Candidates weakness

[007]

Since it is now safe to say we know who will be running in the general election I have question for both the right and the left what do you think will be your candidates biggest weakness in the Presidential election? Just to be clear I said your candidates biggest weakness not the oppositions I think Romney's will be the healthcare law he signed as Governor.

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

All people have to do is ask themselves..."am I better off now than I was before obama took office? The answer for anyone is no. obama is an utter failure. He wanted/wants to turn American into a socialist nation, and that just won't work. The only people left that will vote for obama again will be idiots that know little to nothing about current events and politics, and those who want something for nothing. The job job creators, industrialist and individualists that start businesses want nothing to do with him and his Czars, his hundreds of new job and business crushing regulations, they all see that what this radical socialist in the White House has done to America is damn right anti American, and those people have WIVES, and some are single women that are also out there trying to achieve the American dream, only to see that the obama administration is making it all but impossible for them. obama will lose in November big. The people that put him there, the swing voters, the ones that voted for him the last time but now realize they were LIED to by him, they won't vote for him again. His flim flam, him hay bull shit won't walk twice.

 

[Artevelde]

Since it is now safe to say we know who will be running in the general election I have question for both the right and the left what do you think will be your candidates biggest weakness in the Presidential election? Just to be clear I said your candidates biggest weakness not the oppositions I think Romney's will be the healthcare law he signed as Governor.

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

All people have to do is ask themselves..."am I better off now than I was before obama took office? The answer for anyone is no. obama is an utter failure. He wanted/wants to turn American into a socialist nation, and that just won't work. The only people left that will vote for obama again will be idiots that know little to nothing about current events and politics, and those who want something for nothing. The job job creators, industrialist and
individualists that start businesses want nothing to do with him and his Czars, his hundreds of new job and business creating crushing regulations, they all see that what this radical socialist in the White House has done to America is damn right anti American, and those people have WIVES, and some are single women that are also out there trying to achieve the American dream, only to see that the obama administration is making it all but impossible for them. obama will lose in November big. The people that put him there, the swing voters, the ones that realize they were LIED to by him, they won't vote for him again. His flim flam, him hay bull shit won't walk twice.

While I can understand criticism of Obama for being too interventionist, too liberal (in the US sense of the word), or some such thing, the idea that he is trying to turn the US into a "socialist nation" is so far-fetched and ludicrous that it undermines your credibility.

 

[007]

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

All people have to do is ask themselves..."am I better off now than I was before obama took office? The answer for anyone is no. obama is an utter failure. He wanted/wants to turn American into a socialist nation, and that just won't work. The only people left that will vote for obama again will be idiots that know little to nothing about current events and politics, and those who want something for nothing. The job job creators, industrialist and
individualists that start businesses want nothing to do with him and his Czars, his hundreds of new job and business creating crushing regulations, they all see that what this radical socialist in the White House has done to America is damn right anti American, and those people have WIVES, and some are single women that are also out there trying to achieve the American dream, only to see that the obama administration is making it all but impossible for them. obama will lose in November big. The people that put him there, the swing voters, the ones that realize they were LIED to by him, they won't vote for him again. His flim flam, him hay bull shit won't walk twice.

While I can understand criticism of Obama for being too interventionist, too liberal (in the US sense of the word), or some such thing, the idea that he is trying to turn the US into a "socialist nation" is so far-fetched and ludicrous that it undermines your credibility.

Nice try, but that is exactly what he's trying to do. It's got nothing to do with my credibility. It's a fact.

Try again?

 

[Artevelde]

All people have to do is ask themselves..."am I better off now than I was before obama took office? The answer for anyone is no. obama is an utter failure. He wanted/wants to turn American into a socialist nation, and that just won't work. The only people left that will vote for obama again will be idiots that know little to nothing about current events and politics, and those who want something for nothing. The job job creators, industrialist and
individualists that start businesses want nothing to do with him and his Czars, his hundreds of new job and business creating crushing regulations, they all see that what this radical socialist in the White House has done to America is damn right anti American, and those people have WIVES, and some are single women that are also out there trying to achieve the American dream, only to see that the obama administration is making it all but impossible for them. obama will lose in November big. The people that put him there, the swing voters, the ones that realize they were LIED to by him, they won't vote for him again. His flim flam, him hay bull shit won't walk twice.

While I can understand criticism of Obama for being too interventionist, too liberal (in the US sense of the word), or some such thing, the idea that he is trying to turn the US into a "socialist nation" is so far-fetched and ludicrous that it undermines your credibility.

Nice try, but that is exactly what he's trying to do. It's got nothing to do with my credibility. It's a fact.

Try again?

There's no point in arguing with people who confuse empty rhetoric with facts.

 

[007]

While I can understand criticism of Obama for being too interventionist, too liberal (in the US sense of the word), or some such thing, the idea that he is trying to turn the US into a "socialist nation" is so far-fetched and ludicrous that it undermines your credibility.

Nice try, but that is exactly what he's trying to do. It's got nothing to do with my credibility. It's a fact.

Try again?

There's no point in arguing with people who confuse empty rhetoric with facts.

And there's no point arguing with a troll that hasn't presented any facts to begin with.

 

[Interpol]

Since it is now safe to say we know who will be running in the general election I have question for both the right and the left what do you think will be your candidates biggest weakness in the Presidential election? Just to be clear I said your candidates biggest weakness not the oppositions I think Romney's will be the healthcare law he signed as Governor.

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

You make some valid points.
I'm struggling to come up with the "foreign policy successes" of President Obama that you are referring to. Refresh my mind?

Well, let's speak as political strategists for a moment.

If I'm Romney's strategist, I'm worried that calling Obama "weak on defense" will come back to bite us in the ass because when tens of millions of people watch the first debate and cement their minds as to what they think of both candidates, allowing for Obama to be able to comeback with, "Ask Osama Bin Laden if I'm weak on defense" would be a defining moment against my guy. I think it's a knock-out punch, potentially.

You have to hit Obama on the economy. Hit him where he's weak. All of us agree with OBL getting eaten by fishes, so it's like serving a batting-practice fastball right over the heart of the plate that would allow Obama to park a grand slam in that first debate and throughout the fall.

Gaddafi being dead is another highlight. Look, I think we should use our military at times. I'm not a dove, but I'm also a deficit hawk so that means we should use it wisely, and if you put up 9 years, 4000 Americans dead, a couple trillion bucks for 1 dead guy in Iraq and you compare it with 8 months, $1 billion, no Americans dead for 1 dead American-killing dude in Libya, to me that's another success.

For me personally, I had more confidence in domestic-Obama than in foreign policy-Obama 4 years ago. Now it's different. I find that his strength is foreign policy while his domestic policy is open to be pounded away on.

Anyone who oversees the assassination of two of our enemies deserves kudos, whether they've got a (R) or a (D) next to their names, so why serve up a fat pitch down the middle by trying to poke him on something that doesn't fit this time? I know it doesn't fit the usual narrative, and that Republicans tend to always win on foreign policy arguments, but I think it's a lot trickier this time.

 

[007]

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

You make some valid points.
I'm struggling to come up with the "foreign policy successes" of President Obama that you are referring to. Refresh my mind?

Well, let's speak as political strategists for a moment.

If I'm Romney's strategist, I'm worried that calling Obama "weak on defense" will come back to bite us in the ass because when tens of millions of people watch the first debate and cement their minds as to what they think of both candidates, allowing for Obama to be able to comeback with, "Ask Osama Bin Laden if I'm weak on defense" would be a defining moment against my guy. I think it's a knock-out punch, potentially.

You have to hit Obama on the economy. Hit him where he's weak. All of us agree with OBL getting eaten by fishes, so it's like serving a batting-practice fastball right over the heart of the plate that would allow Obama to park a grand slam in that first debate and throughout the fall.

Gaddafi being dead is another highlight. Look, I think we should use our military at times. I'm not a dove, but I'm also a deficit hawk so that means we should use it wisely, and if you put up 9 years, 4000 Americans dead, a couple trillion bucks for 1 dead guy in Iraq and you compare it with 8 months, $1 billion, no Americans dead for 1 dead American-killing dude in Libya, to me that's another success.

For me personally, I had more confidence in domestic-Obama than in foreign policy-Obama 4 years ago. Now it's different. I find that his strength is foreign policy while his domestic policy is open to be pounded away on.

Anyone who oversees the assassination of two of our enemies deserves kudos, whether they've got a (R) or a (D) next to their names, so why serve up a fat pitch down the middle by trying to poke him on something that doesn't fit this time? I know it doesn't fit the usual narrative, and that Republicans tend to always win on foreign policy arguments, but I think it's a lot trickier this time.

I see "obama... obama... obama"... without ONCE giving credit where credit is DUE, and that's our MILITARY!

You want to rephrase that obama ass kissing post now?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Since it is now safe to say we know who will be running in the general election I have question for both the right and the left what do you think will be your candidates biggest weakness in the Presidential election? Just to be clear I said your candidates biggest weakness not the oppositions I think Romney's will be the healthcare law he signed as Governor.

It is the Mormon card, I believe, and his background and track record. It may well come back to haunt him in ways it may be too late to address or fix.

Robert

 

[LoneLaugher]

Interpol and Artevelde..........thanks for trying.

Pale Rider.........you lose.

 

[Interpol]

You make some valid points.
I'm struggling to come up with the "foreign policy successes" of President Obama that you are referring to. Refresh my mind?

Well, let's speak as political strategists for a moment.

If I'm Romney's strategist, I'm worried that calling Obama "weak on defense" will come back to bite us in the ass because when tens of millions of people watch the first debate and cement their minds as to what they think of both candidates, allowing for Obama to be able to comeback with, "Ask Osama Bin Laden if I'm weak on defense" would be a defining moment against my guy. I think it's a knock-out punch, potentially.

You have to hit Obama on the economy. Hit him where he's weak. All of us agree with OBL getting eaten by fishes, so it's like serving a batting-practice fastball right over the heart of the plate that would allow Obama to park a grand slam in that first debate and throughout the fall.

Gaddafi being dead is another highlight. Look, I think we should use our military at times. I'm not a dove, but I'm also a deficit hawk so that means we should use it wisely, and if you put up 9 years, 4000 Americans dead, a couple trillion bucks for 1 dead guy in Iraq and you compare it with 8 months, $1 billion, no Americans dead for 1 dead American-killing dude in Libya, to me that's another success.

For me personally, I had more confidence in domestic-Obama than in foreign policy-Obama 4 years ago. Now it's different. I find that his strength is foreign policy while his domestic policy is open to be pounded away on.

Anyone who oversees the assassination of two of our enemies deserves kudos, whether they've got a (R) or a (D) next to their names, so why serve up a fat pitch down the middle by trying to poke him on something that doesn't fit this time? I know it doesn't fit the usual narrative, and that Republicans tend to always win on foreign policy arguments, but I think it's a lot trickier this time.

I see "obama... obama... obama"... without ONCE giving credit where credit is DUE, and that's our MILITARY!

You want to rephrase that obama ass kissing post now?

I don't believe I'm kissing Obama's ass by giving him credit for overseeing the two successful missions.

I'm talking about political strategy here, not about who gets credit for what. And from a political standpoint, I think it's tricky to try to win over moderate folks with the argument that this President is weak on defense.

When the mission in Lebanon went bad with the bombing of our soldiers there, President Reagan took responsibility and the country did not blame the military for the attack against them.

When the mission in Somalia failed, I don't remember anyone except the President taking the heat for that one.

The buck stops with the President, and this one is fortunate to have two pretty nice successes on the back of his trading card.

You have to admit that if you were President, you'd prolly feel pretty good that you oversaw the taking down of Bin Laden and Gaddafi.

 

[007]

Well, let's speak as political strategists for a moment.

If I'm Romney's strategist, I'm worried that calling Obama "weak on defense" will come back to bite us in the ass because when tens of millions of people watch the first debate and cement their minds as to what they think of both candidates, allowing for Obama to be able to comeback with, "Ask Osama Bin Laden if I'm weak on defense" would be a defining moment against my guy. I think it's a knock-out punch, potentially.

You have to hit Obama on the economy. Hit him where he's weak. All of us agree with OBL getting eaten by fishes, so it's like serving a batting-practice fastball right over the heart of the plate that would allow Obama to park a grand slam in that first debate and throughout the fall.

Gaddafi being dead is another highlight. Look, I think we should use our military at times. I'm not a dove, but I'm also a deficit hawk so that means we should use it wisely, and if you put up 9 years, 4000 Americans dead, a couple trillion bucks for 1 dead guy in Iraq and you compare it with 8 months, $1 billion, no Americans dead for 1 dead American-killing dude in Libya, to me that's another success.

For me personally, I had more confidence in domestic-Obama than in foreign policy-Obama 4 years ago. Now it's different. I find that his strength is foreign policy while his domestic policy is open to be pounded away on.

Anyone who oversees the assassination of two of our enemies deserves kudos, whether they've got a (R) or a (D) next to their names, so why serve up a fat pitch down the middle by trying to poke him on something that doesn't fit this time? I know it doesn't fit the usual narrative, and that Republicans tend to always win on foreign policy arguments, but I think it's a lot trickier this time.

I see "obama... obama... obama"... without ONCE giving credit where credit is DUE, and that's our MILITARY!

You want to rephrase that obama ass kissing post now?

I don't believe I'm kissing Obama's ass by giving him credit for overseeing the two successful missions.

I'm talking about political strategy here, not about who gets credit for what. And from a political standpoint, I think it's tricky to try to win over moderate folks with the argument that this President is weak on defense.

When the mission in Lebanon went bad with the bombing of our soldiers there, President Reagan took responsibility and the country did not blame the military for the attack against them.

When the mission in Somalia failed, I don't remember anyone except the President taking the heat for that one.

The buck stops with the President, and this one is fortunate to have two pretty nice successes on the back of his trading card.

You have to admit that if you were President, you'd prolly feel pretty good that you oversaw the taking down of Bin Laden and Gaddafi.

You try and speak as though it was obama that orchestrated the military operations, when nothing could be further from the truth. He's a little punk from Chicago and doesn't know diddly squat about black ops or any other sort of military operations for that matter. The military and the military ALONE did what they did. All they needed was permission to do what they did and they had standing permission for YEARS to kill OBL. It had NOTHING to with obama. The sons a ***** just got lucky that the military was able to kill OBL while his pathetic ass is in the White House.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How ya feelin' about now, Interpol? Not much return on that investment, was there?

 

[Interpol]

I see "obama... obama... obama"... without ONCE giving credit where credit is DUE, and that's our MILITARY!

You want to rephrase that obama ass kissing post now?

I don't believe I'm kissing Obama's ass by giving him credit for overseeing the two successful missions.

I'm talking about political strategy here, not about who gets credit for what. And from a political standpoint, I think it's tricky to try to win over moderate folks with the argument that this President is weak on defense.

When the mission in Lebanon went bad with the bombing of our soldiers there, President Reagan took responsibility and the country did not blame the military for the attack against them.

When the mission in Somalia failed, I don't remember anyone except the President taking the heat for that one.

The buck stops with the President, and this one is fortunate to have two pretty nice successes on the back of his trading card.

You have to admit that if you were President, you'd prolly feel pretty good that you oversaw the taking down of Bin Laden and Gaddafi.

You try and speak as though it was obama that orchestrated the military operations, when nothing could be further from the truth. He's a little punk from Chicago and doesn't know diddly squat about black ops or any other sort military operations for that matter. The military and the military ALONE did what they did. All they needed was permission to do what they did and they had standing permission for DECADES to kill OBL. It had NOTHING to with obama. The sons a ***** just got lucky that the military was able to kill OBL while his pathetic ass is in the White House.

Look, you obviously have strong feelings about Obama.

I'm fairly laid back.

He was presented with three options, correct me if I'm wrong: 1) Drone the ************, 2) Give Pakistan the info on his whereabouts and ask them to arrest him, 3) Send the SEALS.

Apparently many advisors from the beginning said that they should do 1) Drone the ************. No American lives would be at risk and the payoff would be huge, but you wouldn't be able to collect any information from the compound.

A few people said to get Pakistan to arrest him. Obama was said to be totally against that and for nixing that idea first, I have to give the guy some credit because I feel like that's something Jimmy Carter would have done. Ask them nicely to arrest Bin Laden? I mean, what a wuss move that would have been!!!

You have stronger feelings about Obama than I do, and I just keep getting slapped by folks on a team I used to belong to.

Just because I don't hate the President doesn't mean I'm kissing his ass for admitting that he made a series of good choices on getting Bin Laden.

He took some flack from some advisers for going through a plan that the SEALS and the CIA said would be prolonged and probably would take months to enact. When former SEALS and former CIA people say that the President made the toughest of the 3 choices, I'd have to say I agree with them.

I just think Obama can be beat on things other than stuff where he can use Bin Laden to his favor, but that point seems to be getting lost on you.

 

[Interpol]

How ya feelin' about now, Interpol? Not much return on that investment, was there?

I don't follow.

What investment are you talking about?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your time and earnest effort in this thread.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Had Bush been the one to kill bin Laden, the righties would STILL be boasting about it. Pounding their chests, shouting "USA! USA! USA!", giving him all the credit, never letting anyone forget it.

But Obama, he just lucky.

Okay, sure.

.

 

[Artevelde]

I love politics, but I've never felt an allegiance to any party.

I think that presently, the current company that kind of dominates the Republican party has alienated a voter like me somewhat with a very rigid stance in policy.

I think the President's biggest problem is that when the economy crashes, it actually takes awhile for the pain of that to spread to everybody that might be effected by it, and we're coming off 3, almost 4 pretty tough years.

Manufacturing in America went away this past decade and with it a lot of jobs with workers who were within 10 years of retiring and were more prone to having a little less education than what's required of people today.

You add that up and that makes for a depression among those folks, and you look at Detroit and places in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere and the average guy out there really got bit. Then, after the men get bit, the women lose their jobs last when you think of waitresses and other service-oriented jobs that are populated heavily with women.

It's no mistake that both the Obama and the Romney campaigns over the last 2 weeks have started beating their chests in support of women because 10 million more women voted than men in the last general, and the tough times really bit them last out of all of us in America, which is why their number 1 and 2 issues are jobs and health care.

Those women will decide this election, imho. They aren't especially political people. They don't have extreme positions. They just want to feel like the system is working to make their lives easier.

They only happen to be in the President's corner at the moment because of things like the attacks on Planned Parenthood by deficit hawks and social conservatives.

The President's weakness, still, is the economy. If enough of these women come to believe that Obama's a really handsome man and they really like his personality, but he's just not getting things done, than Mitt Romney can win.

However, Mitt Romney's weakness to this point is his likability among women. Can that be fixed? Of course it can, he needs to pivot and to hammer a singular message that is uplifting and hopeful about the economy and where he wants to take the direction of the country.

Mitt's other weakness is having to constantly modulate himself between trying to win centrists like myself and others while not raising the ire of the large Tea Party block that now seems to run the Republican party.

It's really a fascinating election this time because I think it could very well end up being where a Democrat President pulls out his foreign policy successes to hammer his opponent, the Republican nominee whose only way to win is if he can frame the narrative as one where President Romney doesn't just say pretty things about the economy, President Romney gets results.

You make some valid points.
I'm struggling to come up with the "foreign policy successes" of President Obama that you are referring to. Refresh my mind?

Well, let's speak as political strategists for a moment.

If I'm Romney's strategist, I'm worried that calling Obama "weak on defense" will come back to bite us in the ass because when tens of millions of people watch the first debate and cement their minds as to what they think of both candidates, allowing for Obama to be able to comeback with, "Ask Osama Bin Laden if I'm weak on defense" would be a defining moment against my guy. I think it's a knock-out punch, potentially.

You have to hit Obama on the economy. Hit him where he's weak. All of us agree with OBL getting eaten by fishes, so it's like serving a batting-practice fastball right over the heart of the plate that would allow Obama to park a grand slam in that first debate and throughout the fall.

Gaddafi being dead is another highlight. Look, I think we should use our military at times. I'm not a dove, but I'm also a deficit hawk so that means we should use it wisely, and if you put up 9 years, 4000 Americans dead, a couple trillion bucks for 1 dead guy in Iraq and you compare it with 8 months, $1 billion, no Americans dead for 1 dead American-killing dude in Libya, to me that's another success.

For me personally, I had more confidence in domestic-Obama than in foreign policy-Obama 4 years ago. Now it's different. I find that his strength is foreign policy while his domestic policy is open to be pounded away on.

Anyone who oversees the assassination of two of our enemies deserves kudos, whether they've got a (R) or a (D) next to their names, so why serve up a fat pitch down the middle by trying to poke him on something that doesn't fit this time? I know it doesn't fit the usual narrative, and that Republicans tend to always win on foreign policy arguments, but I think it's a lot trickier this time.

You've got a point on Osama and Khadaffi. Those were quick wins and Obama can take advantage of them. But overaal I don't really see much of a coherent Middle East policy, continuing challenges in Afghanistan, Iran and Korea. Overall I wouldn't say Obama has been a failure on foreign policy, but not really a succes either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since it is now safe to say we know who will be running in the general election I have question for both the right and the left what do you think will be your candidates biggest weakness in the Presidential election? Just to be clear I said your candidates biggest weakness not the oppositions I think Romney's will be the healthcare law he signed as Governor.

I don't consider myself as belonging to either camp so I will have a go at the weaknesses of both major candidates.

For Romney I think the major weakness is much broader than just his health care past. It's basically that it is very unclear whether he has any real solid convictions (other than being pro-business, but that's beyond vague). Aside from that major weakness there are two other important weaknesses for him: he is perceived as out of touch with ordinary people's lives because of his wealth and I think that - although virtually nobody talks about this - his Mormon background will also play against him.

For Obama the main weakness is clearly the fact that he hasn't really delivered very much to match his grand rhetoric.

Zackly.
Romney, like McCain and Dole, dont have an over-arching philosophy of gov't that informs all their decisions. They have basic values but that's about it.
What do you mean no one talls about his Mormon background? SOmetimes its everything but.

 

[007]

I don't believe I'm kissing Obama's ass by giving him credit for overseeing the two successful missions.

I'm talking about political strategy here, not about who gets credit for what. And from a political standpoint, I think it's tricky to try to win over moderate folks with the argument that this President is weak on defense.

When the mission in Lebanon went bad with the bombing of our soldiers there, President Reagan took responsibility and the country did not blame the military for the attack against them.

When the mission in Somalia failed, I don't remember anyone except the President taking the heat for that one.

The buck stops with the President, and this one is fortunate to have two pretty nice successes on the back of his trading card.

You have to admit that if you were President, you'd prolly feel pretty good that you oversaw the taking down of Bin Laden and Gaddafi.

You try and speak as though it was obama that orchestrated the military operations, when nothing could be further from the truth. He's a little punk from Chicago and doesn't know diddly squat about black ops or any other sort military operations for that matter. The military and the military ALONE did what they did. All they needed was permission to do what they did and they had standing permission for DECADES to kill OBL. It had NOTHING to with obama. The sons a ***** just got lucky that the military was able to kill OBL while his pathetic ass is in the White House.

Look, you obviously have strong feelings about Obama.

I'm fairly laid back.

He was presented with three options, correct me if I'm wrong: 1) Drone the ************, 2) Give Pakistan the info on his whereabouts and ask them to arrest him, 3) Send the SEALS.

Apparently many advisors from the beginning said that they should do 1) Drone the ************. No American lives would be at risk and the payoff would be huge, but you wouldn't be able to collect any information from the compound.

A few people said to get Pakistan to arrest him. Obama was said to be totally against that and for nixing that idea first, I have to give the guy some credit because I feel like that's something Jimmy Carter would have done. Ask them nicely to arrest Bin Laden? I mean, what a wuss move that would have been!!!

You have stronger feelings about Obama than I do, and I just keep getting slapped by folks on a team I used to belong to.

Just because I don't hate the President doesn't mean I'm kissing his ass for admitting that he made a series of good choices on getting Bin Laden.

He took some flack from some advisers for going through a plan that the SEALS and the CIA said would be prolonged and probably would take months to enact. When former SEALS and former CIA people say that the President made the toughest of the 3 choices, I'd have to say I agree with them.

I just think Obama can be beat on things other than stuff where he can use Bin Laden to his favor, but that point seems to be getting lost on you.

OK... you "look"... provide proof that obama was the "only" president that had all the options you mentioned, and then I'll give him credit.

The fact of matter is, "AMERICA," meaning "THE MILITARY," had been trying to off OBL LONG BEFORE OBAMA parked his butt in the White House. Now prove that wrong.

He deserves NO CREDIT at all, other than being in the right place at the right time.... like an opportunist.

 

[Artevelde]

What do you mean no one talls about his Mormon background? SOmetimes its everything but.

From what I see and hear it's not being used against him. I expect it will play negatively for some voters though.