Why Obama Will Win

[Sundial]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

 

[Staidhup]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

I guess by your observation concerning a Harvard education sums up the current President to a T. If the big 0 gets reelected, it will prove once and for all that ignorance and lack of common sense trumps reality. Romney is by no means a Reagan, period end of sentence. Sad isn't it, but four more years of this constant stream of crap is asking too much!

 

[The Rabbi]

Why elect an Obama clone when you can have the real thing?

You're just butt hurt because Romney sews up the nomination today.

 

[The Rabbi]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

Other than running against the worst president to date in a lousy economy, having served as popular governors, having had extensive experience outside of government, nothing.
You know nothing about Romney you haven't learned from listening to DNC talking points.
Romney is very capable with a record for turning things around and thinking outside the box.

 

[Vidi]

1. The polls. Obama's maintained a consistent lead over Romney, on average, since - well, since they started keeping track of it it.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

2. The electoral college. If you consider WI and Penn blue states - which I think is fair - Obama is within a FL-sized margin of victory. In other words, he could lose NM, Nev, Iowa, NH, Ohio, Colorado, NC, and Virginia, and still win. Romney needs to to hit a hard eight. He needs to nearly sweep the swing states to win.

3. Romney's Etch-A-Sketch problem. Who is Romney besides a rich guy with good hair who really wants to be president? What does he stand for?

4. The economy. The economy's going to continue to improve and the one issue Republicans had pinned their hopes on will become less and less important. When Republicans are the only ones trash-talking the economy, people will see what they're doing for what it is.

1. Carter manitained a constistent lead over Reagan until the dbeates where Reagan made him look stupid.

2. Wisconsin is becoming more and more of a Red State. You cant count on an Obama victory there.

3. Only hardcores worry about the flip flop problem. The majority of Americans have been too busy making ends meet to even care about the primaries. When they decide to look at the candidates, Romneys position will have already been stated and he'll stick to it in the last few months of the campaign, thus nullifying the etch a sketch statement.

4. The economy is getting better but not fast enough. Housing prices are still slumped and only getting worse. 1 out of three homes are still underwater. And will be looking for someone to tell then they can fix their problems. Romney will say it, even if he cant do it, and that will swing some his way.

Dont for a minute think this election is sewn up. I hope Obama wins, but it can go either way. If its President Romney, I wint be happy but I also wont be surprised.

I predict it will be a very very very close election, provided there isnt some scandal between now and then.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why elect an Obama clone when you can have the real thing?

You're just butt hurt because Romney sews up the nomination today.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

No. I compared the 1980 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle. But as long as we're on the subject of Reagan, Obama is the polar opposite of Reagan. If you're implicitly giving Reagan props then you are either indicting Obama or showing your lack of understanding of politics/economics or both.

And I care that Romney was born rich why?

You think Romney doesn't care about the poor? For the longest time, he apparently visited the sick and afflicted once a week. He wasn't paid any sort of money for his two year church mission.

Why should I care that Romney makes $10K bets? Last I checked this is America and I value freedom to be successful and spend/invest money the way one wants.

As for the two sides of the issue; I can only think of two issues in which he has shifted (and I agreed with both shifts). I can think of dozens of campaign promises that Obama has violated though.

 

[Sundial]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

I guess by your observation concerning a Harvard education sums up the current President to a T. If the big 0 gets reelected, it will prove once and for all that ignorance and lack of common sense trumps reality. Romney is by no means a Reagan, period end of sentence. Sad isn't it, but four more years of this constant stream of crap is asking too much!

There's nothing wrong with going to Harvard. There is something wrong with attacking your opponent for being out of touch for spending too much time there when you spent more time there than he did.

QUOTE:
Speaking at his Pennsylvania campaign headquarters this morning, Mitt Romney attacked President Obama as out of touch for spending too much time at Harvard, where the president went to law school. “We have a president, who I think is is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps,” Romney said.

 

[Vidi]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

No. I compared the 1980 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle. But as long as we're on the subject of Reagan, Obama is the polar opposite of Reagan. If you're implicitly giving Reagan props then you are either indicting Obama or showing your lack of understanding of politics/economics or both.

And I care that Romney was born rich why?

You think Romney doesn't care about the poor? For the longest time, he apparently visited the sick and afflicted once a week. He wasn't paid any sort of money for his two year church mission.

Why should I care that Romney makes $10K bets? Last I checked this is America and I value freedom to be successful and spend/invest money the way one wants.

As for the two sides of the issue; I can only think of two issues in which he has shifted (and I agreed with both shifts). I can think of dozens of campaign promises that Obama has violated though.

I dont necessarily agree that the election cycles are the same but I can see some comparisons that would hold value. Also, both Romney and Reagan had good hair.

Romney being born rich IS a factor, I think, in that it places him at a disadvantage when trying to relate to "regular folks" ie the nascar owners statement.

Romney made a verbal error when he said he didnt care about the very poor. Thats going to be used against him. Though he ibviously didnt mean it the way it came out and has been soundbyted.

10k bets from a Mormon? Whos religion expressly forbids gambling? It says something about the mans character.

Dozens? Oh please do tell. As far as Romney flip flops? ONLY TWO???

Theres an entire website dedicated to his flip flops. Hard to do that with just two...

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops

heres a few just for you:

'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'
'I did not see it with my own eyes.'

'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.'
'I never really called myself pro-choice.'

this one cracks me up

'This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.'
'They're not happy that my dog loves fresh air.'

Top Romney Flip-Flops

Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."


In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, he said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

FLIP: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms," Romney said. (Glenn And Helen Show, GLENNANDHELENSHOW.COM, 1/10/07)


FLOP: "Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned a gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah, and he uses them ‘from time to time.’” (Scott Helman, “Romney Retreats On Gun Control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)



Read more: 14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain - Business Insider

 

[Sundial]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

Other than running against the worst president to date in a lousy economy, having served as popular governors, having had extensive experience outside of government, nothing.
You know nothing about Romney you haven't learned from listening to DNC talking points.
Romney is very capable with a record for turning things around and thinking outside the box.

I was pretty young when Carter lost, but what I remember most is those helicopters crashing in the desert. Obama's copters didn't crash - he got his man. And Obamas presiding over a recovery from a financial crisis that happened on the watch of his predecessor. Carter wasn't so lucky.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

I read the second alleged flip flop and I stopped reading:

'I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.' [1]
'There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.'

That's not a flip flop. Those are two entirely different statements. As usual libs have to make up lies.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

The Mormon religion does not forbid gambling. Though they do counsel against it. It's not a tenet of their faith though. Now that you know that are you going to keep running with that false chestnut?

 

[Vidi]

^^^

The Mormon religion does not forbid gambling. Though they do counsel against it. It's not a tenet of their faith though. Now that you know that are you going to keep running with that false chestnut?

Gambling | What Mormons Believe:

The Mormon Church has always opposed gambling in every form, including government-sponsored lotteries.


Mormon prophets and leaders have counseled the members over time, to avoid gambling of any type. Doing so, leads one away from righteousness and into the hands of Satan. The Mormon belief is that it is an addictive behavior and leads only to destructive habits and practices. It undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing. In time, the gambler will deny themselves, as well as their family the basic needs of life. They will oft times steal from others to finance their addiction, which in turn leads to stealing, robbery, etc.

Mormons do believe that they shouldn't participate or encourage others to gamble

“The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form whatever. It is opposed to any game of chance, occupation, or so-called business, which takes money from the person who may be possessed of it without giving value received in return. It is opposed to all practices the tendency of which is to encourage the spirit of reckless speculation, and particularly to that which tends to degrade or weaken the high moral standard which the members of the Church, and our community at large, have always maintained. We therefore advise and urge all members of the Church to refrain from participation in any activity which is contrary to the view herein set forth.”

Latter-day Saint opposition to gambling is rooted in key theological principles.

Since gambling is founded upon the “desire to get something of value for little or nothing,” it cultivates within us a spirit which opposes the divine ability to work for that which we desire. Also, gambling is “destructive of the finer sensitivities of the soul”

All About Mormons:* Gambling

I think the Mormons might disagree with you.

 

[Vidi]

^^^

I read the second alleged flip flop and I stopped reading:

'I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.' [1]
'There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.'

That's not a flip flop. Those are two entirely different statements. As usual libs have to make up lies.

and I didnt quote that one, did I?

Care to comment on ALL the others as well? Or is that ONE enough for you to discount ALL the rest?

 

[mudwhistle]

Romney also lost to McCain.

If Romney had beat McCain Romney would have beaten Obama.

 

[IndependntLogic]

1. The polls. Obama's maintained a consistent lead over Romney, on average, since - well, since they started keeping track of it it.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

2. The electoral college. If you consider WI and Penn blue states - which I think is fair - Obama is within a FL-sized margin of victory. In other words, he could lose NM, Nev, Iowa, NH, Ohio, Colorado, NC, and Virginia, and still win. Romney needs to to hit a hard eight. He needs to nearly sweep the swing states to win.

3. Romney's Etch-A-Sketch problem. Who is Romney besides a rich guy with good hair who really wants to be president? What does he stand for?

4. The economy. The economy's going to continue to improve and the one issue Republicans had pinned their hopes on will become less and less important. When Republicans are the only ones trash-talking the economy, people will see what they're doing for what it is.

This one is going to be really close. REAL close. I love the people who claim landslides by either candidate. Although I'm not voting for Romney because of his positions on GLB and Dodd-Frank, I don't think most people are even familiar with them. Other than that, I don't see them as being that much different. Obama is more consistent and has kept far more promises than I imagined he would but that's not going to get him votes.
Romney and Obama are almost the same in a lot of policy areas. Niether is going to reduce the deficit significantly until they consider drastic cuts in Defense - which neither is willing to do.
The economy is improving and unemployment is down. This doesn't help Obama with anyone other than those who already like him. But it is not improving as fast as people had hoped and unemployment is not down as far as people wanted. That helps Romney a little bit.
Romney gets the overwhelming majority of white men and women over 50, the military and the majority of those making over $500K a year.
Obama gets blacks, latinos (except Cubans), the majority of women under 50, gays and still holds a 20 point lead with those under 30.

Romney actually had a one point lead on Real Clear Politics, for one day. Then Boehner announced he's going to do battle over the debt ceiling again. Romney has not caught up to Obama since. Oops! WTF was Boehner and the GOP thinking? Oh well.

However, the reason I think Obama will win has more to do with how consistently he has polled in battleground states. Obama hs been clearly ahead in Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, Penn, WI etc... Florida is anyone's guess.
So in the states that will decide the election, Obama is either tied or clearly ahead. My predicitons are below

 

[The Rabbi]

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

Other than running against the worst president to date in a lousy economy, having served as popular governors, having had extensive experience outside of government, nothing.
You know nothing about Romney you haven't learned from listening to DNC talking points.
Romney is very capable with a record for turning things around and thinking outside the box.

I was pretty young when Carter lost, but what I remember most is those helicopters crashing in the desert. Obama's copters didn't crash - he got his man. And Obamas presiding over a recovery from a financial crisis that happened on the watch of his predecessor. Carter wasn't so lucky.

1980 was the first election I voted in, so I remember it pretty well.
Desert 1 was the least of Carter's problems. IT was the economy, stupid. Obama has been presiding over a supposed recovery, fueled by over a trillion dollars spent, that has failed by every measure. It is the slowest recovery on record, and we are still dipping into a recession again. Some people feel we never got out ofit. Housing prices are still dreadful, after 3 years and who knows how many homeowner bailouts.
The fact that Obama's message is Romney is a rich guy rather than touting all he did tells you how awful Obama is. He is the worst president since Idi Amin.

 

[Stephanie]

The debates will end any of Robmoneys chances

the debates will end Romney...
hope Obama gets how many states we have right or learn by then how to pronounce Corpsman..

 

[Sundial]

I enjoyed the OP. I generally enjoy liberal desperation.

1. Polls are fun to look at, but they're not givens. Reagan was (supposedly) down by 8 points in October. He won the election by ten points. I see something shades of 1980 on the horizon. Romney will win and he will win comfortably.

2. --

3. That's just a cop-out, not knowing enough about Romney. We know plenty and your guy, Obama won on platitudes in 08. But when it came time to perform he only violated promise after promise. He's an abysmal failure. Contrast that with Romney's successful past and I think Americans will be willing to put their faith in Romney.

4. Improvement in the economy would help Obama. I think we've been hearing it would improve for how long now? And considering that the global economy is pretty f'd right now, I don't know where you're thinking you'll get improvement.

Also, apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't agree with you. They were Obama's second biggest donors in 2008. They've shifted to Romney.

You're comparing Romney to Reagan? What do they have in common, other than being politicians?

I think we know plenty about Romney. He was born rich, and he's got two degrees from Harvard. When he needed help with his homework, he called his dad, who was Secretary of Interior, or HUD, or something. He doesn't care about the poor, he makes $10k bets on a whim, and he's on record as being on - at least - two sides of every issue. He's an insider. He's part of the establishment - who happens to be Mormon - and he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. What else is there to know?

No. I compared the 1980 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle. But as long as we're on the subject of Reagan, Obama is the polar opposite of Reagan. If you're implicitly giving Reagan props then you are either indicting Obama or showing your lack of understanding of politics/economics or both.

And I care that Romney was born rich why?

You think Romney doesn't care about the poor? For the longest time, he apparently visited the sick and afflicted once a week. He wasn't paid any sort of money for his two year church mission.

Why should I care that Romney makes $10K bets? Last I checked this is America and I value freedom to be successful and spend/invest money the way one wants.

As for the two sides of the issue; I can only think of two issues in which he has shifted (and I agreed with both shifts). I can think of dozens of campaign promises that Obama has violated though.

The point about Romney is that he's a man who stands for nothing, and who'll say anything to win. The other point is that he's someone who's had an easy life. He's never been tested. He's the kind of guy who beats up on fags when he was in prep school. Who's never had to worry - really worry - about how to provide for his family. Who says things like kids should take chances... Like borrowing money from their parents. Who tries to relate to voters by mentioning his wife drives two cadilacs and he has friends who own sports teams. He's out of touch and out of place. He's an alien, as far as ordinary working people are concerned.

That's why all his so-called gaffes ring out. They speak to what kind of man he is.

 

[The Rabbi]

As opposed to Obama who had his college paid by...well, we don't really know, do we?