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 was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
Last edited by Carlingtonian; 09-17-2011 at 11:37 AM..
In some respects, Mitt Romney is more conservative than Rick Perry. However, he is not as extreme on other issues. It just depends on which issues you find important. He has a strong proven record of leadership and being able to work with people, so I think he can get things done. I really don't think he is as moderate as some make him out to be but he has not pandered to the tea party. He has just presented himself as he is. Many on the religious right will support Perry because of religion, but not all of the religious right have those bigoted views of a cadidate's religion.
I was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
You're not at all wrong to think Romney's beliefs differ little from those of Obama. He has a much better chance of getting his left leaning ideals implemented as many of the representatives that oppose Obama will gleefully support the same agenda when it is presented by Romney due to the R after his name.
I'm of the belief that a Romney win is a win for more unrestrained growth of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Sadly enough it seems the devoted partisans on both sides of the aisle are more concerned with the illusory victory of their party winning than they are with the preservation of liberty and adherence to Constitutional principles.
Last edited by outbacknv; 09-17-2011 at 01:32 PM..
DixieGirl: In what ways would you say Romney is more conservative than Perry? I'm guessing the in-state-tuition-for-illegal-immigrants thing? (I'm actually against that--although anyone who thinks that illegals aren't an essential part of the economy hasn't looked in the back of a restaurant kitchen or talked to any agricultural business owner west of the Mississippi.) And the Gardasil issue?
Outback NV: What individual liberties, exactly, do you think Romney would curtail?
I won't argue the benefits of a well-funded, effective central government with a Libertarian. But you do realize that the government grew *hugely* under Reagan and George W. Bush, don't you?
Last edited by Carlingtonian; 09-17-2011 at 03:04 PM..
Outback NV: What individual liberties, exactly, do you think Romney would curtail?
I won't argue the benefits of a well-funded, effective central government with a Libertarian. But you do realize that the government grew *hugely* under Reagan and George W. Bush, don't you?
Romney is notoriously anti-gun. I take issue with any politician that seeks to diminish Second Amendment protections. I'm of the mindset that a government that fears an armed populace is a government undeserving of trust.
Yes, I'm well aware of the growth of government under Reagan and Bush. I was by no means a Bush fan or supporter. The "Patriot Act" was in my opinion one of the worst abuses of the Bush administration.
Romney is notoriously anti-gun. I take issue with any politician that seeks to diminish Second Amendment protections.
I assume you're alluding to his signing of the assault-weapons ban. Banning private ownership of fully automatic weaons doesn't make him against ownership of all weapons. I've thought about buying a shotgun or a handgun, and I'm 100% against DC's gun law that prevents concealed carry for all but LEOs. But you don't need an AK-47 to protect your house or to go hunting.
The Second Amenment codifies the right to bear arms--but that doesn't mean ALL arms. I think restrictions against fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missile launchers, bioweapons, and bombs are common sense.
I was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
It is better to get Republicans and their tea party contingent OUT of Congress so that the incredible President Obama can implement his plan for the country. There is no other way. The GOP represents severe regression.
Republicans have not shown the ability to solve the problems that plague this country. They are clueless on every domestic issue across the board. Romney no better because he pretends to be somewhat progressive for political expediency.
Shame on you for being suckered into believing that President Obama is not suited for office because of the negative, misguided GOP narrative, GOP deceptive marketing, and regressive GOP obstructionism.
The Republican party should only play a minor role in the policies that direct this country because they only represent the interests of a privileged few. The party of bigots and the racially insensitive (GOP) should not have a prominent role in determining policy for a nation that is increasingly multi-cultural and international in flavor. Get real. Romney blows.
Romney is notoriously anti-gun. I take issue with any politician that seeks to diminish Second Amendment protections. I'm of the mindset that a government that fears an armed populace is a government undeserving of trust.
Yes, I'm well aware of the growth of government under Reagan and Bush. I was by no means a Bush fan or supporter. The "Patriot Act" was in my opinion one of the worst abuses of the Bush administration.
Romney is not 'notoriously' anti-gun. He was only for the ban on assault weapons as they should be banned. Here is what he has said about gun control:
Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It's essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights..." Sep 21, 2007, in a taped message to the NRA's Celebration of American Values
"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right." January 7, 2008, The Washington Post
It is better to get Republicans and their tea party contingent OUT of Congress so that the incredible President Obama can implement his plan for the country. There is no other way. The GOP represents severe regression.
Republicans have not shown the ability to solve the problems that plague this country. They are clueless on every domestic issue across the board. Romney no better because he pretends to be somewhat progressive for political expediency.
Shame on you for being suckered into believing that President Obama is not suited for office because of the negative, misguided GOP narrative, GOP deceptive marketing, and regressive GOP obstructionism.
The Republican party should only play a minor role in the policies that direct this country because they only represent the interests of a privileged few. The party of bigots and the racially insensitive (GOP) should not have a prominent role in determining policy for a nation that is increasingly multi-cultural and international in flavor. Get real. Romney blows.
I would think the state of the country would be why people think he is not fit for office or needs to be replaced. It is quite evident. Do the facts just blow right over your head? The GOP hasn't had to misrepresent anything. People are hurting in this country...they know what they and their families are experiencing first hand.
It is Shame on you for being suckered into believing that President Obama is not suited for office because of the negative, misguided GOP narrative, GOP deceptive marketing, and regressive GOP obstructionism.
Evidently you didn't read my post or didn't understand it. Shame on your English teachers. Or your parents, if it's an inherent cognitive deficit at play.
I don't buy any GOP narrative. In fact, if there is one person most responsible for making me consider not voting for Obama again, it's Paul Krugman. Obama should have taken the mandate of the ballot box and renewed the New Deal. He should have punished the mortgage banker parasites; he did not. None have gone to jail. He should have unilaterally raised the debt ceiling; he didn't. He should have argued forcefully and much earlier for making corporations pay the taxes they're supposed to pay; he's barely touched this.
The Stimulus Bill was good, and the Healthcare Act was just OK--too little, but still, he got something. But that's not good enough.
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.
Absurd view, your considering Romney
