GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

[Irvine511]

Sure they made a big deal about Reverend Wright, which in turn caused Obama to quit that awful church. But what about Ayers, Rezko?

1. these were non-stories to anyone other than right wing conspiracy theorists
2. what do these have to do with your below point -- the economy?

I will take Obama anyday on social issues; but economically this country is not better today than it was 4 years ago. .

this is demonstrably untrue. the economy collapsed in September of 2008. months before Obama took office.

you can make the argument that he should have done better, that his policies made the recession worse, etc. but it really can't be argued that we're not in a better place than we were in early 2009 when the economy was loosing more than a half-million jobs a month.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

1. these were non-stories to anyone other than right wing conspiracy theorists
2. what do these have to do with your below point -- the economy?

1. Precisely my point! And that's the scary part. Other than a blip from Bill O'Reilly and maybe George Stephanopoulos, these "conspiracy theories" went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. Why? Bill Ayers is not a good guy....why was this not an issue for the mainstream? At best, Obama displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I won't go the other way.

2. They don't. Entirely separate issue which stands on its own. But back to my original point (where were these journalists in 2008 when Obama was running?), when the economy is on the verge of collapse and all indicators seem to be pointing towards that...why give the keys to kingdom to someone we know very little about? Makes absolutely no sense to me...

this is demonstrably untrue. the economy collapsed in September of 2008. months before Obama took office.

you can make the argument that he should have done better, that his policies made the recession worse, etc. but it really can't be argued that we're not in a better place than we were in early 2009 when the economy was loosing more than a half-million jobs a month.

True, which backs up my point even more. The economy collapsed before he took office. We knew very little about Obama, why did we trust him to fix everything?

One could make the argument that Obama could have done better, though i'm not completely sure he didn't stave off a depression either. But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest. The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.

Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?

 

[Achtung11]

Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is anti-choice and is for DOMA.

Being "anti-choice" means being "anti-death". True libertarians are not pro-death. You're saying that a fetus is not a human life, which is a whole different argument. Atleast Paul is consistent with his pro-life principles, in that he's against the death penalty as well.

 

[deep]

if there was a Libertarian primary,
Paul would win hands down !

pro-choice, governmnet funded abortions is not libertarian at all

 

[financeguy]

One could make the argument that Obama could have done better, though i'm not completely sure he didn't stave off a depression either. But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest. The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.

Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?

The statistics seem to bear you out.

Under Obama, corporate profits have increased:

and Wall Street has grown dramatically wealthier while ordinary citizens struggle with, at best, stagnant wages:

Guest Post: 2012 - The Year Of Living Dangerously | ZeroHedge

 

[financeguy]

Ha ha, what a train wreck of a party. I can't take any one of them seriously.

The GOP had it made, Obama's had a bumpy first term and everyone is distrusting of the system; this should have been a breeze. But this is the bunch they gave us? This is your party? What a joke...

Huntsman and Romney have policies broadly similar to those of centrist Democrats, so if you're including them in the trainwreck jibe, you have to call the Dems a trainwreck too! Romney cannot be blamed for having to debate with weirdoes, do you expect him to ignore them?

Paul is an excellent candidate in my view. He is getting the anti-war message into the public domain in a way no Democrat did in 2008, with the possible exception of Kucinch, who never gained any traction.

 

[deep]

I hope Fox is not paying Huckabee too much for his brilliant stating of the obvious

Fox News contributor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that current Republican front-runner Mitt Romney may run the table to the GOP presidential nomination with early wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida this month, following his close Iowa caucus win last week.

“[Romney] could be well be on his way to running the tables in the first several states and if that happens, it’s going to be very difficult to catch up to him,” Huckabee told me this morning on “This Week.”

“I think depending on whether Romney wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, if he should win those two, go to Florida and win there, there may be some folks who limp along for a while,” Huckabee added. “I don’t see how they catch up with him if he runs the table in those early states.”

 

[Irvine511]

1. Precisely my point! And that's the scary part. Other than a blip from Bill O'Reilly and maybe George Stephanopoulos, these "conspiracy theories" went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. Why? Bill Ayers is not a good guy....why was this not an issue for the mainstream? At best, Obama displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I won't go the other way.

2. They don't. Entirely separate issue which stands on its own. But back to my original point (where were these journalists in 2008 when Obama was running?), when the economy is on the verge of collapse and all indicators seem to be pointing towards that...why give the keys to kingdom to someone we know very little about? Makes absolutely no sense to me...

i'm not sure i understand. Obama knew Bill Ayers. that's about it. you're beef seems to be the economy, and that we knew nothing about him, yet the questions you've brought up have absolutely no bearing on the economy. and they did not go unnoticed by the mainstream media. further, if something was there, i'm sure that the GOP opposition research teams would have certainly let us know.

as for the "keys to the kingdom," it was give them to Obama or give them to a 72 year old man who thought that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person to take over the presidency should something happen to him.

elections are choices. do you honestly think we'd be better off today with McCain/Palin in charge?

True, which backs up my point even more. The economy collapsed before he took office. We knew very little about Obama, why did we trust him to fix everything?

because he made a more convincing case than did John McCain.

But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest.

but he didn't create the conditions that led to the disaster of September 2008, he inherited them. yes, he's had time to work on it, and yes, he certainly owns a great deal of where we are now, but we can't have amnesia about what happened before January of 2009.

i agree with you about Wall Street. these are systemic issues and a problem with politics in general, and the fact that Obama is beholden to Wall Street. he is. i agree. that's where a lot of his money came from in 2008. usually, Wall Street money goes more Republican than Democrat. but Sarah Palin was so culturally foreign and so blatantly uninformed that McCain became unacceptable. hence, they bought Obama.

i never expected Obama to be anything more than a politician. i had hoped he'd be better, that his being a post-boomer and without the Clinton baggage would help the country move forward. i underestimated the amount of fear a massive recession can stoke fear.

The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.

which is what his job is over the next 11 months, and that chart i posted will be showcase #1. when he took over we were bleeding jobs. now we are adding them. the unemployment rate has slowly but surely gone down. massive problems remain. the choice is up to you.

Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?

in my opinion, it goes back to Reagan, and you'll note that there's only one party that is beholden to a no-tax pledge. but i don't think there's a simple answer here.

the question posed by the election is who you think will do a better job managing the economy (not to mention foreign policy!) from 2012-2016: Obama or (likely) Romney.

 

[BVS]

Huntsman and Romney have policies broadly similar to those of centrist Democrats, so if you're including them in the trainwreck jibe, you have to call the Dems a trainwreck too! Romney cannot be blamed for having to debate with weirdoes, do you expect him to ignore them?

But that's not really what I'm talking about. Both parties have their bat shit crazy members, but I can't find one single candidate that I can take seriously on the GOP side. Romney starts to lose me when he has to turn his back on his own policies in order to appease his base. He's constantly have to pretend who he is in order to pretend he's an extreme right conservative.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

i'm not sure i understand. Obama knew Bill Ayers. that's about it.

You seem very certain of this. Like i said, at best he displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I will leave it at that.

you're beef seems to be the economy, and that we knew nothing about him, yet the questions you've brought up have absolutely no bearing on the economy.

I believe i mentioned the economy several times

and they did not go unnoticed by the mainstream media. further, if something was there, i'm sure that the GOP opposition research teams would have certainly let us know.

You mean like on CNN, or MSNBC - where Chris Matthews got that tingly feeling up his leg?

as for the "keys to the kingdom," it was give them to Obama or give them to a 72 year old man who thought that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person to take over the presidency should something happen to him.

elections are choices. do you honestly think we'd be better off today with McCain/Palin in charge?

because he made a more convincing case than did John McCain.

but he didn't create the conditions that led to the disaster of September 2008, he inherited them. yes, he's had time to work on it, and yes, he certainly owns a great deal of where we are now, but we can't have amnesia about what happened before January of 2009.

No, essentially we're probably screwed either way. The economic collapse was coming regardless who was elected...that's plain to see. The collapse would have still happened even if Kerry had beat Bush in 2004. My point was, given what little we knew about Obama, why the hell did we elect him in such dire times? Its a point, a valid question. Same could be said for the GOP, why did they put McCain up as their nominee? And Palin, wtf?

i agree with you about Wall Street. these are systemic issues and a problem with politics in general, and the fact that Obama is beholden to Wall Street. he is. i agree. that's where a lot of his money came from in 2008. usually, Wall Street money goes more Republican than Democrat. but Sarah Palin was so culturally foreign and so blatantly uninformed that McCain became unacceptable. hence, they bought Obama.

i never expected Obama to be anything more than a politician. i had hoped he'd be better, that his being a post-boomer and without the Clinton baggage would help the country move forward. i underestimated the amount of fear a massive recession can stoke fear.

I believe you are right about Palin. McCain rolled the dice on her and she turned out to be a bust....YET so many of the wingnuts and teabaggers absolutely adore her. Why i have no idea...

which is what his job is over the next 11 months, and that chart i posted will be showcase #1. when he took over we were bleeding jobs. now we are adding them. the unemployment rate has slowly but surely gone down. massive problems remain. the choice is up to you.

S L O W L Y adding jobs. IM sure that will somehow be spun into a massive improvement. Meanwhile the rich get richer, continue to hoard their fortunes, and for the most part aren't really hiring anyone. Unemployment is down probably because many people gave up and quit looking for work or are no longer collecting unemployment compensation. Housing prices continue to decline, while the cost of everything else like gas, groceries, insurance, are all going up. Speaking of gas prices, wasn't 2011 a record setting year for gas prices? Still Bush's fault? Im pretty sure that was the media spin back in 2003-2006.

in my opinion, it goes back to Reagan, and you'll note that there's only one party that is beholden to a no-tax pledge. but i don't think there's a simple answer here.

agreed

the question posed by the election is who you think will do a better job managing the economy (not to mention foreign policy!) from 2012-2016: Obama or (likely) Romney.

The first part of that is a bit tricky. I give Obama props for ending the war in Iraq and killing Osama Bin Laden. The entire middle east is a powder keg though, and one has to wonder if Israel feels like they are isolated or if we have their back. So, do we? Or better yet, should we? Iran with nukes is a real possibility, and their posturing in the straight of Hormuz is very troubling. Now that troops have pulled out of Iraq we are seeing the double edged sword, violent uptick in the country and possible Iranian influence.

For the record, i admit going into Iraq was a mistake, thought there weren't any easy answers or solutions there with that mess. Other than leave it be, turn our back, etc. Different topic for a different day i suppose...

The second part of your question, who do i think would do a better job managing the economy? Id give the edge to Romney. He's got the pedigree to back that up, which is something we know, vastly different to 2008 when we had an unknown commodity in Obama. Also, the obstructionist GOP controlled Congress isn't going to give Obama an inch of victory anyway, unlike Romney. Just my thoughts, hopefully well stated, in my odd round about way.

On social issues i would still take Obama. And if it were Obama versus one of the wingnut candidates i would vote Obama w/o question. Versus Romney though its a different story i think. I dont think theres a perfect one out there.

Cheers

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

But that's not really what I'm talking about. Both parties have their bat shit crazy members, but I can't find one single candidate that I can take seriously on the GOP side. Romney starts to lose me when he has to turn his back on his own policies in order to appease his base. He's constantly have to pretend who he is in order to pretend he's an extreme right conservative.

The GOP base has a bunch of wingnut extremists, so naturally Romney will have to move right of center and perhaps shadow into cuckoo land to appease the whack-jobs. As McCain did.

It should be noted though, Obama has come to the center on occasion since he's been in office. He's pissed off the left of center folks by by compromising with the GOP, which is something the President will ultimately have to do with the other party. Whomever is elected or re-elected this year will have to be the President of the 100%, not the 99% or the 1%.

 

[BVS]

Compromise is a sign of a serious candidate. Catering to nut jobs is not...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.

 

[BVS]

We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.

Agreed

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

S L O W L Y adding jobs. IM sure that will somehow be spun into a massive improvement.

Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. I know that's not what people who are desperate for work want to hear, but it is going to take us a while to get out of this mess, 'cause it's a pretty big one.

I'd also add that we might be able to make faster progress if everyone in the country was willing to make sacrifices and work together. But when you've got people arguing and pointing fingers every which way, that's not likely to happen.

And people have to humble themselves. I know working at a fast food restaurant may not be your dream job, but hell, it's better than nothing and would pay at least some of the bills, right?

Meanwhile the rich get richer, continue to hoard their fortunes

No argument there. The parties should be fighting this, but how can they when they're all in the pockets of the rich? And remember, daring to suggest that the rich have more than enough of their share is evil socialist commie talk in some people's eyes.

As for Bill Ayers, unless he's hanging with Obama at the White House every weekend, I don't see why that's anything worth mentioning. They haven't been spotted together recently or anything like that, so...I don't really see the issue. And most people my age and younger likely don't even have any clue who the hell Bill Ayers is. He holds no relevance to young people's current concerns.

We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.

I think this is something that, for once, practically everyone in the country might miraculously agree on.

 

[Achtung11]

It's silly to give blame or credit to the President over economic matters, especially in the short-term. For the most part, the economy works on its own. There are isolated cases, such Bush's TARP, which have made huge, short-term differences. We are where we are today because of the massive housing/credit bubbles of the last decade and their ensuing collapse, period. Such an enormous collapse means a persisting slow-growth, high-unemployment period, no matter what the President does. The President can certainly help via stimulus packages, etc., but ultimately the private economy will bring us back. The economy would be the same today, more or less, whether Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Obama were (or were not) elected.

 

[Irvine511]

It's silly to give blame or credit to the President over economic matters, especially in the short-term. For the most part, the economy works on its own. There are isolated cases, such Bush's TARP, which have made huge, short-term differences. We are where we are today because of the massive housing/credit bubbles of the last decade and their ensuing collapse, period. Such an enormous collapse means a persisting slow-growth, high-unemployment period, no matter what the President does. The President can certainly help via stimulus packages, etc., but ultimately the private economy will bring us back. The economy would be the same today, more or less, whether Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Obama were (or were not) elected.

i agree up until the last statement. and this is why in my laundry list of qualities/positions a candidate should have, economic stuff is much further down on the list than, say, foreign policy and social issues.

would McCain have pushed through the same stimulus that prevented a second Great Depression?

i'm sure he would have been advised to do so.

actually, perhaps maybe he would have. perhaps it would have been even bigger, the $1.5T that was likely needed. because it would have come from a Republican.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Black Man Confronts Gingrich On Food Stamps Comments: 'Stop Using Blacks As A Punching Bag' | ThinkProgress

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Compromise is a sign of a serious candidate. Catering to nut jobs is not...

and yet they all do it on both sides. Kerry did it in 2004 and it might have cost him that election, yet Romney will have to do it this year if he wants those nut jobs to vote for him, otherwise they stay home and Obama wins.

We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.

Agreed

X2

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. I know that's not what people who are desperate for work want to hear, but it is going to take us a while to get out of this mess, 'cause it's a pretty big one.

I'd also add that we might be able to make faster progress if everyone in the country was willing to make sacrifices and work together. But when you've got people arguing and pointing fingers every which way, that's not likely to happen.

And people have to humble themselves. I know working at a fast food restaurant may not be your dream job, but hell, it's better than nothing and would pay at least some of the bills, right?

Agreed! But here is part of the problem, why would someone bother to work at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage when they could stay home and collect welfare or unemployment compensation, and free healthcare? I understand their plight but there has to be some incentive for them to take that step, and unfortunately, some Americans are too lazy to step out of their own shadow.

No argument there. The parties should be fighting this, but how can they when they're all in the pockets of the rich? And remember, daring to suggest that the rich have more than enough of their share is evil socialist commie talk in some people's eyes.

Spot on. However, when is someone going to challenge these big corporations who move their tax base overseas to avoid paying taxes in America? That's something which should be looked at from both sides, of course, shouldn't there be a greater incentive for them to "come home" in the form of a lower tax rate?

As for Bill Ayers, unless he's hanging with Obama at the White House every weekend, I don't see why that's anything worth mentioning. They haven't been spotted together recently or anything like that, so...I don't really see the issue. And most people my age and younger likely don't even have any clue who the hell Bill Ayers is. He holds no relevance to young people's current concerns.

The Ayers comments are relevant to the context of the original post several pages back, where Romney was being questioned by someone in the crowd, and someone else here seemed to mock that line of questioning (how dare they?). This led to my post "Where was this line of questioning in 2008?" regarding Ayers and Obama's general lack of overall experience. While i do agree with you that it shouldn't be a campaign issue in 2012, because personally i don't believe there are any connections between the two other than what's already been stated, I also think that people your age or younger should be aware of the history before they vote and then make their own decision based on facts and not spin from either side.

I only say this in interest of full disclosure, because i can already tell you that in the coming months we are going to hear every little detail of Romney's past, every penny he's ever made or spent, every business he has shut down and every person affected by his Bain Capital ventures. Just like we've already heard all of the details of the personal life of Newt Gingrich (vomit) as well as Mack Daddy Cain's purported extramarital affairs and indecent proposals.

And if by some extraordinary turn of events Romney isn't the GOP nominee and one of the wingnuts is (Santorum, for example), prepare to hear about how much he hates gays and how he has a secret God-given agenda to seek and rebuke this "unholy lifestyle".

I think this is something that, for once, practically everyone in the country might miraculously agree on.

DITTO

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Posted by
CNN Political Producer Rachel Streitfeld

Nashua, New Hampshire (CNN) – As he offered a lengthy rumination Monday on his experience in the private sector and how it would inform his presidency, Mitt Romney made another comment that will likely provide fodder for his opponents.

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me," Romney said while answering a question from an audience member about health care.

As he described his approach to overhauling the health care system, the GOP candidate added: "If someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

The remark came a day after Romney said he had feared getting a "pink slip" at times during his career.

Both his Democratic and Republican rivals seized on the "pink slip" comment Sunday, poking fun at the multi-millionaire, former businessman.
Romney's speech Monday to the Nashua Chamber of Commerce was peppered with stories about austerity measures the former businessman had brought from the private sector to government during his term as Massachusetts governor.

He described launching his career at Bain Capital, a private equity firm he headed in the 1990s and which invested in starting up Staples, an office-supply chain.

"Because money was dear in a start-up, where everybody's investments and careers were in some respects on the line or some were at least, people were careful with money," he said, telling the audience he helped stock store shelves at night and attended meetings at the company's headquarters "in an old King's department store."

Romney's business history has become a bull's-eye for his GOP rivals and Democrats looking to attack the frontrunner.

At the end of his speech a woman stood up to ask Romney a question, saying the event organizers would not call on her. Speaking without a microphone, the woman said she was a representative for the United Auto Workers and pushed Romney on his opposition to the government bailout of General Motors - a move she said saved the jobs of many auto workers.

Romney responded his suggestion for a managed bankruptcy plan for the struggling auto manufacturer would have resulted in "a strong and vibrant General Motors" without making concessions to unions. He charged President Obama had bowed to unions in the deal, calling it "crony capitalism."

"Under my plan, General Motors would have shed its excess costs. The workers would have had their jobs," Romney said. "I believe the market works better than a president stepping in to take care of his friends."

 

[BVS]

and yet they all do it on both sides. Kerry did it in 2004 and it might have cost him that election,

I'm curious as to what nut jobs you saw Kerry catering to?

 

[Achtung11]

i agree up until the last statement. and this is why in my laundry list of qualities/positions a candidate should have, economic stuff is much further down on the list than, say, foreign policy and social issues.

would McCain have pushed through the same stimulus that prevented a second Great Depression?

i'm sure he would have been advised to do so.

actually, perhaps maybe he would have. perhaps it would have been even bigger, the $1.5T that was likely needed. because it would have come from a Republican.

He actually was campaigning on a spending freeze during the general election. So his stimulus might not have been too much, although it still probably would have happened because of advisers, like you said. But still I think the economy would have been essentially where it's at today, with lower spending. There has been way too much stimulus, from both the Fed and the Treasury, and at some point you just have to let the economy take it's time. You can't get nine women pregnant and expect a baby in one month.

 

[diamond]

I have a lot of Left friends.

Privately, they all fear Mitt the most, meaning that he is most likely to beat Obama in the general,
I interact w them daily.

They would love for Newt, Perry or Santorum to be a nominee-which would be less of a challenge.

I've never seen such pettiness and jealously on the Right, Newt being the largest example of divisiveness. He's ego surpasses all understanding.

<>

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Agreed! But here is part of the problem, why would someone bother to work at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage when they could stay home and collect welfare or unemployment compensation, and free healthcare? I understand their plight but there has to be some incentive for them to take that step, and unfortunately, some Americans are too lazy to step out of their own shadow.

Sometimes, yes, but even low-paying jobs, if we raised the wages just a little bit at least so someone could reasonably survive enough to pay for the basics, that'd definitely be a helpful incentive.

I think it'd also help, too, if people didn't automatically dismiss one's lack of college experience as a reason they couldn't get a job. Often people wind up in low-paying jobs because that's all they can find if all they have is a high school degree. But just because they didn't have formal college training doesn't mean they're automatically ill-equipped to do better paying jobs.

I'm honestly curious as to how anyone nowadays can find a way to take advantage of government aid, can scam from it. When my family used it, we had to go through insane amounts of paperwork and red tape and had to prove for sure that everything was completely legit. Maybe it varies from state to state, the paperwork, I dunno. But they sure didn't make it easy for us when we used it.

Spot on. However, when is someone going to challenge these big corporations who move their tax base overseas to avoid paying taxes in America? That's something which should be looked at from both sides, of course, shouldn't there be a greater incentive for them to "come home" in the form of a lower tax rate?

Definitely agreed on this. This should be a question that should be raised much more often. I think Clinton did something like that, didn't he? He gave companies big and small tax breaks if they actually physically were able to show they were hiring people here at home and actually creating decent jobs. Which, if that's happening, I have no problem with that. If the company's working hard and has solid employment statistics, and they're doing fair, honest business, yeah, give 'em lower taxes (and if they're not doing fair, honest business, they should just be shut down. If I were to commit illegal acts at my job or screw up massively, I'd get fired and/or sent to jail. The same should hold true for big corporations).

The Ayers comments are relevant to the context of the original post several pages back, where Romney was being questioned by someone in the crowd, and someone else here seemed to mock that line of questioning (how dare they?). This led to my post "Where was this line of questioning in 2008?" regarding Ayers and Obama's general lack of overall experience.

I actually do remember quite a big stink made over the Obama/Ayers thing in 2008. Maybe not as much from left-leaning media, no, but boy, Fox News and other conservative outlets sure did fire up that story. I remember hearing Palin constantly getting on Obama about that, and all I could think is, "You're married to a man who wants Alaska to secede from the U.S., Miss 'I'm Such A Patriotic American', so who are you to talk about connections?"

While i do agree with you that it shouldn't be a campaign issue in 2012, because personally i don't believe there are any connections between the two other than what's already been stated, I also think that people your age or younger should be aware of the history before they vote and then make their own decision based on facts and not spin from either side.

I do agree young people's history is sorely lacking nowadays. But of all the issues currently out there for young people, even if they know of this history, this isn't the top concern on their list.

I only say this in interest of full disclosure, because i can already tell you that in the coming months we are going to hear every little detail of Romney's past, every penny he's ever made or spent, every business he has shut down and every person affected by his Bain Capital ventures. Just like we've already heard all of the details of the personal life of Newt Gingrich (vomit) as well as Mack Daddy Cain's purported extramarital affairs and indecent proposals.

And if by some extraordinary turn of events Romney isn't the GOP nominee and one of the wingnuts is (Santorum, for example), prepare to hear about how much he hates gays and how he has a secret God-given agenda to seek and rebuke this "unholy lifestyle".

Fair enough. I agree, if we're going to delve into one politician's past, we should do it with all of them. But I think, too, we should also be more rational in what we decide to pull out from their past. If it has ties to their political views past or present, if it involves their business dealings and the money that funds their campaigns, stuff like that, bring it all out there.

But if a candidate smoked pot when he was in college...eh. Not exactly a bombshell news story. More like a, "No duh, who didn't?" story.

I'm not a Romney supporter, but I'd definitely prefer he be the nominee, because the others are just...insane, for one thing, and I don't want to have to hear them talk and spew nonsense for the next year (and even though I logically know they have nearly no chance of winning, there's always going to be that part of me that worries, "Yeah, but...what if...?").

Second, if Romney is indeed going to be genuine competition against Obama, good. If that means that gets Obama to fight back more and get tougher on the stuff he really wants to do, to prove to people why he deserves a second term, I'm all for that.

(Plus, given how many Republicans are so deadset on anyone BUT Romney, watching them have to try and praise him and support him for the next year while squirming will be sort of a guilty pleasure of mine )

DITTO

It's nice to be in agreement on some things .

 

[Irvine511]

I have a lot of Left friends.

I interact w them daily.

 

[BVS]

Privately, they all fear Mitt the most,

Can you read the minds of your right leaning friends as well? What do they privately fear?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Posted by
CNN Political Producer Rachel Streitfeld

Nashua, New Hampshire (CNN) – As he offered a lengthy rumination Monday on his experience in the private sector and how it would inform his presidency, Mitt Romney made another comment that will likely provide fodder for his opponents.

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me," Romney said while answering a question from an audience member about health care.

As he described his approach to overhauling the health care system, the GOP candidate added: "If someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

whats wrong with that? If people are worthless maybe they need to be let go so that more deserving people can step in and fill their shoes. Not that i want to see anyone lose their jobs, but i can tell you from my own experience, i see plenty of "abuse" in the system i work in. Its amazing, wasteful, and the abusers know their job is safe because nobody is going to do a damn thing to them.

 

[deep]

it is just a question of how you see yourself

are you someone that pays people for things?

are you someone that is at risk of being let go by someone who pays unless your job is guaranteed or protected by more than supply and demand

private sector is able to let people go
public sector often times has to keep paying people than many believe should have been let go

I have friends who serve on our Civil Service Board
nobody hardly ever gets let go

We had a policeman in a bar drinking on the clock, kept his job and full benefits
private sector would have let that employee go, on the spot.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I'm curious as to what nut jobs you saw Kerry catering to?

John Kerry took the stage at the 2004 Democratic convention with a salute and the phrase "Im John Kerry and I'M reporting for duty" This was an obvious swipe at George Bush who was accused by the Dan Rather's and the Michael Moore's' of being AWOL from the military/ Air National Guard during Vietnam. It was later dis-proven and Dan Rather even lost his job for airing a hack story. Michael Moore had a similar claim on his website which he supposedly offered $10k to anyone who could refute or disprove.

As a footnote, when i left active duty military i went into the National Guard for 15 months. Before my term ended in the guard i was offered a contracting job overseas with the government, so i requested and was granted an early discharge from the Guard. Thing is, they screwed up and kept me on their books, which meant they kept me on their manpower rosters and kept insurance on me, and i was funded on all of their drills and maneuvers. Even though i was out of the country and had the discharge in my hand. Years later i found out that i owed back taxes on the money which i failed to pay for my portion of the insurance, due to the fact that i did not draw any drill pay (because that part of me was separated from them).

Once i had paid them the money that i had supposedly owed to the state (not federal), i hired an attorney to investigate this on my behalf to try and make sure everything was legit. Come to find out, they had no record of me even having served in the guard unit, despite the Honorable Discharge i had and the LES (leave and earning statements) that they had sent me for the time i actually served. Surprised?