President Obama Re-Elected - Page 607

On September 30 2012 02:51 DoubleReed wrote:


No, I read it. Admittedly, I'm just being sensationalist. It's still drastically showing how politicians are bought off. Even when they try to factor in all sorts of things, a significant majority of the time the big spender wins.

The question I ask you is: do you really think politicians have incentive to tax the rich more? Even if that's what the people want? 2/3 of America! Do you know how difficult it is to get 2/3 of America to agree on anything????

On September 30 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

As much of an incentive to make any other policy decision... I mean 'tax the rich more' is a bit vague, as long as you aren't going to soak them horribly I don't see it having a huge impact on the rich voting a certain way or donating a certain way.

I need to throw a caveat in there though - its hard to separate if the rich change votes / donations because you are taxing them more or if its because they honestly think its a bad policy decision. 'Taxing the rich more' could be a popular idea in general but the details of a specific 'tax the rich more' plan maybe unpopular.

On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:


It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?

Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist, knew his candidate’s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency. So Stevens, bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign’s Boston headquarters, assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner, a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party’s smarter wordsmiths.

Not a word Wehner wrote was ever spoken.

Stevens junked the entire thing, setting off a chaotic, eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney, including Clint Eastwood’s meandering monologue to an empty chair.

Romney’s convention stumbles have provoked weeks of public griping and internal sniping about not only Romney but also his mercurial campaign muse, Stevens. Viewed warily by conservatives, known for his impulsiveness and described by a colleague as a “tortured artist,” Stevens has become the leading staff scapegoat for a campaign that suddenly is behind in a race that had been expected to stay neck and neck through Nov. 6.

This article is based on accounts from Romney aides, advisers and friends, most of whom refused to speak on the record because they were recounting private discussions and offering direct criticism of the candidate and his staff, Stevens in particular.

[...]

To pin recent stumbles on Stevens would be to overlook Romney’s role in all this. As the man atop the enterprise — in effect, the CEO of a $1 billion start-up — Romney ultimately bears responsibility for the decisions he personally oversaw, such as the muffling of running mate Paul Ryan’s strict budget message and his own convention performance.

As the Tampa convention drew near, Wehner, now a “senior adviser” and blogger for the campaign, was laboring under an unusual constraint for the author of a high-stakes political speech. He was not invited to spend time with Romney, making it impossible to channel him fluently.

Nevertheless, Wehner came up with a draft he found pleasing, including the memorable line: “The incumbent president is trying to lower the expectations of our nation to the sorry level of his own achievement. He only wins if you settle.” It also included a reference to Afghanistan, which was jettisoned with the rest of his work.

Instead, eight days before the convention, at a time when a campaign usually would be done drafting and focused instead on practicing such a high-stakes speech, Stevens frantically contacted John McConnell and Matthew Scully, a speechwriting duo that had worked in George W. Bush’s campaign and White House. Stevens told them they would have to start from scratch on a new acceptance speech. Not only would they have only a few days to write it, but Romney would have little time to practice it.

McConnell and Scully, drawing on their experience writing for Vice President Dick Cheney, were racing to finish the convention speech for Romney’s running mate, Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Committee chairman. It was the Wednesday before convention week. Ryan was to speak the following Wednesday, followed by Romney on Thursday.

The two finished Ryan’s text the next day and started crashing on Romney’s. That weekend, Stevens accompanied Romney as he went to a school auditorium in New Hampshire with his wife, Ann, to practice yet another version of the speech. Only one paragraph from the McConnell-Scully draft wound up being used, about a rose that Romney’s father had put on his mother’s bedside table each day. The speech that was actually delivered, it turned out, had been cobbled together by Stevens and Romney himself.

[...]

The hasty process resulted in a colossal oversight: Romney did not include a salute to troops serving in war zones, and did not mention Al Qaeda or Afghanistan, putting him on the defensive on national security just as the Middle East was about to erupt. It was also very light on policy specifics, much to the chagrin of conservatives who were certain the addition of Ryan and inclusion of Wehner meant a real battle of ideas was about to begin.

On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:


You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...

On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:


The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy.

On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:


The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy.

On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:


The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy.

On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:


The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy.

On September 30 2012 13:17 Zooper31 wrote:


Every presidential campaign strategy is the same. Make the other seem unworthy of the presidency, Obama & Romney are doing the same thing to each other. Not sure what exactly you're trying to get at but I would guess tbh he can do w/e he wants since he's no longer eligible to be re-elected if he wins, same as Bush in his 2nd term or any other president before him. Imo Obama has said what his plans are for his presidency and I don't know if you are just trying to start something.

On September 30 2012 15:29 Kaitlin wrote:


I disagree completely. In 2008, Obama ran 100% based on what he wanted to do, if elected. Now, he's running 100% about why we can't let Romney be President. Presidents claim mandates when they win by large margins, based on the logic that they laid out what policies they were going to implement, and we elected to implement them. For Obama this time, it's not about implementing new policies, it's about a) can't let Romney in and b) just need more time for what he's already done to take effect.

On September 30 2012 17:53 forgottendreams wrote:
f it why try

could be debating 15 yr olds at this point...

On September 30 2012 18:21 Defacer wrote:


LOL. I really hope the debates give us old-timers some new material to work with.

On September 30 2012 18:30 BlueBird. wrote:


I am looking forward to the debates, but I really doubt there will be anything mind blowing from either side.. If Romney isn't on a leash than they might be somewhat entertaining I guess. If Romney does really well in the debates, it might make this race really interesting, but for the sake of the country I really hope Romney flops.

Still really upset that The Green Party, and Libertarian Party won't be invited to them, obviously I have personal interest since I support Jill Stein, but yeah.. Kind of a joke since they meet the requirements to attend the debates.

On September 30 2012 18:43 Souma wrote:
This year's debates seem like such a farce, just like the entire election. The debate questions were handed out prior. It's going to be so scripted. Gross.

There they go again.