GOP presidential glance

Pagan,
Don't be angry at putting Obama's resume on display. His shovel ready jobs like Solyndra demonstrate that he knows nothing about building the economy, only playing politics and rewarding cronies. And he's very good at that. Change we can believe in? Not really.

'Although a smart man, our president with the job experience of a community organizer...' - Hemlock | 4:16 p.m. Jan. 13, 2012

**'Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News - 05/01/2011

**'Obama marks Iraq wars end with salute to troops' - by Erica Werner - AP - Published by DSNews - 12/14/11

The claim that Obama, who was born in Hawaii, is some 'community organizer' like it's some horrible insult...

has been fiction since President Obama was sworn into office...

over x3 years ago.

Well said. Rational thinking doesn't always prevail. Although a smart man, our president with the job experience of a community organizer and Chicago politician, would not do well if his resume were the only factor as noted by HIllary Clinton. Add a slick orator to a teleprompter and anything can happen.

'- If Romney wins, the economy will begin to rebound.' - joe5 | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 13, 2012

**'Mitt Romney as job creator clashes with Bain record of job cuts' - By Lisa Lerer, Bloomberg News - Published by DSNews - 07/20/11

"Employees who lost jobs at Bain-controlled companies more than a decade ago say they still hold Romney responsible.
"I would not vote for him for anything," said Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her job..."

**'Romney Camp admits that its Bain Job Creation number is Bogus' - By Pat Garofalo - Think Progress - 01/04/2012

**GOP rivals turn Romneys jobs record against him By Kasie Hunt AP Published by DSnews 01/09/2012

A separate AP analysis found that at least 4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45 companies bought by Bain...' - Article

I cannot say that the countries economic problems will rebound with Romney.

As, many of his supporters turn to the corporate PROFIT of bain...

instead of, the job LOSSES.

Whereas, under Obama:

**US nets 200k more jobs in December, a better-than-expected performance By Jeff Thredgold Deseret News 01/13/12

But it is your choice.

Here's the scenario:

- If Obama wins, the economy will continue to struggle. The administration and the rest of the Democrats (the party of blame) will continue to blame Bush for all their problems.

- If Romney wins, the economy will begin to rebound. Democrats will take credit for setting the table for Romney's good fortune (without even giving a second thought to the idea that it is really the American people who are fortunate).

Not a risky prediction but I want to be the first to go on record with it.

"All in all, Mitt Romney is the best choice to have as the running Republican, and he might have the best chance to beat President Obama." ... but we WANT obama to win...

"...international capabilities that came from running the Olympics..."? Are you kidding me? He and the other 1% Olympic folks were eating catered meals on fine china and sterling silverware, while most of the volunteers ate ptomaine laced "Mountain Packs" that had been once rejected by the Health Department. I guess the "Mountain Packs" were our 'cake'.

"However, I think we are capable of figuring out who we want to represent our party and go against your Dear Leader." - Uncle Charles | 11:34 a.m. Jan. 12, 2012

I disagree.

Because the canidate, is Mitt Romney.

Oh, wait! Now it's Michelle Bachman!

Oh, wait! Now it's Herriman Cain!

**NBC/WSJ poll: Cain now leads GOP pack By Mark Murray NBC news 10/13/11

Now it's Rick Santorum!

Now it's Romney again. Wait...!

**'Iowa vote doesn't resolve GOP search for identity' - By Charles Babington - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/04/12

George W. Bush WAS 'big goverment.'

Just, into any country that he could lie about:

**"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W. Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

So, why did Republicans SUPPORT Bush...

and then criticize Obama for many of the very SAME Bush policies?

Answer:

Because Republicans put political party...

over the well being, of this country.

Dear LDS Lib: I'm confused. On another thread you said you are a Libertarian. Now you are claiming that you are a Liberal. They aren't synonymous.

Anyway, as is typical on these threads, Liberals are so willing to offer advice and consent to us lowly Republicans regarding who we should nominate. Your concern about Republicans is noble and we thank you.

However, I think we are capable of figuring out who we want to represent our party and go against your Dear Leader.

As you clearly and correctly point out, the country is conservative in nature, not liberal. The reason Democrats support Huntsman Jr, McCain and the like is because they are liberal with an R behind their name.

The hate for Bush is mystifying because he was a big government guy as well.

Have you any concern for the relatively small, radical extreme fringe that has high-jacked and taken control of the once "Big Tent" Democrats?

I think it would be wise if Democrats purged their own house before you continue to worry about Repubs.

Remember, Libertarian and Liberal are not synonymous. Polar opposites in fact.

I thought (sincerely) thought about what Mike Richards challeged.

Putting all things aside, and thinking only who would be best for "America" -- ALL 350 Million Americans, and our standing as a World Leader.....

I could only think of one name ---
Hunstman.
Even over Obama, ...and I'm a Liberal.

And YES, I would even vote for a....(gulp, gag) Republican for President, if it was what was best for the Country.
[And NO, Huntsman is not Liberal, he is just what I consider the best.]

But the truth is -- a relitively small, radical extreme fringe has high-jacked and taken control of the once "Big Tent" Republican Party who used to win 70-80% of the vote and have isolated the vast, VAST majority of the 42% of America who are Independant -- Moderates...Center, to Center Right.

Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.

Romney would make a good accountant-in-chief, but he has yet to inspire anybody. Obama is an inspirational figure in himself, given where he's come from in life.

Huntsman is "rational" which means he goes with the flow of public opinion. I generally agree with Huntsman but he had this odd campaign strategy of insulting the members of the party whose nomination he seeks. What is that? You're going to tell us we're backward idiots and expect us to support you?
I'm supporting Romney at this point but on equal protection under the law he's in line with Obama. His tax cut plans on capital gains etc only applies to those making under 250,000 dollars. I don't make close to that so it doesn't affect me but come on Mitt- if you're going to play the class envy card too we may as well elect a Democrat.
I believe everyone should be treated equally under all laws including tax laws. If anyone can make a rational argument why some people should be treated differently then I'd like to hear it.

'A candidate is needed to rise and prove a challenge for our current president, who in all honesty has proven himself an ineffective leader as his policies have actually tanked this nation deeper into a hole.' - Letter.

More rhetoric.

Meet, fact:

Obama:

**'Obama marks Iraq wars end with salute to troops' - by Erica Werner - AP - Published by DSNews - 12/14/11

**'Obama to promote ways for veterans to find work' - By Ken Thomas - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/07/11

**Employers add 200,000 jobs, jobless rate falls to 8.5% Msnbc 01/06/12

Republican leadership:

**'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

**'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - By Mitt Romney - NY Times - 11/18/08

**GOP rivals turn Romneys jobs record against him By Kasie Hunt AP Published by DSnews 01/09/2012

"A separate AP analysis found that at least 4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45 companies bought by Bain..." - Article

I have take Mike's challenge and forgotten for a moment my political leanings and have assessed the two likely choices for President. Here is my conclusion: no matter who is elected President it will not fix what is wrong with the Country. To assume that election of the "right person" will change the world is folly. Just like blaming the price of gas on who is President ("Hey did you see Utah has the lowest gas price in the Country? Good job Obama!") Election or reelection of a leader will still leave a split Congress unable to legislate due to historical anomalies that allow gridlock. Both parties have had absolute majorities in the past 10 years and both have made a mess of things.

Mike, I will choose a candidate based on the world and the Country we have in November, but knowing there is little chance they can change our situation. P.S. If a knowledge of economics was a prime criterion for election, why not elect a trained economist? Reagan was no economist. We need a visionary with the personal skills to make alliances for change.

Isn't it funny how the Republicans dug a hole and now want to blame the guy they handed the mess to? And not they want to do it all again!

If Romney weren't Mormon, how many of you folks would believe that he was the best man for the job? Anyone?

I don't see his qualifications. He helped with the Winter Olympics, yipee.

But he was born into wealth. He has no idea what most Americans are going through today. While Mitt is betting away 10k and moving from castle to castle in California and Park City, the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet.

As far as issues, who knows what Romney believes? It changes depending on the flavor of the week, who he's talking to, and where.

Sometimes he's for abortion sometimes he isn't...
Sometimes he's for bailouts sometimes he isn't...
Sometimes he's for gay marriage sometimes he isn't...
Sometimes he's for amnesty sometimes he isn't...

On virtually EVERY SINGLE ISSUE he has flip flopped.

Now that's scary.

" our current president, who in all honesty has proven himself an ineffective leader as his policies have actually tanked this nation deeper into a hole". I don't think that's true Eric. The quarter before Obama took office GDP decreased 9%..catastrophic..un heard of in modern times. After six months of Obamas policies the economy began to grow again and has grown ever since.. has not once been in the negatives. After Obamas policies took hold (approximately six months) we have added 1.2 million jobs. We are out of Iraq, getting out of Afghanistan, both major causes of the deficit, and we now have a slow but growing trend of jobs being insourced to America.

So just how is this a hole to be dug out of?

Business is not government and government is not business. I guarantee that a business leader who is used to running things a certain way for a long time will have a very, very hard time as President. Romney will find himself in way over his head.

We will re-elect Obama. And let's send Pete Ashdown to Washington while we're at it.

Yes, we need a corporate raider in the White House. He could continue to sell off America, let the economy tank, er reset, structure the tax policies behind closed doors, raise taxes on the lowest incomes while cutting his own 15% tax rate. Everytime someone messed up he would hurl expletives at volunteers. Mitt Romney would show Americans right up front who really owns the good old U.S.A. His social policies would be determined by whomever is knocking on the front door of the White House. Sorry folks, I prefer someone that does not have a "let them eat cake" attitude.

If we put politics aside and pretend for just one minute that we are not Democrats, Republicans or Independents, and then look at the biggest problem in American, we'll have to admit that the economy needs our full attention.

None of the things that the Democrats or the Republicans want to do can be done before the economy is fixed and revenues are available.

Of those running, who has the most experience with business? Who has successfully changed non-producing companies into producing companies? Who changed the 2002 Olympics from near-bankruptcy to profitability?

If we're going to have an economically viable country, we need someone with the experience to make the changes necessary. Mitt Romney is the only candidate who has that experience.

We can argue politics forever, but arguing will not get people employed. Arguing will not produce revenues. Arguing will not reduce our $15 trillion dollar deficit. Action will. Only one candidate knows what action is necessary.

Mr. Obama has shown that he knows nothing about economics. His policies have increased the deficit $5 TRILLION in three years.

Simple logic tells us that Romney should become President.

President Obama has proven himself "an ineffective leader as his policies have actually tanked this nation deeper into a hole."

When President Obama took office we were:
Losing 900,000 jobs a month
Engaged in two wars
Now:
Our involvement in the preemptive Iraq war is over
Osama bin Laden and Moammar Gadhafi are dead
Last month the economy added 200,000 jobs

Now to the other point. Mitt Romney has "business experience that can help resolve a lot of this nation's financial problems, international capabilities that came from running the Olympics, knowing what can work after being governor of Massachusetts."

But even, and especially, Mr. Romneys fellow Republicans are claiming:
His business experience might have killed more jobs than they created

Hey, he played by the rules and made a lot of money for himself, his partners and his clients, but lets not assume he helped the working man (or woman) if he didnt.

The positions of Governor Romney seemed to be a totally different than those of Candidate Romney

He still hasnt reconciled those differences. And how does running the Olympics in Utah give Mr. Romney foreign policy experience?

"Ron Paul is a grumpy, old man with ideas that would've been seen as good in the 1800s"

Yeah, that Ron Paul has some crazy ideas:
-Don't spend more money than we have and balance the Federal budget
-only go to war with a declaration of war by Congress as the Constitution requires
-don't give Presidents the power to assassinate American citizens or detain them indefinitely
-bring the troops home from places like Japan and Germany (nuts right? Ron Paul would have us totally unprepared for an American response when the Netherlands invades Denmark)
-and the kicker, he believes the government should "Follow the Constitution"

That guy is off his rocker, isn't he? A real head case, true?

Not really. Ron Paul is completely sane. The insanity is the "conventional wisdom" we put up with.

Romney may well make a good president, but I honestly have no idea what he believes. Does he believe what he said in 1994, 2002, 2008, or now? Because Romney's beliefs shifted quite a bit between all of those time periods