Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.

Then that counts pretty much every presidential family we've had out since Eisenhower. They were all rich.

To be clear, the old radical in me would love to see a genuine middle class family take. They literally couldn't do worse.

Sadly, money seems to buy elections.

EDIT: Well not directly. But it's always well connected, wealthy people who win.

 Ouze wrote:
I think that Mr. Romney might have been more successful in swatting away the wealth type arguments if he had said yes, "the president and I are both millionaires" and stuck to that message consistently.

I think the real problem his campaign, actually, came from Frazzled. As he said , "I believe he believed the 47% comment". I also believe that he really believes that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it, and he wouldn't be describing it now as "speaking too freely". I think that's an apt way of putting it as the mask truly slipped for a moment.

I don't think that anyone, of either party, should be president when they believe 47% of the country "believes they are victims" and because they are poor, they don't have "personal responsibility or care about their lives". I don't think the income tax is an arbiter of the Americans the President is supposed to care about.

The fact that he still doesn't see it makes me think that indeed, we dodged one here.

I'm not sure that any candidate in recent memory has really had the backs of the middle class. So I don't think that Romney's belief would necessarily have made him a bad president. I do think that his failure to stay on message -- or generate any coherent message at all, really -- and lead a successful campaign against a highly vulnerable incumbent suggest that his leadership skills ultimately weren't POTUS-caliber.

The Obama team ran a technologically superior campaign, no doubt. And few here have beat the demographics drum as much as me. But campaigns are still about messages. The Obama team's message was as flimsy as "Romney is a detached rich guy," and Romney and company showed little ability to deflect that or even avoid walking straight into it (hello 47%...a gift from God to the Dems if I've ever seen one).

They also allowed those little gaffes like the Olympic comments in the UK etc. to stick. Those would have been swatted away easily by a candidate and campaign with a coherent, relentless, resonant message that they can keep cycling back to. As a former flight instructor of mine once told me -- and this great lesson applies to not just aviation but almost anything in life -- even Chuck Yeager makes mistakes when he flies. The difference between him and you and me is that he's constantly identifying and making the proper corrections so that we don't even notice.

The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him. If the people he's selected aren't getting the job done, he has to recognize that and do something about it. Romney's campaign was bleeding out all last summer, and he either didn't realize it or decided to make no adjustments. And that was basically that.

Romney might be a very strong leader compared to most of us. I'm not doubting that. But Anne and Mitt -- there is NO WAY you can look at that weaksauce campaign of yours and say, "yeah...now THAT'S a POTUS!" It's past time for you to go.

True words

 Mannahnin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin

I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

That's a reasonable point of concern, although it would normally be more productive to express that via a yellow triangle on the post in question. It's entirely possible for moderators to overlook things, and we do make some mistakes.

That being said, it does seem that that particular post did not draw any flames, and instead served only to demean the guy who posted it. Sometimes a reasonable approach is to give someone enough rope to hang himself.

Appreciate it! Ask my DnD buddies, it's always good to have more rope!

 sebster wrote:
Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.

Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!

 Sigvatr wrote:
If Mitt was elected

*Shudder*

 Sigvatr wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.

Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!

Please, tell me more about how when Mr. Romney took office January 2013, he would have avoided the effects of legislation passed in Ausgust 2011 (with unanimous Senate votes) which formed the super-commitee, who failed and set the stage for sequestration, having closed up shop January 2012.



Sure, Obama signed the bill. But lets not pretend both houses didn't pass it and hand it to him first, yes? But, if you do decide to tell me more, please do so here - this thread is about how Mitt Romney had a sad.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.

Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!

Please, tell me more about how when Mr. Romney took office January 2013, he would have avoided the effects of legislation passed in Ausgust 2011 (with unanimous Senate votes) which formed the super-commitee, who failed and set the stage for sequestration, having closed up shop January 2012.



Sure, Obama signed the bill. But lets not pretend both houses didn't pass it and hand it to him first, yes?

Oh... I don't know... maybe a more realistic plan?

Awesome gif by the way...

Why are we "what if-ing" here?

I edited my post (but not fast enough!); the sequestration stuff already has it's own thread so lets not continue that here.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If Mitt was elected

*Shudder*

You know, if Mittens had been elected. Also would have been known as "the dumbest thing that would have ever happened in America since Bush Jr. was elected twice".

And yeah, I felt bad for Mrs. Romney due to her physical disabilities...but those disabilities shouldn't include "doesn't know when to shut up".

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If Mitt was elected

*Shudder*

You know, if Mittens had been elected. Also would have been known as "the dumbest thing that would have ever happened in America since Bush Jr. was elected twice".

And yeah, I felt bad for Mrs. Romney due to her physical disabilities...but those disabilities shouldn't include "doesn't know when to shut up".

Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...

It's like some folks prefer despot dictators...

 whembly wrote:
Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...

It's like some folks prefer despot dictators...

I don't support Chavez, at all, and never have - just as I don't support the people who see a thread about a famous dead person and feel the need to get in there and crap on their memory before the body is cold (that's not directed at you).

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...

It's like some folks prefer despot dictators...

I don't support Chavez, at all, and never have.

Sorry...didn't mean any dakkanauts...

Putting it this way... the people who sang with glee at the death of Andrew Breitbart will scold us for not showing the proper respect to Chavez. I'm thinking of staying off twittah tonight.
EDIT: sorry... ^^^ this here really should be in the Chavez thread.

Oh, my mistake.

 Ouze wrote:
Oh, my mistake.

no problem dude.... my fault really for not being clear.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!

That only makes sense if you don't look at the substance of what Obama is offering. When you look and see Obama is offering exactly what Republicans claimed they wanted (entitlement reform and tax deduction reform), you start to see it is a very strange game of chicken.

Obama - Okay, to stop these cars colliding I'll move to the left.
Republicans - No way. This can only be avoided if you promise to move your car to the left.
Other Democrats - Uh, Republicans, Obama just said he'd move his car to the left, so we're all good.
Republicans - Yeah, but we don't believe him, so lets crash.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sorry...didn't mean any dakkanauts...

Putting it this way... the people who sang with glee at the death of Andrew Breitbart will scold us for not showing the proper respect to Chavez. I'm thinking of staying off twittah tonight.
EDIT: sorry... ^^^ this here really should be in the Chavez thread.

Breitbart is a strange case, because when someone says what he said on the death of Teddy Kennedy, well there's no reason to expect people to respect his death.

Not that I'd say anything nasty about someone's death (what's the point, really?) but I also wasn't about to criticise anyone for being nasty on the death of Breitbart, as nothing I read was anywhere near as nasty as what he'd said about Teddy Kennedy.

And bare in mind I didn't even like Teddy Kennedy. But seriously, just read what Breitbart said on his death;

"Kennedy is my villain. He took me from left to right during the Thomas hearings. Really. Then read Joe McGuiness book & I wanted to puke."
"he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'."
"I'll shut my mouth for Carter. That's just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement."

 gorgon wrote:

The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.

No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.

No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.

No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.

The problem with that analogy is that directors usually hire the talent. In politics, the talent hires his director.

 gorgon wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.

No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.

The problem with that analogy is that directors usually hire the talent. In politics, the talent hires his director.

Sort of, the relationship between a candidate and a campaign manager tends to be one of mutual agreement. You don't apply to be a campaign manager, you establish a relationship that makes you the presumed "choice". Mind, this goes both ways, candidates glad-hand campaign managers as much as campaign managers glad-hand candidates.

Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.

Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.

Than ANY you can think of? What's it like trying to think with that extra hole in your head?

I had the good fortune to see every single primary candidate from both parties due to both the Repubs and Dims holding their debates at my school. It was very interesting. In person Mitt was very convincing on economic policy but completely out of touch on military affairs. Very much a Reagan-Cold War view of the role of the military and how it should be outfitted. Obama looked like he was about to fill his trousers, but I guess that is understandable when you're a black dude running for president and debating on the campus where students started the Civil War. And not on the side that won. And they all have guns in their room.

MarsNZ wrote:
Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.

Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.

You can't be serious.

 Sasori wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.

Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.

You can't be serious.

Don't worry he's just joking.

MarsNZ wrote:Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.

Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy. That's just the 20th century.

I thought JFK was actually sort of an awful president, on the whole.

I thought Teddy did both awful things and awesome things, but mostly the latter. Also it seems kind of unfair to apply 2013 value judgements on a man from 1900.

This maybe deserves it's own thread though.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.

Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.

My oldest brother met him twice while in the Marines. Once at a ball, and once while protecting him in France. He said Bush was a VERY cool guy, that you could easily have a drink with. Not so on many other politicians and leaders he has met else where.

I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.

A President being likable is a pretty huge factor, that often directly impacts their ability to get some things done.