When I have more time, I'll comment on the President in relation to Romney on the motive and character issue; but, you're making an unjustified assumption in what you wrote, above.
Yes V, I was being presumptive. I did not see anything in your posts that would have indicated otherwise so I made an assumption.
When I look at the two candidates, I see two men who seem to have high moral standards in their personal lives, with stable families and supportive wives. Both have degrees from distinguished universities. Both verge on reserve in their manner and style of communication. Both have achieved distinction in politics by rising to high political office. Both have passed landmark health care reform legislation, with Romney distinguished for being the first, and Obama for achieving it on a national scale. Where I see a difference is in what they chose to do earlier in their lives, before they became the public figures we know today. Obama's choice of becoming a community organizer is often scoffed at, but what a community! He chose challenging work in a tough place, aimed at improving the lives of others who, if they caught the vision, might benefit in the ways he had, from believing in themselves, just a little. It's in what he gave up to make that choice that character is revealed. He was a black, honors graduate of a prestigious law school, urbane and charming. He could have named his price at any of dozens of the best law firms in the country, but he didn't.... Romney's choice was a bit easier to understand, but doesn't reveal as much about his character. He chose a field which offerred virtually unlimited riches if he had the combination of cleverness and luck that great success would require, and he succeeded. The goal of his company was to make money, plain and simple, and it did, on grand scale, ultimately utilizing every tool available to achieve that goal, and nothing else, with complex bookkeepping and offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. As President, Obama has maintained a style true to his nature of listening well, reflecting, and taking on the complex problems the country faces, succeeding where he could. Mitt Romney has, as yet, not said much about his plans. Whatever his true merits as a future leader of the country may be, he hasn't given the voters a chance to know what he will do, if he gets a chance to lead. Many voters try to make this a single issue campaign- budget and taxes- and Romney has chosen to ride that wave; but, the country faces a much broader range of problems than that, chief of which is the chance of getting sucked into another middle east war. This alone, makes it imperative that Romney act now to establish trust. He has chosen not to try to do that. I think it could cost him the election.
V, your view of the two candidates and mine are very, very different. In Obama I see a man who has lived off the public dole all his life. His "job" of community organizer was just a step for his lofty goals. He has never had a private sector job in his entire life. He cut his teeth in the quagmire of Chicago politics. I believe Chicago has the record for the most indictments and convictions of City Council members in the US. Oh, and the State of Illinois also has the record for the most governors convicted of corruption and sentenced to prison. All of this is the background of Mr. Obama. To add to Obama's resume of character we have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama attended the raving Wright's church for 20 years and yet he was shocked to find out that Wright was a white hating nut case. If Wright had been white he would have been wearing the sheets of the KKK as his robe. Sorry, but that doesn't bode well on the character front. To add to that legacy we have a Treasury Secretary who does not pay taxes and his Health and Welfare nominee was a man who was a paid lobbyist for the health insurance industry. A rather dubious track record for the character of the man in the White House. Obama really didn't need a career in law as his wife was making hundreds of thousands of dollars by serving on various Boards throughout the Chicago area. When political influence can be translated into cash it seems like Michelle Obama was right there. Remember she is the lady who said that only when her husband was nominated for the Presidency was she "proud to be an American." Apparently she was ashamed to be an American prior to that. I'm sure that the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money that she has spent on extravagant vacations for herself and her family must make her even more proud to be an American now. Now let's look at Obama's record. He made many lofty promises when he was nominated. Which of those promises has he kept? I think getting the troops our of Iraq is the only one I think he kept. So Obama says that it is all George Bush's fault. Interesting when you consider that Bush had a Congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for his last two years in office. Pelosi and Reid created much of the mess that became the end of the Bush years. That fact seems to get lost in the media translation of history and events. Now if you look at Romney you see a man who can lead and who has a track record of success. Your characterization of Romney as a man who used "complex bookkeeping and off shore accounts to avoid paying taxes" is totally inaccurate. Off shore accounts do not avoid taxes. Actually working off shore does avoid US taxes, as I'm sure you are aware. It is ironic that you portray Romney's success as being an easy path when I believe you once cited the statistic that something like 95% of all start up businesses fail in the first five years. Anyone who has owned or started a business can tell you that it isn't easy and it is downright frightening at times. Do I agree with what some of Romney's ideas are? No, I don't. I think we need tax increases, but we also need to cut spending. Neither candidate wants that or has professed a Desire to make those choices. Both candidates are pandering to their bases. In Obama I see a man who wants us to be another France with social programs galore that are nothing but vote buying. With Romney I see a man who has a track record of accomplishing his goals and giving us a chance to return to a better day. You cited Obama's health care law as being a wonderful piece of legislation. What Obama didn't tell you is that 75% of the cost of that program will be borne by the Middle Class. That makes his lifesaving of the Middle Class akin to throwing them an anchor as they drown in government programs. Many major and minor companies are contemplating dropping their health insurance when Obamacare hits fully in 2014. What will happen to our healthcare then? I think the choice is pretty clear. A failed President who is way over his head in a job he was never qualified to have or a successful businessman who has different ideas than to just throw taxpayer money at problems and making them worse.
Twin, Send me your address and I'll get you this shirt. You need an outlet dude. Why aren't you running for president? You seem to have all the answers and you're probably way more qualified than President Obama.
Slore, thanks for the offer, but I don't feel that Obama is the fault of everything. I think he is just in way over his head. You mentioned running for office. Well, I would admit that the thought has crossed my mind at various times but I couldn't do it for some basic reasons. 1. I'm not wealthy and if you aren't wealthy then you are faced with the second reason. 2. Honesty. If someone is honest then they really can't make it in politics because if you aren't wealthy then you have to sell your soul to the highest bidder and that would never cut in it in my life. 3. This forum. Imagine a candidate that runs for office that has (gasp!) gone to a resort where the women are topless. Can you see the headlines now? And that resort even has (double gasp!!!) swingers at it. Incompetence is acceptable but skin or what some may construe as sin isn't. Remember Anthony Weiner, the Congressman who sent pictures of himself in his underwear to some woman. If memory serves me correctly he had served in Congress for 14 years and never once introduced one piece of legislation. His incompetence couldn't get him bumped out of office, but his undies sure sent him packing. As I have said before, stupidity is a condition, but ignorance is a choice and many American voters choose ignorance.
Slore, I don't think it's Obama's fault or even Bush's fault......it's OUR fault. We vote for or against people when we have no idea what they stand for or what they really have accomplished. Congress has something like a 14% approval rating, but most of Congress will get re-elected by a public that votes on labels and false promises. It's sad, but the problems of today are our own making.
I don't think it's at all safe to make predictions about how elections will turn out, and I'm not making any about this one, but my sense of it is that possible victory is slowly slipping away from the Romney/Ryan team. Confusion now swirls around the Romney/Ryan team about what they are really for, and what they will do in office, and their refusal to lay it out prevents them from clearing up that confusion. Where there is confusion, there will be a lack of trust, and without establishing trust they probably cannot be elected.
V, you make a very good point. I think that Romney/Ryan have failed to lay out a definitive plan and that hurts them immensely. Obama may very well establish some more firsts....first President to be re-elected with 8%+ unemployment and the first President to be re-elected while running up massive deficits. It is early in the process and there is still much that can happen over the next few months, but Obama may be the new "Teflon President" which was the tag that the media placed on Reagan because no matter what he did wrong, the voting public ignored it. There is one facet of this election that I find very disturbing. The media is now starting to brand anyone who opposes Obama as being a racist. Are there people that won't vote for Obama because of his race? Absolutely, but there are a lot more people who seem to be voting for him because of his race. For some reason the media seems to gloss over the reverse racism that is very prevalent.
For many of the reasons mentioned in this thread, Romney's poll numbers have begun to slide, it seems. There were his comments over the events in the middle east which seemed, to put it mildly, "unpresidential"; but, I think he's really done it with his latest, in which he was asked what he considered to be "middle income". His answer was "family income of something between $200,000 and $250,000 USD". I don't know how many of you readers have family income exceeding $250,000 annually, but IRS says it's just 2% of the population. I don't know what is middle income about that, it's not even middle between most of us, and him. Those who are laboring at just above $50,000 median family income level, which is the average, are going to find themselves imagining what life could be like for that elusive 2% of population Romney calls middle income.... This could do it for him in terms of ever connecting with the millions of true, "middle income" voters.
