The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Is it a "secret" order if you leak it to CNN?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it a "secret" order if you leak it to CNN?

LOL - nope!

[Edward64]

I do think this is pretty low if Reid really doesn't have a reputable source. It seems unlikely it would be "no taxes".

Romney demands Reid come clean about attacks, suggests White House involved | Fox News

Mitt Romney suggested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking his cues from the White House in Reid's repeated allegations that the Republican presidential candidate paid no taxes for 10 years.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has only said his source is an investor in Romney's former venture capital firm Bain Capital. Romney again Wednesday said Reid needs to "put up or shut up" about his source for the disputed information, adding that when the truth comes out, he wouldn't be surprised if the "source" is someone in the White House pushing that line of attack.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not a fan of Reid as I generally think he's a scumbag, but if the story is made up (which I think it is), then it's a pretty brilliant political ploy. It puts Romney into a defensive position where his only good defense is to do something he doesn't want to do (release his returns).

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Haha! I like it. Needs to be whittled down to one word. Something like, 'He just douched it' or something like that.

Mike Kelly is my drama congressman. He made some silly ruckus about a Chevy Volt earlier thus year. He's a crummy used cat salesman.

[SirFozzie]

Anyone see the near Wall Street Meltdown this week?

Trading Group's program goes nuts, issuing buy orders on 158 stocks.
Other people's program's respond to this bit of "static on the wire", and go a bit nutty themselves.
At one point there was SIX times the normal trading volume as the oscillating loop from the rogue program and the response to the rogue program just kept feeding into a vicious cycle.

It took a half hour for the rogue program to be shut off, but this software burp has cost the trading group (KNight Trading Group) dearly. They struck a deal with Goldman Sachs to buy the unwanted stock from them, at a cost of $440 million. They only have $365 million or so on hand, and are spending the weekend desperately trying to find additional funding, etcetera.

If a half hour software burp costs your firm a half BILLION dollars, trading stocks has become way too fucking complicated.

Trading Program Ran Amok, With No 'Off' Switch - NYTimes.com

[stevew]

I wonder if it was a plot against Bruce Wayne

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Anyone see the near Wall Street Meltdown this week?

Trading Group's program goes nuts, issuing buy orders on 158 stocks.
Other people's program's respond to this bit of "static on the wire", and go a bit nutty themselves.
At one point there was SIX times the normal trading volume as the oscillating loop from the rogue program and the response to the rogue program just kept feeding into a vicious cycle.

It took a half hour for the rogue program to be shut off, but this software burp has cost the trading group (KNight Trading Group) dearly. They struck a deal with Goldman Sachs to buy the unwanted stock from them, at a cost of $440 million. They only have $365 million or so on hand, and are spending the weekend desperately trying to find additional funding, etcetera.

If a half hour software burp costs your firm a half BILLION dollars, trading stocks has become way too fucking complicated.

Trading Program Ran Amok, With No 'Off' Switch - NYTimes.com

Actually, I would love to be in the Trading Group's CEO's office>

"Sir, we've fixed the software glitch. The software team has said that it won't happen again."

"So, how much will it take to fix the mess the computer made for us?"

"Um...we're estimating about $400 million"

"Son, I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is: You're fired. The good news is, that I didn't bring my gun to the office today, so you get a running start. Oh, and the Computer's fired too"

[Edward64]

I haven't really thought about it but the article is right in saying that both Obama and Romney have seemed to shy away from Afghanistan. Obama is pulling out the troops and bringing Afghanistan to a closure. Romney basically says he would listen to commanders which is essentially saying he doesn't want to say.

It'll be interesting debates. BTW - thoughts on who will do better at the debate. I think all things held equal, Obama has better presence and delivery.

Jackson Diehl: Obama and Romney are ignoring the Afghanistan war - The Washington Post

Yet this may be the first presidential campaign in U.S. history in which an ongoing war fails to produce a significant debate. Explicitly or implicitly, the candidates have successfully encouraged much of the media to accept the following conventional wisdom: The war is a failure but is winding down; U.S. combat troops will be out by the end of 2014; and Obama and Romney agree on the strategy.

Yet Americans are still dying — and the strategy that the presidential candidates supposedly agree upon is far from firm. In fact, the U.S. president has a series of crucial decisions to make about the future of Afghanistan, most within 12 months of the election. And, for now at least, there’s no knowing whether Obama and Romney differ over them — because neither has given much hint of what he would do.

The first choice may come within weeks after Nov. 7: Whether reelected or not, Obama will have to consider his commanders’ recommendations on the pace of the next U.S. troop drawdown. By September, the 30,000 surge troops Obama dispatched to Afghanistan will be gone, leaving some 68,000. The question will be whether to leave those forces there through next summer’s fighting season, as favored by the generals, or order quicker withdrawals.

Obama’s history suggests that he would order more troops out before next fall: After all, he has rejected the commanders’ favored option on Afghan troop deployments twice before. Romney, for his part, has faulted Obama for not listening to his generals. But does that mean he would forgo any withdrawals next year? He’s offered no indication.

The next big presidential decision may come sometime during 2013: how many and what quality of U.S. forces to leave in Afghanistan after 2014. In principle, it’s already agreed that U.S. and NATO special forces, trainers and “enablers” will help the Afghan army secure the country. But a detailed agreement must still be worked out with the Afghan government. The Pentagon will likely seek a force in the tens of thousands, including a robust special-forces contingent. But the plan for a similar force in Iraq was shredded by the Obama White House, which first drastically reduced its size, then failed to sell it to the Iraqi government.

Would Obama do the same to the follow-on Afghan force? Would Romney decide differently? Voters are in the dark.

[sterlingice]

It's the opposite of usual. The GOP candidate typically wins foreign policy debates by default: "I like war and I support bigger defense budgets". However, Romney's only been a governor and not Senator, Romney can't seem to make a foreign policy statement without sticking his foot in his mouth ("Palestinians are lazy slobs" gives "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan" a run for its money in stupid), and then there's the whole "who has two thumbs and killed Osama Bin Laden" argument.

SI

[Grover]

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee
51 years ago Obama's mom delivered him in Kenya then got up and called in birth to Hawaii paper because he looked kinda presidential.

[Edward64]

Romney has picked up a couple important endorsements.

Clint Eastwood backs Mitt Romney for president - NBC News Entertainment

Clint Eastwood officially endorsed Mitt Romney on Friday evening, during a fundraiser for the presumptive Republican candidate in Sun Valley, Idaho.

According to a pool report, Eastwood told the crowd that he was backing the Republican candidate because "the country needs a boost."
:
:
Earlier this year, Eastwood made waves when a Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler that he appeared in was interpreted as a nod to President Obama. The actor denied the allegation in interviews. He tersely told Fox: "l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America."

On Friday, there was no doubt that Eastwood was a Romney man.

Porn queen Jenna Jameson endorses Mitt Romney for president - NBC News Entertainment

Retired porn star queen Jenna Jameson has thrown in with presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, citing the party's preference for low taxes on the wealthy.

"I’m very looking forward to a Republican being back in office,” Jameson told a CBS reporter at the anniversary celebration of a gentleman's club in San Francisco on Thursday. "When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

[Peregrine]

Wow you know it's true but it's rare to see someone come right out and say it.

"When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Wow you know it's true but it's rare to see someone come right out and say it.

"When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

Made me look up demographics supporting republicans.

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currently, most of the Republican voter base is Caucasian. While historically the party had been supporters of rights for African Americans since the 1860s, it lost its leadership position; the GOP has been winning under 15% of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2008). The party has recently nominated African American candidates for senator or governor in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, though none were successful. In the 2010 elections, two African American Republicans were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.[66] The Republican Party abolished slavery under Abraham Lincoln, defeated the Slave Power, and gave blacks the vote during Reconstruction in the late 1860s. Until the New Deal of the 1930s, blacks supported the GOP by large margins.[67] Most black voters switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s when the New Deal offered them employment opportunities, and major figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, began to support civil rights. They became one of the core components of the New Deal Coalition. In the South, blacks were able to vote in large numbers after 1965, when a bipartisan coalition passed the Voting Rights Act, and ever since have formed a significant portion (20-50%) of the Democratic vote in that region.[68]

In recent decades, the party has been moderately successful in gaining support from Hispanic and Asian American voters. George W. Bush, who campaigned energetically for Hispanic votes, received 35% of their vote in 2000 and 44% in 2004.[69] The party's strong anti-communist stance has made it popular among some minority groups from current and former Communist states, in particular Cuban Americans, Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and Vietnamese Americans. The election of Bobby Jindal as Governor of Louisiana has been hailed as pathbreaking.[70] He is the first elected minority governor in Louisiana and the first state governor of Indian descent.[71] In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain won 55% of white votes, 35% of Asian votes, 31% of Hispanic votes, and 4% of African American votes.[72] In the 2010 House election, the GOP won 60% of the white votes, 38% of Hispanic votes, and 9% of the African American vote.[73]

For decades, a greater percentage of white voters identified themselves as Democrats, rather than Republicans. However, since the mid-1990s whites have been more likely to self-identify as Republicans than Democrats.[74]

In recent elections, Republicans have found their greatest support among whites from married couples with children living at home.[75] Unmarried and divorced women were far more likely to vote for Kerry in 2004.[76]

Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party. President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%.[63]

Republicans hold a large majority in the armed services, with 57% of active military personnel and 66% of officers identified as Republican in 2003.[77]

Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: "[b]oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees..."[78] Fried provides a slightly more detailed analysis, noting that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to have advanced degrees, but Democratic women are now more likely than Republican women to have advanced degrees.[79]

Republicans remain a small minority of college professors, with 11% of full-time faculty identifying as Republican.[80]

The Democrats do better among younger Americans and Republicans among older Americans. In 2006, the GOP won 38% of the voters aged 18–29.[63]

Exit polls conducted in 2000, 2004, and 2006 indicate that about one quarter of gay and lesbian Americans voted for the GOP. In recent years, many in the party have opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while supporting the use of the don't ask, don't tell policy within the military. Some members of the party, particularly in the Northeast and Pacific coast, support civil unions and adoption rights for same-sex couples.[81] The opposition to gay rights largely comes from the socially conservative wing of the party.[82]

Religion has always played a major role for both parties but, in the course of a century, the parties' religious compositions have changed. Religion was a major dividing line between the parties before 1960, with Catholics, Jews, and Southern Protestants heavily Democratic, and Northeastern Protestants heavily Republican. Most of the old differences faded away after the realignment of the 1970s and 80s that undercut the New Deal coalition. Voters who attend church weekly gave 61% of their votes to Bush in 2004; those who attend occasionally gave him only 47%, while those who never attend gave him 36%. Fifty-nine percent of Protestants voted for Bush, along with 52% of Catholics (even though John Kerry was Catholic). Since 1980, large majorities of evangelicals have voted Republican; 70–80% voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and 70% for GOP House candidates in 2006. Jews continue to vote 70–80% Democratic. Democrats have close links with the African American churches, especially the National Baptists, while their historic dominance among Catholic voters has eroded to 54-46 in the 2010 midterms.[72] The main line traditional Protestants (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) have dropped to about 55% Republican (in contrast to 75% before 1968). Their church memberships have declined in that time as well as the conservative evangelical churches have grown. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, are overwhelmingly Republican and vote in line with the Christian right - George W. Bush received 89% of the Mormon vote.[83] Bush also received almost 80% of the Muslim vote in the 2000 Presidential election. However, his support among Muslims declined sharply and, by the 2004 election, at least half of those voters supported Democratic candidate John Kerry or a third party candidate

[DaddyTorgo]

Not trying to make a mountain out of this or anything, and it really doesn't mean anything, but it's a hilariously bad coincidence given what's going on right now.

As a history major and a Bostonian I should have remembered this, but it took someone else pointing it out online I'm ashamed to say.

The name of the ship that the British sent over to Boston Harbor to enforce the Townshend Act and collect taxes from the colonists in 1768?

Yes...that's right...HMS Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Romney_%281762%29

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not trying to make a mountain out of this or anything, and it really doesn't mean anything, but it's a hilariously bad coincidence given what's going on right now.

As a history major and a Bostonian I should have remembered this, but it took someone else pointing it out online I'm ashamed to say.

The name of the ship that the British sent over to Boston Harbor to enforce the Townshend Act and collect taxes from the colonists in 1768?

Yes...that's right...HMS Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Romney_%281762%29

You know who else had a ship that collected taxes?

Hitler.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

You know who else had a ship that collected taxes?

Hitler.

Hey - I said I wasn't trying to make anything out of it, it's just an amusing coincidence -- particularly given this whole thing about Romney's tax returns.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Hey - I said I wasn't trying to make anything out of it, it's just an amusing coincidence -- particularly given this whole thing about Romney's tax returns.

Haha! It was definitely meant as a joke on my part. Just channeling my inner Glenn Beck.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Just channeling my inner Glenn Beck.

Some little part of me misses that crazy fat fucker. A teeny little bit.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Some little part of me misses that crazy fat fucker. A teeny little bit.

He's probably hiding away with David Barton as they work on their ultimate tome how in 1776 the Illuminati conspired with Ottoman Empire to bring an illegitimate person to the US Presidency.

This conspiracy also included heads of state in England, Germany and France. They knew this would take time and money, so in mid 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started to issue banknotes throughout the Empire and also reforming their financial system to...you guessed it, the French model. Then in the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire signed a secret treaty with Germany forming an alliance against the Russians (not to be confused with the Soviets).

This led to the Arab Revolt (sounds familiar?) which eventually led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and giving rise to the Islamic Fascist countries we know today. This all ties in to England purposefully not doing anything to stop Hitler in the 30s through the late 30s. As this was to ensure that there was enough of a 'distraction' to keep anyone from noticing a young Kenyan businessman from traveling to different locations in search of a white wife.

As the Second World War ended, the Illuminati set up a birthing facility and wire service in a remote village in Africa. To make everything seem legit, they had be in operation for several years to keep any scrutiny away. Now that the Illuminati had successfully created the UN, they declared war on North Korea when North Korea invaded South Korea. Since the war dominated the headlines in 1951, this began a decades worth of birth announcements sent to various newspapers around the United States. However, each state was actually a code word for what country the person was actually born in. If the state was "Hawaii", they were actually born in Kenya.

So then in early 1960, one Barack Obama Sr, paid George Soros 3 million dollars for an 'investment'. What was that 'investment'? You guessed it, a white wife and the mechanizations set in place for Barack Obama Jr to become the 44th president of the United States.

Know what else 44 stands for? Fascism.

[DaddyTorgo]

Wow. Just wow. Impressive sir! Good for a big laugh.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Wow. Just wow. Impressive sir! Good for a big laugh.

It's easy to play the "Beck Connect the Dots" game.

[Easy Mac]

but what about the reverse vampires?

[Edward64]

Interesting option. Will change dynamics if true,

OBAMA: ROMNEY WANTS VP PETRAEUS

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!

"The president wasn't joking," the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.

A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.

Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.

The pick could be a shrewd Romney choice. A cross-party pull. The Obama administration hailed Petraeus as one of history's greatest military strategists. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA by the US Senate 94-0.

But Petraeus has categorically asserted that he has NO political ambitions. And Team Obama stands prepared to tie one of their own to "Bush wars." A Petraeus pick could been seen as simply shuffling the decks of power in DC.

"He's a serious man, for seriously dangerous times," notes a top Republican.

A DRUDGE POLL on Tuesday morning showed readers split on if Romney should give it a go.

And the calendar is running out of days.

Developing...

[SirFozzie]

Petraeus has already said he will not seek elective office

[Grover]

lol the drudge report.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Grover

lol the drudge report.

I sometimes wonder when the unbiased media that we speak about on here would have broken Lewinsky story or the Edwards affair without the work of the "laughable" outlets like Drudge and the National Enquirer.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Grover

lol the drudge report.

...says the self-proclaimed socialist.

[JPhillips]

The base won't accept Petraeus unless he makes clear pro-life statements first.

Why would Petraeus sacrifice his reputation on a campaign that will probably be a loser?

[Swaggs]

Semi-VP related -- I read somewhere recently that one of the things folks are watching for in the VP sweepstakes is whose wikipedia pages are being spruced or cleaned up. I guess so many people immediately check "background" info on wikipedia, that it is really important to make it look as impressive as possible.

[JPhillips]

Nobody has checked my wiki page.

Guess I'm out.

[Edward64]

Obamaloney & Romneyhood ... like the imagination.

Presidential campaign gets even dirtier - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- Hypocritical. Contemptible. Dishonest. "Obamaloney." The rhetoric, charges and counter-charges flew fast and thick Tuesday as the presidential election campaign continued on its sharply negative trajectory.

New advertisements by each side prompted caustic responses from the other as name-calling and finger-pointing dominated the debate less than three months before the November vote that pits President Barack Obama against certain Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

A day after Obama coined the phrase "Romneyhood" to describe policies by Romney that Obama said tax the poor to help the rich -- or Robin Hood in reverse -- Romney fired back by creating his own word -- Obamaloney -- to accuse the president of making things up.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Anyone see the near Wall Street Meltdown this week?

Trading Group's program goes nuts, issuing buy orders on 158 stocks.
Other people's program's respond to this bit of "static on the wire", and go a bit nutty themselves.
At one point there was SIX times the normal trading volume as the oscillating loop from the rogue program and the response to the rogue program just kept feeding into a vicious cycle.

It took a half hour for the rogue program to be shut off, but this software burp has cost the trading group (KNight Trading Group) dearly. They struck a deal with Goldman Sachs to buy the unwanted stock from them, at a cost of $440 million. They only have $365 million or so on hand, and are spending the weekend desperately trying to find additional funding, etcetera.

If a half hour software burp costs your firm a half BILLION dollars, trading stocks has become way too fucking complicated.

Trading Program Ran Amok, With No 'Off' Switch - NYTimes.com

Clancy already did this story. It was Japanese businessmen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Obamaloney & Romneyhood ... like the imagination.

Presidential campaign gets even dirtier - CNN.com

This is going to be a long few months.

[Marc Vaughan]

So is either presidential candidate going to set out something truly revolutionary like maybe ... policies that they might support and undertake or just throw mud back and forth?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So is either presidential candidate going to set out something truly revolutionary like maybe ... policies that they might support and undertake or just throw mud back and forth?

Silly foreigner.

[Kodos]

It's the mud option.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I just hope I don't have to choose between Akin and McCaskill in the election. That would be a nightmare scenario IMO.

I see that your nightmare came true.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its likely Romney-Pawlenty per NY Times ...

Pawlenty Looked at as Romney Running Mate - NYTimes.com

Ready to know ...

JACKSON, Mich. — After a brief speech at the opening of a campaign office here, Tim Pawlenty was asked if he would return to Michigan “when you’re vice president.”

“We’ll know soon enough,” Pawlenty, dressed in shirt sleeves, told the crowd with a chuckle.

The former Minnesota governor is believed to be on Mitt Romney’s short list of running mates and there is speculation that the choice could be made any day.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I see that your nightmare came true.

Yes, it's a walking disaster. Which loud-mouthed goofball do we bless Washington with now????

[gstelmack]

I do love the new Romney ad, where he has Obama quoted as saying "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my term" but shows all the debt numbers to make his point. I mean, the intent of the ad is there (and yes, I get that the Repubs in congress have made his life difficult, but then he also introduced a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit, so he's just as much to blame), but the bait-and-switch on the numbers is misleading.

I don't think either of these candidates is going to turn the economy around soon.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I do love the new Romney ad, where he has Obama quoted as saying "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my term" but shows all the debt numbers to make his point. I mean, the intent of the ad is there (and yes, I get that the Repubs in congress have made his life difficult, but then he also introduced a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit, so he's just as much to blame), but the bait-and-switch on the numbers is misleading.

I don't think either of these candidates is going to turn the economy around soon.

And this is where the GOP shows their complete lack of foresight and one track mindedness. Had they been trying to actually deal with the deficit and the economy and jobs instead of worrying about stripping women's reproductive rights, they could have had a complete list of bills they introduced to help return to a healthier economy. The ad could have said something like this:

"President Obama said he would reduce the deficit by half by the end of your term. We introduced Bills A, B, C, D, E, F & G, but, he vetoed everyone of them. We did our part Mr. President, why didn't you do yours?" ZING!!!

Nope. Got to make sure that someone gets an ultrasound before getting an abortion instead.

[bronconick]

They voted to overturn PPACA 34 times. They don't have time for that other stuff.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by bronconick

They voted to overturn PPACA 34 times. They don't have time for that other stuff.

That's a good point. Nothing like exhausting all efforts to overturn a law that your party endorsed during the Clinton administration and that your current presidential candidate signed into law while governor. The P in GOP definitely does not stand for 'Priorities'.

[Edward64]

I don't know why the slip, his world tour didn't go that bad. I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Romney camp: Polls can change 'next week' - First Read

Top aides to the GOP's presumptive nominee Mitt Romney were at a loss today to explain the candidate's recent slide in a series of national polls which show Romney dropping anywhere from seven to nine points behind the president as the nominating conventions approach at the end of this month.

"It’s the middle of summer. It’s the doldrums. It’s the middle of the Olympics,” a senior Romney adviser told reporters gathered for a briefing at the campaign's Boston headquarters. “There's not been any national news, anything that would push these numbers from minus-three to minus-nine points. That's a huge shift. You have to have some kind of precipitating event to move numbers like that."

As we noted this morning, three national polls released late this week -- from CNN, Fox and Reuters/Ipsos -- all show Romney slipping out of the margin of error nationally in his effort to unseat the president

[Edward64]

Interesting read. Plenty for folks to agree and disagree with.

Five myths about Obama’s stimulus - The Washington Post

President Obama’s February 2009 stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was a political disaster. It helped fuel the Republican revival of 2010 and now stars in Mitt Romney’s ads. The president even stopped uttering the word “stimulus.” But the $787 billion bill was one of the most important and least understood pieces of legislation in modern history. It was the purest distillation of what Obama meant by change, transforming our approaches to energy, education, health care, transportation and the economy, promoting long-term reinvestment as well as short-term recovery. Just about everything Americans think they know about it is wrong. Here are a few examples.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why the slip, his world tour didn't go that bad. I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Romney camp: Polls can change 'next week' - First Read

Umm...there's the issue of him not releasing his tax returns. Hell, even Republican pundits are saying he should at this point. Which can only mean that whataever is in them is something he judges is MORE damaging than the hits that he's taking for not releasing them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Unless he's got a Reagan clone hidden somewhere ... wait, that wouldn't do it either.

Virtually anyone he picks seems likely to energize some but turn off others. Momentary bump from coverage & then he settles right back in. Sink or swim, it's on him to make the numbers work out, no veep choice is going to do that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why the slip, his world tour didn't go that bad. I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Romney camp: Polls can change 'next week' - First Read

Here is the VP candidate Paul Ryan. Wonder how he stacks up against Biden.

Romney picks Paul Ryan as vice presidential running mate - First Read

Mitt Romney's campaign has announced that the presumptive GOP nominee has chosen House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. The two candidates will appear together at a campaign event in Norfolk, VA Saturday morning.

[JPhillips]

So Romney is now going to spend the campaign talking about his VP's plans. That seems like really bad optics to me. I can't recall another VP pick that came with a complete domestic policy agenda.