The Goat Pen

I really don’t want to be mean to you, but you make some mistakes.

“inexperienced political insider”

Think about this label for a moment. I suspect you can be either “inexperienced” or a “political insider,” but I’m not sure you can be both.

“from one of the most notoriously corrupt political machines in America.”

This is an attempt to sully Obama’s reputation by association. I assert that Obama worked with a system that existed long before he was even born. How does this reflect on him? For example, I strongly suspect that the US government is itself largely corrupt. Does that make all of our national leaders corrupt? Your logic seems to suggest this.

If the US government is corrupt, then perhaps the best person to deal with such a corrupt system is someone who is familiar with how they work? Just something to think about.

Saying a person needs certain qualifications/experience to be prez pretty much went out the window 2 years ago.

Assuming you are referring to Palin, being a mother is not a qualification for being president. But Palin appeals to pro-lifers because she knowingly carried a Down-syndrome child to term. This makes her pro-life credentials impeccable. This contrasts Romney's pro-life credentials, which vary with the polls and the office is currently seeking, and are therefore worthless.

I’m happy to see that you don’t condone Bush’s economic policies. However, you seem to blame Obama for the results of Bush’s ineptitude. When George W. became president, he inherited stewardship a nation with a booming economy and a balanced budget, a nation at peace at home and abroad.

So how did Bush manage our good fortune?

1. Bush started two wars which are going to cost us at least two-trillion dollars before they’re through. One can argue that the Afghanistan affair was a needed response to Bin Laden, but few outside Bush and his cronies will claim that the Iraq War was anything but and incredible waste of lives and money. Cost: $2 trillion (at least)

2. Bush passed the largest tax cut in history. He said it would help spur the economy, create jobs and pay for itself because of the economic growth it would generate. Well, the rich got richer, Clinton’s balanced budget went the way of the Dodo bird, and the economy went into the great depression. So much for supply side and trickle down. Cost: $1.7 trillion (so far)

3. Bush created Medicare part B, which essentially gives your tax dollars to insurance, and drug companies. Cost: 1.2 trillion (includes costs until 2015)

Add it up and it’s 4.9 trillion dollars. And lets not forget the recession, which is costing the government about a trillion a year.

So what did Obama inherit when he became president? A nation in the deepest recession in 70 years, two expensive wars, and a growing budget mess created by his predecessors bad policies.

So what did he do? He tried a stimulus, but apparently it was too small. I guess that's Obama's fault, even though it was the republicans and their conservadem allies in the Senate who refused to pass a larger stimulus package.

He saved GM and Chrysler: and Tens of thousands of jobs with them. He continued Bush's bank bailout which kept us from falling into a depression.

And he underestimated the damage done by Bush, leading him to make overly optimistic predictions about future unemployment.

Obama was relatively inexperienced and a political insider in one of the most corrupt political machines in America. You went to the effort to quote me directly, while intentionally leaving out the word relatively. You can play word games all you want, but I'm just stating the facts.

Just like you can ignore or dismiss the fact that Palin was a city council member, a mayor and a governor, while fixating on (and being dismissive of) the fact that she is also a mother and homemaker.

Red Bird, now you did it. You violated a cardinal rule of PNN. You disparaged the W.

You have just triggered a firestorm. Here it comes...

Red Bird wrote:I’m happy to see that you don’t condone Bush’s economic policies. However, you seem to blame Obama for the results of Bush’s ineptitude. When George W. became president, he inherited stewardship a nation with a booming economy and a balanced budget, a nation at peace at home and abroad.

So how did Bush manage our good fortune?

1. Bush started two wars which are going to cost us at least two-trillion dollars before they’re through. One can argue that the Afghanistan affair was a needed response to Bin Laden, but few outside Bush and his cronies will claim that the Iraq War was anything but and incredible waste of lives and money. Cost: $2 trillion (at least)

2. Bush passed the largest tax cut in history. He said it would help spur the economy, create jobs and pay for itself because of the economic growth it would generate. Well, the rich got richer, Clinton’s balanced budget went the way of the Dodo bird, and the economy went into the great depression. So much for supply side and trickle down. Cost: $1.7 trillion (so far)

3. Bush created Medicare part B, which essentially gives your tax dollars to insurance, and drug companies. Cost: 1.2 trillion (includes costs until 1015)

Add it up and it’s 4.9 trillion dollars. And lets not forget the recession, which is costing the government about a trillion a year.

So what did Obama inherit when he became president? A nation in the deepest recession in 70 years, two expensive wars, and a growing budget mess created by his predecessors bad policies.

So what did he do? He tried a stimulus, but apparently it was too small. I guess that's Obama's fault, even though it was the republicans and their conservadem allies in the Senate who refused to pass a larger stimulus package.

He saved GM and Chrysler: and Tens of thousands of jobs with them. He continued Bush's bank bailout which kept us from falling into a depression.

And he underestimated the damage done by Bush, leading him to make overly optimistic predictions about future unemployment.

LMAO!

Oh, my...you've got a particularly bad case of being full of shit. And WTF are we talking about Bush, as if that excuses Obama? I thought Obama was supposed to be different. Where is the "change" we were supposed to get?

Gee. Was it only ten years ago that the Great Decider came to be prez...after a stint as TX gov and many years as ruiner-in-chief of several businesses?

Another Bush post. I guess you guys just can't defend Obama, so you'd rather talk about Bush.

You're misquoting yourself. You didn't say "Obama was relatively inexperienced and a political insider", you said "Obama was a relatively inexperienced political insider . . "

I don't mind you're being wrong, but please be honest.

You didn't say "Obama was relatively inexperienced and a political insider", you said "Obama was a relatively inexperienced political insider . . "

Tickee-tac. Advantage: Hack

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:..unhappy with their current choices...


Yep, more unemployment, higher gas prices, weaker dollar are better choices.

You gotta admit that very few of you pnners are making any noise about the R field. There are a couple of exceptions - IB loves Mitt and prof admires Sarah's marksmanship.

Who do you like, toe. Robamaneycare? Newt? One of the big-hair gals? Or are you content to go with whoever finally gets the Tea Party seal of approval?

After Romney announced, author(s) at NRO (a couple of them) have been trying to denigrate Romney (probably in an effort to build up Sarah Palin.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... sh-ponnuru

I liked this response.... a common sense response.

sheryl wrote:It’s not wishful thinking; I’m thinking nothing but the general election. Conservatives voting in the primary should too because that is all that matters is the ability to beat Obama. And we will not beat Obama with an Ayn Rand/Tea Party candidate and that is what Ramesh, WSJ, etc are advocating for.

You don’t know Mitt Romney at all.

I couldn’t disagree with you more that Mitt Romney wants to be in public office because he doesn’t want to serve the citizens. The guy didn’t take a salary as Governor, or as the CEO of the Olympics, nor as an interim CEO when he went back to help rescue Bain and Company from financial ruin.

As Thomas Sowell says some things are demonstrably true. There is no more clearer demonstrable truth than Mitt Romney’s volunteerism, helpfulness and desire to serve people. He shut down his whole company to organize a search for one of the employee’s teenage daughter when she went missing in NYC.

Again you don’t Mitt Romney at all.

BTW, your Wales quote is quaint but it really misses the point doesn’t it. They ARE drinking it in MA;

"it" = the Mass health insurance mandate

sheryl wrote:they don’t need a sidekick (or a Tea Party purist) to tell them too. That’s how Federalism works, in all the Founding Father’s glory....so have a little respect.

Romney has the GOP nomination. It will not be Sarah. I doubt Sarah even runs, and we all know that President Obama would love it if she does (because he can beat her.)

Mitt is going to carve up his opponents in the first debate. When Mitt debates Michelle Bachman, sadly Mitt is probably going to embarrass her the way he did McCain and Huckabee. Mitt's ability to separate healthcare mandates at the state level vs the federal level is starting to make sense to anyone who reads the US Constitution.

McCain got the nod in 2008 because of name recognition. McCain never won a debate. Romney won them all. That said, McCain edged Romney the same way Ford edged Reagan in the GOP primaries in 1976, his name. Now, Romney has the name. He will win the GOP (and he will be elected President.)

Jungle Rat wrote:

yes a response like that is much easier than typing your own thoughts or even reading someone else's

My thoughts won't change anything. Neither will yours.

Palin is horrible. Bush is horrible. Obama is horrible. McCain would have been horrible. Biden is horrible.

There has to be better choices than the ones I listed above.

AlabamAlum wrote:Palin is horrible. Bush is horrible. Obama is horrible. McCain would have been horrible. Biden is horrible.

There has to be better choices than the ones I listed above.

The only thing that matters is how many of the true moderates in this country that voted for President Obama back in 2008, would be willing to switch and vote for the GOP candidate in 2012. I'd argue that the true moderates do NOT like Palin, but they are probably pretty impressed with Mitt Romney's credentials (even if they are very quiet about impressions.)

McCain lost because McCain lacked the three main things moderates look for in voting for the GOP candidate for President: #1) a basic fundamental knowledge about the free market economy and how government can help goose it along to make sure everyone in this country that wants a meaningful job (not that WPA bullshit) has one #2) an understanding of the US Constitution and why it is so important and most importantly #3) an ability to communicate what you believe in and WHY what you believe in is so important! McCain scored an F in all three of these categories in 2008. Palin gets an F for #1, a D for #2, and incomplete for #3 since all she can do is "wink and nod" when asked what she believes. Sarah Palin is smart enough to know one thing, that she doesn't know anything. So instead of debating other GOP candidates, she MUST go on a bus tour and tell people what someone who is smarter than her, wrote. That said, Romney scores an A in all three of these categories that are vital to moderates who look at the GOP candidate. The things/qualities that moderates look for in the Democrat candidates (that they would be willing to vote for) are substantially different.

If you want the GOP to win the election, best vote for Romney in the primary. Remember, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford back in 1976 because of name recognition and it cost the GOP and the country dearly. Interesting how history sometimes repeats itself.

McCain lost because...

1) Many Republicans did not like him before he ran. He was very unpopular and seen as an appeaser for much of his career as a senator.

2) Palin was his running mate. He needed a strong Veep candidiate and he did not have it.

3) He is not charismatic.

4) He is older and has some health issues which intensified the strength of point #2 above.

5) Many were unhappy with W and when things go poorly in a country, the first instinct is to go with the party opposite.

I marred some but after reading what I did, it seems to me that no one expects much from a Dem president. Not even the Dems. But a Republican one is a different story.

I think the kill ratio, arab to American was a lot better under W. Other than that....

10ac wrote:I marred some but after reading what I did, it seems to me that no one expects much from a Dem president. Not even the Dems. But a Republican one is a different story.

I think the kill ratio, arab to American was a lot better under W. Other than that....

Hello 10ac.

Good to read you again.