But this poses a question. If Obama says Washington can’t be changed from the inside and it can only be changed from the outside, and Obama campaigned on change, then does this mean that by his own standards he should be outside of Washington so he can enact the change he said he would?
If so, then I welcome you all in voting Romney for president. I get what I want (Obama out of Washington), and you guys get the change you want (change).
Yeah, but the rest of Washington will still be Republican-controlled. I prefer to believe that he meant people should vote the rascals out, since he can’t fire them.
Yep, your airtight logic has defeated me. I have no choice but to vote for Romney. In fact, you don’t even need to show up at the polls on Nov. 6, that’s how confident you can be that me and everone else who reads this thread will vote for the Fighting Mormon. Cheers.
Neither of them need to check their overseas investment portfolio before making foreign policy decisions and neither one depends on magic undies to keep their faith in tact.
Romney’s on his way to being a God of his own planet anyway, so what does he need with running the US.
You set up a catch 22. If you can only change Washington from the inside, but becoming President makes you an insider, then change never occurs. Maybe Obama is still in the process of the change he campaigned on. Maybe your outsider status lasts for eight years. Either way, this seems like a rather facile argument.
As an aside, Romney 2007: “I don’t think you change Washington from the inside. I think you change it from the outside.”.
But if change can only be enacted from the outside, then he’s incapable of doing anything while on the inside, as change is not possible from the inside, only the outside.
If he wins and he fails, then he should be a one-termer too.
Your logic isn’t unassailable, it’s not much of anything at all.
Voters will change Washington by electing people who aren’t morons to go there. If conservatives, like yourself, would elect non-morons into positions of power, Washington would change.
My logic is unassailable, heh, you keep trying, I’ll give you that.
Obama never intended to change anything other than Republican policies to Democratic policies. All that stuff about changing politics as usual or how Washington works was a way to fool people into thinking he was different.
If Washington can only be changed from the outside, and Obama campained on change, then he will obviously be changing things beside Washington. Boom, logic assailed while accepting your initial premise as valid.
I’m shocked, shocked that the OP’s point is not just something he thought up all by himself, but is rather the Republican Talking Point Of The Day. As such, it has already been refuted elsewhere on the Internet.
Oh…Oh my God! An elected politician saying that somehow, getting things done in Washington depends on the American people getting mobilized and speaking out! Why, that’s socialism! Or Nazism! Or possibly Islam.
Is this what we’re trying now? I thought we were going with the debt number thing. Or was it the redistribution thing? There was something else too, wasn’t there?
I just googled “47%” under the news tab. Got 10,900 news articles. Sorted by most recent. Many of them were posted 6 minutes, 11 minutes, 12 minutes, 15 minutes ago.
Doesn’t this just burn some people? That darn Mainstream media.
Keep trying to find the latest Obama “gaffe”. Especially one that does not depend on clipping off his clarifying comments that he makes seconds later.