I think a lot of people think that some business sense would help us in this financial crisis. That’s probably why Chessic would back Romney.
I actually thought McCain might have had a chance if Romney was his VP candidate, and they campaigned on him knowing how to get America’s finances back on track.
No, I don’t know someone better; but then, I didn’t know who Obama was before the primaries. I don’t know what young governors or junior senators might currently be good president material - there are so damn many of them.
Obama is actively doing things to make the country worse. Therefore, an empty chair would do a better job.
How quickly we forget. In 2008, the narrative was that financial services people didn’t know anything, and had fucked up the country. Remember the mobs with pitchforks baying for the blood of CEOs?
Romney would have been about as electable in 2008 as George W. Bush. It’s only because the Republicans have successfully shifted the narrative to “Obama is bankrupting the country” that we’re talking about him now.
My thoughts. As soon as it became aparent who and what Palin was I couldn’t believe he’d fingered her for his VP. Maybe he was having second thoughts about the presidency and wanted to assure his own defeat rather than quit? As close as the election turned out to be, I suspect he would have slaughtered Obama had he but chosen a reasonable VP.
:dubious: “Close”? Obama won the popular vote by 7%, and the electoral vote by a margin of nearly 2 to 1.
Quite the opposite, actually. What he’s trying to do, albeit with varying success, is to improve the long-term prospects for a failing country by promoting efficiency and best practices used by some of the more successful countries. Of course, this means asking the public to start making sacrifices that are necessary to achieve real progress. Unfortunately, in order to remain electable and keep his party in power, he has to balance this by prostituting himself to the special interest groups, as all prior presidents have done. It’s not an easy task. While there are probably many people who can do a better job, I don’t know who they are.
I’m not disappointed. I think it’s amazing that he’s accomplished as much as he has, considering all the partisanship. It’s mind-boggling that so many votes are straight down party lines.
Did anyone see Brian Williams on David Letterman this past Monday night? They were talking about an op-ed piece (don’t remember who wrote it) positing that Obama might be happy as a one-term president, that maybe one term is the plan. Either Williams or Letterman asked if he should run for a second term, and the audience reaction was very light applause. Way too light, for a typical Letterman audience. I’m going, “Whoa, maybe the guy’s in real trouble.”
I know a lot of life long Democrats who feel Hillary would be doing a better job. They tend to be middle aged women. A lot were Hillary supporters who backed Obama reliably once he won the nomination but are now disappointed with him.
She seems like the obvious alternative, really. I’m glad I voted for Obama and pleased with his performance, but if I were a wizard I’d be willing to visit an alternate world and see how President Hillary made out. Between the two I thought Obama was a far better choice, but they were relatively even candidates if you compare them to a truly awful choice like McCain, Palin, etc.
For the record, Obama’s “opposition” to same-sex marriage is only personal, not legislative. He supports civil unions, but more significantly he opposes any legislation or amandment against same-sex marriage. His stance on the issue is functionally equivalent to politicians who say they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but still think it has to be legal. Barack Obama “personally believes marriage is a between a man and a woman” but would not support legislative attempts to make it illegal.
Plus, he doesn’t really mean it anyway. He just had say that to get elected.
The trumpeting of Mitt Romney is hilarious, by the way. The guy is the definition of an empty suit. He probably would have made the same moves on the economy (Obama relied on conservative economic advisors who probably would have been the same ones to advise Romney), but he would not have given us HCR, would have stayed in Iraq, and would have replaced two liberal Supreme Court Justices with righties among other things.
By all means, nominate the guy in 2012, though. He wouldn’t be as fun to trounce as Palin, but he’d still be a tomato can.
Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic primary was between two very different politicians: one who was a great orator, could inspire people and make them believe, seemed to be somehow above the sleaze and rabid partisanship and didn’t sling the mud, and who exuded charisma like he had a patent on it; the other being a policy maven, a fighter, allegedly power-hungry, a pragmatic maker of deals and a strategist, the kind of politician who’d do anything to win.
The orator has failed to keep people fired up, the hope and inspiration has given way to discouragement and his relatively nonpartisan nonsleazy nonadversarial approach has not generated any discernable bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Democratic voters are saying they wish he’d pull out the stops, get in the Republicans’ face, quit letting them make him look ineffectual.
He inherited a mess and for the most part I think he’s mopping up about as well as could be expected. Nothing he has done has infuriated me and he has gotten some things done.
But I think now just as I thought in spring of 2008 that she was the one for the job. It’s funny but all her perceived negatives correlate quite a bit with characteristics that some are saying they wish Obama would manifest.
Fixing the economy?
No HCR?
Righty SCOTUS justices?
So, in other words, Romney’s awesome?
Better? The person I voted for (write in) many times before; Dick Gregory.
I must admit how deeply I hate the whole “McCain is REALLY principled, but he just takes all sorts of crazy positions because it’s politically necessary” trope. Isn’t that the definition of political opportunism - sacrificing your principles for political gain?
Broder, this morning, said this sorta shit shows how McCain is a “realist” and how this “show[s] his practicality.” This sorta thing is why everybody laughs at Broder.
At any rate, in 2009, before McCain had any idea he might face a serious primary challenge this year, McCain was about as free as a politician can get to stand for the things he wanted to stand for. And he turned into an angry jerk who only became more shrill and extreme than ever.
Apparently it depends.
As ever with some people, IOKIADDI.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s fine with me if a Republican tells that same particular lie.
In the eyes of a minority of the minority of Americans, yes.
Mitt Romney? Piffle. Tony Stark, if that’s the direction we’re going.
Yes. Fred Thompson.
I have no idea why the Republicans wound up running McCain when Thompson is so vastly superior a choice.
Hillary Clinton would make a better president. Obama’s failed bipartisanship experiment has wasted two years of opportunities to get the economy back on track and spoiled many opportunities to do good things.
Hillary would not have tolerated her staff insulting her supporters at every opportunity. On the occasions when us liberals had to eat shit, she would make sure that assholes like Gibbs and Emmanuel didn’t crow about it.