Raybies - I agree with you. Too often I end up defending Obama, not because I
am a big fan, but because I can't tolerate lies being used to defame someone.
Ones judgement should be based on facts of that persons lives, not things
knowingly taken out of context and mishapen to cast false impressions.I personally am harsher on Mit because I expect more from him than I do Newt.
After 3 years of school ground name calling, I was hoping that someone whose
faith dictates treating even your enemies with respect would translate to an
candidate that brought that to the political arena. There is plenty to disagree
with, I have no issues with that. But it is the cheap shot, unrespectful, and
down right anti-Christ like actions of some who bear his name in faith that i
find most dissappointing. I expect more from Mit, because he should know
better. There is no winning at any cost.It is better to loose
virtuous than to win by lowering your standards, no matter what the opposition
does. And sometimes I slide down that path myself, which I always regret later
Great Op-Ed. We need more honest stories like this. So much of
politics tries to look factual, or logically infallible, when it's all about
personal preference and entirely based upon your point of view. It'd
be nice to hear more of an assortment of personal exposures to each candidate's
contributions to individual lives.
He does inspire me too. He has found ways to not have to pay taxes, and I
still foolishly pay mine. He is the poster child for tax evasion. And rather than lie himself, he super Pac does it for him. He can claim moral
superiority, and yet still have his super pac do those things we all are not
right. Spreading falsehoods by proxy. Its a wonderful thing.He is
my hero. All by himself, he is proving an LDS candidate can sink just as low as
the rest of the crowd in order to get elected.Redshirt - are you
suggesting we do our fiscal planning based on bubbles? If only the dot-com
bubble hadn't burst, all would have been good? You use that as an excuse, yet
the house bubble bust is completely different? Had not the housing bubble
burst, Obama wouldn't have inherited a sinking economy either.
You, like so many other conservatives assume that all the government has to do
is lower tax rates to increase - and revenues. Revenues crashed between 2007
and 2008..... with the lowest tax rates ever. So what's the deal? If it is so
simple, how did it happen?
He inspires me to open a tax haven in the Cayman Islands.
To "atl134 | 10:09 a.m." and what is your point. You do realize that
if he holds spending or even cuts it at the same time that regulations are cut
and businesses are not held back by government that a surplus is possible within
a few years.Take a look at the 1990s, the economy was growing fast,
and had the dot com bubble not burst we would have had a surplus. You, like so
many other liberals assume that all the governmetn has to do is raise tax rates
to increase revenues. You always fail to recognize that if you increase
employment numbers that the revenues will follow as they always have.
It's amusing to see that the same die-hard liberals will excuse President Obama
for anything he does, even though they demanded that President Bush stop doing
everything that they allow President Obama to do.They complained
that President Bush was spending too much.In his worst year,
President Bush ran up the deficit by less than $500 billion dollars. In his BEST
year, President Obama ran up the deficit by more than $1.5 TRILLION dollars.During the Bush administration, the private sector had a net gain of
141,000 jobs - which includes the 3.78 million private sector jobs lost in 2008.
During the Obama administration, there has been a net LOSS of 2.91 million
jobs.When people praise Obama, when the facts show that he is the
worst President in American history, you have to wonder why they complained so
loud when Bush was President.
Did Obama say the GOP had to go to the back of the bus? Or is it a Fox
invention?After President Obama made the analogy that Republican
politicians should have to ride "in the back seat" after driving
"this car," the United States, "into the ditch," Fox News
figures have tried to claim that Obama made an "offensive" and
"appalling" reference to racial segregation and "the back
of the bus." They have yet to explain why Obama would want to compare
himself to segregationists and his political opponents to civil rights hero Rosa
Parks.OBAMA: After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as
difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No!
You cant drive! We dont want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the
car out.You can't have the keys back. You don't know how to
drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the
backseat. We're going to put middle-class America in the front seat. We're
looking out for them. (May-Aug 2010)
@Mike Richards"When the Democrats can't find a single reason to
praise their own candidate"Jobs numbers have only been
improving since Obama got into office (Note: I said jobs numbers... inevitably
someone's going to say an unemployment rate to say I'm wrong but this is what I
mean... losing 400k jobs June 2009 is an improvement on the 700k lost January
2009 since it's trending in the right direction).@Redshirt"It is about making tough decisions and saving the nation from
bankruptcy."Romney's tax plan decreases revenue 180 billion a
year and he wants to increase defense spending. I haven't seen where his tough
decisions come in. He's going to have to do a lot of cutting just to get down to
Obama-sized deficits. @newintown"How do you feel about
someone who is unable and/or unwilling ever to amend his position, even if the
facts or conditions suggest it might be a good idea?"He changed
view on practically everything when it was politically expedient for him to do
so. He used to be my favorite Republican (I'm a liberal) but once he targeted
the white house he changed. Sincere change? Maybe, but there's reason for
@homebrew" This continued for the first year of Obama untill it
bottomed out. "January 2009 was the worst month for jobs so
while it was a year before jobs bottomed out the jobs gained/loss numbers
improved with only 2 months in 2009 losing more jobs than the previous month and
within a year we were back to not losing any jobs. So really we were trending
the right direction even in 2009.
Mike Richards::: When our country was falling off the cliff in 2008, Its kinda
hard to stop the decline just because you elect a new president. When Bush left
office, in 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month This continued for the
first year of Obama untill it bottomed out. Since it bottomed out in 2010, over
2 million jobs have been created. That doesnt make up for all the jobs lost, But
we are going in the right direction. Completly the opposite direction we were
going under George Bush. The dissaster of George Bush is being fixed. By the
democrats. The gop refuse's to do anything to help. People like you ,dont have a
clue what they are talking about, they just spout off sound bites they hear on
fox news, and talk radio. Thank God most of us are smart enough to see thru your
Yes and he is a moderate non-tea party conservative. Romney care rules!
Romney is first of all a professional politician, with the few virtues and the
many vices of that "calling."
Miss Piggie.Kennedy? Yes. Now if we could just get those
republicans to let go of Reagan.Government needs to be as big as it
needs to be to control and organize the community that it governs. And
efficiency is secondary to getting the job done.With the party of no
in the house and the solid threat of filibuster in the Senate, Obama has had
more obstacles to his leadership than any other president in my lifetime.
Some of us Oly volunteers remember Romney's promise to create a monument with
all of our names on it. He failed to follow through. If Mr. Obama had been
appointed Olympics organizer rather than Community organizer, the name Eli
Tesecular would be carved in stone somewhere in the valley NOW. As is, I'll have
to wait until I pass on... I'm voting Obama in 2012.
Re:HellooooThe "doc fix", (to correct an ill-conceived formula
for paying Drs passed in 1997) was not part of the healthcare bill and yes, the
CBO assumed it would not be implemented. The "doc fix" costs
approximately $200 billion over 10 years, not $500 billion over 10 yrs.
Congress and Pres Obama passed a 2 mon. extension of the "doc fix" in
December.The main goal of the new healthcare law was to provide
coverage for everybody. The law contains other measures in an attempt to
control costs. Unfortunately Republicans blocked other cost control measures
such as the public option, which was projected to save $150 billion over 10 yrs.
Another cost control measure was dubbed " death panels" by
Republicans but merely would've compensated Drs. for time spent discussing
end-of-life issues with their pts. Obama also offered to negotiate with
Republicans on tort reform (savings $50 billion/10 yrs) but Republicans ignored
the offer. We simply can't afford to turn the country over to the
party that nearly caused the U.S. to default on it's loans for the first time
in history, or wants to double-down on "trickle-down" economic
The Real Maverick | 11:31 p.m.Some of my best friends are Democrats.
If they ran for office, they would have my vote. They would never
trash the Constitution for political gain. They would never spend
money that we don't have for programs that are not authorized. They
would never steal car companies from their owners (those other
"democrats" - police officers, teachers, government employees - people
like you and me) who owned shares in G.M. and Chrysler and then turn those
companies over to unions and foreign governments.They would never
loot the treasury of $500 million for a solar panel company going bankrupt.They would never stop oil drilling in the Gulf and then give a $2
billion loan to George Soros to drill off the coast of Brazil.They
would never ram a 2,000 bill through Congress and then have the gall to tell us
that you have to pass the bill before you know what's in the bill.The Democrats that I know personally are men and women of integrity. It's too
bad that they are not running for office.
Miss Piggie | 12:06 a.m. Jan. 18, 2012 Salt Lake City, UT Would you vote for a Muslim for president of the United States?============= Why not?Most on the uber-Right think we did
I was talking to a person, who was brought in from out of state to work on the
20002 Olympics, and he said, in his opinion, that Fraser Bullock was the real
savior of the Olympics. Maybe now the spot light will turn from Romney's
cutthroat business dealings to his claim that he "rescued" the
@Esquire:"But for being a Mormon, how many of you would support
a fairly liberal Massachusetts politician, raised in wealth beyond the dreams of
most Utahns and has been a corporate raider, who was on record of supporting
abortion rights and gay rights, and who is one of the most notable flip-floppers
in U.S. political history?"You mean Kennedy? Forget him. He's
gone to the great beyond."Are you voting for the man, or are
you voting for the religion..."Would you vote for a Muslim for
president of the United States?@Ultra Bob:"The
fallacy of the world is that business experience prepares a person for
government leadership."That's right. What we need is a
community organizer."Government is about people, business is
about wealth accumulation."The White House is about leadership.
Leadership is about getting things done."If there is to be a
government of the people, for the people and by the people, business must be
controlled to do the will of the people and not the other way around."What must be controlled is the size/efficiency of government. Same as
with a business.
Re: Truthseeker Just one point of fact during the passage of the healthcare
reform act, the CBO was required to include a 500 billion cut in the cost of
medicare to be obtained by reduction in reimbursement to physicians and apply
those savings to the cost of the healthcare legislation. (Bad accounting as
Medicare needs those savings to narrow its widening gap in revenues vs
increasing costs). Then, of course, the President signed this years legislation
which rejected this years reduction effectively meaning the 500 billion is not
going to materialize. So, the Repubs may be wrong about the President and the
Democrats cutting Medicare, but they are not wrong about the President and the
Democrats using these budgeted cuts to justify their healthcare reform act.
Just another example of the failed ethics of the legislators of both parties and
our current administration. As with a good compost pile, constant turning keeps
the smell down, so with elected officials turn them out every election cycle and
the corruption will be slowed. Time for a change in the adminstration and since
the Democrats will not offer one, the only viable choice is the Repub.
When was the last time Mr Richards voted for a Democrat?
@The Real Maverick:"If Romney weren't Mormon, would you have
still found him inspiring?"Religion has nothing to do with
being inspiring. What he stands for is inspiring. Read his book."We don't need Dr. Phil. We need Bill Clinton."We need
Clinton like a hole in the head. Unless, of course, you're into blue
dresses."Someone that actually knows how to get the economy
moving (like he did after Bush I killed it) and balance a budget."Clinton's success with the economy was not about him. It was all about a tech
boom."Romney? What does he stand for? Guess it depends on the
week..."Read his book... Did I say? It's all there."Flip Flop...."You want flop flip? Try Obama. His
history is full and overflowing with it.@Ok:"Mitt
Romney is like an old sea captain. He know which way the wind is blowing and he
frequently changes his course to compensate for the wind."If an
old sea captain doesn't change directions now and then (tacking) he will end up
on the shoals and rocks.
Romney was asked what he would do in regards to Social Security and Medicare and
he started things out with one of the Republican lies out there, that President
Obama cut $500 billion from Medicare. He also fully endorsed raising
the eligibility ages for both Social Security and Medicare, endorsed Paul Ryan's
plan to privatize Medicare, means testing which turns the programs into welfare
programs and block-granting Medicaid back to the states. He also seemed to
completely contradict himself within the time frame of a few minutes with his
follow up a little later in the debate when he said "we simply can't say
we're going to go out and borrow more money to let people set up new accounts to
take money away from Social Security and Medicare today." Just what does he
think those "voluntary" accounts are going to do to future benefit
recipients? It's bad enough the man flip flops on every issue, he couldn't even
get his talking points straight within a sentence of each other.
Sorry, Mike, but I don't agree with your slant - not at all. Rant all you like,
but I think I can be objective, just like conservative Andrew Sullivan in his
recent Newsweek essay. Vote for whom you like in 2012, but you cannot create
your own set of facts.
The President of the United States is an EXECUTIVE position. He gets to approve
or veto legislation that is originated in the Congress. He can suggest that the
congress look at passing whatever bills he wants, but that is the beauty of the
checks and balances built into the Constitution.The President
generally gets too much credit when things go right (ie Clinton and the 90s
boom) and too much blame when things go wrong (ie Bush 43 and the
banking/housing crisis) It's up to the Congress to propose and enact
constitutional legislation that the President can either sign or veto.Romney's business experience more than qualifies him for an executive
Romney is inspiring me to vote for Obama.
@mike richards "No other President in our lifetime has given
two car companies to the labor unions." Please provide some proof the labor
unions now own two auto companies."No other President has
driven up the deficit by $5 TRILLION in three years." are you not the one
that constantly tells us the power of the pocket book lies with congress?
perhaps you should blame them instead of the president last time I checked he
could not pass budgets. the mediatory buy in of healthcare came from
the republicans including Romney. if these are really the best shots
you have at Obama you may want to go back to focusing on Romney.
@mike richardsmaybe if you want to talk about Obama yo should write a
letter in about Obama and stop trying to change the subject away from Romney.
Unless of course you are trying to distract people from taking a closer look at
Romney for some reason. I have had personal dealing with Mr. Romney and found
him to be far less then an honorable man and deserving of any criticism that
comes his way.
@Mike Richards: "Let's hear you praise him for his failures."I usually agree with you, but I can't on this. Obama has never failed to
accomplish his true intentions. He is not at all incompetent, just misguided.
Re: Ms.W - 1:45 p.m. South Jordan, UTThe way Romney trys to degrade our
wonderfull president.Reply: I fully agree with you. Romney's private
equity firm Bain Capital owns one of America's largest media conglomerates,
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., which broadcasts numerous popular talk-show
hosts with incalculable influence in the 2012 GOP primary. Bain Capital joined
with private-equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners to buy Clear Channel in 2008,
with the announcement made shortly before Romney's 2008 run for the GOP
nomination. The $25-billion deal included around 1,000 AM and FM stations, as
well as dozens of televisions stations that were later sold off. Think about
that the next time you're flipping channels on the radio and realize that Rush
Limbaugh calls the candidates Romney, Non-Romney, and Loony. Clear Channel and
its subsidiaries have been criticized on several other fronts in recent times,
too. Last year, for example, its Premiere Radio Networks syndication service was
exposed using paid actors to call into talk shows and read scripts. Some cynics
have even suggested that pro-Romney callers on conservative shows may have
actually been well-paid propagandists reading from a prepared script.
re:MikeRichards"No other President in our lifetime has thumbed his
nose at the families of 10,000 soldiers who are buried near Normandy,
France."???????On Saturday the president will
travel to Normandy to participatein activities commemorating the 65th
anniversary of D-Day, will overnight in Paris that night and travel back
to Washington, D.C., on Sunday. (May 2009)Congress swears to
uphold the Constitution of the U.S. too. They're the ones who write and pass
legislation. We all buy into Medicare don't we? What are you
going to say if/when the Supreme Court upholds the healthcare mandate, which was
a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea?
re: EsquireRomney is NOT the President, yet. He doesn't have to do
anything, yet. He is not in charge of the military, yet. He doesn't have to
defend the Constitution, yet. He doesn't have to verify that every bill passed
by the Legislature is Constitutional, yet. His scope of authority doesn't
extend that far, yet.On the other hand, Mr. Obama is in charge of
the Military. He MUST defend the Constitution. He MUST check the
Constitutionality of every bill that crosses his desk.He has failed
miserably in his duties. No other President in our lifetime has given two car
companies to the labor unions. No other President in our lifetime as tried to
force us to buy health insurance. No other President in our lifetime has
thumbed his nose at the families of 10,000 soldiers who are buried near
Normandy, France. No other President has driven up the deficit by $5 TRILLION
in three years.Let's hear you praise him for his failures.One thing is certain. Mr. Romney is man enough to take responsibility for his
actions. He would never try to blame Mr. Obama for his own failures.
"Being an LDS member, I want a president who respects the office. The way
Romney trys to degrade our wonderfull president is not of the Jesus I know. There's a difference between attacking someone personally vs.
attacking them on policy. How has he degraded our "wonderful"
President? Attacking ones policies is part of the political process...it
shouldn't offend anybody.
Ayn Rand, wherever she is, must be smiling. Romney makes uncomfortable all those
who do not value enterprise on an individual basis. Progressives believe that
only governments can create wealth and continue to borrow and tax while waiting
for changes we can believe in. It's the difference between governments providing
opportunity or subsidizing the status quo, the difference between "Yes you
can," and "Yes we (the government) can."
The best I can say for Mitt is he is my second choice for president, ahead of
all but Paul. However:Mitt, according to reports, receives the
biggest contributions from Goldman Sachs (just like Obama did) whereas Paul
rejects all corporate donations, and campaigns on the donations of grassroots
supporters.Mitt has to ask Paul advice on the Constitution, at least
he did so in a recent debate.Mitt refers to big business tycoons as
those who are "successful". My own view of success is much broader
than that. Paul does not equate success with income apparently as he is pledged
to reject that presidential salary the exceeds $39,000 and has always rejected
his special congressional benefits.Mitt seems to worship the god of
forces or the power of armed intervention to solve international problems, while
Paul consistently opposes pre-emptive and undeclared wars, interventions and
international military ubiquity. Here Paul stands alone among the presidential
hopefuls.Mitt wants 25% income tax (he'll need it for his foreign
policy); Paul wants zero percent (like it was before 1913)and will finance it
largely and realistically by closing down bureaucracies, ending foreign aid, and
bringing home the troops.
Sorry Ranchhand,But running the country is running the biggest
company on the planet. It isn't about the size of the company. Its about sound
principles applied to the company, no matter its size. Ironically, the bigger
the company, the more critical that the principles be sound.It is
the very attitude that the US is not a business that gives congress the notion
that it can violate sound financial principles without consequences. balancing
the checkbook applies to the POTUS exactly as it applies to a soccer mom or
building contractor or bus driver. If you don't understand that, then it doesn't
much matter who leads your company. You will be penniless anon.
Mike Richards, this letter was about Romney, not Obama. I can give you lots of
reasons to re-elect the President. Don't think you care, though.
@Esquire:Do you not support abortion rights and gay right
yourself?How do you feel about someone who is unable and/or
unwilling ever to amend his position, even if the facts or conditions suggest it
might be a good idea?Do believe that all people are basically
corrupt and will do anything to get elected, or just Romney?Isn't it
a bit hypocritical to oppose someone whom you claim has supported the very thing
you support just because he has an R by his name.I mean no offense,
as you so often accuse me of, I just find it curious that you play whichever
card seems to support you current point of view.
@Ranchhand:Your analogy simply does not work. Not all of us work on the
payroll of the federal government. all of us do however employ those on the
payroll to provide certain needed services.Obviously, one cannot
fire the citizens, but the government can most certainly fire its employees when
the poorly perform the services we, as citizens, hired them to perform. You make
your case using a false premise, that a CEO or POTUS cannot fire employees. The
POTUS is a CEO, of the largest business in the country.Part of the
problem is that some of the citizens who have been hired to serve the remainder
of us presume that their job performance is tenured. It isn't. When thier agency
underperforms, either those hindering performance or the entire agency, if it
cannot be fixed, should be terminated.
To "LDS Liberal | 11:04 a.m." so waht you are saying is that the
people who elected Obama were not intelligen voters because their mantra was
"He isn't Bush".Here is where you and so many other
liberals are wrong. The President is the CEO of America, Inc. He has to lead
the nation in making business deals with other nations to improve trade. Much
of what the President does is exactly like what a CEO must do. Being President
is more than hosting really good parties and greeting foreign dignitaries. It
is about making tough decisions and saving the nation from bankruptcy.Lets just look at one of Obama's recent pieces of law he got enacted. It will
allow the federal government to have even more power to watch over you than was
originally granted in the Patriot Act. Knowing that, why should a person who is
grabbing at so much power be re-elected? What has Obama done that Bush didn't
do also? The both killed terrorists, they both enacted health insurance plans
that have or will go over budget, and both have nearly the same policies when it
comes to banking.
I doubt if most of today's posters have ever voted for a Republican. From their
posts, it's clear that they're running scared. The thought of Romney running
against Obama has them shouting insults instead of thinking of anything good to
say about Mr. Obama. When the Democrats can't find a single reason
to praise their own candidate, that tells us Republicans all we need to know.
Hitler was also inspirational he was TIME magazines man of the year twice.
Romney is an enemy to freedom and his track record proves this. There will be no
difference between him and Obama. You will be foolish to think differently.
Mountanman | 8:33 a.m. Jan. 17, 2012 Hayden, ID @ LDS Liberal. I
think you are right! "Intelligent voter" should vote for a man who has
never had any leadership experience, who never had to run a company, never had
to make payroll, never had to succeed against all the government's regulations.
That way he can "lead" us to becoming just like Europe! Now that's
real "substance". =================== Like I
already said,The Republican mantra of "but, I'm not Obama" means
nothing to intelligent voters.A couple other things Mountanman:They are both running for the President of the United States, not CEO of
America, Inc.Like Terrorists who don't recognize the State of
Israel, we have those Americas who don't recognize who the current sitting
President of the United States is.and I'd reckon that actually being the
President of the United States for the last 4 years trumps never ever being the
President of the United States in the "experience" category
everytime.FYI -- Your Bush/Cheney Patriot Act Anti-Government eyes
are watching you...
Come back to this inspiration thing after Romney "resets" the economy.
1.4 million Michiganders are greatful he didn't get the opportunity a couple of
Romney's core strength is electability. His voters are, for the most part,
completely unenthused. In fact Santorum led a recent poll with 29% saying he's a
true conservative. Romney was down with Gingrich at 15% and 14% (they may have
been reversed, I'm not sure). However, Romney led in that poll. There's this
massive reluctant support for Romney, that's why for 7 months despite Romney
floating around 20-25% the whole time nationally and in Iowa, conservatives
tested half a dozen candidates. 6 different people led Iowa polling and a 7th
person was just 8 vote shy of winning it. Really Romney's strength is he's
running against loons. I kinda wonder what would've happened if Pawlenty stayed
in the race.
Citizens for Tax Justice a few months ago estimated that Mitt Romney, due to
most of his income coming from investments, pays a tax rate of around 14
percent, a far cry from the 35 percent top income tax rate. Romney then
confirmed that the bulk of his income does, indeed, come from investments (and
is thus subject to the top capital gains tax rate of 15 percent).During a press conference, Romney said that he only makes some income from
speakers fees, but not very much, which is money that would be taxed at normal
income tax rates. From Feb. 2010 to Feb. 2011, Romney earned $362,000 in
speakers fees.On the other hand,Romneys tax plan would double
the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, while increasing taxes on millions of middle
class families, including half of middle class families with children.
Mitt's a good guy with a lot of fine qualities, but "inspiring" is not
one of them. He's a hard driving, single minded numbers guy -- a common Harvard
biz school phenom -- but not the person to bring a tear to the eye.
Look at Romney during the debates. He has a smirk on his face. He is
condisending to the other candidates. He changes his opinion like the wind
changes direction. The only thing he inspires in me is to see Obama reelected
The fallacy of the world is that business experience prepares a person for
government leadership. It is more likely that just the opposite is true. Government is about people, business is about wealth accumulation. The
two are mortal enemies in the struggle for survival. Barring a few exceptions
that sometimes occur, this is the rule and the history of civilization so
far.If there is to be a government of the people, for the people and
by the people, business must be controlled to do the will of the people and not
the other way around. Business like fire must be controlled or it
will consume not only the world of people but itself as well.So when
we elect a business oriented person to govern us, we are donating our lives and
futures to someone not having our best interest.Even so, business is
not an option for civilized society it is as necessary as the air we breath. It
provides the necessary products and services that we cant or dont want to
provide by ourselves. But like the fire and its service, business must be
controlled to the wishes of the people.
Romney owns Clear Channel Communications, Inc. that runs conservative talk
shows, why do they, Glenn Beck and Rush want HIM elected?. Forget kissing
babies on the campaign trail. The millions of dollars worth of political
advertisements airing before the early primary elections are turning out to be
money well spent for K Street and Wall Street money, GOP deregulations that say
it's ok, keep it, get filthy rich off of it, stuff it in off shore tax safe
havens, don't use it to create jobs, we want Obama to fail, and they go along
with the Koch Brother's wishes that feeds them. They can spend unlimited
amounts of cash to influence elections, and are poised to remake presidential
politics this year. it's about these cafeteria style Constitutionalist that
uses their political theories if and when it fits them and when it effects them
alone, with a no waiting staff table service, in their private Patroit
restaurant or within an institution of the Tea Party. That's what they think
is their "Constitutionalist Platform" is to spout off about. That
crashed America. Are you ready for that again?. "HEY", the rich get
richer, we get poorer. ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics. My
Which Romney is inspiring? The liberal Romney of the 90's? the moderate Romney
of the early 2000's? or the hard core right wing Romney of today?
Embarrassed Utahn: "our fine President Obama"... Funny, he has the
opposite effect on me....
Being an LDS member, I want a president who respects the office. The way Romney
trys to degrade our wonderfull president is not of the Jesus I know. Huntsman
was the one who had honor. Tearing down our president for reasons that are not
true, does not look like honor to me. Romney has ideas that will work for the
benifit of all Americans? Then why doesn't he bring them forth?
@ LDS Liberal. I think you are right! "Intelligent voter" should vote
for a man who has never had any leadership experience, who never had to run a
company, never had to make payroll, never had to succeed against all the
government's regulations. That way he can "lead" us to becoming just
like Europe! Now that's real "substance".
So what is this letter writer suggesting?That Federal Employees work
for Free? Volunteer their time? Work for Kudos?I'm sure
Romney's Fired, laid-off Employees don't share your feelings of inspiration.Go ahead Mitt -- Inspire us.We're still waiting to hear ONE idea,
suggestion, or plan of HOW he plans to do things different.The
Republican mantra of "but, I'm not Obama" means nothing to intelligent
voters.Substance, not slogans.
"The Real Maverick" has a good point. But for being a Mormon, how
many of you would support a fairly liberal Massachusetts politician, raised in
wealth beyond the dreams of most Utahns and has been a corporate raider, who was
on record of supporting abortion rights and gay rights, and who is one of the
most notable flip-floppers in U.S. political history? Are you voting for the
man, or are you voting for the religion (as long as it is associated with the
"right" political party)?
Mitt Romney is like an old sea captain. He know which way the wind is blowing
and he frequently changes his course to compensate for the wind. Unfortunately
the job of president requires more than a person who can flip flop to the wind.
Mitt just doesn't have what it takes to lead a great country out of economic
What would be inspiring is for someone to run for office where it is evident
that they value principals above the glamour that comes with the office they
seek.In addition what would be inspiring is to find a Solomon who is
known for their far reaching wisdom and in whom you could have confidence would
make right decisions.
If Romney weren't Mormon, would you have still found him inspiring? How many
other Utahns would feel inspired by him?Despite all this inspiring
nonsense, what about substance? That's what I want out of a President. We don't
need Dr. Phil. We need Bill Clinton. Someone that actually knows how
to get the economy moving (like he did after Bush I killed it) and balance a
budget. Romney? What does he stand for? Guess it depends on the
week... Flip Flop....
Running a country is not the same as running a corporation.In the
corporation all you need to worry about is profits. Fire a few million workers
to boost your bottom line.In a country, you worry about your
citizens. Firing them ruins your bottom line.Romney doesn't
understand the difference.
Funny, he has the opposite effect on me.
A very quick fact-check will show that Romney is not above telling outright lies
to disparage our fine President Obama. In my opinion, most Utah voters will
roundly dismiss the lies since Romney is a Republican. I find it repugnant.