DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_Chap]

... I haven't seen the strong bipartisan leadership required to solve these issues. FDR inherited a bigger mess. Lincoln probably inherited the biggest mess. Those men rose to the occasion. I don't expect Obama to be the next Lincoln or FDR. He has a stubborn GOP opposition that wants to see him fail. If he can't push past that opposition and lead, we need someone that can. ...

The President can be as bi-partisan as he likes: faced with a stubborn Republican Party who are bound hand and foot by Tea-Party generated commitments, he can't do much to shift them towards a position where compromise (rather than simply doing what his opponents want) is a possibility.

The US Constitution is designed to promote compromise and consensus between opposing groups, but if one party is content to see the government suffer a train-wreck rather than compromise on getting anything but its own way, a president does not have a set of magic buttons to press to 'lead' the way out of that.

Newsweek remarks:

If you are a Republican who wants to see your party return to the center, reelecting Obama is the single most effective thing you can do. Look what Reagan’s success did to the Democrats: it gave us the centrist Bill Clinton. A future centrist Republican president is out there somewhere—but electing Romney-Ryan would strand him or her further out in the wilderness.

There seems a degree of sense there. The whole article is well worth reading.

[_Cicero]

I voted for Mitt Romney in 2002 and I thought he was a pretty good governor. I thought he would be a good president and I have serious issues with Obama, but at the end of the day I agree with Ludd and Dark Helmet. The guy really does just keep saying stupid things that make it much harder to vote for him. His foreign trips in particular have been disastrous (I can't help remembering the "Mitt the Twitt" headline after he questioned the readiness of London for the Olympics).

[_Chap]

I voted for Mitt Romney in 2002 and I thought he was a pretty good governor. I thought he would be a good president and I have serious issues with Obama, but at the end of the day I agree with Ludd and Dark Helmet. The guy really does just keep saying stupid things that make it much harder to vote for him. His foreign trips in particular have been disastrous (I can't help remembering the "Mitt the Twitt" headline after he questioned the readiness of London for the Olympics).

And please remember: the Brits are the one dependable ally who has showed up repeatedly to get shot at by the side of Americans in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. It takes a real idiot to unite the whole country of such an ally in resentment and derision with his stupid patronizing remarks about what turned out to be one of the best Olympic organizations to date. Mitt did just that.

[_Cicero]

Chap: I lived and worked in London for a couple of years, and in many ways they were two of the happiest years of my life (this was before 2008 so it was a great time to be there). I literally teared up with nostalgia many times while watching wide shots of London during the Olympics because of my fond memories of the place. So yes, Romney's idiotic comments in London probably offended me more than the average American (many of whom don't give a damn about what the Brits or any other "ferrener" thinks).

[Guest]

I voted for Mitt Romney in 2002 and I thought he was a pretty good governor. I thought he would be a good president and I have serious issues with Obama, but at the end of the day I agree with Ludd and Dark Helmet. The guy really does just keep saying stupid things that make it much harder to vote for him. His foreign trips in particular have been disastrous (I can't help remembering the "Mitt the Twitt" headline after he questioned the readiness of London for the Olympics).

And please remember: the Brits are the one dependable ally who has showed up repeatedly to get shot at by the side of Americans in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. It takes a real idiot to unite the whole country of such an ally in resentment and derision with his stupid patronizing remarks about what turned out to be one of the best Olympic organizations to date. Mitt did just that.

Not just shot at, Chap.

Shot and wounded.

Shot and killed.

And yes, Mitt Romney has proven a huge embarrassment to the US when on foreign soil. As an American largely educated in the UK and currently living overseas, I am particularly sensitive to his clueless pronouncements while abroad.

I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say this guy has no business anywhere near the White House.

None whatsoever.

[_DarkHelmet]

... I haven't seen the strong bipartisan leadership required to solve these issues. FDR inherited a bigger mess. Lincoln probably inherited the biggest mess. Those men rose to the occasion. I don't expect Obama to be the next Lincoln or FDR. He has a stubborn GOP opposition that wants to see him fail. If he can't push past that opposition and lead, we need someone that can. ...

The President can be as bi-partisan as he likes: faced with a stubborn Republican Party who are bound hand and foot by Tea-Party generated commitments, he can't do much to shift them towards a position where compromise (rather than simply doing what his opponents want) is a possibility.

The US Constitution is designed to promote compromise and consensus between opposing groups, but if one party is content to see the government suffer a train-wreck rather than compromise on getting anything but its own way, a president does not have a set of magic buttons to press to 'lead' the way out of that.

Newsweek remarks:

If you are a Republican who wants to see your party return to the center, reelecting Obama is the single most effective thing you can do. Look what Reagan’s success did to the Democrats: it gave us the centrist Bill Clinton. A future centrist Republican president is out there somewhere—but electing Romney-Ryan would strand him or her further out in the wilderness.

There seems a degree of sense there. The whole article is well worth reading.

That is an interesting theory, and it makes some sense, but the main problem with the theory is the country was in pretty good shape under Reagan. We certainly had some issues, but the average person was better off in 1989 than they were in 1981. He may have helped the democratic party come back to the center to save themselves, but the average person didn't care that the democrat party had gone too far left, because the average person doesn't care about party politics and what a party needs to do to save itself. If we re-elect Obama, it may make the republicans rethink their strategy, and it may be 4 more years of the tea-partiers walking all over Obama, thinking they're accomplishing something, while the country continues to go down the toilet.

[_cinepro]

But after actually looking into it a bit, and doing some reading, businessmen rarely make good presidents. When you look at the good to great presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Ike, none of them had business experience. Reagan was an actor for chrissakes. And then you have that career politician from Illinois. Who would elect a career politician from Illinois? But Lincoln turned out to be a pretty good President. Herbert Hoover had a lot of business experience, and he is blamed for the great depression. GW Bush had a lot of business experience, and he is blamed for the great recession. Jimmy Carter built up his families peanut warehouse business before getting into politics. How did his business experience work out for the country? We've had great presidents who were military men, and great presidents who were lawyers and career politicians. Have we ever had a great president who was a businessman?

Setting aside your overly-simplistic view of very complicated periods such as the Great Depression and the economic woes of the 1970s, it should be noted that both Reagan and Bush were Governors before becoming President. Reagan wasn't just "an actor for chrissakes".

I'm not sure there is any universal indicator that we can look to to predict the "quality" of a President, especially since it is impossible to know what events and situations the candidate will face during his term.

That being said, I would tend to have more confidence in people that have a combination of "real-world" experience and executive/political experience, such as being a governor. Being a Governor or the President involves working with other branches of government in ways that CEOs and Businesspeople don't.

But I also think it is extremely important that a politician knows what it is like to have to make a payroll, and what happens in the real world if your business runs out of money, and how government regulations can affect business owners. Politicians are spending other peoples' money, and if someone only has experience as a politician (or has been a politician for too long), I think that creates a distorted view of government and the economy. In a capitalistic society that relies on the success of private enterprise for prosperity, this should be a very important factor.

But I also think experience in Washington is important; it seems absurd to send someone to be President who doesn't have some experience working in Congress or the White House.

In the case of an incumbent, those are obviously minor considerations in that we now have four years of job performance on which to base our judgement.

[_DrW]

That is an interesting theory, and it makes some sense, but the main problem with the theory is the country was in pretty good shape under Reagan. We certainly had some issues, but the average person was better off in 1989 than they were in 1981. He may have helped the democratic party come back to the center to save themselves, but the average person didn't care that the democrat party had gone too far left, because the average person doesn't care about party politics and what a party needs to do to save itself. If we re-elect Obama, it may make the republicans rethink their strategy, and it may be 4 more years of the tea-partiers walking all over Obama, thinking they're accomplishing something, while the country continues to go down the toilet.

From the looks of things right now, Romney is only likely to come up with 191 electoral votes. If Obama wins the electoral landslide that appears to be in the making now, he will have a mandate to push aside the Tea Party Crazies, and the Party of NO and move ahead. His administration will need some of the moderate Republicans (provided that there any left), and a strong win should strengthen the positions of moderate Republicans and make progress with them more likely.

Let's hope he understands what his mandate is and acts on it when the time comes.

Meanwhile, if the Republican Party wants to come back in 2016, they are going to have to get their right wing Palin / Santorum / Bachman religionist / tea bagger crazies under control.

[_cinepro]

Compared to what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X2dM

LOL!!!

Cinepro, that is totally weak.

I can only conclude that this is a joke of some kind.

I think it was more boneheaded for Obama to insult religious people than for Romney to overstate the percentage of americans who don't pay income taxes and have a "victim" mentality.

[_Chap]

I think it was more boneheaded for Obama to insult religious people than for Romney to overstate the percentage of americans who don't pay income taxes and have a "victim" mentality.

If you really think that 47% of Americans do have a victim mentality and will never take responsibility for their lives, then if you want to be elected as President it is pretty boneheaded to say so in front of a large audience, is it not?

The fact that you may have been wildly overstating the figure compounds the misjudgement rather than excuses it.