Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if he will even win the democratic ticket given his multitude of failures. He's ticked off too many people, and those on the right who did give him the benefit of the doubt and voted for him will certainly NOT make the same mistake again. Same with the independents. He's even lost support from his own base with his failure to close GITMO, the whole NY terrorist trials, DADT, lack of public option in HCR bill, and now his Katrina in the making. The CEO of BP said on TV that the amount of oil being released into the gulf is miniscule and that the environmental damage to our coastlines will be minimal at most. And THIS is the guy who Obama is allowing to have full control over the disaster... someone who doesn't even consider this oil leak to be a complete ecological disaster of the worst kind. This isn't sitting well with any demographic.
Has an incumbent POTUS ever lost their party's ticket to a party challenger? I can really see this happening to Obama.
As opaque as Obama's background is, one thing is for sure: He has ZERO experience running a business. ZERO experience meeting payroll. ZERO experience managing inventory. ZERO experience leveraging capital for operations. ZERO experience in marketing/advertising.
Seems to me you were arguing that Obama displays a lack of business acumen. To me, business experience is not the same as business acumen.
In any case, having run a business does not appear to give a president any particular insight on economic policy. Reagan and Clinton are in the same boat, lacking experience in business.
On the other hand, W. Bush did have experience, and his economic policies were catastophic. He saw all economics through the lens of a mediocre oil man.
It is sort of like saying that the best ship captain would be the guy who was the CEO of the company that manufactured the engine. I am not convinced that particular experience is relevant.
Quote:
So why should we expect that Barack Obama can stand up to the indepth business experience of someone like Mitt Romney?
Well, whether or not Romney is business savvy is irrelevant. What matters is that (A) voters perceive him as business savvy and (B) voters giving priority to that.
Romney could be painted as "in bed with Wall Street." Obama is, too, but that does not seem to be the general public's perception.
2) Multitudes of Czars and the radical PelosiReid machine were allowed to dictate the message on Cap And Trade, Healthcare Reform, the Stimulus, Auto Bailouts, Executive Pay, Wall Street Reform, and TARP.
What kind of fantasy world do you live in?
Please explain to us all how the Czars have powers that supersede Congress?
Please explain to us all how the Czars have powers that supersede Congress?
Ah, precisely the argument that I expected would pop up. The Czars are the face of the legislation that the radical PelosiReid championed and Obama signed. So while those two fools are passing legislation, Obama is appointing someone to carry the message and implementation forth. This has nothing to do with superceding Congress and has everything to do with how the message has been relayed to the citenzenry. Which, by the way, is an anti-business, pro-union, pro-appeasement, pro-blame Bush message.
The people are tired of this message. Obama and his handlers are to blame for the decline in what was once more political capital than any President has enjoyed since WW-II.
Another failure for hussein obama. He goes on a SECOND vacation (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/obama-and-family-will-spend-memorial-day-in-chicago.html - broken link) instead of dealing with the oil spill.
Ah, precisely the argument that I expected would pop up. The Czars are the face of the legislation that the radical PelosiReid championed and Obama signed. So while those two fools are passing legislation, Obama is appointing someone to carry the message and implementation forth. This has nothing to do with superceding Congress and has everything to do with how the message has been relayed to the citenzenry. Which, by the way, is an anti-business, pro-union, pro-appeasement, pro-blame Bush message.
Lets not be so disingenuous.
You sure made it sound as if they held absolute power, as this has also been a message of right wing talking heads now all year. The rest sounds rather paranoid to me, as "those two" don't pass legislation, Congress does. All presidents have had Czars since Nixon. Maybe try another scare tactic?
Which, by the way, is an anti-business, pro-union, pro-appeasement, pro-blame Bush message.
Using your "logic" we must also conclude that Bush was "anti-business". Considering he was the OG in regards to TARP. How can Obama's Czars be both anti-Bush and anti-business at the same time?
Using your "logic" we must also conclude that Bush was "anti-business". Considering he was the OG in regards to TARP. How can Obama's Czars be both anti-Bush and anti-business at the same time?
Easy. Advocate for bailing out Big Union while simultaneously calling for compensation limits for corporate execs. That's how.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
