Marc Ambinder (January 07, 2008) - Romney's Challenge To Obama

As an Obama supporter, I'm rooting for Romney tomorrow, He's by far the easiest candidate to beat in a the general election.

Posted by Mark, NY | January 7, 2008 10:22 PM

What a douchebag. Obama wrote a memoir, fully half of which describes the changes he effected in the lives of the people of S. Chicago as a community organizer.

Posted by lampwick | January 7, 2008 10:42 PM

I'm supporting Romney because he is a full-spectrum conservative, but mostly because of his fiscal positions. I'm a doctoral student in finance right now (after many years in the private sector). It's refreshing to finally see a candidate that knows something about the nuts and bolts of a capitalist economy. Romney's a grown-up and has the skills (both business and political) to actually bring pragmatic change to Washington.

Posted by Craig Everett | January 7, 2008 10:45 PM

Although a senior campaign aide did admit: "I never thought I would say this, but I am rooting for Obama tomorrow. I didn't say I'm voting for him... just rooting for him."

I don't believe him...

Posted by Tom Enever | January 7, 2008 10:45 PM

Videotaped interrogations seems like a good change to me.

Posted by mad6798j | January 7, 2008 10:52 PM

So he's going to adopt Clinton's strategy of talking about experience and the need to return to an earlier era in American politics. That's worked out great for her so far.

Run with it Mitt!

Posted by Helter | January 7, 2008 11:06 PM

Romney is right! He has actually accomplished change! What has Barack done other than talk? Romney would be a far better president than barck and Romney will get a lot of independent and democratic voters in addition to the republican voters.

I am rooting for Obama tomorrow. He will be the easiest candidate to beat in the GE. No wonder Romney aides are rooting for him.

Posted by SRK | January 7, 2008 11:18 PM

I don't believe him...

I certainly do. If Obama does well with independents tomorrow, that's a bunch of independents not voting for McCain, which helps Romney...we'll see how it goes, but I hope it works out that way. Certainly Romney's people hope it does - I think this is Romney's only chance to win tomorrow.

Posted by John | January 7, 2008 11:19 PM

"big brother, big government and big taxes"

What's funny about that comment from Romney is that Obama has never talked about those sorts of things. He's just talked about ways to help the American people. Romney's playing old politics, and we are seeing that old politics just may be going away. The people are speaking. Obama would bring out a can of whoop-ass on him.

Posted by Kevin | January 7, 2008 11:27 PM

Nice news! Mitt's gonna spike right in time. I think he beats McCain.

Romney matches Obama in the "presence" factor. A big part of why Obama is doing so well is that he looks like he could be a president and people are comfortable imagining him as the president. Mitt meets or beats Obama on that front.

Plus Romney's a true DC outsider and Obama doesn't have an impressive record of accomplishment (Business sucess, groundbreaking Healthcare reform, Olympics turnaround, EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE).

And the ISSUES WILL MATTER (IMMIGRATION, Healthcare --NOT FEDERAL CARE/SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, Terrorism, THE ECONOMY) and Romney is where middle America is on the major issues.

Posted by Jeff Fuller | January 7, 2008 11:35 PM

"What's funny about that comment from Romney is that Obama has never talked about those sorts of things"

It's comments like this that make me certain that Obama is in for a summer swoon in poll numbers. Right now he is just a vessel for every low-information moron to dump whatever beliefs they have into Obama's mouth; as time goes on and people realize just how liberal he really is (and the Republicans start the discreditation machine), this election is going to become a dogfight.

I am a progressive myself, but if Sen Obama had his way there would be a heck of a lot more burueaucrats in Washington, we would be out of Iraq but the savings from that venture would not be put towards the deficit but would be spent on bigger and more intrusivily economic government.

I personally am a fan of the paragraph above. But for all the Centrists and Republicans deluding yourselves - he's not on your team.

Posted by JFD | January 7, 2008 11:40 PM

It doesn't matter who Romney meets in the general. None of them have ever actually done anything. They're all Senators: HC, BO, JE. Talkers all: Never done anything. Never run anything. Never had to actually perform in the real world.

I would kill to see a one-on-one debate between Romney and anyone the Dems can throw at him. He would eat their lunch. Any of them. Notice that the smaller the Republican field gets on stage, the better Romney performs. Look at how he won over virtually the entire focus groups in the last two NH debates. Only four candidates on stage. Once it becomes one-on-one against him, it is over. Game, set, match-Romney!!

Posted by David | January 7, 2008 11:48 PM

Yes, because video tapped interrogations and working as a civil rights lawyer have nothing to do with actually accomplishing change./sarcasm

Where does this guy come off? I mean I know that he is a hugely gigantic jerk, but personally attacking someone with false facts is just politics as usual. Yes Mitt, you stand for change. You stand for change about as much as a war monger stands for peace. Well, I hope Mitt does win the primary, as it would mean an easy win for Obama.

Posted by Maddie | January 7, 2008 11:53 PM

Mitt shouldn't talk about change. Since he started running for president, he's changed opinions on well...everything.

Posted by Mike P | January 7, 2008 11:54 PM

People who call Obama an empty vessel are simply frightened by the possibility of transformational politics. They like it how it is. Fine, good for you.

I'd like to see how it could be-- trust me, it can't get any worse.

And with Obama, we'd actually have a head start America has lacked for 7 years: a President who earned his right to the office through smarts, hard work, and listening to what citizens want.

I'm an Edwards guy, but I love what Obama is doing, and I wish him well.

Mitt Romney is a phoney and a fool.

Posted by Gary | January 8, 2008 12:02 AM

Mitt should have focused on his track record of productive achievements from the very beginning, and not wasted time and messed around by pandering to people who want to legislate morality.

Posted by Jack | January 8, 2008 12:04 AM

I like Obama. But I want MITT for president. I have a law degree, can talk flowers, and am considered something of a sex symbol much like Barack.*

But both Barack and I need someone who can crunch numbers, cut my taxes, handle business with China, give America's moms the tools and schools to rock this great land...so if we know what's good for us Barack and I both vote Romney.

(the truth about the sex symbol part is I'd need a little professional help to realize my potential there, maybe go under the knife, but the potential IS there I'm sayin')

Posted by scoobydoomom | January 8, 2008 12:06 AM

" are simply frightened by the possibility of transformational politics."

"And with Obama, we'd actually have a head start America has lacked for 7 years: "

WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?!?!?!

I feel like the guy Homer Simpsons ran against when he wanted to be elected Springfield's garbage czar.

Patterson: Sorry I'm late, (accusingly to Homer) somebody tampered with my brakes
Homer: Well, then you should have been early
Chief Wiggum: HA! HA! He got you there Ray
...
...
Patterson: I can't believe what I'm hearing.
Homer: Well you better turn up your hearing aid, Pops!
Patterson: Pops? I'm only 2 years older than you.
Homer: Do we want old-man Patterson here with his finger on the button?
Patterson: WHAT BUTTON!? What the hell are you talking about?!
Homer: (mocking) Wha..wha..what button? Where am I? Who took my false teeth?
---------

There is no "there" there in Obama. Everytime I listen to him speak the only word he puts feeling into is "I" - he is a world-class narcissist who has created a political movement based on nothing, attracting a legion of followers with no political core who agree that everything sucks and that the guy with the deep voice who thinks highly of himself above all else can somehow change it.

Really, someone just fucking shoot me.

Posted by JFD | January 8, 2008 12:11 AM

A backer and fellow partyman of George W. Bush, complaining about the prospect of "Big brother" and "Big Government". There's some irony for you.

Maybe he'll call Obama "Osama" a few more times if they ever have a debate. Cause, you know, that's the kind of "grown up" that Mitt is.

Yes, of course, Mitt's only chance to win his neighboring state, a state he vacations in regularly, is if Obama syphons off a large portion of the independents from McCain. And if he were to get the nomination eventually, his only chance would then be to grab those same independents back from Obama, while simultaneously pandering shamelessly, er, I mean persuading the evangelicals not to stay at home. Good luck with that.

Posted by lewp | January 8, 2008 12:16 AM

Your kidding me, right? Obama was a "community organizer" in S. Chicago...that is your comeback for experience??? against the guy who has made muultiple companies into huge enterprises (bain capitol, dominoes, sports authority, staples, etc. etc. etc.) The man who saved the Olympics in 2002, and made them profit??? The man who has run a state government for 4 years, has actually put in use a health care system, cut taxes, brought jobs to the state, etc. etc. etc. Barack Obama WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN S. CHICAGO. wow...i mean seriously...that is real change. My grandpa was a financial analyst for the local news channel, maybe he should run for prez.

Posted by jaaron | January 8, 2008 12:17 AM

And Obama will answer: I have changed politics in America by bringing the American people together. I have changed how the American people view themselves. I have already changed how the world looks at us.

I was part in the recovery of neighborhoods after the local economy collapsed. I brought my conservative and liberal colleagues, white, black and whatever, male and female together when I led the Harvard Law Review.

Mitt Romney is talented guy but he has also been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is the son of a CEO and a governor. That makes it a little easier to go to Harvard, earn hundreds of millions of dollars while laying off American workers. Anybody that Romney ever changed was on his pay roll.

If getting rich is most important to the American people then Mitt Romney will be the next president.

Barack Obama did not go after the money. He acted on the best opportunity to serve his fellow neighbors.

In the process, Obama effected much more lasting change than any CEO. The American people understand that.

That's why Romney lost in Iowa and Obama won. Romney does not have a chance. Management skills are no substitute for self-awareness and message.

And when it comes to campaigning, Obama can outorganize Romney with one arm behind his back. In politics, the people that matter most are not on pay roll. In that environment, Obama's record of change is light years ahead of Romney.

The only Republican that might defeat Barack Obama is John McCain. Anybody else does not have a chance.

Posted by Hellmut | January 8, 2008 12:19 AM

Reading these pro-Obama messages makes my penis hurt. I can't wait until 2009, when all of the ticking time bombs President Bush left behind (trillions and trillions of dollars worth) go off, and we have a goofy, inexperienced president in charge. This is going to be such a clusterfuck. You would think we would have learned after 2000 when we chose a likeable go with little experince.

Posted by Anonymous | January 8, 2008 12:23 AM

It's not about Obama it's about us. What does Romney bring out in us? What does Obama bring out in us? There are also larger policy questions and I think they can duke it out over those questions, but I don't think fixing staples is any more relevant to leading the country than getting ordinary citizens to take control of their neighborhoods.

And the votes are in in dixville notch

mccain 4
romney 2

obama 7
edwards 2
richardson 1

there are 2 registered democrats in dixville notch

Posted by JC | January 8, 2008 12:26 AM

Obama will, literally, kick Gumby's butt.

Romney, as mentioned above, is talented as the day is long, but comes across as genuinely phony. Obama doesn't.

If the two debate each other, Obama will kill him. I say this as a Republican who will vote for Romney because Romney is a conservative.

Were we to nominate McCain, as we may, Obama could be beat, but only just. The campaign will be edifying.

This year, authenticity is everything. You have it or you don't. Mitt don't.

Posted by section9 | January 8, 2008 12:28 AM

I’m going to try to keep this post as brief as possible. I wish people would just google “Obama’s record”, instead of making other people do the work for them, but whatever....

Obama has held elected office for 11 years. Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.

In 2002 Obama spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq, saying he does not oppose all war, just dumb wars, and proceeded to accurately predict the quagmire of Iraq.

Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama’s name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096.

Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs. He has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years. On Obama’s website you can read detailed information regarding his positions on all the current major issues.

Next time, how about you go find the information yourself?

Posted by jds | January 8, 2008 12:29 AM

You see, all you Romney people are missing the point: the guy is a fraud down to his toenails. He has only one firm conviction: he would very much like to be president. His attitude: Don't like my gay rights position? I'll change it! Don't like my respect for abortion rights? I'll change it! The list could go on. The people that know him best, the people of Massachusetts, wouldn't vote for him if he was the nominee, and he knows it. Oh, and by the way--this idiocy about "religion needs freedom and freedom needs religion" is dangerous nonsense. I can show you a lot of religious places in the world that have zero freedom. He was pandering and sucking up to religious fanatics. But then, that's what Willard does best--isn't it?

Posted by J Miller | January 8, 2008 12:31 AM

Point to jds. Nuff said.

Posted by Lizzy L | January 8, 2008 12:33 AM

You people are such froth-mouthed fools.

First up, we have JDS who demonstrates the awesome skill of being able to google. His cut-and-pasted bit regarding Obama's work is bullshit - it uses the word "sponsored" rather than "introduced" because MOST BILLS THAT MAKE IT TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BODIES HAVE DOZENS OF SPONSERS ON EVERY FUCKING BILL.

Go back and research how many bills he introduced in Illinois. Hint: not very many.

Regarding Iraq: wow, a politician representing an inner city rejected the Iraq War. LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING INNER CITY POLITICIAN IN THE COUNTRY. If he had supported it, he would have been dead the next time he ran for the State Senate - and he knew it. This isn't courage asswipe, it's expediency.

The rest is just committee assaignments, basically. Even Barbara Dole has those.

Tell me: in what jds copy-and-pasted, what would give you "hope" that Obama wouldn't have his ass handed to him when talking to Putin, or Chavez, or Jintao, or Assad, or any other of the mean and tough men who rule the nations who are trying to screw us economically, and in our influence in the world?

Do you realy think he'd be able to walk into a meeting with Putin, and not have this ex-KGB man turn this media-created empty vessel into a blubbering fool?

Posted by JFD | January 8, 2008 12:43 AM

jds,
Come now...you know it's much easier for people to keep saying "Obama has no experience because I heard it on the news!" than it is for them to do a little bit of legwork on their own to get some more information.

I fully grant that Mitt has a great deal of professional success in the business sector. But, of course, one doesn't need to have a lot of professional success in the business sector to be a good president. Of course, we could examine the record of our current MBA president too, but that might throw a monkeywrench in some people's arguments (and, yes, I fully know Bush has nothing even close to Mitt's level of private sector success).

And, seriously...the Obama haters keep saying, "What does he mean by 'change'"? I want to know what Mitt means about anything! It used to be conservatives liked Bush because he was sure of himself and he never changed his mind. Now they want a guy who will say WHATEVER IT TAKES to be elected president. The man seemingly has no principals. If Kerry was a flip flipper, you need an entirely new term to describe the gymnastics that Romney does on a almost daily basis. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Posted by Mike P | January 8, 2008 12:47 AM

"Do you realy think he'd be able to walk into a meeting with Putin, and not have this ex-KGB man turn this media-created empty vessel into a blubbering fool?"

I find that pretty funny, considering Romney retorted to a joke the other day by saying "don't mess with the hair". Talk about media hyped empty vessels. Romney is ALL about image. At least he's got that down because the dude sure does lack substance.

Posted by Mike P | January 8, 2008 12:52 AM

Wow Mitt is on fire....great offensive shot and a very fair thing to ask. Especially since I just watched three debates this weekend and I didn't hear Obama talk about his record in the Senate or his life very much.

Plus as someone said earlier, I don't think Obama is offering anything that different than Hillary or John Edwards. From what I've heard Obama, like Hillary and Edwards want more taxes, bigger government and to weaken our military.

Posted by sheryl | January 8, 2008 12:54 AM

It so nice to hear such strong support for that handsome man Mitt Romney. If I were looking for a management consultant in chief, I'd hire him. I think he'd make a great member of a "reinventing government" blue ribbon commission that any one of the many other candidates running for president could appoint him to.

Posted by Tyro | January 8, 2008 12:56 AM

Romney lives in his own world where god has a body and lives near planet kolob.(SEARCH IT) Where his religion is the only true church. Where there are men on the moon that dress like quakers ( according to the prophet and founder of the LDS church, Joseph Smith).In Mitts world men have many wives , like his "prophet Brigham Young did. In Mitts world god changes his mind so I can too. Mitts god is a flip flopper too. Blacks can`t be priests, oh.. wait a minute .. yes they can.Men need to marry many women... "aw crap.. thats a mistake" . American Indians are "filthy and loathsome" (according to the book of Mormon) , uh ... uh.. wait a minute , "lets change our scriptures fellas" . Romney flip flops because his god and his church do. Whats the big deal ? Barack Obama will make Romneys run look like Custers last stand. A wipeout.

Posted by Espo | January 8, 2008 12:59 AM

Please, the anti-Mormon attacks are SO Huckabee Iowa... I hope the nation is desperately trying to put that behind us.

Obama/Wes Clark and Romney/Thompson would be a great runoff.

Posted by Duhwayne | January 8, 2008 1:19 AM

Whats wrong "Duhwayne" ? You know these are facts , they are not anti Mormon, they are simply pro fact. I suggest you look into another faith if the truth gets in the way !

Posted by Espo | January 8, 2008 1:24 AM

sheryl, your country is going broke. Its current president and his political allies in Congress have piled up 40% of all the national debt SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS PRESIDENT. Yes, I know it's horrifying, but the tax cuts for the Upper 1% may have to be rescinded to help get us out of the hole.

You're afraid of big government? You mean the kind that suspends habeas corpus, has given itself the right to tap any phone it wants without a warrant, and has passed a law saying it has the right to declare national martial law? You mean the government that has legalized torture and established secret prisons in eastern Europe? You mean that one? Oh, maybe you mean the kind advocated by conservative Republicans, one that maintains the right to regulate the private lives of everyone in America--birth control, sexual preference, the works. You mean that one?

Weakening the military? How would ANY Democrat do a better job that Emperor Clueless at that?

Give me argument--not "what you've heard".

Posted by J Miller | January 8, 2008 1:42 AM

In referring to the election for US senator between Romeny and Kennedy in 1994, I find it simple minded that Kennedy accused Romney of causing job losses and "getting away with the accusation". Sure people lost their jobs, but if the company does earn profits to survive, EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR JOB!!!!

To make a company prosper, you have to understand the market and your product or services ability to compete in the market. Romney understand that comlexity and the multitude of decisions which need to be included/excluded in order to achieve the objective, not just satisfactorily, but outstanding results. Think - 2002 Olympics!

So yes, Mr. Roemney cut jobs in a floundering company, but how many tens of thousands work in Dominos or how many tens of thousand work in Staples?

Obama and Huckabee expect their tongues to be magic wands. Their precociusiness will bomb when glib verbal hype is challenged by serious world realities.

My name is David, a professional public accountant and I approve this message. Romney is free to adopt its use. GO ROMNEY GO!!!!!

Posted by David, the accountant | January 8, 2008 1:43 AM

Obama is an empty suit! I am from Chicago and no-one had heard of this guy until he ran for th Senate. There was nothing grand he achieved that showed up in any of our local news papers as major news items. This community organizer bullshit. What does that mean? What did he organize? What did he achieve?

Romney is a genuinely smart, accomplished and competant guy! Yeah he is wealthy. But, Barack didn't come from a poor background either.

If it is either Romney or McCain vs. Obama, it will be a landslide for the Republicans.

Obama is just an old-time far leftwing liberal who wants to tax everything, expand government, is soft on crime but also do this also very incompetantly! Right now people don't know about him. By Fall, Republicans will make sure everyone knows about all this and then the so called independent voters who are all quite wealthy and live in the suburbs will run away from him like plague.

Posted by SRK | January 8, 2008 1:46 AM

In Mitt's World, Espo both has a brain and actually uses it. That's right, Mitt wants good things for ALL Americans, even those who have forgotten their manners.

Posted by Ogrepete | January 8, 2008 1:48 AM

SRK cannot bear to admit the terrible trouble this country is in because of conservative incompetence and corruption--which the Democrats will remind America of over and over this year in the campaign to flush the Republicans out of power. It's simple, really--if you think America is on the right track, vote Republican. That ought to be good for about 25%.

Posted by J Miller | January 8, 2008 1:51 AM

I would like to see Romney and Obama win tomorrow. Romney is the type of man that I can be proud of and look up to as a mentor. I would hire him to be the CEO of my company. This man knows how to get results and makes everything, including people, better. His family is amazing. The same wife for over thirty years and still that obvious love and respect. He is the American Dream, baby! His values are outstanding and he has an outstanding resume. This man would be a great president, more so, than any other candidate running. I trust this man. I was hooked after the debates. Romney was a man, a man of principle and hope. He will be in this until he is president and I will be there with him and so will his other supporters. We need someone who inspires and improves us and our beautiful country. Who better than Mitt Romney who has spent his life improving on ever level and in every way. May Mitt win. Mitt has the most delegates and his name recognition is growing every day.

Posted by James Dobson | January 8, 2008 1:52 AM

Yes, I will stipulate that Romney has a wonderful family. As far as his values and principles go, I have a hard time discerning any--other than "vote for me." He'll say anything and pander to anyone, and I absolutely don't trust him.

Posted by J Miller | January 8, 2008 1:58 AM

If Romney were to ask that question in a debate setting, he would be throwing a softball up to Obama to knock out of the park.

Romney: I ask you Barack, name something that you have changed?

Obama: Just in the last year I believe I changed my party. I believe that, with the support of the American people, I have begun to change how politics works in this country. In my time in the Senate I changed the way lobbyists are able to influence our Gov't, I made public financing bills part of the public record. I could list more things Mitt, but instead let me tell you what I haven't changed. I didn't change my position on the issues to be more viable to my party, I haven't changed my fundemental beliefs because of polling data, or focus group outcomes....

So, ask that question at your own peril Governor.

Posted by Justin | January 8, 2008 1:58 AM

So, every candidate has money and most of them try to use other candidates having money as a corrupted thing. Obama went to Punahou school in Hawaii. I lived in Hawaii for years. Do you want to know what kids went to Punahou? The rich ones who could afford it. I do not know of any school more expensive in Hawaii and Hawaii has many private, expensive schools because a lot of rich people live in Hawaii. Let's not pretend that Obama is just like everyone else. Having money is not a bad thing. If you have money and are not corrupted by it, then you will know a person who can do great things. Huckabee took advantage of every perk and was totally corrupted with money as governor. Romney seems to have remained unaffected by money and has used his money for much good and has stayed with the same wife for over thirty years. You can see the love and respect that they have for each other. He stayed with her despite money and power. What does that say? Look at McCain, he trades in for a younger, sexier wife. McCain is old, stubborn, and bitter. Our country needs someone with energy and vision. Romney is the turn around expert. Let him make our country better. Giuliani, appears to lack morals and it affects his actions and his judgment. If evangelicals need one of their own, then they should vote for Thompson. As for Hillary, she is driven, hardworking, and smart, but I would not trust her. I think that she could do good things for the country in a socialistic kind of way. Is that good? It depends on the audience. Capitalism and the free market are what made this country succeed. The government sector does not have to be the solution to every problem. That is not wise and socialist countries have paid for it.

Posted by Jill Pattersly | January 8, 2008 2:05 AM

Hi I am still undecided, I just wanted to add that Obama is my number 1 choice Romney is my second choice. I will have to deicde today I know though, that I like both of these men for the truth they speak and the grace they embrace.

I would in my best hope like to see a Obama/Romney ticket. I know this will not happen but it would be so nice to mold both of these wonderful men in a single package.

Posted by Kathy Desuza | January 8, 2008 2:08 AM

Justin: What a lame response. If that kind of vapidity makes you pop a hard-on for Senator Obama, I don't really know what to tell you.

Posted by JFD | January 8, 2008 2:10 AM

Jill - Obama went to punahou on a full scholarship - his parents were poor, or at best, middle class.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3082803&page=1

Posted by omgwut | January 8, 2008 2:19 AM

Kathy, I have to ask, what is it about Romney that comes across as truthful? In my opinion, he seems to say a lot of things in the heat of the moment that he later has to recant.

He said during Saturday's debate that his ad hadn't called McCain's immigration plan amnesty, and then one day later had to admit that the ad did indeed say that and he hadn't seen the ad. He said that he and his dad had marched with MLK, then that only his dad had, and then that he had only seen his dad march with MLK in a figurative sense.
Coupled with some of his position changes I see a pattern of intellectual dishonesty. I think when he is in the heat of the moment he is willing to say things he knows aren't true in order to emphasize his point, to seal the deal in a way. While I suppose you could argue that this stops short of lying, I find it lazy and not a good quality to have when running for President.

Posted by Justin | January 8, 2008 2:20 AM

Well, that honeymoon didn't last long. Can't you republican hacks savor Clinton's impending defeat for at least a couple of days?

As for Romney vs. Obama in the GE, only the swing state of Iowa has studied and passed judgment on the candidates. Post-caucus polls showed Obama beating Romney in Iowa by 26 freakin' points. The best performer was McCain, who only lost by 17 points. But don't worry, as of 24 hours after the Iowa caucuses Romney is now the "change" candidate! I'm sure the electorate won't notice the constant rewriting of his campaign!

Feel free to slit your party's wrists with your Romney delusion, gentlemen. He could have been a winner if he stuck to his positions as governor of Mass. Instead he changed his positions to pander to the evangelical base.

Posted by John M. | January 8, 2008 2:21 AM

I am going to vote for McCain, I just wish he would stip being so stupid and rude to the other candidates namly u know who. John, I do not like your cruel nature at times.

I still will probably vote for McCain , but he sure needs to relax or he is going to lose support. I am still open to changing my mind so don't push me McCain.

Posted by Jake | January 8, 2008 2:21 AM

Obama has changed how politics work? So far the reason Obama is popular is because he has been Oprah approved. And he is running against a women that no one really wants to see back in the White House. Now that he is the front runner he is going to have to step it up. The college frat style rallies and playing a Motown soundtrack are fun to get caught up but after the hangover wears off.....then what. BTW, I'm not sure I want a a rock star styled president. Rock stars wreck hotel rooms and cheat on their wives!

BTW, J Miller my News Year resolution was to never engage in conversation again with Daily Kos/Huffington Post/Media Matters group thinkers. So I'm not ignoring your post per se it's just that life is too short to care what you think.

Posted by sheryl | January 8, 2008 2:24 AM

JFD, I understand your point. I think we may be arguing around each other, though. I do indeed support Obama, but not for the kind of hypothetical response I suggested. However, in the pathetic debate formats we have, that kind of response can go a long way. It offers a bit of roaring rhetoric( obviously mine is not, but I believe he could do better), while it also gets in the sort of zinger that the MSM salivates over.
I hope that helps you see what I was getting at.

Posted by Justin | January 8, 2008 2:26 AM

Where to start...first let's start with the people projecting onto Mitt Romney their own dishonesty. He changed his position on abortion while governor of Massachusetts. That's not something you do to become popular. He's running now on that stance. Can you imagine the furor if he changed position on it now? The march with MLK thing I can give him a pass on. Lots of people marched with MLK who weren't in the same march with him. People saying slightly imprecise statements are lies or being phony are seeing the worst in someone, and looking for an explanation that matches their low expectations of themselves. Stand back and look at the man's famlily and his accomplishments. His dad was a CEO, but his dad got there himself without a college education, in the depression. Mitt's been schooled quite a bit on hard work (often called the hardest working candidate) by his dad. His kids were taught hard work, too. People's kids give them away. Good fruit doesn't fall from bad trees. I know the man's family, and if there's anything Mitt Romney is it's principled and honest. Finally, the man's the only one in the race who understands the economy. While I can appreciate Barack's charisma, his programs would cost billions and billions. That's why he hasn't gotten down to specifics yet. McCain's own programs would cost billions and hurt the economy (eliminate Bush tax cuts; increase social security tax, etc., etc.) If you want someone who can help protect american jobs, elect someone who did the hiring in his life. There's more but this post is already too long.

Posted by pbj | January 8, 2008 3:07 AM

John M, Obama's polls right now are like a souffle! No one knows anything about him now because he never says anything in his rallies about his far left-wing, high tax, soft on crime, big government positions. That is why an uninformed person like Kathy can support both Obama and Romney (these are your "informed" independents). Once people know about Obama which the media and the Republicans will make sure they do, his numbers will collapse. For instance, do you know that he is the only one to vote against a bill that would keep alive a fetus that is viable outside the womb (not even Hillary and barbara Boxer voted against it)http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/138220/obamas_abortion_stance_may_cost_him.html? That would turn-off a whole lot of voters in swing states like Missouri. Do you know that he wanted to overturn federal mandatory minimum sentencing? Do you know how left wing his gun control positions are? None of this would play well in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the Western states, and the South of course. You won't be able to pin Bush on Romney! Your boy is going to lose in a landslide. Right now he is fresh, by fall everyone would be tired of his pompous speeches. He will go down in flames against Romney or McCain.

Posted by SRK | January 8, 2008 3:16 AM

SRK,

"For instance, do you know that he is the only one to vote against a bill that would keep alive a fetus that is viable outside the womb."

Those bills in Illinois were designed by a Republican majority with red tape, civil and criminal penalties to essentially criminalize all abortion, per Planned Parenthood.

"Do you know that he wanted to overturn federal mandatory minimum sentencing?"

Heck yes, I do. There are numerous instances where mandatory minimum sentencing has produced a disaster of a result.

"Do you know how left wing his gun control positions are?"

Heck yes, I do. But he's also said he understands that gun ownership in Manhattan is different than gun ownership in rural Iowa. Obviously it was not a problem there.

"Your boy is going to lose in a landslide. Right now he is fresh, by fall everyone would be tired of his pompous speeches. He will go down in flames against Romney or McCain."

I am thrilled by your continued confidence, as it means you will not adjust appropriately to the changing situation just as Clinton did not. Instead, like her, you will simply resort to shotgunning negative attacks, counting on the fact that what worked as recently as 2004 must surely work again. Indeed, on a number of other blogs (ex. First Read) I've already seen the racial and religious fearmongering kick into high gear. I have no idea who is stupid enough to think that this stuff will work with independents in 2008. People are paying very good attention after the last 7 years.

Posted by John M. | January 8, 2008 4:20 AM

SRK,

"For instance, do you know that he is the only one to vote against a bill that would keep alive a fetus that is viable outside the womb."

Those bills in Illinois were designed by a Republican majority with red tape, civil and criminal penalties to essentially criminalize all abortion, per Planned Parenthood.

"Do you know that he wanted to overturn federal mandatory minimum sentencing?"

Heck yes, I do. There are numerous instances where mandatory minimum sentencing has produced a disaster of a result.

"Do you know how left wing his gun control positions are?"

Heck yes, I do. But he's also said he understands that gun ownership in Manhattan is different than gun ownership in rural Iowa. Obviously it was not a problem there.

"Your boy is going to lose in a landslide. Right now he is fresh, by fall everyone would be tired of his pompous speeches. He will go down in flames against Romney or McCain."

I am thrilled by your continued confidence; as I expected, the Republicans will not adjust appropriately to the changing situation just as Clinton did not. Instead, like her, you will simply resort to shotgunning negative attacks, counting on the fact that what worked as recently as 2004 must surely work again. But people are paying very good attention after the last 7 years, and the internet has matured enough that you can't get away with the same things you used to. Perhaps you'll believe me in 11 months.

Posted by John M. | January 8, 2008 4:23 AM

Mitt should have focused on his track record of productive achievements from the very beginning, and not wasted time and messed around by pandering to people who want to legislate morality.
Posted by Jack

Amen to that.

Romney had to "get down" with the Religious conservatives and show he was solid on values, not a Giuliani or a John Kerry/Ted Kennedy type from Massachusetts - but the whole effort degenerated into candidates bickering on who was morally "purer than thou", then who was purer first and pro-lifers condemning Mitt as a "flip-flopper, a flip-flopper" for the sin of thinking about human life and coming out against killing fetuses for convenience and research.

The "religious controversy" of the Republicans was a stupid waste of time and one the media nurtured in the debates. And Mitt should have said, along with Giuliani, that they were men of integrity and conservative values committed by their integrity to appointing strict constructionist judges. So the abortion matter could be decided in the States as a matter of State law by elected representatives of The People. That is all a President can do, other than fringe issues like whether or not to veto a bill containing Fed Funding for birth control for Haiti or what not.

************************
Hellmut - Mitt Romney is talented guy but he has also been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is the son of a CEO and a governor. That makes it a little easier to go to Harvard, earn hundreds of millions of dollars while laying off American workers.

The only element of "silver spoon" Romney gained from a great father like George Romney was a drive to do his father proud. He went to Stanford as a brilliant "once in a lifetime student" by his HS teacher's references. He lived in near-poverty in a monastic life as a missionary in France for 2 1/2 years. Between Stanford and BYU he compiled a 3.97 GPA, was valedictorian. Harvard sought him. If he hadn't had his Dad's wealth, he would have gone to Harvard on scholarship. At Harvard he was later described as one of the half dozen or so "specially gifted" in a pool of elite brilliant and gifted students Harvard gets in each Graduate school class - that they feel nearly certain will further enhance the reputation of the school in short order on graduating by accomplishing great things. With a dozen or so other graduates adding equal great accomplishments post-Harvard through serendipity, hard work, creativity.

Romney proved those profs correct in his case.

Silver spoon had nothing to do with it. Brains, talent, ability to see future situations playing out using todays data - and having college dropout George Romney, up from poverty, as a Dad as a supreme motivator - did.

In his career, he never took any financial support from his parents and lived frugally. He went into a field where his Dad had no influence, and the Romney bio is that it would have been unthinkable for him to ask. Free of scandal. High ethics. A very commendable life so far and one that makes class envy ridiculous.
**************************************

Justin fantasizes how easily Obama could destroy any question on his complete lack of executive experience and change being a problem:

Romney: I ask you Barack, name something that you have changed?
Obama: Just in the last year I believe I changed my party. I believe that, with the support of the American people, I have begun to change how politics works in this country. In my time in the Senate I changed the way lobbyists are able to influence our Gov't, I made public financing bills part of the public record. I could list more things Mitt, but instead let me tell you what I haven't changed. I didn't change my position on the issues to be more viable to my party, I haven't changed my fundemental beliefs because of polling data, or focus group outcomes....
So, ask that question at your own peril Governor.
Posted by Justin

So there we have Obama's vague answer, so easy and simple even Justin could make it and sound good really to the ignorant and uninformed.

Which is what a neophyte who is hiding behind BS does. Make broad, positive statements. But any probing into the platitudes that make someone sound so knowledgable shows just how empty the suit is.

1. I have begun to change how politics works in this country in a way that even the Founders have shown they lack my great judgement!
**Name something you have done that hasn't been done a dozen times in America's past?**
_Silence_

2. Being a great leader of New Obama politics is like being a great hitter. You need the judgement to be able to hit the ball right!
**Plenty of people have great judgement, Barack. Learning how to hit a curveball and anticipating the catcher's calls takes years of skill and application. Name how you have uniquely changed politics in your apprenticeship to be the New Leader - so we can evaluate specific features of your brilliant, unique newness.**
_Silence_

3. Fixing broken US institutions or businesses to bolster our economy requires a new way of thinking, the Obama way where all join as a team to make the unprofitable profitable, the dropout the Yale student, the voting machine work like the Mars Rovers.
**OK, no executive expertise or teams of the world's best experts helping America compete against Germany, Taiwans or Singapore's best? A happy team redesigning voting machines for stupid people? Just happy teamwork and the "Obama vision?" Let me guess what you would do with a failing business or a failing strategy. You would make a speech on the need to make a business in the red profitable, simply by speaking about it?**
_Silence_

4."In my time in the Senate I changed the way lobbyists are able to influence our Gov't, I made public financing bills part of the public record. I could list more things Mitt."

In my time as town councilman, I changed things. Even in the "lobbyist" area where I am rather good at uncovering conflicts of interest and I also made speeches. A couple even inspiring, I might say..I made most council votes part of the record. I could make a long list of resolutions, appropriations, and ordinances and eliminating dumb ordinances in my name. That is easy. Pounds of paper and lists of dubious and not so dubious "accomplishments". It takes no friggin' skill. Any schlub yanked off the street could do the same. with equal lists of "feats" they did simply by speaking about or voting on a matter. Any halfway intelligent person sent to the Senate could fill in 10 pounds of paperwork on "important things" they weighed in on, what long list of accomplishements in the Congressional record they wanted to file each month. Broad statements about legislative decisions add nothing to executive accomplishments or prep people deep into the speeches and legislation side of government to be executive leaders. My town councilman no-pay job does not prep me to be mayor, President, a judicial appointment to judge, or a CEO, or a organizational turnaround expert in any way.

****************
Post-caucus polls showed Obama beating Romney in Iowa by 26 freakin' points. The best performer was McCain, who only lost by 17 points. But don't worry, as of 24 hours after the Iowa caucuses Romney is now the "change" candidate! I'm sure the electorate won't notice the constant rewriting of his campaign!

Yeah, because post caucus polls from activists in Iowa showing wide gaps in how activists in that quirky State cursing the other 48 with it's undue entitlement 7 months before Conventions just - mean - whole- lot!

Next up this bozo will tell us how the rest of the nation "failed Iowa's" will by overlooking the 30 point spread between Reagan and Carter or the 28 point spread between "impossible unknown" Clinton and H. W.. Bush.

****************
gds - Obama has held elected office for 11 years. Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others

Great! As I mentioned that as a councilman I could sit on my ass and co-sponsor bills and sign paperwork to my hearts content without it signifying a shred to ability to lead the country or engage in problem solving. Or drag a homeless bum in off the street that for a bottle of Irish Red would sign anything you waved near his pen hand.
In my real former job, as starting process ass't engineer from 1991-94, I did almost 1400 engineering calcs that did all sorts of good things for helping peoples lives and showing "we care". And participated in sponsoring 800 or so from two foreign engineers from Sri Lanka and did 30-40 supervisory reviews. Does that make me an executive problem solver ready to be president? NO, but the engineering was actual problem-solving that helped me get selected for senior (jr executive) management far more than doing 12-24 resolutions about city employee health care provisions and union bargaining did.

The thing I see is if Romney is put up against Obama, about any serious organizational problem America and the economy is confronting that needs to be fixed, it will be pretty quickly apparant who knows how to fix them and who is bullshitting about their understanding of the task.

Whereas, if it is just about character and potential, a positive upbeat Obama will carve up an angry, nasty passive-agressive "my good friend" McCain and also show him old, long a complicit part of the 40-year long Old Order in DC, and dim wattage compared to Obama. With McCain left to be watched dying by a Base fed up with his treachery.

With Huckabee, I'm afraid it's people choosing between straight man and mostly silent Zeppo Marx against Groucho Marx in a battle of wits. With Obama being Groucho. And that is even before Huck tries clearing his many scandals, nasty streak, and being the 1st Creationist President ever elected with the public.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 8, 2008 4:45 AM

As an Obama supporter, I have to say, I'm terrified of Romney. He would truly lead to a landslide of 1984 proportions. Please, whatever you do, don't vote for Romney! He's so principled and smart that he'd run circles around Obama and bring about a thousand year Republican majority! He's our worst nightmare.

Vote for McCain instead. He'd be easy to beat, plus, in the worst case scenario that he wins, he's a raging liberal who makes Edwards look conservative.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 8, 2008 5:13 AM

To me the most acceptable candidate on the Democratic side is Obama and the most acceptable candidate on the Republican side is Romney. I don't think either of them will make the same type of mistakes that the current administration keeps making.

Posted by Phil | January 8, 2008 6:04 AM

Wait- the guy who wants to "double Gitmo," won't say if waterboarding is torture, supports warrantless wiretapping, and thinks that all civil liberties are subservient to government's obligation to provide security is accusing Obama of being for Big Brother?

Posted by Mark | January 8, 2008 7:31 AM

**CNN last night Lou Dodds said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack " Hussein" Obama ( Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney! MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Obama campaign violating state law by placing automated phone calls to numbers on the Do Not Call list. Former State Rep. Sandy Keans, a from Rochester, said she received a call.“This afternoon, I received a pre-recorded phone message from the Obama campaign attacking Senator Clinton even though I am on the Do-Not-Call List," Keans said.We are absolutely sick of obama saying hes not running on race, but thats all he offering and all we are talking about!!!!, NO NEWS MEDIA, especially CNN will talk about his in-experience, flip flopping on serious issues, lack of voting in the senate, sides with George Bush on continuing and the war and voting against bringing the troops home, he is a self proclaimed Black Racist. What’s wrong with this picture America? It’s disgusting that media is afraid to speak out on obama for fear they would be attacking a black man, who cares, this is America, but it’s ok to lie and attack a white woman who has proven what she can do for our country. Obama keeps touting Change, what change? Race? That’s not change that’s going backwards 50yrs. I HAVE NOT HEARD OR READ THE CHANGE OBAMA TALKS ABOUT? THE CHANGE IS PUTTING AN INEXPERIENCED BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT THE BEST CANDIDATE? If obama is the dem nom, you will see another Republican President in 2008!

Posted by MLK | January 8, 2008 7:49 AM

Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could,continue Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden's Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That's what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability.Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama's victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama's victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Posted by Obama cheated Iowans | January 8, 2008 7:50 AM

WHERE IS THE UNBIASD MEDIA THESE DAYS!

Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama,in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could continue. Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory except when the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; he rejected the deal on "moral grounds," History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson only this time the deal was accepted. The Times article gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made. Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about hearing people going to Hillary. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts. The Effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish and Obama's would not had a victory in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in third and Richardson in fifth. Obama's would have placed second to Clinton, and the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden all would have come out of Iowa in stronger positions. Those who took advantage and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Posted by Marie Hoeller | January 8, 2008 7:59 AM

Romney's lame argument must mean that Bill Gates would make a great POTUS. It's not all about business.

Of course, Mitt thins it is when he says it's not imperative to know anything about foreign policy before you're elected...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 8, 2008 8:33 AM

Didn't Mitt Romney's dad shoot MLK?

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 8, 2008 9:23 AM

I try to give a fair shake to all political candidates, but Mitt Romney just makes me physically ill to listen to. He may be the most offensive (both meanings) candidate we've seen in quite some time.

That, and his willingness to say anything to get elected is just shameful.

Posted by Chris | January 8, 2008 10:48 AM

Chris -

Plus, he's a mormon. They didn't even free their slaves until 1978!! And romney pulled over his car and wept, because he knew he'd have to hire illegal immigrants.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 8, 2008 11:16 AM

Name an Olympics?

Hilarious, God let the Republicans nominate this tool. How many Americans remember the SLC Olympics, much less care? He was a complete failure as a Governor. If I were unenrolled in NH, I'd be voting for Mitt just to hand the election to the Democrats.

Posted by AJ | January 8, 2008 11:48 AM

I don't understand the public accountant (David)
when he says everybody loses their job when
companies make money (I imagine he didn't proofread what he wrote). Anyway, the 2002 Olypics being a success: yes, it was for Utah, but how many thousands of millions of FEDERAL dollars to just get a good traffic flow--anyone can see success when Federal dollars pay for their cause.
And, yes, it was a success for Orrin Hatch--if
memory serves, he got land from from the Forest
Service just in time to build condo's close to
the events--nothing better than a self-rightous
conservative to make money at taxpayer expense.
AND, Ronald Reagan did NOT lower taxes--he lowered INCOME taxes; payroll taxes nearly
tripled under his administration, which we have borrowed from nearly every year since.

Posted by charlie willie | January 8, 2008 12:59 PM

Romney's full of BS. He's an empty suit who takes credit he doesn't deserve. He tries to make us believe that his experience in a small business world of privileged individuals is the same thing as leading a nation.

It's easy to change things in a business when you own it, or come in as the new boss who was hired to fix problems that are already recognized. He wasn't the driving force of change for the Olympics. The s*** had already hit the fan, the problems already identified. Anybody coming in already knew what had to be done. If anybody thinks that managing a country as complex as the U.S. is the same thing as handling a business or managing investments, they're fools.

Romney's also full of bull when he panders to the right-wing extremist regarding taxes and government. Read the book "Free Lunch" if you want to know the truth. It's people just like Romney who have rigged the system so they get the benefits, and the middle class get the shaft.

Posted by Rob | January 8, 2008 12:59 PM

Romney is Dubya 2.0: REAL business experience, broad shoulders, plus double the GITMO!

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and buy yourself some Mitt Romney today! He'll BOOT those dirty immigrants out of the country! He'll SMOKE that Obama...err... Osama out of those mountains. He'll personally intervene in all abortion cases and raise the unwanted children as his own, with all abortion-seeking women dispatched to GITMO where they will be forced to urinate on the Koran so that the terrorists will explain why they hate our freedoms so much! Buy some Romney today, and help him save the universe!

(Disclaimer: The GOP cannot guarantee that your would-be savior will actually make good on any of his promises regarding overturning Roe v. Wade or doubling GITMO or stemming the flow of illegal immigrants or anything else that Mr. Romney may have promised during the campaign or at any other time in his life. All promises or policy proposals were intended only for the purposes of securing the votes of the gullible, hateful religious right and warmongering idiots who loved Iran when Reagan was arming it but hate it now because Dubya said we should.* Mr. Romney has forever retained and practiced his right to change his position on any and all matters, including the details of his religious faith, and he will continue to do so. Please do not call to complain about Mr. Romney's performance as president. If you do, your phone calls will be recorded and you will be taken to an detention center in an undisclosed location without any access to a lawyer or your family. If you behave yourself you may be released someday. But probably not.)

*This political strategy is the property of Karl Rove and cannot be used without the expressed and paid-for consent of Mr. Rove and his associate, Mephistopheles.

Posted by tinisoli | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM

Romney is like "Cheney on Steroids".

Atleast Bush-Cheney have some convictions. But with Romney he simply blows with the wind.

Romney has to be the most dishonest flipflopping politician that ever lived. This douchbag thinks that he can win elections simply with millions but American people are sick and tired of this kind of republican politic

Romney's Challenge To Obama

Comments (83)