The Next Administration

[Rinata]

1. It has become a waste of time to discuss whether or not Obama can/will win.
He is more burned than Edgar Winter on an Ecuadoran beach.

a. Even Democrats are scorching him. "Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., announced his retirement from Congress this afternoon -- and he issued a scathing parting shot at President Obama's track record on his way out." Announcing Retirement, Dem Congressman Bashes Obama - Hotline On Call

b. His poll numbers are down with every constituent group.

c. Think he can come back? Two words: Unemployment, Debt.

R.I.P.

2. Oscar Wilde: “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”

a. There is a very good chance the Republicans will controll the Executive, and the Legislative. Good? Are you happy with the current results of such a monopoly?

b. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

c. The worst spending periods were those with one party in charge: 1967 and 1968, LBJ and the Democrats, spending increased 11.6% a year. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

d. The largest average decrease came in 1955 and 1956, with spending decreasing an average 4.2% a year. Eisenhower was President, with Democrats in charge in Congress. Ibid.

3. The good news? If the Republicans keep their promises, they should have at least eight years....and a couple of supreme court justices.

a. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Oh, come now!!! You actually think that somebody from that motley group of GOP losers can beat Obama??? We'll just see, won't we??

Remember when I asked you how long before you removed his pic from your avi?

I see you threw him under the bus.


Most appropriate thing you've done.
So...which Republican are you going to honor in that spot?

I had his picture in my avi for a long time. Just because I changed it does not mean I threw him under the bus!!! Where do you get your logic??? The people closest to you must have a lot of fun trying to deal with your expectations.

 

[Utilitarian]

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not Obama will be re-elected.

I don't see it mattering that much. His largest funder is Wall Street, and whoever the GOP runs will be bought by them too.

So while a few policies will differ between the parties, the system itself is largely subject to the whims of corporate interests. Don't expect much of a change from a Republican administration. We didn't get much of one from a Democratic one either.

 

[toxicmedia]

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not Obama will be re-elected.

I don't see it mattering that much. His largest funder is Wall Street, and whoever the GOP runs will be bought by them too.

So while a few policies will differ between the parties, the system itself is largely subject to the whims of corporate interests. Don't expect much of a change from a Republican administration. We didn't get much of one from a Democratic one either.

Hear hear!!

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing there, really.

I can only apply the appropriate: Jerk.

Yes, I am to people who have it coming.

The magic carpet ride for the Pizza Man is coming to an end.... hope you enjoyed it. Everyone is starting to see him for what he is.

This, from a self-admitted jerk.

Some people have to actually be practical. All I saw in Cain was another rich guy whining about how much the rich pay in taxes, which isn't up there on my list of important issues...

He's done. Stick a fork in him.

 

[JoeB131]

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not Obama will be re-elected.

I don't see it mattering that much. His largest funder is Wall Street, and whoever the GOP runs will be bought by them too.

So while a few policies will differ between the parties, the system itself is largely subject to the whims of corporate interests. Don't expect much of a change from a Republican administration. We didn't get much of one from a Democratic one either.

I think that there's truth to that. But they aren't stronger than the group. How many corporations have gone down the tubes in recent years despite all their power and money because they lost their reputation? So it's a balancing act. They subtly manipulate, but they know that there's lines they can't cross.

 

[Londoner]

The next administration is going the realize that they no longer have the policy tools to fix demand, i.e., the middle class consumer - the engine of the economy - has been killed by 30 years of supply side economics which cut middle class support in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.

(We were told that supply side economics would spread the money down to the mass consumer, but it didn't. The unprecedented surplus on top got channeled away from Main Street into the new Financialization economy, i.e., speculative games that create massive asset bubbles, making industry insiders rich before exploding over the economy. The new Financialization economy invests in bubbles because the middle class lacks the wages to warrant investment in the real economy. In short, when the mass consumer no longer makes sufficient income to consume, there are no investment opportunities in the REAL economy; therefore, the owners of capital must invent a fictitious speculative market to absorb the surplus investment capital)

Here is Reality.

1) America has a mass-consumption economy which requires high levels of middle class purchasing power

2) Purchasing power doesn't come from the low wages endorsed by supply side economics, it came more from extra-market mechanisms like tax policy and government programs which made middle class life affordable. This meant the consumer had more money, which money incentivized job creation (because when there is more money in middle class wallets, business does everything possible to capture it).

3) The policies which sustained middle class purchasing power are gone, and, like the middle class, they are not coming back.

4) National Security (war) is the only thing left to get people into the voting booth.

The next Republican administration will use war to govern. Watch and learn my children. When a small group of people take over the country, they always govern through fear. Trust me. The Romney administration will govern through color coded terror warnings. They will move the economy off the front page so the people can't see what has been done to them. Oldest trick in the book. The war on terrorism is coming back ... on steroids.

(the only thing that created job growth over the last 30 years has been the expansion of credit. The government gave the middle class fictitious purchasing power, therefore the capitalist added jobs. That's over: we cannot return to debt based consumption (because the middle class is too broke to borrow) or wage based consumption (because capital requires lower labor costs) or consumption stimulated through extra-market mechanisms (because capital has used talk radio to convince us that anything done for the middle class is socialism). The game is therefore over. Thank god American capital has mobility. It doesn't need the American consumer. It can go to which ever region has enough fictitious credit to consume)

 

[Foxfyre]

The next administration is going the realize that they no longer have the policy tools to fix demand, i.e., the middle class consumer - the engine of the economy - has been killed by 30 years of supply side economics which cut middle class support in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.

(We were told that supply side economics would spread the money down to the mass consumer, but it didn't. The unprecedented surplus on top got channeled away from Main Street into the new Financialization economy, i.e., speculative games that create massive asset bubbles, making industry insiders rich before exploding over the economy. The new Financialization economy invests in bubbles because the middle class lacks the wages to warrant investment in the real economy. In short, when the mass consumer no longer makes sufficient income to consume, there are no investment opportunities in the REAL economy; therefore, the owners of capital must invent a fictitious speculative market to absorb the surplus investment capital)

Here is Reality.

1) America has a mass-consumption economy which requires high levels of middle class purchasing power

2) Purchasing power doesn't come from the low wages endorsed by supply side economics, it came more from extra-market mechanisms like tax policy and government programs which made middle class life affordable. This meant the consumer had more money, which money incentivized job creation (because when there is more money in middle class wallets, business does everything possible to capture it).

3) The policies which sustained middle class purchasing power are gone, and, like the middle class, they are not coming back.

4) National Security (war) is the only thing left to get people into the voting booth.

The next Republican administration will use war to govern. Watch and learn my children. When a small group of people take over the country, they always govern through fear. Trust me. The Romney administration will govern through color coded terror warnings. They will move the economy off the front page so the people can't see what has been done to them. Oldest trick in the book. The war on terrorism is coming back ... on steroids.

(the only thing that created job growth over the last 30 years has been the expansion of credit. The government gave the middle class fictitious purchasing power, therefore the capitalist added jobs. That's over: we cannot return to debt based consumption (because the middle class is too broke to borrow) or wage based consumption (because capital requires lower labor costs) or consumption stimulated through extra-market mechanisms (because capital has used talk radio to convince us that anything done for the middle class is socialism). The game is therefore over. Thank god American capital has mobility. It doesn't need the American consumer. It can go to which ever region has enough fictitious credit to consume)

The Founders initiated a brand new concept, tax policy, and principle of government in the late 18th century that ushered in sustained prosperity, innovation, creativity, and productivity for approximately 150 years or so that the world had never known.

It has only been an ever more invasive encroachment of government on our society that has been racheting down that prosperity, innovation, creativity, and productivity and limiting opportunity and initiative for all. Most have that has come from what Mr. T (on another thread) accurately identified as the Stockholm Syndrome as people became more and more conditioned to give up personal liberties in favor of more big brother government.

I don't have so pessimistic point of view as you seem to have, however, and consider 'never' to be a really big word. I believe if we can again teach our people the principle of self goernment and wind the federal government back to be what it was originally intended to be, that we will again see the prosperity, innovation, creativity, and productivity that we once knew.

 

[candycorn]

1. It has become a waste of time to discuss whether or not Obama can/will win.
He is more burned than Edgar Winter on an Ecuadoran beach.

a. Even Democrats are scorching him. "Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., announced his retirement from Congress this afternoon -- and he issued a scathing parting shot at President Obama's track record on his way out." Announcing Retirement, Dem Congressman Bashes Obama - Hotline On Call

b. His poll numbers are down with every constituent group.

c. Think he can come back? Two words: Unemployment, Debt.

R.I.P.

2. Oscar Wilde: “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”

a. There is a very good chance the Republicans will controll the Executive, and the Legislative. Good? Are you happy with the current results of such a monopoly?

b. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

c. The worst spending periods were those with one party in charge: 1967 and 1968, LBJ and the Democrats, spending increased 11.6% a year. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

d. The largest average decrease came in 1955 and 1956, with spending decreasing an average 4.2% a year. Eisenhower was President, with Democrats in charge in Congress. Ibid.

3. The good news? If the Republicans keep their promises, they should have at least eight years....and a couple of supreme court justices.

a. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Another genius conservative....

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. It has become a waste of time to discuss whether or not Obama can/will win.
He is more burned than Edgar Winter on an Ecuadoran beach.

a. Even Democrats are scorching him. "Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., announced his retirement from Congress this afternoon -- and he issued a scathing parting shot at President Obama's track record on his way out." Announcing Retirement, Dem Congressman Bashes Obama - Hotline On Call

b. His poll numbers are down with every constituent group.

c. Think he can come back? Two words: Unemployment, Debt.

R.I.P.

2. Oscar Wilde: “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”

a. There is a very good chance the Republicans will controll the Executive, and the Legislative. Good? Are you happy with the current results of such a monopoly?

b. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

c. The worst spending periods were those with one party in charge: 1967 and 1968, LBJ and the Democrats, spending increased 11.6% a year. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

d. The largest average decrease came in 1955 and 1956, with spending decreasing an average 4.2% a year. Eisenhower was President, with Democrats in charge in Congress. Ibid.

3. The good news? If the Republicans keep their promises, they should have at least eight years....and a couple of supreme court justices.

a. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Another genius conservative....

Sadly, I must admit that I could never have conceived of there being 60 million Americans as dense as you are.


I fervently hope that at some time in the near future you are blessed with the insight to realize what a terrible mistake you have made.


That being said, if you request same, I will send a rep based on your having been able to sniff out the scent of decline, decay and death that I couldn't.

 

[Mad Scientist]

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Another genius conservative....

Yep, it looks like the worst did happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Another genius conservative....

Yep, it looks like the worst did happen.

Yes it did. And it did because Romney simply could not overcome the most negative and visciously dishonest campaign in my memory PLUS a media that was determined to paint Obama in the best possible light while making sure that Romney was not given any ability to get his message out and who made sure he was consistently painted in the worst possible light.

And it is a near certainty that the majority of those 60 million Americans (mostly American anyway) who voted for Obama are among the 50+% of Americans who look to the federal government for some or all of their income and/or for free stuff. And as that number grows, those who finance it become more and more weary and less willing to do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another genius conservative....

Yep, it looks like the worst did happen.

Yes it did. And it did because Romney simply could not overcome the most negative and visciously dishonest campaign in my memory PLUS a media that was determined to paint Obama in the best possible light while making sure that Romney was not given any ability to get his message out and who made sure he was consistently painted in the worst possible light.

And it is a near certainty that the majority of those 60 million Americans (mostly American anyway) who voted for Obama are among the 50+% of Americans who look to the federal government for some or all of their income and/or for free stuff. And as that number grows, those who finance it become more and more weary and less willing to do so.

A local talk-show host, Jeffrey Lichtman, a life-long Democrat who voted against Obama, related a story about his twin eight-year-olds. After school recently, he was talking to them about the election...and asked who they thought he should vote for.

"President Obama!!"

"Why?"

"'Cause if Romney wins, he will take away our toys and our X-Box!!!"


That's what they learned in school.

It's "class-warfare, penalize the greedy rich" 24-7.

The result is the OWS and the poster at #183.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right out of the Alinsky play book, PC, and certainly the talking points encouraged by the teacher's union.

We have four years of experience with Obama, but even that wasn't enough to compete with the constant campaign ads and the opportunity media provided for people to tell us again and again and again:

- That Romney would take us to war
- That Romney would take away our Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare.
- That Romney would take away union rights.
- That Romney would take away school lunches and Head Start programs.
- That Romney would take away women's contraceptives and right to have an abortion
- That Romney would deport all the illegals
- That Romney would require welfare recipients to work at doing something
- That Romney would kill Big Bird
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government jobs
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government contracts
- That Romney would throw environmental concerns out the window

And all that would be accomplished in the brief periods that he takes time off from making himself rich by firing thousands of people and shipping jobs overseas or from killing cancer patients or from pushing Granny off the cliff in a wheelchair.

 

[JoeB131]

Right out of the Alinsky play book, PC, and certainly the talking points encouraged by the teacher's union.

We have four years of experience with Obama, but even that wasn't enough to compete with the constant campaign ads and the opportunity media provided for people to tell us again and again and again:

- That Romney would take us to war
- That Romney would take away our Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare.
- That Romney would take away union rights.
- That Romney would take away school lunches and Head Start programs.
- That Romney would take away women's contraceptives and right to have an abortion
- That Romney would deport all the illegals
- That Romney would require welfare recipients to work at doing something
- That Romney would kill Big Bird
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government jobs
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government contracts
- That Romney would throw environmental concerns out the window

And all that would be accomplished in the brief periods that he takes time off from making himself rich by firing thousands of people and shipping jobs overseas or from killing cancer patients or from pushing Granny off the cliff in a wheelchair.

But here's the undelying problem... Romney didn't have a counter to these arguments.

Well, maybe he did, in that he ran Massachusetts as a moderate and even came up with the program that was the model for ObamaCare. But he couldn't talk about any of that. Because if he did, he wouldn't have gotten the nomination to start with.

Romney's own rhetoric re-inforced the negative image of him. No one made him make the "47%" comments. No one made him say "I like to be able to fire people". No one made him say his plan was to make illegals "Self-Deport". He did that all on his own. He picked Paul Ryan. He didn't denounce Limbaugh when Limbaugh called Fluke a "Slut".

in short, he aspired to be a leader, and failed to act like one.

The claims stuck because he fertilized the ground to let them grow.

As opposed to Obama, who was a Socialist, Communist, marxist Keynans who was out to placate the terrorists, and in your own little Faux News bubble, a lot of you believed that.

But the rest of us saw a guy who saved Wall Street, Saved the Auto Industry, Killed Bin Laden, and implemented a private sector health care program you all praised under its original title... (Romneycare).

 

[Foxfyre]

He countered every one of them Joe. But those who wanted Obama weren't listening and didn't believe him anyway. Only Fox News broadcast most of both Obama and Romney's presentations. Only Fox News and conservative talk radio gave Romney's agenda a fair hearing. Everybody else got only bits and pieces accompanied by huge blocks of time given to people saying how he had no plan, no new ideas, no workable concepts, nothing to offer but a return to the disastrous policies before Obama. And Obama was getting little or no criticism of any kind and anything that could at all be perceived as negative was accompanied by something positive to soften the hard edges.

And unfortunately Fox News and conservative talk radio simply doesn't have a large enough audience to counter that.

 

[Shelzin]

Right out of the Alinsky play book, PC, and certainly the talking points encouraged by the teacher's union.

We have four years of experience with Obama, but even that wasn't enough to compete with the constant campaign ads and the opportunity media provided for people to tell us again and again and again:

- That Romney would take us to war
- That Romney would take away our Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare.
- That Romney would take away union rights.
- That Romney would take away school lunches and Head Start programs.
- That Romney would take away women's contraceptives and right to have an abortion
- That Romney would deport all the illegals
- That Romney would require welfare recipients to work at doing something
- That Romney would kill Big Bird
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government jobs
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government contracts
- That Romney would throw environmental concerns out the window

And all that would be accomplished in the brief periods that he takes time off from making himself rich by firing thousands of people and shipping jobs overseas or from killing cancer patients or from pushing Granny off the cliff in a wheelchair.

But here's the undelying problem... Romney didn't have a counter to these arguments.

Well, maybe he did, in that he ran Massachusetts as a moderate and even came up with the program that was the model for ObamaCare. But he couldn't talk about any of that. Because if he did, he wouldn't have gotten the nomination to start with.

Romney's own rhetoric re-inforced the negative image of him. No one made him make the "47%" comments. No one made him say "I like to be able to fire people". No one made him say his plan was to make illegals "Self-Deport". He did that all on his own. He picked Paul Ryan. He didn't denounce Limbaugh when Limbaugh called Fluke a "Slut".

in short, he aspired to be a leader, and failed to act like one.

The claims stuck because he fertilized the ground to let them grow.

As opposed to Obama, who was a Socialist, Communist, marxist Keynans who was out to placate the terrorists, and in your own little Faux News bubble, a lot of you believed that.

Damn good argument.

But the rest of us saw a guy who saved Wall Street,

Whoa... Hang on there.. I certainly didn't see that.

Saved the Auto Industry,

No he didn't. He did make sure that status quo was upheld though.

Killed Bin Laden,

True enough.

and implemented a private sector health care program you all praised under its original title... (Romneycare).

Uhh... No. While I do believe a state has the right to do so and the federal government does not... I sure as hell would fight tooth and nail to make sure it didn't get in place in my home state. Not Obama or Romney care.

 

[Plasmaball]

Right out of the Alinsky play book, PC, and certainly the talking points encouraged by the teacher's union.

We have four years of experience with Obama, but even that wasn't enough to compete with the constant campaign ads and the opportunity media provided for people to tell us again and again and again:

- That Romney would take us to war
- That Romney would take away our Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare.
- That Romney would take away union rights.
- That Romney would take away school lunches and Head Start programs.
- That Romney would take away women's contraceptives and right to have an abortion
- That Romney would deport all the illegals
- That Romney would require welfare recipients to work at doing something
- That Romney would kill Big Bird
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government jobs
- That Romney would eliminate a lot of government contracts
- That Romney would throw environmental concerns out the window

And all that would be accomplished in the brief periods that he takes time off from making himself rich by firing thousands of people and shipping jobs overseas or from killing cancer patients or from pushing Granny off the cliff in a wheelchair.

1) See Iran/syria
2) this one is harder because he flipped quite alot on this issue.
3)sure see Wisconsin.
4)stripping away the DOE could lead to that, but im not sure he would.....seeing how he touted about Mass schooling.
5)sure, see ryan, akin, North Carolina etc as evidence.
6)nah he wouldnt.
7) It was stupid of him to say big bird, women didnt like that.
8)Well if he was to cut a lot of programs then yes people would loose their jobs.
9)contracts like what?
10) eh, getting rid of the EPA doesnt help.

Odd its hard for you to imagine he could do all this, but Obama has destroyed this nation in the 4 short years he has been in office.
Odd again because that reminds me of "death panels" yourside constantly loves to drag up with Obamacare.

Now tell me why i am supposed to take you seriously based off this post i responded to?

 

[Plasmaball]

He countered every one of them Joe. But those who wanted Obama weren't listening and didn't believe him anyway. Only Fox News broadcast most of both Obama and Romney's presentations. Only Fox News and conservative talk radio gave Romney's agenda a fair hearing. Everybody else got only bits and pieces accompanied by huge blocks of time given to people saying how he had no plan, no new ideas, no workable concepts, nothing to offer but a return to the disastrous policies before Obama. And Obama was getting little or no criticism of any kind and anything that could at all be perceived as negative was accompanied by something positive to soften the hard edges.

And unfortunately Fox News and conservative talk radio simply doesn't have a large enough audience to counter that.

I watched all three debates. HE HAD NO PLAN. Nothing and Ryan didnt help his cause by deflecting. All they said was they had a 5 point plan and they never got to the meat of the plan.

Furthermore are you fucking retarded?Fox news and conservative media only gave out Romney's message? Look if you are too stupid to go out and research each person running and make your mind up, then you shouldnt be voting. You shouldnt go off what Fox or Cnn plays for you.

The idea that you think the media is at fault when they ALL are in bed with government is a fucking joke.

 

[JoeB131]

He countered every one of them Joe. But those who wanted Obama weren't listening and didn't believe him anyway. Only Fox News broadcast most of both Obama and Romney's presentations. Only Fox News and conservative talk radio gave Romney's agenda a fair hearing. Everybody else got only bits and pieces accompanied by huge blocks of time given to people saying how he had no plan, no new ideas, no workable concepts, nothing to offer but a return to the disastrous policies before Obama. And Obama was getting little or no criticism of any kind and anything that could at all be perceived as negative was accompanied by something positive to soften the hard edges.

And unfortunately Fox News and conservative talk radio simply doesn't have a large enough audience to counter that.

Yes, blame the media.

That always works. If people just knew what a swell guy ROmney was, he would have won.


Romney got less votes than McCain did, and the right hated McCain. He got 4 million less votes than Bush 43 did. Are you really saying that Bush was able to talk over the media noise machine and Romney wasn't?

No, Romney just sucked as a candidate. Period. And most of the Damage he did he did to himself, whether it be "I like to Fire people" or "the 47% are moochers".

 

[PoliticalChic]

He countered every one of them Joe. But those who wanted Obama weren't listening and didn't believe him anyway. Only Fox News broadcast most of both Obama and Romney's presentations. Only Fox News and conservative talk radio gave Romney's agenda a fair hearing. Everybody else got only bits and pieces accompanied by huge blocks of time given to people saying how he had no plan, no new ideas, no workable concepts, nothing to offer but a return to the disastrous policies before Obama. And Obama was getting little or no criticism of any kind and anything that could at all be perceived as negative was accompanied by something positive to soften the hard edges.

And unfortunately Fox News and conservative talk radio simply doesn't have a large enough audience to counter that.

Yes, blame the media.

That always works. If people just knew what a swell guy ROmney was, he would have won.


Romney got less votes than McCain did, and the right hated McCain. He got 4 million less votes than Bush 43 did. Are you really saying that Bush was able to talk over the media noise machine and Romney wasn't?

No, Romney just sucked as a candidate. Period. And most of the Damage he did he did to himself, whether it be "I like to Fire people" or "the 47% are moochers".

"Romney just sucked as a candidate."

Herein lies a major problem: the inability of the less astute voter to distinguish between a candidate's demeanor, or bank account, or religion, and documented failure of the incumbent to successfully carry out the duties of his office.


The governor had a track record far superior to the failure in the White House....yet a supposed adult offers this erudite analysis: "Romney just sucked as a candidate."


A perusal of Erroneous Joe's posts leads one to the conclusion that the IQ points in the world remain fixed, and must be divided by an ever-increasing population.