Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama, Romney engage in spending Cold War during presidential battle’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 23 2012 9:14 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris from Rose Park
PROVO, UT

"...as long as Democrats continue to step up, we will have the resources we need to make sure voters understand the devastating impact a Romney presidency will have on the middle class..." - Bill Burton

As a middle class man, I welcome a Romney presidency. I believe he will do better at influencing a balanced budget and I believe that he will make better use of the funds the federal government has.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

cold war analogy is correct, freedom versus communisim. history will repeat itself this November.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Obama is a little league president while Romney plays in the majors. A business man compared to someone who couldn't run a lemonade stand. The choice has never been clearer.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: ute alumni Tengoku, UT
"cold war analogy is correct, freedom versus communisim. history will repeat itself this November."

As Bill Clinton said: "It's the economy stupid". There is a reason why Romney was ablt to salvage the 2002 Winter Olympics and leave with $100 million left in the bank. He has the Mojo that John McCain lacked.

There is a reason why Romney is dropping a ton of money on states that are safe for Obama. It will force Obama to spend money he doesn't have defending territory he thinks is safe.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

This is a lot of whistling past the graveyard for the Obama campaign!

worf
Mcallen, TX

How will Obama pay for his next vacation? opps! I guess the tax payers will.

Californian#1@94131
San Francisco, CA

The amount of money spent by candidates to buy off the American people is obscene.

Imagine how much actual GOOD could be done with all the money being dumped down the bottomless pit of Presidential campaign spending. Especially since the average American voter will again hold his or her nose and vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils.

Perhaps we need a Federally mandated limit on how much money candidates can raise from any combination of sources and how much they can spend. Or prohibit fundraising and private donations altogether. Within a prescribed limit, provide an equal amount of Federal funding for major-party contenders, then an equal amount to the Democratic and Republican nominees and a pro-rated amount to each third-party candidate based on their party's vote percentage in the last Presidential election. Let the crooks spend the money any way they want--buying time to lie on TV, space in the New York Times to lie in print, websites to lie in cyberspace, or fuel to travel around the country lying in person.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
"Perhaps we need a Federally mandated limit on how much money candidates can raise from any combination of sources and how much they can spend."

Translation: Lets put a muzzle on our 1st Amendment right of free speech and dictate how people will be allowed to spend their money.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments