DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_cinepro]

That sounds good, and Romney may be a great president, I was just pointing out the track record of presidents with business background against presidents with no business background. If we use history as a guide, it appears having a business background doesn't mean much, if anything, for a president.

I'm not sure it's such a simple correlation (or that your "sample size" of Presidents and appraisal of their success is solid).

But as I said, I think he biggest problem for businessmen is that being President isn't like running a business, in that they have to deal with co-equal branches of government. If Congress doesn't want to cooperate, then you don't get to work your magic.

[_Jaybear]

Obama lists the following "coping strategies" for their bitterness:

1. Clinging to "guns"
2. Clinging to "religion"
3. "Antipathy toward people that aren't like them"
4. "Anti-immigrant sentiment"
5. "Anti-trade sentiment"

If Obama meant for his comment to depict these small town Pennsylvanians' religious belief as a positive thing, then I agree that my comprehension skills must be pretty bad, because it sure doesn't look like a positive statement to me. Unless he also meant that it was a good thing that they were "clinging" to "guns".

And when speaking to a group of rich San Fransisco democrats, why would he be holding up gun ownership and religion as good things? Is that really a good selling strategy?

Yes, it was a dumb thing to say.

But there is one big difference in the point Obama made to his supporters that they needed to continue to engage with these people: "The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing."

Romney was writing off the poor, as not they were not worthy of his effort. (I will never convince them ...

Obama was speaking with condescension. Romney was speaking with disdain.

[_Ludd]

Do you believe global warming is a hoax?

It's possible to agree that global warming is real but disagree on the wisest course of action to deal with it.

Do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?

I didn't know that was an issue. Has Romney talked about working to overturn it as President?

Do you think we need to spend more or less money on defense spending?

I think less, so if that's what you're saying too, I'm with you there.

Should the rich get a tax cut, or pay more in taxes?

I think everyone should pay less in taxes, and since the rich pay the majority of taxes, that would mean they would also get a tax cut.

Should we cut federal funding to planned parenthood, to PBS?

As long as the government is broke, yes. I don't know why we need to borrow money to fund public television and subsidize abortions.

Should you think we need more religion in our public schools?

I wasn't aware of Romney trying to get more religion into the public schools. Has this come up in the campaign?

Do you believe that Americans have a second amendment right to assault rifles, extended carbines, and armor piercing bullets?

I wasn't aware that Romney was trying to increase access for people to those weapons. Has this been something he talks about?

Do you believe gays should have the right to marry?

No.

Do you think we should open up national parks and lands to drilling?

If it can be done in an environmentally responsible manner, sure.

Do you believe that tax cuts pay for themselves?

No. Tax cuts have to be accompanied by reduced spending.

DO you believe in Keynesian economic theory?

No. I would if it worked, but it doesn't.

Do you believe that we should offer a undocumented citizens a path to citizenship, or encourage them to self deport?

As far as I know, they have a "path to citizenship". People become citizens all the time. I don't think our current situation with illegal aliens is good and something needs to change. But since Obama and Romney appear to be equally incompetent on the subject (and unable to propose a lucid plan of any sort), it's a moot point for me.

DO you think we need more or less corporate money in our elections?

If restrictions on "corporate money" are also applied to "union money", I'm all for it. It would certainly change things dramatically for politicians, but whether or not it would actually "improve" things, only time would tell.

Not sure how anyone can be on the fence.

After the last four years, I agree.

You and I are pretty much on the same page here. Except on the gay marriage thing. I don't care if gays want to marry. I guess I'm what you would call a "fiscal conservative" and a "social libertarian".

But I also think the role of President is not nearly as important as Congress is. Until Congress stops borrowing money for all of their favorite pork, nothing will change, regardless of who is President. And if we go very much further into debt, I think the country is doomed. It will be far worse than Greece. Thing is, I don't see much changing. I just try not to think about it too much. Besides, what can one person do? It's terribly depressing, if you ask me.

[Guest]

But there is one big difference in the point Obama made to his supporters that they needed to continue to engage with these people: "The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing."

Romney was writing off the poor, as not they were not worthy of his effort. (I will never convince them ...

Obama was speaking with condescension. Romney was speaking with disdain.

That difference makes all the difference in my mind. One--Obama's--is about engaging people who are different. The other--Romney's--is a statement about ignoring people who are different.

And again, what Obama said about people living in small towns in America is not universally true--it is a negative stereotype--but it has a lot of truth to it.

I grew up in small-town America with associates in the Future Farmers of America who had guns and Confederate flags hung in the back window of the pickup truck, who went to small Protestant churches, and hated people who were different from them.

So, when asked about whether there are people out there who fit this stereotype, I would have to answer, "most certainly, and lots of them."

[_Sophocles]

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).

I too remember the days when I though Romney might make a damn good president someday. I maintain that the reason he is so bad at campaigning is because he's pretending to be something he's not, but something he thinks he has to be to get elected. We'll never know if the real Romney would have made a better impression than this phony, ham-fisted one.

If he does manage to get elected, we can always hope that he will return to true form as president, but then, aren't the first four years just a campaign for reelection?

[_Kishkumen]

It may cost Romney the election, and it's his own fault if it does.

Well, I am not sure I would place that much blame on him. Being his age he probably not reckon that he would have to guard every word in a small gathering of wealthy donors.

One simply can't say stupid things anywhere anymore, and not risk being recorded.

[_cinepro]

I too remember the days when I though Romney might make a damn good president someday. I maintain that the reason he is so bad at campaigning is because he's pretending to be something he's not, but something he thinks he has to be to get elected. We'll never know if the real Romney would have made a better impression than this phony, ham-fisted one.

If he does manage to get elected, we can always hope that he will return to true form as president, but then, aren't the first four years just a campaign for reelection?

Shortly after Obama won in 2008, my conservative Brother-in-Law posted a comment on Facebook like "Oh well, we'll win it in 2012".

I responded by saying that if the Republicans wanted to win, they "needed to find a certifiable rock star". Meaning, someone that didn't just try to engage voters on an intellectual level, but could really connect with people and get them excited. I ended by observing that the Republicans were the party that put Bob Dole up against Bill Clinton.

And now we have Mitt Romney running against Obama. I hope Romney wins, but if he loses, no one will be surprised, and it will all have seemed so inevitable.

[_palerobber]

I suspect Romney's "47%" remark stemmed, at least in part, from frustration from a desire to run a campaign based on what he sees as the necessary "austerity" and other economic changes that will have to come to the US government, while realizing that those necessary changes will be anathema to a large portion of the population who are benefiting from them.

this is a little strange.

when has Romney ever expressed a desire to campaign for austerity? on the contrary, his foremost (only?) economic proposal has been to promise everyone yet another round of free money -- roughly double the size, percentage-wise, of the Bush tax cuts -- without specifying how he'll offset it.

If we are in a position where the politicians who can save our economy can't get elected because a large portion of the voters rely on the government continuing to make poor financial decisions, then we are totally screwed. And this goes for republicans and democrats.

this is a real problem, and it is a problem across the political spectrum of voters. but it's absurd to claim that Romney would be, or has even proposed to be, part of the solution.