Presidential election

So is it safe to say NO ONE can honestly look themselves in the mirror and vote for Obama again this year? I certainly made a mistake the last time. But the GOP made a mistake too by putting a ticket of McCain/Palin out there.

This time though, ANYBODY...ANYBODY...but Obama!

Yes, I agree. Whoever gets the nomination is better than Obama.

Voting for Obama... Santorum or Romney are less desirable choices for me.

I'm pretty sure he's going to get reelected in a landslide... Santorum hates women Romney hates poor people in the middle of a recession.

The economy is recovering, universal healthcare is nearly a reality, we are out of Iraq and a short time from now will be out of afghanistan. Given the obstructionist congress he had to work with for most of his term I think thats quite a list of accomplishments.

Pez wrote:Voting for Obama... Santorum or Romney are less desirable choices for me.

I'm pretty sure he's going to get reelected in a landslide... Santorum hates women Romney hates poor people in the middle of a recession.

The economy is recovering, universal healthcare is nearly a reality, we are out of Iraq and a short time from now will be out of afghanistan. Given the obstructionist congress he had to work with for most of his term I think thats quite a list of accomplishments.

Romney doesn't hate poor people his statement was correct. There is gov't safety nets for them. Just look at how many people are getting food stamps, look at all the people that have exhausted their 2 years of unemployment are now swelling the ranks of SS disability, to keep feeding at the gov't trough.

Economy recovering, yet we still have 8+ percent unemployment, the real figure is still in double digit. Universal health care is still unpopular with the masses and parts will probably be thrown out in the supreme court.

Obstructionist congress you mean Harry Reid and the democratic senate? You know the body of gov't that hasn't passed a budget for over 1000 days. That hasn't passed any of the job bills the house has passed? In the democratic senate is where the obstruction is.

Still in Afghanistan (wasn't that a campaign pledge?), GITMO still open, toughen the patriot act, killing american citizens without a jury trial (the real death panels). Got us into Libya, we are in several other african nations. What do you think of a October surprise of bombing Iran nuclear facilities?

Gas prices sky high. The administration says we are producing more, they are correct on private lands that don't need federal approval and permits approved under previous administrations. Permits are still not being approved by the gov't on federal lands. Oil from gov't lands are actually down. Then there is all those green initiatives that got stimlus money but have now gone bankrupt: solendra (but those executives got there bonuses), evergreen (same) and one other company that name escapes me. Lets not forget his quotes of bankrupting the coal industry, his statement of 3.50 is a fair price for gas. Then his energy secretary of we need gas prices to be the same as europe to curb usage. You know the energy secretary doesn't even own a car just gets chauffered around on taxpayer gas.

Also lets not forget the keystone pipeline. You think that might be another cronie payoff. Because BNSF is now hauling all that oil, and who owns BNSF why Warren Buffett his favorite billionaire. Lets not forget that pipeline has been under review for 3 plus years but he needs more time to study it.

Auto bailout, lets see GM still owes the american taxpayer so 30 billion dollars but hey they can afford to buy a stake in financially troubled Peugot. Just screw the american taxpayer that kept them in business.

Now the deficit, trillion dollars plus the last 3 going on four years. and trillion dollar deficits for the next 4 + years (per the CBO). That alone should get him fired.

Obama should be so happy that he has to go up against a weak GOP candidate it gives him hope. I am just sorry none of the stars of the GOP ran. While I will be more than happy with Romney, I would have really liked to have a Christy, Jindal, Rubio, Daniels, Jeb Bush at the top of the ticket. I just hope Romney picks a good VP to shore up the ticket instead of a wild card like McCain did.

Scooby is right. And the many failures just keep adding up. I thought Cash for Clunkers was supposed to help decrease our dependence on oil? Yet here we are paying more than ever.

I have to assume Pez is being tongue in cheek with the Romney and Santorum criticism. Brings back memories of "Bush hates black people".

Agree on Romney, I think he's actually a serviceable candidate, but he isn't pleasing the far right, and he isn't please the poor (right or wrong). Guessing the far right with no one representing their views are more likely to stay home... the poor will be more likely to vote, and vote for someone other than Romney.

I think it's interesting your point about healthcare not being popular. I heard two surveys on NPR this morning... one asked the question "what are the most important issues in the country", and only 5% said healthcare. When asked the question "Healthcare has passed, how important is this issue to you?" More than 50% answered that the latter question was very important.

With the Supreme Court case, I hope if the throw out any of it they throw out all of it. Most people are in agreement that pre-existing conditions should not preclude you from buying coverage, but enacting just that portion of the program is completely unrealistic unless the insurance mandate is also enacted. Otherwise no healthy people will buy insurance until they have a pre-existing condition... EG: a broken back from their car accident... Allowing pre-existing conditions requires healthy people to carry insurance. Else the concept of shared risk fails miserably, and insurance prices skyrocket.

I'm disappointed about Gitmo also... Although I think you and I have different reasons for it. I think the largest issue is not with Gitmo itself, but with the notion that we can detain individuals indefinitely without charges. I thought you were in favor of doing such in the name of national security, so maybe I'm mistaken but I figure you would be glad that Gitmo is still open and keeping the bad guys off the world streets. I cant remember about Afghanistan being a campaign pledge... I thought that he was saying something along the lines that Iraq would go first, and we would increase the focus on afghanistan such that we might eventually find Osama bin Laden. I think the pullout for afghanistan is 2013 or maybe 2014 now... not up on the news lately, save for the Knowledge that the situation over there seems to be deteriorating.

The keystone pipeline is a red herring. It wont lower gas prices at all, and where was everyone three years ago when the the proposal was initially put forward? It wouldn't lower gas prices then and it still wont... the claims of job creation are moderately true, sure, but the whole thing strikes me as something that will have only little benefit but becomes more than it is because its near an election.

I'm willing to wait a bit on GM. In truth, the debt has already been repaid with some cash, and the majority of stock. GM's profits are the best they have been in years, and as soon as they solve the Opel issue in Europe, the stock price will rise such that the government's cost basis in GM stock will be less than it's value, which will result in GM paying back their loan and more...

I agree with you that the GOP field is weak (reminds me of when the Dems fielded John Kerry). The only GOP candidate that could have pulled my vote (with enthusiasm) would have been Mitch Daniels. Mitch might be ready in 2016... I think there is some level of dirty laundry with his wife's situation... he may be wanting to get that bit out in the open in, say, 2013, such that when he runs in 2016 it will be old news.

Markwes wrote:Scooby is right. And the many failures just keep adding up. I thought Cash for Clunkers was supposed to help decrease our dependence on oil? Yet here we are paying more than ever.

I have to assume Pez is being tongue in cheek with the Romney and Santorum criticism. Brings back memories of "Bush hates black people".

Tongue in cheek that Romney hates poor people... I dont believe he hates them, he just has zero appeal to a huge chunk of likely voters in the middle of a bad economy.

Santorum hates women tho... the "Bayer aspirin between your knees" comment?

I think the ABO crowd (anybody but Obama) will bring out the far right for Romney and also get the buyers remorse of the people duped last election.

On CBS news it was 47% against it, 36 percent for and something like 76% against the mandate.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/26/just-36-back-obamacare-as-supreme-court-review-begins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNews.com%29

He said he was going to close it and do it thru the american court systems instead of military tribunals. I was for gitmo and the military tribunals. So he didn't do his campaign pledge. Out of Iraq and afghanistan. I just want to know where are the news cameras at Dover military base for the flag covered coffins now? Where are the Cindy Sheehans and the candle light vigils outside the white house on the news now? I do give him credit for going into Pakistan after the taliban. I say shame on him for not labeling that army doctor that shot up Fort Hood a terrorist.

Three years study. Yes it should be rerouted around the aquifier. Would it effect gas prices now no, in the future prossibly. Latest oil projections by oil companies in North America is enough oil for the next 225 years. You know Biden's first vote in the senate was against the Alaskan pipeline. Just think what oil would have costed if Joe got his way and no Alaskan pipeline. Long term we have to drill, ship and refine while private industry figures out the next fuel source. Or you going with Obama and his special Alge that costs $26 bucks a gallon to produce. Guess at that cost $4 bucks a gallon doesn't look that bad.

Temporary jobs maybe, but isn't every job temporary in a way. But during a recession with 8+ percent unemployment along with the manufacturing jobs of the pipe. Sounds better than no job whether temporary or not and say the job is just half the 20,000 jobs estimated, it is still better than the no job as it is now.

GM still owes 30 billion dollars. To pay the gov't back in the shares the gov't still holds has to be close to $125 a share. Isn't going to happen. Pugeot is a dead car company.

I know this isn't normally a president's job, but given the frenzy over the Trayvon Martin case, I would have like to see Obama come out and tell people to let the courts do their job and not let emotions dictate actions. Someone will get hurt before long.

Hmm... you are probably right about the far right coming out for Romney as the ABO option... I dont see a great deal of buyers' remorse tho. At the end of the day, Obama is an effective executive. The economy has turned around, though much of that is outside his control. I don't see Romney's budget plans or tasks being too much ore effective in terms of reducing the deficit.

The XL pipeline is a good idea, it will create a significant number temporary jobs at worst, and will potentially lower gas prices down the road. I don't like to see Obama's opponents wielding it around like a stick saying that "Gas prices at over $4 a gallon and Obama wont build out pipeline that America desperately needs in order to survive!!" The fact is that gasoline costs commands a considerably higher price overseas, and it's not the governments right to tell a private company that they have to sell it to the US.

I heard the GM "break even" price was around $54... which is a bit more twice the $22 it closed at yesterday. Even closer to the $33 52-week high. Like I said, I'm willing to wait a bit on it. The government owning these shares has the negative effect of suppressing the share price, knowing that a tick over $54 and the government will sell a large chunk of shares... driving the price back down...

Medicaid & Medicare covers abortions in the case of R, I & LOM... Obamacare has the same rules. Catholic employers pay into medicaid now... Suddenly asking them to do the same thing in a different way is curtailing their religious freedom? I have to admit I am scratching my head a bit on that one. I'm not sure the Medicare contraception rules... I would imagine they would cover the pill as it sometimes has benefits beyond contraception (regulated cycles etc).

On the other hand, that filthy little slut of a law student is making a huge fuss over what amounts to $8-9 a month? Less than two gallons of gas

good thread.

Markwes wrote:I know this isn't normally a president's job, but given the frenzy over the Trayvon Martin case, I would have like to see Obama come out and tell people to let the courts do their job and not let emotions dictate actions. Someone will get hurt before long.

Agree it's not his job... likely wouldn't be that effective anyway. Is Jesse Jackson starting to lose it:

"Stop the violence. Save the Children. Keep hope alive!"

"How do we go from a moment to a movement that creates fundamental change. If it's a moment, we go home. If it's a movement, we go to war. Movements are made of serious substance…there is power in the blood of the innocent."

Hey mort, how you doing? How's your glaucoma?

I don't see marijuana legalization being a huge issue... I dont see Romney getting much of the Pothead vote. Maybe I'm wrong, but marijuana smokers tend to lean to the left.

I don't think the GOP old boys have much hope to win the presidency this year, so they put out the GOP version of John Kerry. Next election should yield a better GOP candidate (like Mitch Daniels).

Pez wrote:Hey mort, how you doing? How's your glaucoma?

I don't see marijuana legalization being a huge issue... I dont see Romney getting much of the Pothead vote. Maybe I'm wrong, but marijuana smokers tend to lean to the left.

I don't think the GOP old boys have much hope to win the presidency this year, so they put out the GOP version of John Kerry. Next election should yield a better GOP candidate (like Mitch Daniels).

No Glaucoma....Just a plate and two screws in my neck

Yes Mitch would be refreshing after all this

I know this is kind of old news now, but I've been meaning to comment...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-27/news/31246224_1_president-obama-nuclear-security-summit-medvedev

President Obama swears he's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

A day after being caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he'll have "flexibility" on a missile deal after he wins reelection, President Obama is insisting he has no secret agenda.

I think this will hurt Obama. On the other hand, Santorum didn't help the GOP cause by practically endorsing Obama over Romney.

Markwes wrote:I know this is kind of old news now, but I've been meaning to comment...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-27/news/31246224_1_president-obama-nuclear-security-summit-medvedev

President Obama swears he's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

A day after being caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he'll have "flexibility" on a missile deal after he wins reelection, President Obama is insisting he has no secret agenda.

I think this will hurt Obama. On the other hand, Santorum didn't help the GOP cause by practically endorsing Obama over Romney.

I dont think it will hurt him. It's an unfortunate comment that I would rather him not make, but in reality it's truth. The pro-Obama front spins it as if it's just a simple truth, that it's a contentious issue that no president would like to take on substantively during an election year... the anti-Obama front spins it that we are giving up our missile defenses in Poland the minute Obama gets re-elected. Given the political landscape of the last 20 years I dont blame either side for taking an unrealistic stance on it either way.

My personal opinion is that it may be too contentious an issue to get through in an election year, but that's not something that Obama needs to say to any other foreign dignitary. Most likely because it's already known, and is likely why the Russians are bringing it up in an election year in the first place. It should be noted also that the comment is so vague that it literally could mean just about anything... 'flexibility' doesn't necessarily mean capitulation. Then why say something like that at all?

I think the pro-Obama spin machine will win over the anti-obama spin machine... the comment is misfortunate, but the ABO crowd will have a tougher time realistically convincing anyone that the comment, per se, means that Obama is soft on missle defense.

I'm right with you on the comment being vague. I was thinking for awhile there "What does that even mean?". As far as how or if it will hurt him, my thought wasn't that being perceived as soft on missile defense would necessarily be a problem for him, but more that the comment could give the impression that he cares only about getting elected now, not what's best for the country. Politicians on both sides may do it, but he was caught.

Markwes wrote:I'm right with you on the comment being vague. I was thinking for awhile there "What does that even mean?". As far as how or if it will hurt him, my thought wasn't that being perceived as soft on missile defense would necessarily be a problem for him, but more that the comment could give the impression that he cares only about getting elected now, not what's best for the country. Politicians on both sides may do it, but he was caught.

nods... anyone who doesn't believe there are issues that cant be addressed during an election year is not paying attention... if 10,000 babies were trapped in a fire at a daycare and the only way to save them was to raise taxes in an election year, 10,000 babies would die.

Pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:I know this is kind of old news now, but I've been meaning to comment...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-27/news/31246224_1_president-obama-nuclear-security-summit-medvedev

President Obama swears he's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

A day after being caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he'll have "flexibility" on a missile deal after he wins reelection, President Obama is insisting he has no secret agenda.

I think this will hurt Obama. On the other hand, Santorum didn't help the GOP cause by practically endorsing Obama over Romney.

I dont think it will hurt him. It's an unfortunate comment that I would rather him not make, but in reality it's truth. The pro-Obama front spins it as if it's just a simple truth, that it's a contentious issue that no president would like to take on substantively during an election year... the anti-Obama front spins it that we are giving up our missile defenses in Poland the minute Obama gets re-elected. Given the political landscape of the last 20 years I dont blame either side for taking an unrealistic stance on it either way.

My personal opinion is that it may be too contentious an issue to get through in an election year, but that's not something that Obama needs to say to any other foreign dignitary. Most likely because it's already known, and is likely why the Russians are bringing it up in an election year in the first place. It should be noted also that the comment is so vague that it literally could mean just about anything... 'flexibility' doesn't necessarily mean capitulation. Then why say something like that at all?

I think the pro-Obama spin machine will win over the anti-obama spin machine... the comment is misfortunate, but the ABO crowd will have a tougher time realistically convincing anyone that the comment, per se, means that Obama is soft on missle defense.

I would think it would be extremely hard to have any secrets as a president