Obama says election is chance to break stalemate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 16, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    Stalemate? How about stubbornest and inability to lead.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    June 16, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    There is no stalemate. America is holding it's breath hoping that nothing catastrophic happens (other than the current state of affairs) before we can vote Obama out!

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    June 15, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    Mr X: what planet do you live on? There are fewer people in the work force than in the 1940's. Our credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in history. People on food stamps used to be something like 1 family per 70 people working, under obama it is 1 in 7. Do you think that is sustainable? Are you kidding me? 47% of the people are not paying federal tax. What will happen when the people paying the bills just move away? What is going to happen when businesses close up shop and move to other countries? Do you really think they are going to stay in the U.S.? They are not hiring now because of the obama regulations that make hiring a real problem.
    If he doesn't loose you can kiss your country as you know it bye, bye.
    He has resets going on with Russia, under the wire, so that we don't know what he is doing. How much he is selling our our security. Space program gone - OK no problem, china is putting people in space. Do you see any problem with that? I do!

  • Mr X Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    Obama has been such a great president. More jobs then when he took office, a stock market that has doubled. Those are the facts. 4 more years!

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    June 15, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    The only way a "stalemate" will be broken is if one party has the White House, the House majority, and the Senate majority with 60 votes or more. Obama had that for a while in the first months of his presidency. Otherwise, even if Obama gets re-elected, we likely will have Republicans in charge in Congress and Obama will go on making law without Congress. Witness todays immigration policy change. Until the Republicans grow a spine and create a "constitutional crisis" about how Obama goes around them, things won't change. Hopefully, Romney wins, and a continuation of what was started in 2010 will result in the Republicans having all the power. Then we will see if they can solve the problems that the Democrats obviously cannot.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 15, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    I say keep that stalemate going. According to some economists, the best situation for job growth is a divided congress. This is due to the simple fact that when the House and Senate are busy fighting eachother, they don't do anything else, so we don't get goofy laws passed and new regulations.

    If I had confidence that all the Republicans would act responsibily and do like their counterparts did during the 1940's, getting rid of nearly all of Obama's regulations, taxes, and new agencies, then I would hope for Republican control.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 15, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    I soooooo look forward to the day where I don't have to see or hear the word "Obama" in the news anymore. Wow - what a relief!! Let Barack disappear back into community organizing again.

    What a nightmare this man has been!!!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 15, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    Break the stalemate? The only "stale" thing is the Obama presidency. Recall that during the first two years of the Obama reign of terror there was ZERO opposition in congress to anything Obama wanted and that is what Barack wants to go back to. Recall also the 2010 elections were all about the rage from the American people about the previous two years where Obama and his democratic controlled congress rammed anything and everything down the throats of the American people and the American people shot back with a GOP landslide for the 2010 elections.

    "I think a change will do you good" (Cherl Crow)

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    June 15, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    How do you know what amount goes to help the poor and charitable donations?
    Why doesn’t his Church service count as volunteer work? Was he paid for it? Did he not serve years as a Bishop and then as a Stake President and that doesn’t mean for 1 hour a week, or a couple of hours a month.
    You have no idea how much time it takes to serve the people in your church. He had to deal with all kinds of problems, people dying - helping survivors, people who are sick, helping the poor with food and clothing and job searches, etc., etc.
    I would say that his background counts more for service as President than a community organizer ever has. Just show me how much time obama has spent, without pay, helping anyone.. Has obama ever even run a lemonade stand? What exactly qualifies obama to hold the highest job in the world.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    June 15, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    Gary Johnson has my vote. He is constututional.

    Obama and Romney want torture, ndaa, and to attack iran. When you look behind the campaign rhetoric their ideals and policies are exactly the same.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    June 15, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    A new day, and a new handful of gripes from Ted. Romney's record of church service is commendable, but irrelevant to being president, as is the fact that it was "without pay". Puh-leeze. The same thing applies to a person's charitable record. If Obama were to reply to all Ted's demands, he'd just come up with new ones. I'd be more interested as to whose backs get the Ryan budget balanced on them. We know it won't be the rich, so that leaves those poor people Mitt says he doesn't care about.

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted
    Sorry, Most of Mitt's church service doesn't count as volunteer work. Only the service projects, being a bishop or teaching a lesson in elders quorum is not volunteer work. Same with charity. Giving money to keep your church going, especially when the way you donate money is to assign it to specific causes and the big 10% goes to building more churches, not helping out the poor, with that being a different account and all. But ya, if you want the George Bush policies that even 49% of republicans admit hurt the economy than vote Mitt 2012. If you want to vote for the party of cowards vote Democrat. If you want to actually change things consider voting for the only other national candidate Libertarian Gary Johnson. As an aside if the republicans don't tone down the crazy don't be surprised to see them go the way of the Whig's and the libertarians take over as the other major party. Young conservitives aren't the Tea Partiers, they are libertarians.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    How about this barack. Why don't you create a budget for the first time in your presidency. And a budget that doesn't require borrowing from the bank of China or Japan or other countries.

    I would also like to see your volunteer record, so I can compare it to Mitts 28 years of volunteering without pay.

    I would also like to see your charitable contributions. That is your money that you earned that you gave away.

    Barack has nothing to run on, they have nothing on Mitt. Maybe if barack had focused on the economy like he ran on and promised when he was a candidate and actually turned the economy around then we would be debating health care etc.

    Instead he used 3.5 years to shove social agenda issues down our throats, with no way to pay for them except by borrowing more money. More money than Bush borrowed in 8 years. Money that barack himself is said was unpatriotic.

    Yet there a few true believers in barack that can look past all of his lies and deceit, just for the chance to live off of a nanny state.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    June 15, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    "Help me out- I am a little confused.
    Scott Walker balanced the budget of Wisconsin, stopped the tax increases and in fact lowered the tax rate in a little over two years. The proposals he has implemented helped lower the unemployment rate and have brought business back to the state. In that time, the Democrats ran away to another state, unions tried to remove him from office and he was resoundingly attacked on many fronts, etc.

    President Obama had historic majorities in Congress for over two years. He’s been in office for almost four. He has spent historic amounts of money, pushed through a new entitlement we can’t afford, bailed out companies and never passed a budget. He has no tangible proposals on the table and blames everyone else for his failures. We are $5 trillion more in debt, unemployment has gone up, taxes are about to massively increase, businesses are not hiring and the economy is in an historic malaise, with no end in sight.

    I’m sorry, his excuse is what and we are supposed to give him four more years because…?"
    From a blogger.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    June 15, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    The truth: ""Don't forget he's been president for 31/2 years. Talk is cheap," Romney said.

    Let s return to a decade ago. I would welcome that. Obama is the stalemate!

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 6:18 a.m.

    bo is right. If we elect Mitt Romney, then the stalemate will end and jobs can be created. bo has had 3.5 years with his "laser" focus that he promised and he "wouldn't rest" until "every" American that wanted a job has one.

    So either 50% of the country really didn't want a job and live on welfare, or bo has failed miserably.


  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 15, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    Obama and Mitt Romney offer "two fundamentally different views" about how to grow the economy and create jobs. Romney has a proven track record of financial success that includes leaving $100 million in the bank when the 2002 Winter Olympics were over. Obama has a proven track record of financial disaster.

    Last week the number of unemployed Americans rose yet again. Time for a change in leadership.