He talks about 3 things a lot: Having been a business man, having been a governor, and having been in charge of the Olympics. If you don’t think he talks about his time as governor, then you haven’t been listening to him much. Obviously, we can’t parse his every statement and measure how often he mentions having been governor, but the Bio page on his website devotes as much space, if not more to having been governor than having been a businessman.
No Obama supporter ever has, AFAIK; it’s Obama-bashing RWs who use that meme hyberbolically and sarcastically. On the Intertubes, they use it a lot.
Ridiculous, the Messiah is a glowing white guy with auburn hair. Vampires twinkle, the Messiah glows.
You don’t have to use the word, it’s all about how He can do no wrong, and all who oppose Him are evil.
As far as the left is concerned, Obama can and does do a lot of wrong. But those who oppose him from the right – like the GOP and the Tea Party and the Libertarians – more often than not give reasons that show themselves to be ignorant or evil or both. Their hatred of him is completely insane, even worse than what Clinton came in for, and has been since Day One.
What is completely insane is dismissing one’s political opponents as ignorant or evil. Liberals are not intellectually or morally superior to conservatives. The two sides see the world very differently, but rational minds can differ. This (rational minds can differ) is a concept quickly learned by most first year law students.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Obama supporter on the SDMB who thinks that he can do no wrong. Pretty much all of us have posted about something we think he did wrong at some point. I know I have.
I do not believe that Mitt Romney is evil, although he may be ignorant on some matters. He does have some experiences that help to qualify him for the presidency, having served as a governor being chief among them. That said, I do not believe that having business experience is a qualifier for the presidency, nor that it would make any candidate a better president, for the reasons laid out in the article in the OP and the blog linked by zamboniracer. I’d like to hear some evidence to the contrary, citing specific business skills that would translate well into running the U.S.
(checking the forum for language) Who here has EVER said Obama can do no wrong? That is inaccurate and after all this time you must realize that it is if you are the intelligent and honest person you claim to be.
All who oppose him (note the lower case) are not evil. Some are ignorant. Others are unintelligent. Both have been lied to and manipulated by the right-wing media and the movers and shakers of the Republican Party to vote against their own interests. They are the evil ones. Then there are some, like some who post here, who I keep hoping will open their eyes and see the error of their ways. It’s taking longer than we thought. 
[rant] I agree with msmith537’s “Truth be told, a lot of businessmen are morons.” This is especially true of most of the CEOs I’ve known. Dumb as sacks of rocks and ready to jump on whatever bandwagon their golf buddies are on without giving the last bandwagon time to work. Leaders of men? For every Steve Jobs there are many, many who use their “people” to lead for them. Nope, no CEOs for President. Find somebody who has worked his way up from the shop floor into a VP’s office and we can talk. That’s who the CEO would support, if he weren’t so damn dumb. [/rant]
I know all that, but what the RW throws at Obama is mostly not about things as to which rational minds can differ, it is simply wrong. A lot of RW crap is simply wrong, in fact – e.g., evolution-denialism and climate-change denialism; those are not matters as to which reasonable minds can differ.
I just watched Romney’s “prairie fire of debt” speech from mid May. It was the most recent I could find in a quick youtube search. In ~20 minutes, it included the line:
That was the closest he came to mentioning Massachusetts.
And from the bio you linked to is this:
Sure sounds to me like he’s emphasizing his business experience.
I just re-read the OP, to which you were the first reply. I’m not seeing anything like what you describe.
And nothing in the post you replied to dismissed anyone as “ignorant or evil”. You’ve pretty much got a monopoly on the vacuous political rhetoric in this thread, in fact.
If the moderators here were even halfway serious about this place having grown-up conversations, your post would have earned you a warning because it didn’t relate in the slightest to the only post that preceded it. Rationalize all you want, but the turd in this punchbowl is yours.
Oakminster, this is threadshitting. Knock it off.
Don’t insult other posters in this forum, and don’t complain about the moderation in the thread.
Actually, yes, yes we are. There was a time when that sort of intellectual distance made sense, when conservatives were not in the thrall of knuckle-walkers. I don’t blame conservatives for that, I blame Republicans, they are the ones who made the unholy bargain to exploit the worst angels of our nature in the service of their agenda. Now the inmates have taken over the asylum.
I respect the conservatism of caution. I respect the conservatism that recognizes the necessity for change but counsels for prudence, suspicious of the idea that anything new is an improvement. i respected Barry Goldwater, worked for him, even, before I knew better. (When Lyndon Johnson was the peace candidate…) Men like him were the left’s political opposition, but not necessarily enemy.
That was then, this is now. If such conservatives as we both might admire were to retreat from the Republican Party, they would probably be a loyal opposition to offer counsel and prudence. But if they stay with the Party, then they stay in thrall to the nutcases who have them by the throat.
At one time, your point had substance, and truth. But not now, now, the left is unquestionably superior, intellectually and morally. Its not that we’ve gotten so much better, we haven’t, its that our opposition has gotten so much worse. So very much worse…
A point that Paul Krugman has brought up is that businessmen might not understand the paradox of thrift. While an individual corporation can improve its bottom line by eliminating jobs and otherwise cutting costs if too many of them do it at the same time leaving too few people who can afford to buy their products then they end up losing money. Cutting government spending when the economy is depressed is much the same. It further slows the economy which reduces revenues. Someone who is not sure how to go about producing the desired outcome is far better than someone who is full of false confidence about how to do so. I’m not sure how much any of this applies to Mitt Romney. He’s Republican so he’ll try to cut taxes and cut spending no matter whether he understands the economics of it or not. That’s just what Republicans do when they get elected. Those willing to buck the GOP dogma don’t get elected.
W didn’t.
Nor did any other Republican in modern history.
I think 2sense is hitting on the fact that Republicans will, however, try to cut the more economically stimulating forms of spending – unemployment benefits, transfer payments, discretionary non-defense spending, etc. But they sure as heck won’t cut spending in total.
I’ve seen this type of comment many times on this board. My response is: what “knuckle dragging” or “unholy bargain” are you talking about? Since I’ve followed politics (for 20 years) conservatives have said the same thing: low taxes, low spending except for military spending which is good, abortion bad, prayer in school good, flag burning bad, gay marriage bad. They hated Clinton, they hate Obama (politically); equal opportunity hatred.
When did our side go from a loyal and good opposition to your side being morally superior? And I must mention that Goldwater, who you say was a worthy opponent, voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act…so that’s obviously not the type of knuckle-dragging that we are talking about. Educate me.
I take it you slept through the part where your side made all those speeches about smaller government and presided over the biggest expansion in the federal government in decades?
If you’re trying to claim that conservatives stand for low spending, well, it’s hard to know how to respond to something that outlandish.
He’s emphasizing that he’s not a career politician. He isn’t. You are offering a false dichotomy.