[quote]Mick28 wrote:
obama has to turn it tonight or he is a one termer[/quote]
Barring some miracle, I think he’s that anyway.
Mufasa[/quote]
Tell me Mufasa do you think the Obama people will have an October surprise? Some of my predictions have come to fruition, some not so much. But I predict that if team Obama feels that they are going to lose they’ll pull something.
Why not if you feel you’ve lost anyway what can it hurt?
Your thoughts?[/quote]
Zeb: what kind of surprise do you think they could have up their sleeve? I’m actually curious. Other than some kind of (extremely ill-advised) sudden bombing campaign in the Middle East, I don’t see the administration as having much immediate control over the kinds of issues that are at the forefront of the election.[/quote]
Could be anything:
Sudden peace talks with certain nations that would love to see Obama reelected.
A Mormon surprise…your guess is as good as mine.
Don’t rule out some sort of military action.
Something in Mitt Romney’s past. Gore did this in 2000 with the Bush DWI.
Do you honestly think that the gang in Chicago who is behind Obama will roll over so easily?
I’d certainly be surprised if there were not October surprise. Unless of course it looks like Obama will be victorious then they won’t chance it.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I doubt there is much in Romney’s past. Could be wrong, but he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy whose closets are home to skeletons.
[/quote]
Interesting you would say that and I agree with you. Here we have a guy who is of high moral standing, a great father and husband, well educated with both a law and business degree. A former successful Governor, took charge of the Olympics when it was teetering. And he made a pile of money in the private sector which means he’s very sharp.
But…because he’s a republican about half the country looks past all that he is and will vote for a man who has (and I’ll be kind here) not been the best President over four years, simply because he is of the same party.
That is not being results oriented is it?
As a business person I’ve done plenty of interviews in the past. I don’t care if the candidate is female or male, straight or gay, tall or short, religious or atheist. All I care about is his or her qualifications. Can they do the job that I am hiring them for?
With that said I am just as guilty as any one else when it comes to politics. But just this once I wish that people would look at who can actually do this job and give Romney a chance. If he is lousy fire him after four years.
I honestly think he is the most qualified man to run for President that either party has ever had! He’s also someone that has been damaged through the political system and therefore some have a lower opinion of him than they should.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But…because he’s a republican about half the country looks past all that he is and will vote for a man who has (and I’ll be kind here) not been the best President over four years, simply because he is of the same party. [/quote]
But it’s because we simply aren’t voting for the man doing the job. I hate that religious and other extreme groups have taken the Republican party and ensured that we can’t have small government. But voting for the best of the two candidates means that I open the door for many things that I’m not signing up for. If you’re a fiscal “conservative” and a social “liberal” then you’ve got no place to turn.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
If you’re a fiscal “conservative” and a social “liberal” then you’ve got no place to turn.
james
[/quote]
Very true.
Though, I do doubt that a President Romney would go far out of his way to impose his religious beliefs on others. It’s not like Massachusetts took a turn toward theocracy while he was governor.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But…because he’s a republican about half the country looks past all that he is and will vote for a man who has (and I’ll be kind here) not been the best President over four years, simply because he is of the same party. [/quote]
But it’s because we simply aren’t voting for the man doing the job. I hate that religious and other extreme groups have taken the Republican party and ensured that we can’t have small government. But voting for the best of the two candidates means that I open the door for many things that I’m not signing up for. If you’re a fiscal “conservative” and a social “liberal” then you’ve got no place to turn.
james
[/quote]
Does anyone ever get their favorite candidate? I only did once Ronald Reagan.
We are truly at a crossroads. If you want the debt to climb to over 20 trillion, and those getting food stamps to climb to 60 million then vote for Obama. He is promising more of the same.
But you don’t know what Romney can do until you give him a chance. If he is as bad as Obama has been over the last four years then we can vote him out too.
Those who say they won’t vote for Romney because he’s not enough this or that…are only handing Obama a second term. And don’t whine on this message board about Obama over the next four years unless you’ve done all you can to oust him RIGHT NOW!
Logically, we know Obama has done a poor job is it a stretch to want to give someone else a chance?
For what it’s worth (just personal anecdotes), I now of know two more individuals - good friends of mine - who were Obama voters in 2008 that are going to pull the lever for Romney this time (and are quite enthusiastic about it).
Look, I’m sure you’re correct about that. I’ve never sided 100% with a candidate and I know it’s unrealistic to believe that’s possible. It seems (and it could just be me) that our elected officials are in the habit of only voting along party lines regardless of what their electorate actually thinks. I don’t know anyone who backs up either party on 90% of their stands but that’s what the voting records look like. That’s an extreme position in my book and that takes away our ability to compromise.
We had the religious discussion already so I’ll leave that alone. But groups that declare a war on something like an idea tend to scare me because it’s such a vague term. We should have a war on Al Qaeda not a war on terror (as an example).
[Quote]Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when you need him…lol…
james
[/quote]
I completely agree and I think he was the most qualified to be President ever. He held positions at all levels of government. He fixed local police corruption, worked at the state and federal levels. Avid starter of the conservation movement. He ventured into the private sector with cattle ranching. He put his life in danger for the country with the roughriders. He was an avid biologist and naval historian. He beleived in both hard and soft power internationally. He believed in square deal for all Americans. He started a big 3rd party movement.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Teddy was one of the first in the long line of 20th century progressives. Teddy believed in big(ger) government. Teddy was relatively militaristic.
I don’t think TR is your hero.[/quote]
Teddy wasn’t perfect but he believed in busting the big corporate hold, he believed in conservationism (he was a big outdoorsman), and his regulations were set up in order to help the average citizen. I can get behind all of that.
I think that our militarism was the right move for those times. Besides, he believed in the “strenuous life”.