5 Things Mitt Will Do Wrong

[Guest FourAces]

From Team Obama a nice summary of what we would be in for if Mitt were to become president.

[Guest EXPAT]

Especially if he has a Republican Congress and Senate. But we know from his time in Massachusetts that he does know how to compromise with a Democratic house. So we'll see. But let's hope that we won't have to worry about it come next January.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Obama will probably get his second term so no need to worry...

[JKane]

Obama will probably get his second term so no need to worry...

I worry about how much further damage that asshole will inflict on the entire country saying *anything* to get elected... Everytime somebody on the right opens their mouth it feels like we move closer to the death spiral of the American Empire...

[JKane]

It's good to remember these things before he shakes the etch-a-sketch and pretends he's middle of the road!

[Guest FourAces]

JK Awesome video

[TampaYankee]

Mittney is the most pathetic excuse for a GOP Presidential candidate that I have seen in my lifetime. Considering W, that is saying something.

He has all the unbridled ambition and lack of integrity of Wm. Jefferson Clintion without any of the charisma, and cunning. I'm not saying he might not be a wonderful bean counter, but that is what Presidents hire... like body guards and grounds keepers. I've never seen a shallower candidate pander so obiviously and poorly, who is over his head every time he opens his mouth. If this guy gets elected then a ham sandwich could get elected in a bad economy. Is it the case that the minds of desperate people just shut down? I'm thinking of the GOP Primary electorate and hopefully not the electorate at large.

[RA1]

I am hoping Mitt might be a terrible candidate but much better president as opposed to the above average candidate and terrible president that we have now. But, I am not very favorably impressed by any pol these days.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Lack of good leaders implies that the US is in decline? I think some politicians are over exposed and their personal life and mistakes are unnecessary emphasized by the media. Whatever they said or did is exploited out of context by their opponents and these so called repoters and bloggers. I don't think the current leaders are any better or worse than forefathers who wrote the constitution.

If you are a democrat you will not like Romney no matter what and find faults with him. I think that is irrational but that's how the most rich people make money by exploiting peopje's irrationality so let it be. Only those who can think and free themselves from a few smart group of people who control them.

I am hoping Mitt might be a terrible candidate but much better president as opposed to the above average candidate and terrible president that we have now. But, I am not very favorably impressed by any pol these days.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

I don't think there is any doubt that the US is in decline. I am hoping not irreversibly so. However, our balance of trade has been negative for many years now. We currently owe 12-15 trillion dollars. Our foreign policy is under attack both here and abroad. Are we just whistling in the dark as we stroll pass the cemetary at midnight?

I am not one to ever give up and I am a very loyal and patriotic US citizen so I am doing whatever I can to make the situation better. But, we do have a very steep and long hill to climb at the moment.

Best regards,

RA1

[JKane]

I am hoping Mitt might be a terrible candidate but much better president as opposed to the above average candidate and terrible president that we have now. But, I am not very favorably impressed by any pol these days.

Best regards,

RA1

Killing Osama Bin Laden, concluding the wars, saving Detroit, and fighting a Sisyphean battle to eventually make it so one day I'll be able to buy healthcare... the horrors. Plus a lot of progress for us gays.

The only things I fault him on, like giving too much to the banks for too little in return, Romney would be *much* worse about!

[Guest EXPAT]

And he will do whatever the military tells him to do instead of being a leader and taking charge.

[JKane]

I don't think there is any doubt that the US is in decline. I am hoping not irreversibly so. However, our balance of trade has been negative for many years now. We currently owe 12-15 trillion dollars. Our foreign policy is under attack both here and abroad. Are we just whistling in the dark as we stroll pass the cemetary at midnight?

I am not one to ever give up and I am a very loyal and patriotic US citizen so I am doing whatever I can to make the situation better. But, we do have a very steep and long hill to climb at the moment.

Best regards,

RA1

Yes, and one of the biggest indicators of the end of a civilazation is large growth in the divide between the poor and the wealthy. The American Dream is now a fairytale, born into poverty you'll die in poverty. But a Billionaire born into wealth and power is going to fix that by taxing the rich *even less than the current record lows* while removing programs that help people in poverty like Planned Parenthood.

Rich get richer as Rome burns.

They always figure they'll have enough money to get by. Anybody in their family needs late-term abortion they'll fly to where it's possible, etc. That's why social unrest disturbs them so, and President Romney is the kind of man to give us the final "let them eat cake" that brings out the guillotines and starts a new dark ages--if not global extinction.

[TampaYankee]

I am hoping Mitt might be a terrible candidate but much better president as opposed to the above average candidate and terrible president that we have now. But, I am not very favorably impressed by any pol these days.

Best regards,

RA1

Frankly, I don't get it -- the visceral hate of Obama by the Right and the GOP establishment and many on the street. I can understand policy differences but this 'hate' goes way beyond that. I can understand the oppostion disliking being on the loosing end of an election or a policy struggle. But virulent hate!! I do not get it. The GOP and their candidate acted like they 'owned' the White House and it was unfairly usurped from them. Seriously? Where do they get that from?

There was little 'hate' for Eisenhower except from the Birch Society. There was some hate for Kennedy for his Civil Rights stand. More for Lyndon Johnson for his Civil Rights reforms and then the Viet Nam War. No signficant virulent 'hate' for Carter or even Reagan or Bush I. I'm talking virulent hate not simply strong dislike for policy.

A little broader tide of virulent 'hate' from the opposition seems to have started against Clinton for just being the opposition, and maybe for his personal character it seems. That coincided with the takeover of Congress by the GOP and the full entrenchment of Religion in politics establishment.

Bush II got some 'hate' from the 'professional left' and some Congressional members but IMO little of that spilled over to the man on the street.

But this Obama thing has been just crazy. The unvarnished record, for those who can see cleary enough to recognize it show that Obama has been just about the most GOP policy-friendly Dem that Repubicans could have hoped for. Yes, he is dedicated to making progressive reforms as any Dem would be. However, time and time again, he has opted for GOP prescriptions for moving these reforms ahead. The health care mandate and insurance exchanges are a market-based approach straight out GOP Think Tanks and supported earlier by GOP leaders. The Carbon Credits approach to reduce atmospheric emissions is also a free-market approach to reigning in those emission also developed by and embraced by GOP institutions and leaders. It's all there in the history.

Bush II did TARP, not Obama. Bush II initiated the Auto Bailout, not Obama. Bush said he also would have followed through on it if it were still on his watch.

It's true that Obama pushed to clean up Wall St with new laws, regs and rules. That pissed the Big Money off but few in the street will offer support for carrying Wall St water, even today. So that shouldn't breed virulent hate in the street. Where is all the virulent 'hate' coming from?

Yet Obama is a hated Socialist rushing the country head-on into socialism. Something is off it's wheels around here. The fact is that most virulent opposition in the past 60 years has centered around race and war issues. It seems that the left is the most energized segment opposing war issues today. I'll leave it for you to figure what else can be at work fueling this hate.

I say it again, Obama has been just about the most GOP policy-friendly Dem that Repubicans could have hoped for. Look where it has gotten him.

To be clear RA, I am not referring to you when I discuss haters. There is plenty of room for legitimate opposition to encumbent power. But I am curious what you find so very bad about Obama, other than he is a Dem seeking usual Dem policy objectives? Policy differences aside, it is his style?

[RA1]

Personally, I don't "hate" BO. Thank you for not saying or implying that I do. As you no doubt have ascertained, I just don't like his policies. I didn't like Bush, Jr.'s policies either. Don't neglect to remember that regardless of who or which party "thought up" those things you mention does not mean anyone but BO and "his" Congress passed them, at least the ones that have been passed.

I think it will take longer than I have left to really determine if BO did as well as you are suggesting. Today, we can look back at JFK and see he got very little of his political agenda enacted. There any number of things "the country" did not like about his policies which may be obvious from Dallas. JFK was charismatic and interesting and I enjoyed that aspect of his unfortunate time in office. However, he was completely at sea when confronted with the Cuban Missile Crisis and, in some ways, blew it and was very lucky to get as much as he did. Nixon might have done worse but we shall never know that, shall we? One thing that JFK did is to de-couple "union" wage increases from productivity, something we are still suffering from now.

LBJ took the "martyrdom" of JFK + his vast experience in knowing how the Congress worked + all the "skeletons" he knew about and DID enact much of JFK's political agenda. That + his extreme mishandling of Viet Nam has led to problems we are just now somewhat over and some we are not. Guns and butter did not work then and did not work when Bush tried to do it and is not working now when BO is trying to do it. LBJ's policies also has led directly to the wide spread dissolution of black families. I hope that is going the other way but I fear it is not and, in fact, is being adopted by many others.

Sorry to rant.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

TY, I'm always surprised by how often I say Exactly! after reading one of your posts. JKane's too. It does seem strange that folks don't give Obama at least some props for steering us away from a depression, leading us and the Russians to reduce nukes, getting insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, making us less of a Lone Ranger in international relations, helping gays get a fairer shake, and being the one voice you can count on to at least try getting everyone under the same tent.

I was in a small East Coast town recently where anti-Obama sentiment runs high. My nephew hears it at his job all the time. He says it's almost always coming from older clients, fairly well-off, and not at all shy about expressing their distaste for having a black man in the White House. I find it hard to believe that there could be so many who think like that but, like TY, I'm running out of alternative reasons to explain the level of dislike some folks have for him.

PS: I am once again grateful for the respectful tone of discussion here. There's much more to learn when insights are exchanged instead of insults.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I like Obama and I hope he get re-elected. He has done well in many difficult issues. Nobody is perfect and expecting him to be perfect is nonsense. No matter who is president, special interest groups and a group of rich people are too strong and powerful for one to escape their control these days.

One way to overcome this is complete collapse of the US but that's too destructive and painful. The other option is coming up with a new form of government that can be efficient and reduce the influence of special interest groups and powerful people. I hope the latter happen in the near future.

[RA1]

TY-

I just re-read what you wrote. I think among the reasons that folks are not liking BO include the "fear" of unemployment, the fear of getting old without a retirement plan, the fear of getting old without medical services, the fear of "things" that are different. The demographics of the country are definitely changing and there is the fear of that also which fits into the "unknown" or "different" category. If one wishes to be afraid and just casually looks around, there is plenty to be fearful of.

As the saying goes, the only constant is change, but, a lot of folks are not only afraid of change but resentful of it. We are not going back to the Eisenhower days and we are not going back to a chicken in every pot, however, exactly where we are going is not clear to anyone and, seemingly, especially not to our elected leaders OR they are certainly keeping it to themselves. I used the word "leaders" advisedly. This is supposed to be a republic and our elected leaders are supposed to lead us in a correct direction regardless of the "polled" opinion of the voters. Unfortunately, in this day of instant communication, they and we know very soon what everyone thinks and what the "pundits" think it "means". The "old days" of members going to Congress for a few days a year and making decisions which were not necessarily known by their constituents for weeks or months was not all bad. On the other hand, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war was over, the combatants just did not know it yet.

Anyway, that is my answer to your question(s).

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Frankly, I don't get it -- the visceral hate of Obama by the Right and the GOP establishment and many on the street. I can understand policy differences but this 'hate' goes way beyond that. I can understand the oppostion disliking being on the loosing end of an election or a policy struggle. But virulent hate!! I do not get it. The GOP and their candidate acted like they 'owned' the White House and it was unfairly usurped from them. Seriously? Where do they get that from? ...

I'm going to add a final thought to the content expressed in my previous post about the virulent hatred of Obama and it follows from observation and the opening paragraph quoted above. It's time to call a spade a spade.

I lay this 'hatred' directly at the foot of the GOP establishment, especially the GOP Senate Conference and to McCain to a lesser extent.

First, McCain. He made it clear by his actions and demeanor that he did not respect Obama's win over him. This was a continuation of his demonstrated disrespect for Obama as a worthy candidate for President that he radiated during the debates. By disrespecting Obama's victory he showed disrespect for the man and legitimacy of him holding office. Let me be clear, I am not stating that McCain is a racist. I concede that his disrepect emanated from his view of life and political experience differences between the the two. However, not everyone reads a display of disrespect in a nuanced manner but tend to apply their own views.

This was amplified by the Senate Republicans by altering the customary pracitices of addressing legislation and other Senatorial duties for Obama's administration. They took the fillibuster rule from a rarely used tactic and occasionally used tactic to the busuiness-as-usual standard. This was a direct shot at Obama, the man, and changed the legislative game in Washington.

The Constitution gives the President the power and the resposnibility to appoint members of the Executive Brtanch and the Judiciary. The Senate must Advise and Consent as it has done for 200 + years. Yet, Obama's senate refused to hold votes on his appointees for months and months and months on end, many lapsing over from one year to another and one congress to another. Make no mistake, the Constitution requires the Senate to Advise and Consent, not OBSTRUCT. The Senate has a duty to hold a timely vote, up or down, on the President's appointments.

In U.S. history no Congress has so broadly denied a President to choose his own admin officials and held up so many judicial appointments. So many appointments in fact, that the Chief Justice of SOTUS has pleaded repeatedly for Congress to move ahead on judicial appointments because of so many vacancies in the Federal Courts.

This complete change in Senate action for Presidential appointments is unprecedented and since the Constitution calls for the Senate to perform its function this can only be attributed as a refusal for the Senate to recognize the legitimacy of the man who is the President making the appointments.

Whether this is done out of politics or racism matters not because this exhibited disrespect for the man holding office is telegraphed to those who would hate for whatever reason. Rather than supporting the institution of the Presidency, the GOP Senators chose to undermine the office in order to undermine the man. It doesnn't matter on Sunday morning whether a man is lynched on Saturday night for racism or politics.

The GOP Senate is no better than the rankest racists because they fanned the flames of disprect that lead to hatred. The same hold for Fox News, the progpaganda horn of the GOP.

[TampaYankee]

...

I think it will take longer than I have left to really determine if BO did as well as you are suggesting. Today, we can look back at JFK and see he got very little of his political agenda enacted. There any number of things "the country" did not like about his policies which may be obvious from Dallas. JFK was charismatic and interesting and I enjoyed that aspect of his unfortunate time in office. However, he was completely at sea when confronted with the Cuban Missile Crisis and, in some ways, blew it and was very lucky to get as much as he did. Nixon might have done worse but we shall never know that, shall we? One thing that JFK did is to de-couple "union" wage increases from productivity, something we are still suffering from now.

LBJ took the "martyrdom" of JFK + his vast experience in knowing how the Congress worked + all the "skeletons" he knew about and DID enact much of JFK's political agenda. That + his extreme mishandling of Viet Nam has led to problems we are just now somewhat over and some we are not. Guns and butter did not work then and did not work when Bush tried to do it and is not working now when BO is trying to do it. LBJ's policies also has led directly to the wide spread dissolution of black families. I hope that is going the other way but I fear it is not and, in fact, is being adopted by many others.

Sorry to rant.

Best regards,

RA1

I recognize legitimate policy differences and that you have them. That is why we have parties and elections. But elections are suppose to decide those policies, at least for the next two or four years. The Senate GOPers did not recognized that.

I agree that Kennedy has been much more popular as a posthumous Preident than he was as a living President. I wish you would elaborate for my edification about your Kennedy/Cuban Missle comments. I've always considered that the high watermark of his Presidency. (Many times I have pondered that outcome had it happened during Bush II and not happily.) Also, I would like your views on how he decoupled wages/productivity. I do not recall that episode.

I would also appreciate your views on how LBJ's policies also led directly to the wide spread dissolution of black families. I have no fixed opinion on this subject.

[TampaYankee]

TY-

I just re-read what you wrote. I think among the reasons that folks are not liking BO include the "fear" of unemployment, the fear of getting old without a retirement plan, the fear of getting old without medical services, the fear of "things" that are different. The demographics of the country are definitely changing and there is the fear of that also which fits into the "unknown" or "different" category. If one wishes to be afraid and just casually looks around, there is plenty to be fearful of.

As the saying goes, the only constant is change, but, a lot of folks are not only afraid of change but resentful of it. We are not going back to the Eisenhower days and we are not going back to a chicken in every pot, however, exactly where we are going is not clear to anyone and, seemingly, especially not to our elected leaders OR they are certainly keeping it to themselves. I used the word "leaders" advisedly. This is supposed to be a republic and our elected leaders are supposed to lead us in a correct direction regardless of the "polled" opinion of the voters. Unfortunately, in this day of instant communication, they and we know very soon what everyone thinks and what the "pundits" think it "means". The "old days" of members going to Congress for a few days a year and making decisions which were not necessarily known by their constituents for weeks or months was not all bad. On the other hand, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war was over, the combatants just did not know it yet.

Anyway, that is my answer to your question(s).

Best regards,

RA1

I take your points about changing demographics and economic uncertainty. Certainly these are key factors affecting our society at this time. These certainly contribute to an air of unease among the people and it may help create a tendency to scapegoat by some. But I liken this to kindling in a dry forest. Without the creation of inflammatory sparks, or the unwillingness to put out early fires you don't get a raging forest fire. Rather than tamp down hatred and dispect some have fanned the flames or simply stood by and said "well, I don't know".

[JKane]

I'm going to add a final thought to the content expressed in my previous post about the virulent hatred of Obama and it follows from observation and the opening paragraph quoted above. It's time to call a spade a spade.

I lay this 'hatred' directly at the foot of the GOP establishment, especially the GOP Senate Conference and to McCain to a lesser extent.

I fully agree but believe it goes back far further that you're recalling. I don't consider their opposition to Clinton to have been minor at all and it preceded Lewinski. The Republican establishment was extremely obstructionist and downright disrespectful from the very start. And the things many right wingnuts have implied or openly said aren't far off from the rabid froth the Republican Establishment has worked up in their drones over Obama.

Stuff like claiming the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. And let's never forget them standing on the floor of the House of Representatives yelling "wag the dog" every time Clinton fired a fucking Tomahawk into Afghanistan! An atmosphere that actively prevented his administration from doing more against OBL.

Yes Clinton had personal failings, but he also lived in an atmosphere of a witch hunt from day one. A sitting president should never have been called under oath for such petty bullshit (and one with balls would've refused or refused the questions instead of lying under oath, I concede). Bush I is widely known to have had a mistress (how he fucked Barbara even the 6 documented times is beyond me...) but while that was politely ignored, the Republicans then changed the culture 180 degrees when they didn't get their way.

This massive anti-Clinton attitude was the major reason I didn't support Hillary for President. I incorrectly figured it was just for the Clintons and didn't see the point in taking on the baggage of all that hatred and obstructionism from day one for a candidate (/person) who'd never (yet) inspired me. I was very surprised when President Obama experienced exactly the same thing (if not worse with the Tea Party racist bullshit) FROM DAY ONE.

I also disagree with TY that there wasn't hatred for Bush II from the left. I've never hated a politician/public figure more in my life, though I feel this was well deserved.

It's like this is the new normal, and has been for 20 years now, and I think we all agree it fucking sucks.

[Guest EXPAT]

I think you are right about the Clinton years too. But now it's not only obstruction because Obama is a democrat but it is also because he is black and perceived as super liberal which is not really the case. But of course most right wingers feel anyone at center or left of center is too liberal.

[RA1]

I wish some of you guys would go back and read what you have written. You are doing exactly what you are accusing "others" of doing. I don't trust ANY pols but I don't hate any either.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest EXPAT]

Not trusting politicians is a given - NO NO. For me it is always about voting for the lesser of two evils which is generally the democrat for me. In this case it is definitely Obama.