So, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Governor Romney says that the president should “start packing.” This is the sort of thing I would expect to hear from a candidate in late October, not mid-April! Talk about counting your votes before they’re cast. I know that many Obama supporters talk as though the reelection is a sure thing, but our guy is the incumbent after all. Obama himself isn’t rude about it. Since Mrs. Romney doesn’t work outside the home, perhaps she’ll swing by the White House to measure for drapes.
Mrs. Romney helped with “I believe it’s… Mitt’s time… It’s our turn now.” Sounds like a school-yard pick. “I wanna play!! It’s my turn!!!” Waaaaaaaa.
Mittens went on with this gem, too: “The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies. So he’s going to try to make this campaign about the fact that I’ve been successful, that I’ve made a lot of money.”
Well, given that the economy is turning around, at right about the three-year mark, just as Obama promised, I’d say that the President is likely to focus on his record and the success of his economic policies. He may even point out that Romney’s success came at the expense of lots of other people as he gutted companies and laid off workers.
One thing we agree on: “We don’t divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature.” I agree that success and wealth are two different things. Bill Gates (among many others) are successful and wealthy. Romney, on the other hand, is merely wealthy.
There’s nothing new about this. I predict that both nominees will be introduced at their conventions as “the next president of the United States”, but that only one of them will be.
The whole pep-rally atmosphere is one of the things I dislike about American politics, but it’s been going on too long for me to expect it to ever change. If you must pit Romney for something, do it for the planned cuts that he disclosed in a closed-door meeting with campaign contributors. Whether you agree with the cuts or not, if that’s what he plans to do once in office, the electorate has the right (nay, the need) to know about it before we cast our ballots. And the fact that he’s keeping quiet about it means he plans to enact policies that he knows most of the country don’t want.
It was your fault, wasn’t it? We knew it wasn’t Idle Thoughts’s fault! That molly-guard is there for a reason, young man, and it’s to keep people like you from poking buttons you shouldn’tna oughta! :mad:
You realize, you’re never going to live down banning the entire board, right? That from now unto eternity, you’ll be to blame for this sort of thing? (It’s okay. We still love you. In a purely platonic, non-cooties icky sort of way. :))
This is just bullshit mud-slinging and will backfire in the general election if Obama tries to bring it up. Anyone who runs a business will have fired and laid off some people - especially when your business model is to buy up other struggling businesses and try to turn them around.
Romney’s success stories (Staples, Sports Authority, etc.) are well-known enough to the general public that he will not have any trouble fending off this sort of attack.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and this thread is as lame as the bullshit people come up with on FreeRepublic about Obama. You’re mad at Romney because he is not saying publicly “Yeah, I probably have a 50/50 shot at best”? Give me a break.
Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of that. Granted, I already know I disagree with him on the issues and thus haven’t done much research on his background, but that makes me more like the regular uninformed voter. I wonder how many people really do know about Romney’s success stories.
If Romney tries to promote the idea that his success in private equity will translate to success as president, it’s entirely fair for Obama to point out that the two jobs have very different standards for success. The goal of private equity is return on investment. The goal of a president is, well, just about everything else, but keeping the unemployment rate low (i.e. not laying people off) is usually part of it.
I wonder how Mr Romney is going to bring some miracle about. If women cannot get birth control, and have more children than they can afford,and since the working poor cannot afford to be stay at home mom’s like Mrs Romney, How is that going to bring up the economy. Just look at what happened to the economy in Haiti, and other countries, where the population is greater than the country can support!
Running a business is a whole lot different than running a country where there is so much division and one party doesn’t want the other to succeed.It isn’t up to the president alone,like the CEO can make the rules for his company.