Why DON'T they like Romney?

[Gregg]

In any event, i'm starting to think that the composition of Congress may be more important to our future than the Presidency next time around.

Agreed. In my mind one of the longest lasting imprints of the next administration could be the make-up of the Supreme Court. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all in their 70's. It's not far fetched to think that at least a couple of them, and maybe all four, would consider retirement or face health issues sometime in the next five years. If Mr. Obama wins reelection there is a slim possibility that he could end up appointing a majority of the sitting SC Justices (having already appointed Sotomayor and Kagan). Even if the Republicans control both houses of congress after the elections, and that certainly isn't a given, that thought makes me a little uncomfortable.

[creaker]

"Everyone's President" has spent the past few years blaming scapegoats ranging from the previous administration to Congress to "millionaires and billionaires" for his problems, and his opposition is "divisive? I don't buy it.

For me the choice will be anyone who can beat Obama. Right now, Romney's a bit ahead of the president in the polls, and Gingrich a few points behind. Neither is my ideal choice, but either is preferable to Obama.

To be fair, Obama came into office under less than ideal circumstances. That said, he really hasn't strayed that far off the path of the previous administration, which has been a real disappointment for me.

[peggy]

"Everyone's President" has spent the past few years blaming scapegoats ranging from the previous administration to Congress to "millionaires and billionaires" for his problems, and his opposition is "divisive? I don't buy it.

For me the choice will be anyone who can beat Obama. Right now, Romney's a bit ahead of the president in the polls, and Gingrich a few points behind. Neither is my ideal choice, but either is preferable to Obama.

Fact is, when he came into office, the damage had been already done. It wasn't in fact his 'problem' as in created by him. The previous administration DID cause it. That's important to remember when so many with really short term memories want to return to the very same policies that got us here in the first place! And it wasn't all that long ago people! I remember!
He isn't really blaming the rich. I'm sure he has plenty of rich friends. It's actually those policies of the last administration, which benefited the wealthy, that did us in. That coupled with a totally unnecessary and unfunded war cause by, the last administration. But, Obama, being the grown up, has taken on these problems and made them his own. But you really can't fault the guy for reminding us just who caused these problems. Again, important to remember.

Obama has not failed. In fact, he has succeeded in pulling us from the brink of a free fall set up by the last administration. The auto industry alone, was a save worth his years in office. Just think how ingrained the auto industry is in our country/economy. From the big auto makers in Detroit to the gas station on the corner, and all the big and small businesses in between, if the auto industry had failed, we would be in such a huge depression, it would be hard to recover. Think about the steel industry in this country. Pretty non existent isn't it. Once an industry is lost and foreign companies step in to fill the void, it is all but impossible to gear up and bring it back.
Although I'm sure the republicans would have just LOVED to say he was the President who lost the auto industry, they won't be able to do that. Of course, what's not mentioned is that they were willing to sacrifice the auto industry just so they could do that. Just like they are willing to completely ignore a successful health care program (complete with government mandate) set up by one of their own simply because the democrats want this.

Nope, I'm sticking with Obama, because he has been a success, and that pisses off the republicans the most.

[Gregg]

Macroeconomic trends can take years or even decades to play out. The Clinton boom years were in large part set up by Reagan policies. The tech bubble inflated under Clinton and burst under Bush. The housing bubble had been inflating since the early 80's, hit overdrive under Bush and burst under Obama. Regardless of who wins the election the US needs to take a longer term approach to solving our problems or we will be in dire straights.

[Alan]

A President's job is to inspire people, to be a cheerleader and a motivator. There's not anyone in the fold right now who does that for me, and I don't think it's in Romney's DNA to fill that role effectively, so, I don't think it has much to do with people not liking him. And, other than a few progressive sorts here, I've never known anyone to even bring up his religion so I don't buy that angle at all.

That said, if he's the Republican candidate, I'll take him over the other guy. He's at least had much more practical experience in the real world.

[LDAHL]

Macroeconomic trends can take years or even decades to play out. The Clinton boom years were in large part set up by Reagan policies. The tech bubble inflated under Clinton and burst under Bush. The housing bubble had been inflating since the early 80's, hit overdrive under Bush and burst under Obama. Regardless of who wins the election the US needs to take a longer term approach to solving our problems or we will be in dire straights.

I agree. For a President to claim he "saved" the economy with an avalanche of pork strikes me a bit like a shaman claiming he kept the moon from swallowing the sun during the last eclipse.

[LDAHL]

A President's job is to inspire people, to be a cheerleader and a motivator. There's not anyone in the fold right now who does that for me, and I don't think it's in Romney's DNA to fill that role effectively, so, I don't think it has much to do with people not liking him. And, other than a few progressive sorts here, I've never known anyone to even bring up his religion so I don't buy that angle at all.

That said, if he's the Republican candidate, I'll take him over the other guy. He's at least had much more practical experience in the real world.

Sort of makes you realize how special Reagan was, doesn't it?

[Alan]

Sort of makes you realize how special Reagan was, doesn't it?

Yes it does!

I would love to have someone who displays the strength of their convictions and the fortitude to remain on course for the long haul. I think there are a few young politicians who could fit the mold given a little more experience, and can only hope our current leadership doesn't screw up too much while we wait for the populace to recognize them.

[peggy]

Yes it does!

I would love to have someone who displays the strength of their convictions and the fortitude to remain on course for the long haul. I think there are a few young politicians who could fit the mold given a little more experience, and can only hope our current leadership doesn't screw up too much while we wait for the populace to recognize them.

Yea, too bad he didn't know squat about economics. Trickle down doesn't trickle down. Kind of like feeding the birds by giving the corn to the cows. You know what the birds got!

[Alan]

Yea, too bad he didn't know squat about economics. Trickle down doesn't trickle down. Kind of like feeding the birds by giving the corn to the cows. You know what the birds got!

20 years of prosperity?