Mitt Romney labels Barack Obama 'ineffective president'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 6, 2011 12:57 p.m.

    To "Pagen | 5:28 p.m" I would trust many other people before I trust a politician regardless of his personal background. Politicians are not known for being truthful. Just look at the polls for confidence in Congress to do the right thing.

    If you want to look at Bush's overall performance on unemployment, it still looks better than Obama. His average was 5.2%, which was the same as Clinton's average unemployment rate. Now, look at Obama, his average unemployment rate has been 9.4%.

    I hate to tell you, but nomatter how you want to spin the statistics, the nation was doing better under Bush than under Obama.

  • Conservative-Liberal SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 5, 2011 1:00 a.m.

    Mitt Romney is the only person I've ever known to trash the country in which he served as a missionary. No votes from this family.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 3, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    To "Pagen | 2:32 p.m. " if you read the story "Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information" from the UK telegraph, which is dated 5/4/11, before the Osama story was re-written several times by the Obama administration.

    So, what is the truth. Was Leon Panetta telling the truth on May 4th when he said that enhanced techniques lead to Obama, or was he telling the truth on May 12th?

    Also from May 4, we read "Ex-CIA Counterterror Chief: Enhanced Interrogation Led U.S. to bin Laden" in Time magazine saying that torture was used.

    Now, as for the unemployment numbers, if you understood what I wrote, you would realize that I was comparing the peak of the recession under Bush, and where were are now, 2 years after the Recession under Obama is over.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 3, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    To "williary | 3:53 p.m." you have overlooked a lot of facts.

    1. When Bush got in office, the recession of 2001 was only in its beginning stages, and if you look at what he did then, he kept unemployment down. Obama advised Bush on what to do about the recession before he was elected President, and has had 2 years to get unemployment down. So far he has kept unemployment up. At the height of the 2001-2002 recession, unemployment was at 5.7%, a difference of 1.5% in a year. Obama peaked at 10.2%, a difference of 2%. The Recession, according to the LA Times, ended in June 2009, so why is it that 2 years later unemployment is still up?

    2. Read the articles that I referenced. Stocks are only up because true inflation is up, and the government printing presses have printed so much money that prices are inflated.

    3. Again, Obama is just doing what Bush set in motion via treaties with Iraq and Afghanistan. If Bush could have remained, the drawdown would still be happening.

    4. Leon Panetta also said that it was the "enhanced techniqueses" that lead to Osama.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    June 2, 2011 3:53 p.m.

    @Riverton Coug/Redshirt

    1)Feb 2001, Bush's first full month, rate was 4.2%. Feb 2009, Obama's first full month, rate was 8.2%. Rate increased by 95% during W's term. In much better economic times. In a near Depression, rate has increased less than 10% so far in Obama's term. Can you imagine if Obama had nearly doubled the rate like Bush did!

    2)Stocks fluctuate, thanks for the eco lessen. Facts are facts. Stocks declined 22% over W's term. Stocks have increased 48% since Obama took office. Those are the facts.

    3)Yes, wars that have been going on for 10 long years, and trillions of dollars to the deficit, are finally coming to an end, thanks to Obama. 1 war that was never finished, because of the other war that should not have been started.

    4)Do some research. Waterboarding provided no new information that led to Bin Laden. Just facts, from Leon Panetta himself. Another fact. Bush failed to get Bin Laden, in 7 years. Obama got him in 2.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 2, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    To "DeltaFoxtrot | 8:35 a.m" actually Obama can't take credit for any of those things.

    #1, when Obama took office unemployment was 7.8%, it currently is at 9%, and he has averaged over 8% unemployment.
    #2, stocks are only up due to increased money supply (a.k.a. printing more money). See "How the Stockmarket and Economy really Work" at the Mises Institute and do a search for stock prices incresing due to increased money supply (inflation).
    #3, Prior to leavig office Bush negociated with Iraq a plan for pulling troops out. We are not standing down in Afghanistan yet, so that isn't even a valid point. At best you can give Obama an attaboy for going through with Bush's plans.
    #4, If we had done as Obama requested in 2006 and stopped waterboarding, the information that eventually lead to Obama would never have been obtained. So again, obama gets an attaboy for finishing was Bush started.

    Actually, the debt problems go back to the 1960's, when we stopped having budget surplusses and started spending more than the government took in.

    Obama is not cleaning up messes, he is making them worse.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    June 2, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    "Let's see some accomplishments that Obama can take credit for.

    #1: Unemployment is down.
    #2: The stock market is up.
    #3: We are pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    #4: Bin Laden is dead."

    1) Let's see, you failed to mention that unemployment increased under Obama, and then decreases slightly. Do you have short term memory loss? It's still higher than it ever was under Bush.

    2) The stock market is in a similar position as unemployment. It's starting to rise a little now (as everyone knew it would eventually), but Obama delayed the improvement, and the economy still needs fixing (not to mention an extra 4 trillion dollars of debt thanks to him).

    3) Congratulations! Troops that were fighting terrorists are now withdrawing!

    4) I'm pretty sure it was the SEALs that did that job. "Well he ordered the attack" blah blah blah. Wouldn't anyone have done that? Besides, Bush got Saddam Huessein. Yet NOBODY credits him. Why should Obama get any more credit for Bin Laden than Bush for Saddam Huessein?

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    June 2, 2011 8:35 a.m.

    @Wayne: Hi there, I'm logic.

    Let's see some accomplishments that Obama can take credit for.

    #1: Unemployment is down.
    #2: The stock market is up.
    #3: We are pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    #4: Bin Laden is dead.

    You can't sit there and tell me that none of those are good things.

    If you look at the FACTS you can see that our debt problem can in fact be traced back to Bush era policies, which left one heck of a mess for Obama to clean up.

    I'll say the man has done all right. Things certainly could be a lot worse.

    But I think his defining moment is yet to come. How he, and by extension his party, handles the debt ceiling issue will either make or break his 2nd term in office.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    June 1, 2011 1:38 p.m.

    You go for it Romney. Bifurcate the Republican party and none of them will get elected. Is that your real plan here cause there really isn't much chance you will get elected. Perhaps you need a real job -- something a bit more than collecting political contributions for an office that you cannot win.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    Just a gut check feel who do you "really" think will have the best shot at bringing this dead and lifeless economy back to life? Really folks - politics aside- if you were betting the farm of which person (Obama or Romney) could do the job who would you put your money on?? Do you put your money on "more of the same" tax , borrow and spend Obama or do you put your money on Romney - the guy who resuced the 2002 Olympics from bankruptsy and in any circle is considered a STRONG economic candidate based on real deeds - not academic hoo-haw. Considering NOTHING else - not political party, not othe issues - just the economy who do you really have the best feel for? I know the answer is obvious but just do the exercise anyway. I think this same sort of thinking is going to happen when people enter the polls in 2012 because the economy is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and everything else is chump change - even for moderate democrats who I know many would like to run a new democratic candiate against Obama in the primaries.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    Sarah Palin labels Romney 'inconsequential'.

  • LeonardL Sandy, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:09 p.m.

    Romneys accomplishments:* Earned over 260 million in the private sector 25 years (not a career politician like ALL of the other Republican candidates)* Took 2008 Utah Winter Olympics 300 million deficit and turned it into a 100 million dollar surplus the most successful games on record.* Took Massachusetts 1.5 BILLION dollar deficit and turned it into a 600 million dollar surplus withOUT raising incomes taxes (in the bluest state in the nation, he did raise some fees on other services about 2 million worth.)
    Romney's company Bain Capital manages approximately $65 billion in assets, and has founded, acquired, or invested in hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dominos Pizza, DoubleClick, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Toys R Us, Unisource, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

    I find that when Tea Partiers dont have any good arguments they resort to empty speech acts like calling Romney a RINO.
    For those who claim such, please let me remind you that Republican doesnt mean LIBERTARIAN and it does not mean CONSTITUTION PARTY member

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:50 p.m.


    President Obama has been excoriated for daring to say that unemployment would be at 8% or below as a result of his policies.

    Instead of wind testing to make sure Grover, Karl, Rush, Sean and Sarah have signed off on your 2nd attempt to win the nomination, after failing in 2008, tell the voters where the unemployment percentage will be at 6 mtns; 1 year; 18 mths.; 2 years as a result of your policies.

    We need specifics, not snarky attacks.

    We need goals, objectives and timelines.

    Anything less will prove you are and would-be just another "ineffective" pandering politican.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:41 p.m.

    I read these pro-government comments, and I'm stunned that so many still believe government can solve the problems that big government created in the first place. Name one issue that the people created w/o drinking governmnet cool-aid first. Then we debate among eachother as if government has an answer to anything they messed up in the first place. You can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created that problem. Wake up people!

  • wandrew Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 31, 2011 6:49 p.m.

    Romney wants to be President so bad that he will say or do anything, including mirepresenting his own record, to do it. I just don't trust him as far as I could throw him. Now we have come thr full circle from "O'm not George Bush" to "I'm not Barck Obama". That just isn't where I want to go. No, thanks.

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    May 31, 2011 6:31 p.m.

    Obama has no track record of accomplishments. He has stuffed the government with political idealists who likewise have accomplished little in their life. When you have never had to be to work at a certain time or have never managed people, you can't possibly do the most difficult job in the world. Voters were not qualified either, selecting Obama because he was black or because he could read in a polished manner without ever considering if he was qualified for the job. Having said this, I doubt that that John McCain would have been much better but I think he would have appointed better people. Our system now seems to be more of a beauty contest with no consideration of ability to manage and organization. The primary selection system is a failure at producing qualified candidates.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    May 31, 2011 5:40 p.m.

    Lame, lame, lame. Trying to say the economy tanked because congress went a few seats majority for democrats is just showing you intelectual dishonesty. I don't believe you think that. I think you are being dishonest entirely.

    If you think you can convince yourself that Obama tanked the economy and caused 10% + unelmployment, I guess there are psycological pathologies to acheieve that but you haven't convinced the rest of the sane country.

    There was no financial bubble right? No credit swaps and mortgage frauds? Not two wars of the kind that almost broke the USSR? Obama just got in office. What a gaggle of sheeple.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    May 31, 2011 4:57 p.m.

    @ Cedarite',
    that was not a flip flop Obama could have done more to direct the direction of the said Arab spring to help support Israel more. no flip there the only flop is Obama!

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    May 31, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    lets let Romney run with Huntsman and then we could have a really Hard To Define, losing Mormon Ticket.

    If you think that the people who will not Vote for them because they are Mormon are going to change then think again.

    They will be evan less likely to trust them if they are hard to define. Plus I would Not trust them either.

    I just want the Abortion to be stopped.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    May 31, 2011 4:17 p.m.

    Of course the favorite for the Republican nomination says he will overturn the Health Care Legislation Obama passed. Republicans have tried, and succeeded until Obama, for the last 30 years to make sure nothing changes. To guarantee that insurance companies, who donate millions to their campaigns, continue making huge profits. To guarantee that middle class Americans continue fighting exponentially escalating premiums, and dwindling benefits.

    Republicans don't believe in Health Care Reform, because there's nothing wrong in their view.

    If you don't believe that, how about turning Medicare into a voucher system! That way, when premiums continue to increase, seniors can foot that difference, instead of the government.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2011 4:07 p.m.

    I guess it depends on what context you are using the phrase "ineffective" in. Obama has been VERY effective in establishing a far left, socialist, wealth-redistribution, dream....which happens to be a nightmare for the majority of Americans. Obama has been completely ineffective in lowering unemployment, lowering our debt, and putting people back to work. I have the feeling when the rubber meets the road in 2012 folks are going to care only about the state of the economy and not whether or not the far left agenda has been met. No bones about it - Obama is in BIG trouble when it comes to his handling of the economy and you have to look no further than the mid-term elections back in Nov 2010 to get a feel for the mood of the majority. Mitt will eat his lunch in a debate over the economy regardless of which teleprompter script BO is using.

  • Gordon T. Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 31, 2011 3:52 p.m.

    Romney is the best person out there for President and I am not Mormon. Obama has not gotten the country mobilized as far as the economy goes. Romney has a good head for business and a good track record in that area. Also, he is not one to be soft on foreign relations as Obama is. He will not put up with terrorism or any groups like Hamas. You may not like his health care plan in Mass. while he was governor, however at least he tried something before others did. Nobody does it alone and he is bright enough to surround himself with the right people to get the job as President done admirably. Everyone flip flops to some extent. Every study shows that the people who fail the most and learn from their mistakes are the ones who make it to the top. Let me know what you think.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 31, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 3:10 p.m." I hate to tell you this, but the last president to have a surplus left to him was Richard Nixon. Bush started out with 4.2% unemployment, and ended at 7.4, with an average unemployment rate of 5.2%. It was only his last 5 months that had an increase in unemployment. Supprisingly enough, that was a time when Congress was controlled by Democrats, and he attempted to spend his way out of a recession.

    Now, what do you call a president who has record setting deficits, and drives the economy into such a hole that while the official unemployment rate shows 8% to 9%, the real unemployment rate hovers around 16% with an underemployment rate over 20%.

    So, what do you call a president who spends the country into oblivion, is anti-business, and makes the previous administration's bad decisions bigger and more expensive? Is that a success or failure?

  • greenman108 Petaluma, CA
    May 31, 2011 3:29 p.m.

    poster opined: "Romney should have been the nomination 4 years ago, but radical American Evangelicals prevented that from occurring. Instead, the Republican party nominated the more moderate and ineffective candidate named John McCain." ...SHOULD HAVE BEEN? How does McCain being nominated somehow relate to radical evangelicals not choosing Romney? Was he counting on the Southern Baptist convention to come out for his election?
    Please connect the dots in your speculations on how Romney SHOULD HAVE BEEN the nominee of his party.
    And please, what's different now? From my seat at this spectacle, Bachmann looks like the heir to Huckabee.

  • Republicantthinkstraigh Anywhere but, Utah, Utah
    May 31, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    Republicants have done everything in there power to prevent the President from succeeding in turning aroung the economy. Although he hasn't turned the economy around completely, I don't suspect any President could have. We live in a completely different world from the 80's and 90's. You can't compare the Presidency's of Obama, Reagan, or Bush. The world has changed and will continue to change.

    As I see it, the Dem's actually tried to work with Bush to help the country in this ever changing world but the Repubs have done anything and everything to see Obama fail. It's discusting and makes them look like the bunch of idiots they are. Republicans don't care about you, me, or anyone else but getting elected in the next election and catering to their corporate buddies. It's really sad that people in the middle and lower class would support these people when they want to take everything they can from you. I support Obama 100% and believe he will make the U.S. a better place than any Repub President would ever dream of.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    Ok Riverton Cougar | 2:06 p.m., let's make this simple.

    If I start out with a surplus and 4% unemployment...

    but end with 8% national unemployment, a almost doubled national debt at $10 trillion dollars and two wars with other countries based on 'fautly intelligence'....

    was I a bad president?


    I was George W. Bush and apparently I need credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden.

    I would be impressed with Romney if he 1) did more than loose the 2008 presidental elections and 2) said or did anything to help tornado victims.

  • greenman108 Petaluma, CA
    May 31, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    Obama's Nobel Prize for peace was won by calling all of us to transcend racial, tribal and religious differences and work together for the common good of all humankind. Counter intelligence's post claiming Obama is intolerant is false propaganda without basis in reality. Obama is a centrist, being tarred with the socialist brush for the crime of saving the US auto industry and keeping the US and Euro's banking industry from failure. I know of no stories, false or true, about Obama as an intolerant person. Do tell. name-calling is one of the elements of propaganda. you can look it up on the internet. google techniques of propaganda.

  • greenman108 Petaluma, CA
    May 31, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    teafortwo makes a great point about changing one's position on an issue. What is called for is the willingness to state why one holds a position, and if the position changes, what is true in the observed universe, which calls for a different approach to solving whatever is presented. However, in the absence of logic, if all one does, is, like Gingrich hem and haw after being chided by Limbaugh, no one trusts the change. Its like the losing candidate in NY-26, who came out on the Sunday before election day to say that all she really wanted was a conversation about Healthcare. However, for two months she had been stating that she would have voted for the Ryan bill, warts and all. There is a big difference between changing one's position, say on cap and trade, as Romney has done, based on the economics, and just pretending you never really had a prior position on a topic. I think cap and trade is a dumb scam that wont work in the long run. I dont care who supports it. I have logical reasons. If you wont tell reasons for a change, you are a panderer.

  • Mike in Texas Allen, TX
    May 31, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    Romney will never be President. The right wing bigots in his own party will see to that. Poetic Justice of a sort I suppose.

  • Teafortwo salt lake city, utah
    May 31, 2011 2:37 p.m.

    People bash Mitt Romney because he has changed his stance on certain issues. So? Why is this bad? Isn't it okay to have a change of heart or opinion? Or must we be rigid, unbending and stubborn all the time? Sometimes people take an opinion on a particular subject only to discover that they have the facts wrong. Should they always stick to that original opinion based on incorrect info? I don't think so......

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    Does anybody remember the Obama campaign? This is pretty much how his campaign started. And ended. Did any of you save your DNC newsletters from the primaries that Obama eventually won? It was pretty much "Bush sucks" starting on page 1.

    I like that Romney is starting the groundwork to help Americans realize what little has been accomplished the past 2.5 years, and of the accomplishments, most have had a negative effect, especially the U.S. economy and international policy (or lack thereof). I hope people listen to Romney a bit with an open mind, even though he will contradict what you are hearing on your NPR and your CNN.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 31, 2011 2:20 p.m.

    I doubt there is anything easier than sitting back and criticizing President Obama. You needn't be as specific as Tom in CA, and you can sound wise using words like "ineffective", "weak", "waffling", "inexperienced" blah, blah. But having the issues, or even the questions about the issues, in your own lap is a different story. Actually, I think there is something easier than ripping President Obama - it's seeing the vapid, one-sided, cliche-ridden nature of what little the Republican Party has offered all through this administration. Either that, or ripping GWB.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    May 31, 2011 2:06 p.m.

    Ok, Pagan, let's make this simple.

    Let's say John has $100, then he triples that amount (by working and earning money) and ends with $300. On the other hand, David starts with $500 and doubled his amount (also by working and earning money) to get $1000.

    Big question: Who made more money?

    (Hint: John made $200 more while David made $500 more)

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    May 31, 2011 1:00 p.m.


    "Romney is an effective flip flopper."

    Better to be a "flip flopper" than a liar. Your boy promised:

    Unemployment below 8%
    Deficit Reduction
    Gitmo Closed
    Etc. Etc.

    None of the above has been delivered. In fact - all categories listed, going in wrong direction.

    But we know he is doing a "fine job", because Pagan says so.

  • RantBully Bend, OR
    May 31, 2011 12:49 p.m.

    It seems like teams of liberals follow Deseret News only to write in and bash conservatives. Ultimately, this election is going to come down to the question as to whether or not Americans are better off now than 4 years ago? The answer is NO! Obama has failed to help the economy. He has made Americans suffer by pushing his democratic socialist agenda. Romney is correct! He does not apologize for America like Obama. Romney should have been the nomination 4 years ago, but radical American Evangelicals prevented that from occurring. Instead, the Republican party nominated the more moderate and ineffective candidate named John McCain. As a result, we had 4 ineffective years of Obama that has hurt those same American Evangelicals who placed McCain as the nominee. It is time for Republicans to unite with Romney who is the best candidate 4 years ago, and now, to address economic issues. All you liberals on the left, can you honestly believe Obama has made life better? Of course not! President Reagan took less than 4 years to deliver results on the economy. Obama does not need more time. It is time for Romney to step in and deliver!

  • UtahMan4evr Sandy, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    Mitt Romney changes positions more often than he changes his socks (abortion, healthcare, the NRA, etc) and panders to which ever group will listen to him. He has no real positions so of course he bad mouths the president. In my opnion, he did nothing to help the 2002 Olympics (his staff did all of the work) but present a pretty face and smile a big smile. He was not a great governor of Massachusetts, using that office as a springboard to his presidential ambitions. The only reason he is wildly popular in Utah is his religious preference. But, that will cost him in other areas of the country where people still think Mormons have tails and horns. If by some miracle he wins the GOP nomination, he will be trounced by President Obama. Most polls show Obama with double digit leads over Romney. Imagine what it will be like when Romney is exposed as the poseur he really is?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    Re: "Mitt Romney labels Barack Obama 'ineffective president'"

    Oh, oh. Now he's done it. Romney has the audacity to commit the ultimate poltical offense -- he told the truth about the President.

    The fact that he IS the most ineffective president since Carter will, of course be ignored by liberal national media. Only the fact that Romney said it will be reported.

    I notice the interviewer also regurgitated the obligatory liberal "fair, probing question" regarding how he thinks he can possibly be elected, being one of those Mormons?

    So much for liberal enlightenment. But, I guess, when you're a rabid uncritical Democrat cheerleader, as are pretty much all "mainstream" "reporters," you can't let enlightenment get in the way of loyally hoeing to the liberal line.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    If Obama is an ineffective president. If the only reason is the economy one must remember it was totally tanked before he took office, like the worst in 80 years. by the way since he took office or approximately two years from April '09 to April '11 the stock market has moved up about 80 percent in value. You will not find that kind of growth rate in the previous administrations.

    It is only conjecture but who knows what Romney will say about the issues. I suspect that should he get the nomination he will then soften his tone on such things as gay marriage, SALT treaties, and government bailout loans, but who knows.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 31, 2011 12:30 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 10:49 a.m." your numbers are totally wrong. Only if you do the unethical thing and look strictly at the budgets that the presidents have passed and ignore large facts such as the fact that the fiscal year begins in October, so the last year a president is in office he only controls 3 months of spending.

    In reality, your numbers should be closer to:

    Reagan: Increased --> 33% to 50%
    Bush I: Increased --> 50% to 61%
    Clinton: maintained --> 61% to 61%
    Bush II: Increased --> 61% to 69%
    Obama: Increased --> 69% to 97%

    But using the GDP comparison is quite misleading because economic booms make it appear that the Gross National Debt is decreasing, when in fact it is increasing.

    Also, since the president only approves spending, lets look at Congress, that controls spending. Since 1981, the Democrats have RAISED the debt by 47% GDP, Republicans have decreased it by 7% GDP, and split congresses have raised it by 23% GDP.

    Your comparison for doubling the debt is also wrong because it does not use the same base comparison. Bush increased the debt by 77% in 8 years. Obama has already increased it by 67% compared to 2000.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    It troubles me that Obama has yet to fix the mess Republicans put this country in. I mean, it took them 8 years to take a yearly government surplus, and turn that into huge debt, multiple wars, and a near depression.

    How can Obama not have cleaned that up yet?

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    May 31, 2011 12:04 p.m.

    Most people who feel President Obama has been ineffective in office are those on the opposite political fence. It has always been that way. We feel the President is solid when they from our party and ineffective when they are not. This is a boring article about a boring topic. Write something that has real meaning or value. Don't repackage old news and make it something new. I could pick any election, any candidate and write the same story.

  • So-CalAggie Anaheim, CA
    May 31, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    Romney will say whatever it takes to become president, thus his flip-flopping abilities. Sad really, not one Republican is sticking with their core long held positions, instead selling out to the far right wing, so far right in fact that they are past foul-ball territory. Americans will not stand for this. Republicans saw their November election as a nod from the American people to enact their far-right social agenda's, when nothing could be further from the truth. Where are the jobs promised? What about fixing the economy? Spending? Etc? They have tackled none of these issues, and the American public is waking up to the fact that they were sold a bill of goods, that these people said one thing, did another, and owe their allegiance to large corporations. Romney will be seen in the same light. What the Republicans need is someone their base doesn't want. Someone more like the current President, someone willing to make compromises; a centrist. Pandering to the right-wing fringe wont cut it come Nov, 2012!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 31, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    The daily DN articles on Mitt never seem to show him answering any tough questions. In case no one can think of any, how about:
    Sir do you still want to "double the size" of GITMO?

    Would you accept campaign contributions from Big Tobacco? the Koch Bros.? the company formerly known as Blackwater? Hedge fund operators? Coal mine operators?

    Who wrote an article published under your name in the New York Times entitled "Let Detroit Go Broke"? As president, would that have been your decision on GM and Chrysler?

    Will you increase the staff and funding of the IRS in order to stop multimillion dollar tax cheats?

    How can you defeat Obama when, four years ago, you couldn't get your party's nomination from the aging John McCain?

    Would you delete, or at least refrain from using, any section of the Patriot Act?

    Have you ever disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling of Justices Scalia or Alito?

    Could you foresee Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann serving in the Romney administration?

    Was Rush Limbaugh right in openly rooting for President Obama to fail?

    Do you, sir, know any poor or unemployed people? Could you name them?

  • Ex-Pat of Zion Lititz, PA
    May 31, 2011 11:15 a.m.

    No matter who gets the Oval Office in 2012 (and my money's on Obama), it is hard to lead a country that won't follow. Kids hate being scolded. American society today is a classic case of the kids breaking the family heirloom and then pointing the finger at each other. Our representatives, complain about them as much as you like, are merely reflections of us.

    If you never have (or haven't recently) you might want to look at Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech. Went over like a lead balloon but if was the flat-out truth. Reagan pounced on that in a heartbeat. The "kids" (American voters of the late 1970's) couldn't run away. The "Coachman" (Reagan), however, brought Pleasure Island to us. And the "reward" for a few years of reveling? We've all been turned into animals (almost flagged the censor) performing manual labor for slave wages in the mines. Braying because we are miserable and helpless to do anything about it

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    May 31, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    The polititions like Mitt Romney sound so phony when they come out with their one sided attacks of "he is bad, but/and I am good"; but Romney never explains how he would do better, or what his great plan is. If he is an honest American and patriot then he should give America his great plan. But, no: he just demonstrates his jelousy for the president and says he wants to be the big man before he will help America.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    'Obama, on the other hand, increased it from 10.6 to 14, a difference of 3.4 trillion, in the short space of 2 years! That is adding 1.7 trillion per year!' - Riverton Cougar | 10:28 a.m.

    Ah. The 'averages!'

    National debt as a percentage of GDP is the accepted method of comparison.

    Reagan: Increased --> 34% to 52%
    Bush I: Increased --> 52% to 65%
    Clinton: Decreased --> 65% to 56%
    Bush II: Increased --> 56% to 82%
    Obama: Increased --> 82% to 97%

    Just the facts. Those numbers are published by the treasury dept.

    Net republican increases: 57%
    Net democratic increases: 6%

    For Obama to DOUBLE the national debt, as George W. Bush did...

    he would have to add $10 trillion to national debt.

    For Obama to TRIPLE the national debt, as Regan did...

    he would have to add $20 trillion to the national debt.

    The standard for debt, has been set very high for Obama.

    Obama's GDP contribution of 15% isn't even CLOSE to Regan's 18%.

    Or George W. Bush's 26% addition to the national GDP.

    WHO factually adds the most national debt to the country?

    The Republican party.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    May 31, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    Obama got bin Laden! Argument over! Nuff said!

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    May 31, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    Mr. Romney makes the headlines for restating the obvious?

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    Recently David Stockman who was Reagans financial advisor spok up about what is happening with our economy.

    Stockmans hard-hitting op-ed was loaded with jabs like: If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nations public debt screams for austerity and sacrifice, instead, the GOP insisted the nations wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase. Obama bailed on fixing this.

    Reagans big government policies led to the utter failure of spending control. Today America is living way beyond our means, and yet politicians are incapable of thinking past the next election.

    In pure philosophy, lower tax rates would be better. But when we got a Republican government in the Bush era nothing was cut. Everything was ratified. In fact, they added to Medicare through the drug benefit. Our welfare state that seems immutable politically youre kidding yourself if you think cutting taxes today is really cutting taxes. Were simply deferring massive tax increases into the future, unfairly and immorally putting huge debt burdens on future generations.

    Sad, so sad

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    May 31, 2011 10:28 a.m.


    Math isn't your strong point, is it?

    "National Debt Tops $14 Trillion" -CBSNews January 3, 2011

    "The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt" -NPR January 25, 2011

    The second article says it all. Bush took the debt from 5.8 trillion to 10.6 trillion, a difference of 4.8 trillion in 8 years, or 607 billion (or 0.6 trillion) per year.

    Obama, on the other hand, increased it from 10.6 to 14, a difference of 3.4 trillion, in the short space of 2 years! That is adding 1.7 trillion per year!

    Let's compare the two on spending-per-year side by side for easy comparison:
    Bush: 0.6 trillion added to debt per year
    Obama: 1.7 trillion added to debt per year

    In what world is 0.6 trillion MORE than 1.7 trillion?

    "And, Obama didn't sign the stimulus bill, either." -Pagan

    Do you seriously think there was only one stimulus bill? If you think Obama hasn't signed a huge stimulus bill much larger than the small one Bush signed, then you lose all credibility.

    "President Obama signs $787 billion stimulus into law" -AP 2/17/2009

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:11 a.m.

    Well, OK, Romney has to make it a contest if he's running, but Obama was handed an economy tanking to another Great Depression, and though we're not out of it, we've come a long way, way farther than we had a right to expect. Ineffective? I don't think so - but all's fair in love, war, and politics, right?

  • Phill Provo, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:06 a.m.

    Jared... Mitt Romney has flipped flop on Immigration multiple times.. that's one if you were wondering

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    Wow, I am impressed that quite a few of our Utah citizens are suggesting that our democratic President maybe has been doing OK in terms of effectiveness. I applaud all Utahns who are courageous enough to recognize the good that a leader does whether he is a democrat or republican. Let us be reminded that not too long ago, one of our LDS General Authorities reminded us that there are good people in both parties. Lets support good men and women regardless of their party affiliation. Utah is a great state with many thoughtful and good people both in and out of our predominant religion. Lets be people of good will and help whomever is President to succeed and recognize his or her effectiveness when it is due. Let us also vote for good representatives from our state regardless of party affiliation.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    To ST | 8:17 a.m. May 31, 2011

    I might have to disagree ...

    I think Obama has been very effective at ruining our country!!!

    Oops -- you cited the wrong president. You should have said George Walker Bush to make your statement correct.

  • B Logan, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    Love the 'extreme right-wing' talk on these posts. Two facts: 1) BECAUSE of the Tea-Party, the GOP won 65 House seats last November. 65!! That hasn't happened in almost 80 years people! 2) The unemployment rate is STILL at 9%. You can only blame GWB for so long and then it wears really thin.

    Romney may be a flip-flopper, but he is partly right. Obama hasn't been completely ineffective. He's gotten major legislation passed. It was just REALLY BAD legislation. He's done nothing to help (meaning get out of the way) the economy. One term, please. I'm tired of this.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    Somehow I don't think Osama BinLaden would agree with that assessment. If he were alive to do so, of course . . .

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    'I think it is so funny that people here think Obama has actually helped the economy. (sic) ...economy actually recovering are two different things), then it is DESPITE Obama, not BECAUSE of Obama. Economists already pointed out that his stimulus did no good to the economy; all it did was increase the debt by more than any Republican president has even come close to.' - Riverton Cougar | 9:17 a.m.

    Please don't tell me you are trying to perpetuate the myth that Obama signed the stimulus bill...?

    *'Bush signs stimulus bill; rebate checks expected in May' - CNN - 02/13/08

    'President Bush on Wednesday signed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, calling it a "booster shot" for the American economy.'

    And WHO doubled the national debt?

    'Eight years in office, a $10.6 trillion debt' - By David M. Dickson - December 15, 2008 - Washington Times
    'President Bush has nearly doubled the national debt during his eight years in the White House.'

    Has Obama DOUBLED the national debt as Bush did?

    No. He didn't.

    And, Obama didn't sign the stimulus bill, either.

  • NT Springville, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Anybody BUT Obama in 2012

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Sorry Romney.

    The economy is turning, 50,000 troops out of Iraq, Libya on the verge of surrender with zero US troops, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.

    *'Last U.S. combat brigade leaves Iraq' - By Rebecca Santana - AP - Published by DSNews - 08/19/10
    'Seven years and five months after the U.S.-led invasion, the last American combat brigade was leaving Iraq, well ahead of President Barack Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending U.S. combat operations there.'

    *'Gadhafi asks Obama to stop' - By Matthew Lee - AP - Published by DSNews - 04/06/2011

    *'U.S. job situation looks etter still' - By Jeff Thredgold - DSnews - 05/10/11

    I admit, I still need to do research on Romney.

    Like his healthcare ideas.

    Obama 2012

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    May 31, 2011 9:17 a.m.

    I think it is so funny that people here think Obama has actually helped the economy. If the economy is indeed recovering as the government claims (although keep in mind that declaring the economy to be recovering and the economy actually recovering are two different things), then it is DESPITE Obama, not BECAUSE of Obama. Economists already pointed out that his stimulus did no good to the economy; all it did was increase the debt by more than any Republican president has even come close to.

    I know people will be asking for a credible source, so here it is:
    "Economists Say the Stimulus Didn't Help" -CNN April 26, 2010

    Can you twist that at all? I think that explains it quite clearly.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    May 31, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    Can anyone argue that Obama hasn't been mostly ineffective? Neither Romney or Palin probably scare Obama but I don't see Obama as a good or effective president. Hopefully the republicans can give us a choice with an effective leader. Someone who belives in America and the American people. Our country is great because of the ideas and hard work of our people, not because of a few politicians.

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 31, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    I love how Mitt brings out the hate and vitriol of the left. It proves to me that he is the man to run against Obama.....his minion so hate Mitt!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    What's interesting to me is that Romney and Huntsman are the only two Republicans who stand a real chance of defeating Obama, and yet the GOP is so dominated by hyper-conservative evangelical Christians that neither of them have a prayer of getting the nomination.

    Airplanes don't fly with only a right wing.

  • gizmo33 St. George, Utah
    May 31, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    of course Romney accuses Obama of being ineffective. he wants the oval office. it doesnt matter who the president is Romney will make negitive comments about him. Huntsman will say negitive things about Romney. Obama will say negitive things about Romney and Huntsman and Palin and Bachman and Gingrich and they will all say negitive things about Obama and the Dems will say negitive things about the Reps.and the Reps will say negitive things abou the Dems. nothing new here folks. its an election. well Im gonna grab my fishin pole and go get some worms and head out fer a spell and maybe by October of next year something new might come out about the 2012 election that we havent already seen or heard.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:58 a.m.

    Solidify the base, alienate the middle.
    Interesting strategy, Mitt.

  • Chris Bryant SLC, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:28 a.m.

    Mitt Romney is like a young tree in the wind, he will literally go whichever direction the wind is blowing.

    No doubt, during the time when he is trying to get the GOP nomination, he will pander to the extremists in the tea party. If he wins, he will take on a more moderate tone to try and win the votes of the people with the real power in the country (independents and moderates).

    As a side note, it looks like Palin will be tossing her hat into the ring. If palin wins the nomination, the Obama admin. will rejoice, because they would win re-election in a landslide.

  • ST Layton, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:17 a.m.

    I might have to disagree ...

    I think Obama has been very effective at ruining our country!!!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    By appealing to the vocal minority of Far-Right-Wing --
    Mitt Romney just lost the silent majority of the Moderates and Independants.

    My only guess is another major Flip-Flop coming if he wins the neo-radicalized GOP nomination.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 31, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    I will add this, Romney implies that he would have intervened in the Middle East. Is that what we want? More wars? More U.S. soldiers in other countries? More entanglements in a part of the world where our past entanglements have caused a lot of heartache? Or is it best to let the people in those countries have self-determination as much as possible without unnecessary or excessive outside intervention? It is a tough balancing act unless you want to militarily occupy the world. Again, what would Romney actually do? Let's hear it!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:58 a.m.

    Big talk. But what I would like to know, how would Romney have react to the Arab Spring. He says Obama was flat-footed, but he never says what he would have done differently. It is easy to take the shots, but I have never, ever seen Romney give specifics on anything. It is easy to tear down, but is Romney avoiding specifics so he himself won't be torn down by others, particularly in his own party?

    To Jared and others, like Romney, simple Google the question, "What has Obama done." Some of the sites will give you some indication. I find Obama to have been immensely effective. You may have policy differences, which is fine, but you cannot honestly say he has not been effective, even with a blatantly obstructionist Congress. And Romney has flip-flopped - Republicans will gleefully point it out. The Democrats won't have to lift a finger. Trying to deflect it by bringing up Kerry, even if true, does not change the fact he has indeed been a flip-flopper.

    I'm OK with changing positions. I'm not OK with attacking and then not saying what you would have done differently.

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:58 a.m.

    Jared, Romney flip-flopped right in this article. He has previously accused Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus" by not supporting Arab dictators to keep Isreal safe and then in this article claims Obama didn't do enough to support the "Arab Spring." That is a major contradiction.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:56 a.m.

    Oh my heavens. President Obama has pushed the debate about our broken healthcare system forward to the point that some real needed change may continue. He sustained the cause and achieved the bringing to justice of Osama Bin Laden. He helped save Chrysler and General Motors. The economy is slowing creeping in the right direction (he promoted several inititives to pull it out of the deep hole it had fallen into). Hi is respected around the world by most pro liberty nations. He is a good family man and care about the poor and needy. Is he perfect - no! Has he been as ineffective as Brother Romney portrays him to be - no! I like Mitt Romney and I might vote for him if he shows any real leadership qualities (like he did with healthcare in Massachussets), but for now I see the best leadership in Pres. Obama

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    May 31, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    Can't the campaign nasty-fest wait until 2012? It's so undignified, repetitive and tiresome. And frankly, aggressive snarking will make Romney just look like a persistent nag since his image has always been more professional than ranting FOX pundit style.

  • Jared Gainesville, FL
    May 31, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    Mitt Romney is campaigning, of course he going to make strong statements. In any case, he's pretty accurate with his assessment (in my opinion, take from it what you want). Pres. Obama had nearly a supermajority in the Senate and House for two years and still did not get much done, particularly for the economy. Other than a couple bills, Pres. Obama is simply an extension of Pres. Bush's presidency (except for instead of 2 wars, Pres. Obama has 3 and the 3rd hasn't been authorized by Congress like it should be).

    Re: John... To flip flop you have to change your positions on issues multiple times (e.g., against the Iraq War then for the war {the flip} then against it again {the flop}). What issues has Mitt Romney flip flopped on? Again, these are issues that he was for or against, then was against or for, and now is for or against. The whole flip flop mantra was obnoxious during 2004 - Kerry didn't deserve the label (mostly) except for with the Iraq War where he did change his position multiple times.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    May 31, 2011 7:36 a.m.

    Those are cheap shots Romney. No vote from me for one that has no foriegn relations experience yet portends to give advice to a man that has achieved more good in the middle east than the last 3 presidents put together.

    Thanks republicans for convincing the middle east that Obama is a secret Muslim. Your lie is actually helping a lot.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 31, 2011 7:22 a.m.

    Romney is an effective flip flopper. Calling Out the President for passing a similar health care plan that Romney did is quite a hoot. More flip flopping on his positions than Flipper the Dolphin except for Flipper is more likable.