Grammar karma +1
Good job, Slick.
Missing the point for 500, Alex.
Not really, since you chose to attack my grammar and then proceed to mangle one of your own.
Anyway, back to the OP. I don’t believe voters will easily buy into the argument that Obama’s past experience translates well into leadership, since we had 3 years to see it didnt translate well at all - and then attack a guy who has a pretty solid record just because he’s from the other party. I dont think middle America views community activism the same way as being a governor.
What’s that got to do with the OP? I think it’s pretty well agreed that Romney’s gubernatorial experience translates well* - notwithstanding the fact that he constantly tries to distance himself from his record. The question is what his business record means for his candidacy.
*That said, electing former governors to the presidency rarely works out well. Governors, more or less by definition, have no foreign policy experience.
I havent noticed any distancing, except for Romneycare. That’s still going to be his biggest debate obstacle.
If governors arent good choices because of no foreign policy experience, what does that say for Chicago community activists? I dont count Obama’s short, ineffective time in the senate as anything except a huge negative.
I’d rather have a governor in charge than a senator any day. No contest there.
As for the details of Romney’s business experience, I dont think most voters even know much about it yet. From my observation most people were more attuned to American Idol than the republican debates so until Obama and Romney go head to head, his business experience for now, means little.
Unless something really unethical comes to light about his management style or decision making in the past, Im guessing he will attract the majority of independents. I dont see how a positive or even mediocre business resume can be a negative - especially when the people attacking it just voted for a guy with none. People here on the forum will have fun dissecting things in ways most people arent interested in, imho.
The “except for Romneycare” is kind of a Mrs. Lincoln exception. It was the signature achievement of his time in office.
I don’t think it matters much what counts to you. You’re not going to vote for any Democrat, but I bet you supported McCain over Bush in 2000. Having said that, I agree that foreign policy experience wasn’t on Obama’s side in 2008 either. It clearly is now, though.
The question isn’t whether his business resume will be a negative. It’s whether it should be a positive; Romney and his supporters are touting it as such.
How on Earth could anyone conceivably argue that Romney has had more relevant experience? There are only two eligible men on the planet who have more relevant experience than Obama at this point, and neither of them is running. Obama has had three and a half years as President of the United States: What other experience could possibly be more relevant than that?
Yeah, the experience argument was relevant four years ago. Many, myself included, believed that it was a relatively low-weight argument, but it was relevant. Now, though, it’s just gibberish.
Obama has been bending over backwards – or, rather, forwards – to compromise and accommodate with the Pubs since his term began, and you fucking know it. He shouldn’t have.
I dunno, FDR was a governor. So was Clinton. But I can’t think of a Republican ex-governor, certainly not Reagan or W, who was any good as POTUS.
Really, we haven’t had a decent Pub POTUS since Eisenhower, and before him you have to go all the way back to TR.
You really haven’t been paying attention, have you? What he did as a CEO was ethical to other CEOs but morally repugnant to most Americans.
The point is that it’s not a positive.
How’s that?
Really, it’s hard to know what issue you might be referring to because of all these damned olive branches obstructing my view.
Right on the first count, wrong on the second.
His foreign policy track record isnt good. But at least he has a record now.
I do however like Obama’s use of armed drones and ticking names on his kill lists. He’s got that going for him.
Let’s see what we’ve got here…
That’s a Republican saying that Republicans weren’t being included in crafting the stimulus. Except for the three who were. And the conference committee meeting.
That’s congressional Democrats shutting out the GOP on health care. Nothing in there about Obama
The Senate this time. Again, nothing about Obama.
The House again. No mention of Obama.
The White House not accepting Mitch McConnell’s invitation to talk about raising the debt ceiling. I’m not really sure Obama was the partisan one there.
That’s about the supercommittee. Again, no mention of Obama.
Obama giving a speech about the Republican budget proposal.
I’m just not seeing the problem here. What else you got?
It shows he didnt bend over backwards to do anything with the GOP. As the leader of his party and this country he should have extended an olive branch at those key moments. Instead he defended and encouraged it. His own endless child-like finger pointing only highlights his divisiveness.
Mr “I won” isnt a uniter and hasnt done anything to get bipartisan initiatives accomplished, contrary to the previous poster’s wild claim.
Community Organizer!
Community Organizer!!
Bawk! Bawk!!
One thing that differentiated a CEO form the President is that the CEO is far more autocratic than the President can be. A CEO can say " We are going to invest $50 million over the next three years in new technologies" and it gets done. The President wants to do that and he needs to play politics. it is a different animal altogether.
While I find Romney’s business experience neither plus or minus, I do think his privileged upbringing is a minus. He knows shit about what its like for 90% of the population to try and make it.
Most of your cites don’t even mention Obama.
Correction: It’s community agitator.
Ahh yes the ever-moving goal post. If they’re down to earth they’re not smart enough. If the person is highly successful and earned a great deal of wealth they’re out of touch. (Unless of course they hang in marxist circles and race bait, then it’s ok to be wealthy.)
Shit, I lost track of which traits you’re against and which one’s you’re for. Maybe it’s time to get out your bumper stickers so I can keep up.
They establish a divisive party, with a divisive leader. No “bending over backwards” has occurred.
Show me where he’s even bowed a little (except to foreign dictators, I already seen enough of that) to get bipartisan support on anything.
I’m not the one who made the claim in the first place, but since you ask, I’d cite the individual mandate and private insurance for health care, and the cap-and-trade for CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, originally Republican ideas. And the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
ETA: And the Republicans included in the stimulus negotiations, as mentioned in the link you provided.