The GOP caucus will be this Saturday. We all know the economy could be better, and unemployment is too high. But the question you should ask yourself is whether these candidates would be an improvement on President Barack Obama. Take Mitt Romney. His political experience is as governor of Massachusetts. He was pro-choice then and signed the health care bill, which the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is modeled after. But to get the Republican nomination he is now pro-life and wants to repeal Obamacare. Newt Gingrich gleefully points out that when Romney was governor, Massachusetts was 47th in job creation.
Newt has some flaws — it is no secret he cheated on wives Nos. 1 and 2 and that Callista, now his third wife, has admitted a six-year affair with Newt while he was still married to wife No. 2. What an inspiring pair these two would make in the White House.
Of the two remaining candidates, I believe only Rep. Ron Paul has a message that deserves to be heard. Unfortunately, he is 76, and though in good health now, who knows what the stresses of being president would have on him, as he approaches age 80? It’s kind of sad that with all the Republicans in America, this is the best they could come up with. But then if President Obama is re-elected, they can continue to be disrespectful to him and to the office of the president, and that should count for something.
"But the question you should ask yourself is whether these candidates would be an improvement on President Barack Obama."
Answer: The current President has failed to control debt, deficits and unemployment by the end of this year is projected to be 8.9% according to CBO's latest projections out yesterday. Failure is failure and, in this case, Obama needs to be replaced...we learned our lesson putting a liberal community organizer in the white house who lacked managerial experience. Never again. The end of an error is near.
Anyone who watched "Face To Face" the other evening with Jon Ralston had to feel somewhat sympathetic towards Republican presidential candidate Santorum. In a nutshell, Jon Ralston publicly made mincemeat out of him. Even before this telecast, I was certainly not a supporter of Mr. Santorum. I am definitely not a supporter of Newt Gingrich. However, I do have strong support for Mr. Romney as our next president. There are more than a few things that I like about President Obama. However, there are more than a few issues where I feel the President has failed, miserably.
I believe Mr. Romney may be the best choice for President of the United States. If Mr. Romney is not the Republican nominee, then without doubt, President Obama rightfully deserves to have a second term as President.
Mr. Mundy has every right to support President Obama, point out that Mitt Romney has changed positions, that Newt Gingrich has cheated on his wives and that Ron Paul is old. Everything he says is true.
It is also true that we have a 16 trillion dollar debt, continue to spend over 1 trillion more than we bring in each year, that unemployment is above 8 %, that nothing has been done to pull SS and Medicare away from insolvency, etc, etc.
Mr. Mundy asks a valid question about whether any of the R cnadidates would be an improvement over President Obama.
Another equally valid question is whether we can 'afford' to leave President Obama in office for another four years when considering his record of the first four years?
Oh yes, Mr. Mundy, those are both weighty questions...
Michael
My wife wanted to attend the Mitt Romney rally at Brady Industies last night, so we did. The event brought into focus my concerns going forward.
Mr. Romney spoke for about 20 minutes. He made valid points about the fact that President Obama's record on the debt, the deficits, problems with SS and Medicare, unemployment, etc hasn't been very good. He specifically brought up increading the size and power of the military when he becomes President.
Just like President Obama does, Mr. Romney proposed more government spending, just in different areas than President Obama does.
Both men propose next to nothing regarding how to pay for increased government spending. The President says he'll increase taxes on the wealthy, which won't provide anywhere near what would be needed to balance a budget, start paying down the debt and ... increase government spending.
Mr. Romney proposes to cut government spending and closing departments but doesn't say how, which ones or when.
I am still very worried. Neither Obama or Romney seems inclined to tell the truth about the debt and deficit and the hard and hurtful things that must be done to deal with both.
Michael
richard; as you can see, there still exists plenty of incompetence, ignorance and stupidity in the republican party and those that blindly support them.
Well, the Tea/Republicans can complain all they want about the field of candidates their lousy excuse for a political party has fielded. And justifiably so.
At the get go of this warped process to find a Presidential candidate, I heard they wanted to nominate Mr. Jesus Christ, but they had to shelve that idea.
Too many stepped forward and wrongly assumed that with a first name like that, he HAS to be an illegal immigrant.
Anyways, the traveling clown show is now in Nevada this week.
My only advice is they should have fun here and bet it all on red. And to remember we changed the slogan. It's no long "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." It's now "whatever money you bring to Vegas, STAYS IN VEGAS."
::::::::::::::
Mitt is not qualified to be President ... and his tax history is not yet fully released
::::::::::
He has been the biggest flip flop man on the trail so far ... which means he has little credibility ... if any.
:::::::::::::::::::::::
He is now saying whatever is necessary to gain votes ... anything
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
He is a nervous, twitchie man who says too many crazy comments off the bat like firing people and not caring about the poor ... this is not a good sign for the Presidency
::::::::::::::::::::::
The bombing of Iran is what is really scary from this guy ... more war ... is he nuts?
:::::::::::::::::::::
His overall record is really very disgusting from Bain to the Gov of Mass
:::::::::::::::::::::
He has little chance of defeating Obama anyway, so no need to get overly anxious, that is if he even gets the nomination
:::::::::::::::::::
Ola - wonder where all the hating birthers are on where Mandate Mitt was born .... are they at the bar drinking .... sure they are
Mundy writes about the "disrespect shown the president and the office." Well, la-de-dah, Richard! Where were you for 8 years when George W. was being pilloried by the loons on the left night & day? No "disrespect" for the office then, right? Try as you may, Mundy, you aren't going to be able to take away anyone's right to criticize the present CEO of the USA and his obvious failures. Osama Obama is the worst president of my time and that includes the peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter who, BTW, I actually voted for (the first time). That I did not vote for the failed Carter when he ran for reelection and was soundly defeated, shows just how much I matured, politically speaking. We don't need wimps & apologists sitting in the Oval Office. America is a much better nation then that!
fink; the reason this country is in the toilet is because of people like you that supported the failed policies of the republican party. bush was a complete failure and you voted for him TWICE. tell your grandchildren that it was your fault they wont have much of a future.
Either one of the misguided pack of Republicons remaining will do NOTHING to improve this country. Romney will finish what Bush didn't get to,...Fib Newton should have been run out of politics decades ago and isn't fit mentally or morally to be President.
Santorum and Paul are non starters. The entire group are floor scrapings and will only serve to further destroy what little remains of America. They have nothing for this country nor do they have anything for those who support them.
Constant shots at Obama make no sense when looking back at the pile of manure Bush, Cheney and that corruped bunch handed him. The problems were caused by the Republicons,...a fact many want to ignore.
Mr. Casler again claims that, "nothing has been done to pull Medicare away from insolvency."
This is untrue, according to the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid.
"Under current law," he said, "including the Affordable Care Act, we're estimating that the (Medicare) trust fund would be exhausted in 2024. In the absence of the savings under the Affordable Care Act, a corresponding date of exhaustion would be 2016. So the Affordable Care Act, in the new projection, postpones the exhaustion by eight years."
While Mr. Casler is free to argue that not enough has been done to secure Medicare, his argument that "nothing" has been done to help the program is false.
Future says: "Gee --- Go Sux can't bring himself to confess that every budget and bill signed by the lame duck Bush in 2007 and 2008 was PASS by the Reid - Pelosi - Obama Congress.
Gee --- Go Sux can't bring himself to confess that every budget and bill signed by King Obama in 2009 and 2010 was PASS by the Reid - Pelosi Congress.
That is four years of the Democrats passing and spending anything they want"
Enjoy your comments, but you have just unwittingly made comments as to the EXACT reason why the Tea/Republican Party politicians in power right now need to be all thrown out right now. Your reasoning assures they will be voted out of power.
You just confirmed the Democrats in power, both in the past and now, actually participate in Government and do what they were elected to do: Work out solutions through negotiation, compromise and sometimes hardball politics, no matter who is in power as President, be they Democratic or Tea/Republican.
By your comment, you demonstrate that the policy of Tea/Republican Party continual confrontation and constant chaos MUST CONTINUE at all costs in Congress.
Just last year, FIVE TIMES the Tea/Republicans in this 112th Congress took us to the brink by only confrontation. And the end result of that was, if they had actually just negotiated and compromised, THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH THE VERY SAME RESULTS. Except for the fact they directly contributed to America's credit rating being downgraded.
The American people are tired of this. It only leads to uselessness.
And the American people are going to demonstrate CLEARLY they are tired of it. By voting all them bums out.
President Obama for another four years. AND a majority in the House and the Senate of Democrats. We're tired of this constant impasse crap. To get work done simply doesn't require a constant fight all the time.
It does require our politicians be held accountable to us.
Tea/Republicans have failed in doing their job. Proven by the uselessness of this 112th Congress. And their inability to get anything done is directly attributable to Tea/Republican intransigence on everything.
We get rid of all of them. American ain't got time for this. We got a country to re-build. And Tea/Republicans are just in the way of forward progress.
EVERY DAMN PIECE OF LEGISLATION don't need to be all out war. Democrats understand this. The other side don't.
Oh my, Colin! "My only advice is they should have fun here and bet it all on red. And to remember we changed the slogan. It's no long "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." It's now "whatever money you bring to Vegas, STAYS IN VEGAS."
With our budget/economic crisis, shouldn't we all be "betting" on BLACK? =D
Our country is currently swimming in RED ink!
Blessings and Peace,
Star
Kevin,
I get that you want to place President Obama in the best possible light and you have that right.
The projections regarding the Affordable Care Act are just that... projections... and many people disagree with even that.
My definition of 'something' done would be... remove the income cap on SS contributions, means test SS and Medicare to bar the wealthy from accessing the programs and if necessary raise the retirement age.
All these things fall under the 'tough' decisions that I've often mentioned but our leaders in both parties fail to make.
Let's be honest... raise the retirement age and seniors will scream. Take the income cap off SS contributionions and people will scream. Bar the wealthy from accessing SS and Medicare benefits and you'll hear 'unfair' and more screaming.
All this and more could have been advocated by at least the last 3 or 4 Presidents and Congresses, but they haven't. Why? No courage to propose the unpopular.
I will criticize them all for their failure. If you want to knitpic and make excuses for President Obama, that's your call.
Michael
Colin,
If you want to believe that the major reason the US credit rating was downgraded is because the R's fought the debt ceiling increase, that's your call.
Credit Rating Agencies major purpose is not to look at how disjointed your effort is to get your debt under control but instead, what is it you are 'actually' doing to get your debt under control.
If the answer to that critical question is 'We are passing another debt limit increase and we are basically kicking the 'debt' can down the road, it is highly likely that you'll get your credit rating downgraded.
Both parties deserve equal blame for not attending to our debt problem in any serious way and that continues to this day.
Michael
Still pluggin' Obama. So...here it comes again.
From the new CBO report released yesterday. (1/31/12)
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt under President Obama's policies will rise to $21.665 trillion by 2022, according to its updated budget outlook.
The updated outlook, released Tuesday, found that current Obama administration policies will result in a 50 percent increase in debt held by the public and a 40 percent increase in intra-governmental debt held in the trust funds of entitlement programs.
"In CBO's projections, debt held by the public is expected to increase by more than 50 percent between the end of 2011 and the end of 2022, and debt held by government accounts is expected to rise by nearly 40 percent," the CBO report found.
As a result of this rise in federal debt, CBO projects federal debt will reach $21.7 trillion by 2022.
"As a result, gross federal debt is projected to climb every year from 2012 to 2022, reaching $21.7 trillion in 2022--47 percent more than its total of $14.8 trillion at the end of 2011."
These projections come under CBO's so-called baseline scenario, which assumes that all provisions of current law go into effect -- including the massive tax increases currently scheduled to take effect in 2013 when the Bush tax rates are set to expire.
CBO's baseline projection represents the estimated debt incurred by current policy over 10 years, reflecting the fact that government spending commitments continue over several years.
Should Obama win a second term in January, he will leave office with a projected $18.4 trillion national debt -- an increase of $7.8 trillion in the eight years Obama will have been in office. The national debt stood at $10.6 trillion in January 2009 when Obama took office. (END SUMMARY)
One of the most interesting things about the CBO report is this part:
"These projections come under CBO's so-called baseline scenario, which assumes that all provisions of current law go into effect -- including the massive tax increases currently scheduled to take effect in 2013 when the Bush tax rates are set to expire."
It includes the expiration of the, originally, Bush tax cuts. Now the Obama tax cuts. And the debt just keeps going upupupupupupup!!!
But will the "taxtaxtaxtaxtax" people now acknowledge that WE JUST CAN'T TAX ENOUGH to get out of this mess? NOT ENOUGH "RICH" FOLKS. And that the only thing that will work is to cut spending and kill "base-line-budgeting?
NO....They won't
I CAN KEEP THIS COMIN' TILL THE ELECTION.
Don't hand me that, wtplv.
You are trying to re-write recent American political history and somehow, with an agenda to show that both sides of the aisle are responsible for America's credit rating being downgraded, are saying the people who downgraded it looked at it with this in mind.
And this is false. The downgrade occurred PREDOMINANTLY because of the Tea Party/Republican Party intransigence, thereby creating no faith in America's ability to pay their bills. The Democrats were in no way, shape or form deciding factors in their decision to downgrade.
All indications show that, all throughout the years, the Democrats, when in power, have done their damndest to balance budgets.
Republicans? NO. They could care less. Their rhetoric and their actions, both taken together at face value, show they don't care. They pretty much act like spoilt rotten kids who just buy whatever they want when in power. And if there's no money? They look around for a credit card.
All throughout recent American political history, Republicans run up the bill, then wait for a Democrat to get into power to get them to pay it off, but all while the belt tightening is going on, THEY POINT FINGERS AND BLAME IT ALL ON THE DEMOCRATS. For the crap they did.
Americans are waking up to this known fact.
Your revisionist history only serves a political agenda where you want to paint everyone is to blame EQUALLY.
And that is simply not true.
This is where we're at: Bush, in a total of eight years, DIRECTLY contributed to screwing up the economy. President Obama and his administration are trying to fix things. Under UNBELIEVABLE pressure from the Tea/Republican Party, who's only goal is to get back in power and screw this country even more.
I ain't dumb. I side with President Obama. To think anything else would assure more fiscal madness for this country. The Tea/Republicans can shout and scream out their crap from here to kingdom come, but the American people are onto them. NO MORE.
Michael, really, stop casting around searching between pillar (Angle) and post (Romney -- although depending on which Mitt Romney and the political weather his positions are subject to being diametrically opposed). Start taking the direction you yourself determine is best and stick to it.
TEA...
"I can keep obfuscating and just plain making crap up until the election!"
Whoa!
That's impressive!
(Removed by the site staff)
Mundy is right -- probably for the wrong reasons -- but right nonetheless. Just look at the collection. We are down to Rick Santorum, a sometime Social Conservative and an inside-the-Beltway influence peddler; Ron Paul, who is a Constitutional Originalist with no chance of winning a General Election; Newt Gingrich, a sharp debater with a sharp mind and even sharper practitioner of unethical conduct and immorality; and Mitt Romney, a capable businessman who does not have a business plan for America, who says he is a "Conservative" but whose past social and fiscal actions put him closer to a Massachussets liberal, which puts folks in a similar position to trying to decide about Bill Clinton -- only Bill Clinton's lies were about sex, not about public policy. Will anyone organize a draft of Jeb Bush so at least there would be a quality candidate?
:::::::::::::::
The Archie Bunkers and Meatheads and Rachael Rays all have the same objective .... 30 minute solutions to everything .... wars and torture and depression and let Wall St have its way and big oil and huge tax breaks for the super rich so they will provide jobs ... anybody tired of this yet?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Where are the jobs for the millionth time rich boys ... including Mexico Mitt ... where are they?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thank God our troops are now being brought home ... over 70% polled say they wish they had never had to go to either place and that both wars were worthless .... couldn't agree more
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Listening to Mitt of Mexico one sees yet another looney on the horizon .... a man who pays way less taxes than the everyday Joe on the street .... how in the world did this insanity come about
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Congress has to overhaul the tax system totally ... its a disgrace how these rich aren't paying a fair share at all .... nuts.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ola - When the dust settles and America sees , if it's going to me Mexico Mitt, he'll be outed for all his far right radical positions and flip flops and war mongering .... it'll make in basically unelectable.
Colin,
You say 'I ain't dumb.' That's debatable, at least in my opinion. So you KNOW that the entire decision to downgrade our credit was due to the Tea Party. HOW do you know that? Let me answer that? YOU DON'T and YOU CAN'T.
You say 'The Democrats were in no way, shape or form deciding factors in their decision to downgrade.' Again, how do you know that? Answer: YOU DON'T. R's ran up the debt (no argument there) but D's continue to do so and have advanced no plan (except Simpson Bowles), which was rejected by both R's and D's to deal with the debt and deficit.
You say 'All indications show that, all throughout the years, the Democrats, when in power, have done their damndest to balance budgets.' Recheck your history and you'll find with rare exceptions that neither R's or D's have done a good job balancing budgets.
It really gets tiring and boring arguing with you guys. I can and have admitted that Bush did a lousy job with the economy and that R's are hypocritical when they pound Obama for not doing enough.
That does change the facts. You guys are always mad about the 'equal' aspect of what I say. I really don't care about that. I know that if we don't make some tough decisions, we are all going to be sorry. Bush didn't make them. Obama isn't making them. If you can't see that, that's your problem.
Michael
"So you KNOW that the entire decision to downgrade our credit was due to the Tea Party. HOW do you know that? Let me answer that? YOU DON'T and YOU CAN'T."
Read S&P's report on the downgrade:
http://bit.ly/pfrs1x
"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debtceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy."
Who held the debt ceiling increase as a hostage... as a political bargaining chip? Who cheered default?
The GOP, led by the tea party.
"The firm's conclusion "was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling," John Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign ratings committee, said in an interview. "It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year."
Again, who held the debt ceiling increase as a hostage... as a political bargaining chip? Who cheered default?
The GOP, led by the tea party.
@future - why do you keep telling us what the employment under Bush was in December 2007, and comparing that number to today's number and crediting the difference to Obama?
Bush was president for 13 months after December 2007. Tell us what the number was on January 19, 2009, and then your comments may have some relevance.
Wow, the dem commentators above are desperately trying to "Alinsky" anything GOP. Insults and lies. Lets see how this all plays out with the independent voters this coming November.
Actually Mr Mundy is correct. This group of G.O.P. candidates is a sad sack. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and sanitarium do not stand a snowball chance in hell of winning the presidency from Obama. And for the rich boy made good Romney, When he bears scrutiny on how he has made a living plus coupled with his many wavering positions will lose to Obama no matter how much money the Republican establishment will throw in to his campaign.
Kevin,
You just made my argument for me. Read the 'rationale' in the report. Yes, the contentiousness of raising the debt limit was a factor, but and I quote from the report you cited:
'We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.'
They don't think the government is taking the necessary steps to get the deficit and debt under control.
This is what is happens with backward logic and closed minds:
Draw a conclusion: The Tea Party has no redemming qualities and is solely responsible for every bad thing that happens.
Take a topic like the S&P downgrade, which involved D's, R's and the Tea Party in Congress as well as President Obama. Note that all parties agreed to raise the debt limit and agree to some reductions in spending.
Read the S&P report and see that it clearly indicates that the contentiousness of the debt ceiling debate .... and the contents of the deal struck to bring spending down only a small amount, taken together convinced S&P to downgrade our debt.
Draw the 'conclusion' that the Tea Party was solely responsible for the downgrade and the other parties to the agreement that only reduced spending by a small amount had NO responsibility at all for the downgrade.
What a twisted, ass backward, illogical way to look at things. I hestitate to keep arguing with you guys because you are so 'closed' to 'anything' that doesn't lead directly to the conlusion you have already come to.
If you are not open to 'facts' that don't support a predetermined conclusion, you are totally close minded.
Michael
At least Mitt WAS a governor, a job that required more thought then Obama's' job as a community organizer. I am not looking to marry Newt so his sexual escapades I could care less about, he is no worse then JFK or Bill Clinton and they got elected! It is about the experience in the office, skills to negotiate and get things done, the most qualified person to run the country, Obama has shown he does not possess this experience or skill and his on the job training is killing our economic situation. He was probably a great community organizer and should go back to doing that to help people.
Mike,
When I noted a fact earlier, you said it was "knitpicking"[sic] your point.
So when the chairman of their soverign ratings committee says, outright:
"The firm's conclusion "was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling. It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year."
I tend to take him at his word. You do not. You ascribe silly motives and again tell people what they do and do not believe. It's the modus operandi you retreat to when challenged.
Why won't you address that quote? Who held the deal hostage? Is it really your argument that the DEMOCRATS were opposed to raising the ceiling?
I believe the larger point, which is supported by the quote from the chairman, is that the tea party's hostage-taking was the primary driver of the S&P downgrade.
Should I also note that no other ratings agency downgraded us? What crazy motives and Obama worship will you see with that fact? Are they ALL trying to show Obama in the best light? Every other rating agency took a look at that deal and nodded their head.
C'mon, what conspiracy theory are you going to rely on this time? Break out the tinfoil hats, folks.
Kevin,
I know its useless but I'll play along. I admitted that the S&P report listed the contentiousness as an issue in the downgrade. The report also listed the lack of a big deal to reduce spending as an issue. Because you want to believe that the Tea Party was solely responsible, you highlight what the 'chairman' says and ignore the conclusion written the the report you provided the link to.
No matter how many times I point it out, you're just not going there. OK, that's fine. I'll stand by my letter before this one. You are closed minded.
Michael
Kevin,
I do have to ask. Just what conspiracy theory do you believe I ascribe to? I'm not a conspriacy theorist in any way. I don't know why the other agencies didn't downgrade us but I don't think it was a conspiracy to make Obama look good or that n S&P was trying to make one side or the other look good or bad.
Because I don't hold your view, you seem to always try to lump me in with the people who believe Obama is a socialist, that he wasn't born in America, that he hates America, etc, etc. I believe none of that.
I just see two parties that are not very good for America, one former President who did a poor job and the present one also doing a poor job. Does that really make me a conspiracy theorist? Really?
Michael
LastThroes,
Nice character assassination. The next time the R's engage in character assasination against President Obama, and one of them is sure to do so, I'll expect to hear not a peep out of you.
Michael
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
We all know Romney is a fish out of water and Newt has few morals. The man I listened to and liked some of what I heard was Ron Paul, but when the racists comments in his new letters came to light, I placed him along side others in the Republican Tea Party who practice that sort of fear mongering. Republicans are tone deaf in general. You can buy the most expensive guitar and the best made speakers and amps, but when a person is tone deaf, they still sound like crap when playing or singing.
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
(Removed by the site staff)
Vernos,
Don't you ever get tired of generalizing about R's and people on the right? I could ask the same of people here who generalize about the D's and the left. People on both sides act like we are all just part of one dumb herd. That's rediculus.
Do you never notice how little 'issues' are discussed here? It's sad.
Michael
(Removed by the site staff)
"Don't you ever get tired of generalizing about R's and people on the right?"
When I hear those on the left saying and doing the same thing I'll criticize them. For example I think Obama expanding the Patriot Act was a huge mistake. To me Truthers and Birthers are bat crap crazy, but unfortunately it's the Republicans making the most noise and making the most outrageous comments over the last three years. The Tea Party has dragged the Republican Party so far right is one reason as to the insane, assinine things we hear. Although Obama attended and spoke at a prayer meeting, Birthers such as "The Donald" who endorsed Romney will insist Obama is a foreign born Muslim who usurped the White House "throne" single handedly. My attitude started when I was young watching Joe McCarthy on television shortly followed by Birchers and their type insisting Ike Eisenhower and his brother were communists. People need to be held accountable for the crazy crap they say including those on the left who called Bush a Nazi. If it bothers some that I post my thoughts about right wing insanity maybe it should be toned down instead of being ignored by those on the right. As I noted, when one is tone deaf they still sound like crap playing or singing.
wtplv; vernos started and i'll finish. i dont generalize about anybody. i state facts as they are. your republican party is no longer one that compromises but takes all it can get at any cost.
Hopefully these clowns will out of here by the end of the week
Not one of them have a real plan how to resolve the housing issue.
Not one of them have a real plan how to get people back to work
Not one of them can answer how they would deal with a congress that marches in lockstep against them.
Not one of them will really acknowledge the fact that the unemployment rate is going to be tough for at 5 more years.
Not one of them is really qualified to be our president. Their front runner is endorsed by a bunch of fools and clowns.
If this is the best the Republicans can do NOT one of them will ever become President of this country.
Sad Sacks, UNITE!
http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/s/sa...
Mittens, Uncle Newtie, Ron 'Grandpa Munster' Paul...
In a Sack o' Woe!
Misery company and I'm feeling low
Trouble follows me wherever I go
The bag I'm in is just a sack o'woe
(Julian 'Cannonball' Adderley)
Rarely do I plug "Politico." I find it just another liberal dinosaur MSM propaganda outlet. But this piece struck me...
A taste:
Jobs
A new CBO report grabbed lots of headlines for projecting the deficit will top $1 trillion this year -- making Obama the first president ever to pile up $1 trillion or more every year in office. That's not great politics. But it's not even the worst news contained in the CBO report. The unemployment number is.
The CBO projects unemployment will rise, hitting 8.8 percent in the third quarter of the year, the heart of the campaign. That's terrible politics. Obama advisers have told us repeatedly on background that if unemployment is above 8.5 percent in the final months of the campaign, it will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to win. The advisers say independents will not return to Obama if it looks like economic growth is anemic and uncertain and it looks like his policies did little, if anything, to create new jobs under his watch.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/021...
Can't wait to read the excuses and equivocating on this one.
God...I love this blog.
Please try to keep the comments related to the letter in some fashion.
Fleece Mittens has no specific plans to pay down the debt or improve the welfare of Americans. His only stated goal is to remove Obama from the White House.
He sees himself as a Saint with the duties of saving America, the prime goal. As such, he will say anything to the dumb masses to get their vote for this objective. Making up stories for the public to get their confidence is part of his act, because his orders come from higher sources.
Romney and his Zombie boosters don't see people, only their objectives. People aren't important when the Chosen Ones are working for America.
Dennis and Vernos,
I understand that both your views more closely align with D's, just as mine more closely align with R's. I'm fine with that and think you should be too.
While you correctly see R's moving to the far right, I, also correctly, see D's moving to the far left. Both moves are a part of the reason compromise is no longer possible.
It would pain me greatly to have to vote for a Palin, a Santorum, a Gingrich, a Perry, etc and it's why I will support Romney if he gets the nomination. Romney, despite what he claims, is a Moderate. President Obama is, despite his claims to the contrary, a Progressive, ecomonically and socially. I like some of his social policies, but I think his economic policies are simply wrong, so I cannot support him.
I find 'nuts' and 'crazies' in the ranks of the R's and the D's, but I mostly ignore them and make an effort not to paint the entire party with the 'nuts' paintbrush.
How either one of you votes does not concern me in the least and I don't think how I vote should not concern you either. I don't accuse you of being 'stupid' because of the way you vote, even though I may disagree.
I advocate that people attempt to take a balanced view; one that recognizes that it's ok to agree with and vote with the party of your choice, but also to recognize that both parties are terribly corrupted in much the same way and that neither party is completely wrong or completely right.
Michael