psychopaths. That's 4x the percentage of psychopaths in the population as a whole. Thanks to Robert Hare there is a check-list for judging if someone is a psychopath e.g. he enjoys firing people, he lies, lacks guilt or remorse, has an inflated sense of self-worth, lacks self-control, is easily bored, irresponsible, impulsive and promiscuous."

Or 1 in 25 CEO's and I would venture a guess that CEO's of venture capital firms that number would be slightly higher .

Thom Hartmann discusses that in relation to their high pay. He asks the question why in a free market are they not more people competing for those jobs which would drive down the pay. His answer is that very few people have the skill set that is needed to do the job and the skill set he refers to is the sociopathic part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-h..._b_245373.html

I think as a people we need to stop equating business with gov't and that the skillset to run a multi-national business is not necessarily transferable to running a country.

Which raises the question of why our society/economy is that eager to reward such sociopathic behavior so greatly. Is it some bizarre overarching death wish/suicide pact of which we are just now becoming aware?

I'll take a pass on the next round of the KoolAid refreshments.

**firstandten** · July-27-12, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Which raises the question of why our society/economy is that eager to reward such sociopathic behavior so greatly. Is it some bizarre overarching death wish/suicide pact of which we are just now becoming aware?

I think Thom in the link gives a good answer

"Today's modern transnational corporate CEOs -- who live in a private-jet-and-limousine world entirely apart from the rest of us -- are remnants from the times of kings, queens, and lords. They reflect the dysfunctional cultural [[and Calvinist/Darwinian) belief that wealth is proof of goodness, and that that goodness then justifies taking more of the wealth."

**oladub** · July-28-12, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

I think Thom in the link gives a good answer

"Today's modern transnational corporate CEOs -- who live in a private-jet-and-limousine world entirely apart from the rest of us -- are remnants from the times of kings, queens, and lords. They reflect the dysfunctional cultural [[and Calvinist/Darwinian) belief that wealth is proof of goodness, and that that goodness then justifies taking more of the wealth."

The counterparts of roundhead Calvinistic types were the more foppish cavaliers or patróns. Romney definitely comes of on the Calvinistic end of that elite spectrum while Teddy/Gore/Kerry seem to better blend with cavaliers or patróns. Romney has to pretend to be comfortable selling his Calvinistic message to a populace which has become more serf like and seems ever more comfortable having its needs addressed and its roles prescribed by hacienda owners. Like the long lived battle between federalists and anti-federalists, the battle continues between the roundheads and cavaliers.