The Tragedy of Romney

On The Positive Side

This piece was written before the 2012 Presidential Election took place. It was prescient!

Mitt Romney is an intelligent and relatively moral man who grew up in a political family with a strong religious anchor. He had the intelligence to work at making money. He became a multimillionaire by using opportunities in the capitalist system. Most of his money was made by squeezing maximum return from investment, utilising financial leverage, "rationalising", downsizing and exporting American jobs.

Romney did not invent a better mousetrap. He bought mousetrap manufacturing companies cheaply, had the mousetraps made abroad,continued to sell the mousetraps at American prices, and sold off the USA factory sites as industrial estates or for housing. Having squeezed out lots of cash Romney then sold the slimmed down companies at good prices that reflected the true market value of these now profitable companies.

All this is fully within mainstream American capitalism.

Some would criticise Romney for becoming a multimillionaire without apparently creating anything. Many would say that he released value from struggling or failing companies for the benefit of Romney and his fellow investors.

Quite understandably Romney organised his tax affairs to minimise the tax he paid. As an honest practicing Mormon he paid true tithes, from which one can deduce what his real income was.

Romney is a bit of a rarity in American politics. He tries to be a moral man within the constraints of American politics. As a liberal Republican he could be a candidate occupying the centre ground.

In Bad Company

There are considerable numbers of Republicans who are socially and fiscally conservative. They truly believe that Government should simply not be involved in many aspects of life. They do not regard the role of government as to be to hold the ring, but to just butt out. Lower taxes will give people larger disposable incomes, out of which people can provide for themselves. Some of the more extreme would have no state pensions or state health insurance at all. Their concern is simply to reduce taxes, which necessitates reduced state expenditure. No Welfare of any description.

These people often give very signficant sums of money to the political process.

Romney could have staked out ground as a liberal Republican, and he might or might not have won the nomination. These Conservative folk might have withdrawn from the Presidential election, regarding it as a contest between two liberals. They would not have been enthused.

Romney decided that he could not win the Presidential Election without the active support of these people. Romney has said things to please this wing of the Republican Party. His choice of Ryan as Vice President candidate is an example of balancing his ticket to appeal to the "right" of the Republican Party.

Romney is not a rabid right winger, and the right wing are not fooled. The Right could not come up with a decent candidate who could beat Romney, so Romney has the Republican nomination sewn up.

Worst of Both Worlds

As a liberal, Romney could make a really convincing pitch for the middle ground of politics. He could argue that the Health system he set up in Michigan was good value for money, unlike Obamacare. Whether this is true or not does not matter - it is an argument that would convince many people - or enough people - that a Federal Health system is not needed. Romney could argue convincingly that Health is a state rather than a federal issue, and each state should make whatever provision the people of that state wish.

Romney could argue that as a successful capitalist he knows that money is rarely the problem. What is important is how the money that exists is used. He would run the Federal Government in a businesslike manner - slash and burn waste!

He could say that he intends to devolve much activity to the individual states, and that he will reduce Government employee numbers by 8% over two terms. The outsourcing of support, cleaning and janitorial services can reduce the numbers easily enough.

Romney can say that as the USA is pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq he will reduce Defence expenditure without tears.

For every liberal who votes Romney, that is one vote off Obama and for Romney, worth two of the dedicated rightwingers. As the USA does not work on a popular vote but on an electoral college, it is votes in the swing states that matter, not piling up majorities in Republican states.

The Tragedy

The liberal Romney message - which could win him an election, is contradicted by Romney's gifts to the Republican Right. Ryan as VP is seen as a Welfare cutter and a fiscal hawk. So any attempt by Romney to run as a liberal is contradicted by his sops to the Right.

Whatever Romney does to enthuse the Right costs him votes in the swing seats. He could even gain a majority of the votes cast but fail to gain Florida, California and New York. So he loses.

The Right will not say "We lost because our views were too right wing." They will say "Our candidate was not right wing enough!".

More by this Author


Comments 13 comments

Doodlehead profile image

Doodlehead 4 years ago from Northern California

The word is getting out finally. Mitt Romney believes in the concentration camps for American citizens too...via the NDAA. A lot of the Romney supporters do not know about this.

Thanks for spreading the truth.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Charles

For the last several decades both political parties have offered only candidates that were just OK. So the election is choosing the better of the two opposing candidates.

It is a bad system that uses the loyal party voter to vote for their party's candidate regardless of whether that candidate is the best choice.

The democrat and republican parties knowing the percentage of their registered voters that will not vote outside the party, cash in their votes at registration time. It is a mere formality for the loyal voter to actually vote.

The wild card are the independent voters or the undecided, a minority group. Even though they are a small group they are crucial to the win for either party.

In the case of Obama versus Romney in 2012, we know all that we need to know about Obama. The real issue is whether Romney will be a better choice. Based on the dismal Obama results of the last four years, and his years as Illinois senator, he has set the bar so low that Romney could clear it just be stepping over the bar.

It is only the persistence of the loyal party voter that Obama is in the running.

My point is that the fault lies in the voters, and no so much in the candidates.

Thanks


Nathan Orf profile image

Nathan Orf 4 years ago from Virginia

Mitt Romney is no Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination, and he did not have to work too hard to become a multimillionaire. He was born into a very rich family. Rich enough for his father, George Romney, to run for the Presidential Nomination.

While Romney is, by most accounts, a smart, able and likeable man, his policies would simply return us to the Bush years of trickle down economics, which simply do not work and would run this country to the ground.

The problem going for Romney, and for most other Republicans, is that they have all forgotten that Reagan, their hero, raised taxes when he needed to and compromised with Democrats wherever he had too. He would be unfamiliar with today's brand of "No New Taxes" Conservatism. He realized that this was pure and utter fantasy. Today's Republicans do not.

If Obama's bar as President was ever low, it was because House Republicans worked hard to prevent him from accomplishing anything. But I think, considering his record of preventing total economic collapse, killing Bin Laden and upping the ante on the War on Terror, and pulling troops out of Iraq (or at least being President when they left) will be a stark contrast to Mitt's history of corporate raider-ship.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 4 years ago from Yorkshire, UK Author

I was pretty dubious about doodlehead's contribution, but on the grounds of free speech I decided to allow it.

ib radmastwers and Nathan Orf are sound commentators. It is the traditional Republican problem of how to enthuse their solid support without losing the floating voters.


Doodlehead profile image

Doodlehead 4 years ago from Northern California

Charles---I am am a little wierd, but not too wierd. The news I posted is shocking to all. Myself included....but true it is.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Nathan

If Obama's bar as President was ever low, it was because House Republicans worked hard to prevent him from accomplishing anything.

ib---

Obama has not really met his 2008 promises. He spent his first two years with a democratic controlled congress working on Obama care, instead of focusing on the economy, jobs, housing market, and reigning in Fannie and Freddie Mae and the others in the financial industry that caused the economic collapse.

Throwing 750 billion dollars at a problem is not solving the problem. Look at the economy, jobs, housing and the financial industry today,and there is hardly any perceptible difference.

-----

But I think, considering his record of preventing total economic collapse, killing Bin Laden and upping the ante on the War on Terror,

ib----

Finding Bin Laden took ten years of the military and other agencies time. And in my opinion we were one helicopter disaster away from the Jimmy Carter fiasco with the attempt to free the hostages failure.

These special forces could have taken Bin Laden alive, so the question is why was the decision made not to take him alive. Also why wasn't the downed US helicopter with all the stealth features not destroyed by our forces.

Sadam Hussein was taken alive??

-----------------

and pulling troops out of Iraq (or at least being President when they left) will be a stark contrast to Mitt's history of corporate raider-ship.

ib--

Pulling the troops out is a liberal and democratic tactic that has always done more damage than good.

Look at the end of WWII, politicians gave away Europe to Russia, and that started the cold war. Pulling out the troops from North Korea, allowed Russia and China to be bold in Vietnam. And in Vietnam we lost the whole country.

We pulled out of Iraq after Desert Storm only to have to come back to it after 911. Now that was a Republican George H Bush deal along with the democrats.

Now Iraq has no US Troops but the war continues and so does the killing. Great accomplishment?

---

My final point if we continue to have these discussions on the search for the guilty, then we will never move forward. The problem is the Congress and the democrats and the republicans. There is no effective congress, hasn't been one for the longest time, because the party goals are put above the goals of the people and the country. And in that respect the people and the voters are the larger problem.

It has been historically proven that neither party has the answer, and neither party has moved the country forward, with maybe two exceptions in the last one hundred years.

Thanks.


Nathan Orf profile image

Nathan Orf 4 years ago from Virginia

ib radmasters,

Ok, let me tackle this from the bottom up. I have to agree with your final point. Both parties in Washington, as well as the special interests they serve, are responsible for most of the gridlock. No one who plays the political game in D.C is innocent.

However, in the case of Iraq, Vietnam and North Korea, victory was never possible. I have heard it said that in Vietnam, the U.S won tactically and lost strategically. Our escapade in Iraq was always doomed to fail because we did not understand the culture of the country we were trying to "free".

After WW2, letting the Soviets invade and Communize Eastern Europe was pretty much the price we paid for working with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. When the war was over, Eastern Europe was under Soviet control, and the only way to break that control would have been to start a war with the U.S.S.R.

And I see the Korean War as a glass half full. The North is a human rights nightmare, but the South is one of the worlds largest economies and is a stable democracy. For now, a war in Korea would do no one any good, a fact appreciated by the U.S and South Korean militarizes; that is the most militarized border in the world.

Personally, I think the war in Iraq was a waste of life and money. We should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Throwing troops and money at Iraq was never going to turn it into a stable, healthy democracy.

I will admit that finding Bin Laden was a long, frustrating process for everyone involved in searching for him. It would have done Bush more credit if he had not said, while in office, that Bin Laden was no longer a top priority. This is one of those back and forth things; the Bush Administration started searching for Bin Laden, But the Obama Administration still gets credit for finding him.

The operation very nearly went horribly wrong, it is true. But we lost no lives in the raid, Bin Laden was brought to justice and the USA prevailed. You have to admit, it all provided us with a desperately needed piece of good news.

And you are wrong to say that Obama did not meet any of his campaign promises. He did, in fact, promise Health Care Reform. Granted, he was against the Individual Mandate on the campaign trail, but overall, he did do as he promised on that front.

As for the stimulus, well, the first one was actually signed under George Bush. It was, at the time, something everyone agreed on. It kept the economy afloat long enough for Obama to pass the second stimulus. Both packages helped the nation avert another Great Depression.

Obama also bailed out the Auto Industry. It worked. Obama can and will use this for his campaign in Ohio and other Rust Belt states. Romney wanted to let the Auto companies go bankrupt. Would that have worked?

Obama has a record, as you said in your previous comment, that we can and should look at. Romney also has a record, as Governor of Massachusetts. In many ways, the two men are similar, but I trust the former far more than I do the latter.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Nathan

Ok, let me tackle this from the bottom up. I have to agree with your final point. Both parties in Washington, as well as the special interests they serve, are responsible for most of the gridlock. No one who plays the political game in D.C is innocent.

However, in the case of Iraq, Vietnam and North Korea, victory was never possible. I have heard it said that in Vietnam, the U.S won tactically and lost strategically. Our escapade in Iraq was always doomed to fail because we did not understand the culture of the country we were trying to "free".

ib==================

Vietnam could have been won but the politicians and the liberal didn't want to challenge Russia and China who backed North Korea and North Vietnam. This was the result of the politicians giving great concessions at the end of WWII.

-----------

After WW2, letting the Soviets invade and Communize Eastern Europe was pretty much the price we paid for working with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. When the war was over, Eastern Europe was under Soviet control, and the only way to break that control would have been to start a war with the U.S.S.R.

ib-------

At the end of the war we had the A Bomb, and no one else did. It wasn't until 1949 that Russia stole the plans. That set Russia up as the challenger for nuclear war. Russia was our enemy, then Germany invaded them. Then we Helped Them to save their country. They were in no shape to continue a war at that time.

All the politicians did was to defer the war, which became Korea.

--------

And I see the Korean War as a glass half full. The North is a human rights nightmare, but the South is one of the worlds largest economies and is a stable democracy. For now, a war in Korea would do no one any good, a fact appreciated by the U.S and South Korean militarizes; that is the most militarized border in the world

ib------

I was talking about the Korean War in the early 1950s. In which case there wouldn't be a North Korea to worry about.

---------------

Personally, I think the war in Iraq was a waste of life and money. We should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Throwing troops and money at Iraq was never going to turn it into a stable, healthy democracy.

ib----

Again I was talking about Desert Storm. Had we taken care of Sadam at that time, we wouldn't had to do it later. And maybe there would have been one less place for terrorists to use.

-----------------------

I will admit that finding Bin Laden was a long, frustrating process for everyone involved in searching for him. It would have done Bush more credit if he had not said, while in office, that Bin Laden was no longer a top priority. This is one of those back and forth things; the Bush Administration started searching for Bin Laden, But the Obama Administration still gets credit for finding him.

The operation very nearly went horribly wrong, it is true. But we lost no lives in the raid, Bin Laden was brought to justice and the USA prevailed. You have to admit, it all provided us with a desperately needed piece of good news.

ib---

True but you overlooked my point about taking him alive, and the near fiasco, losing a stealth helicopter without destroying it. I disagree that it was good news. It adds more questions, than it answers in my opinion.

---------

And you are wrong to say that Obama did not meet any of his campaign promises. He did, in fact, promise Health Care Reform. Granted, he was against the Individual Mandate on the campaign trail, but overall, he did do as he promised on that front.

ib---

Was that the critical issues facing the country in 2008, and it wouldn't even take effect until his term was up. Meanwhile, the economy, jobs, housing and the financial industry remain the same.

-----

As for the stimulus, well, the first one was actually signed under George Bush. It was, at the time, something everyone agreed on. It kept the economy afloat long enough for Obama to pass the second stimulus. Both packages helped the nation avert another Great Depression.

ib---

I totally disagree. I did say both presidents and both congresses failed. The one and a half trillion dollars was not well spent, and it is only speculation that it would have been worse if they didn't just throw money at it. I blame both the democrats and the republicans in 2007-2008, as they were too busy pandering for money and voters for two years.

No one was running the country, and just a few months before the election, they looked like deers in the headlight. Now in 2012 they are doing the same thing. But this time President Obama is the worst of the lot with over 175 fundraisers across the country, over 100 golf games, and numerous campaign trips. This is not a question of him being in his virtual presidential office in case of emergencies, it has to do with working on his campaign instead of the problems of the country.

-------

Obama also bailed out the Auto Industry. It worked. Obama can and will use this for his campaign in Ohio and other Rust Belt states. Romney wanted to let the Auto companies go bankrupt. Would that have worked?

Obama has a record, as you said in your previous comment, that we can and should look at. Romney also has a record, as Governor of Massachusetts. In many ways, the two men are similar, but I trust the former far more than I do the latter.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Nathan

Obama also bailed out the Auto Industry. It worked. Obama can and will use this for his campaign in Ohio and other Rust Belt states. Romney wanted to let the Auto companies go bankrupt. Would that have worked?

ib----

Again, Ford didn't go bankrupt and they didn't partake in government help. It was GM and Chrysler.

And yes these two should have been allowed to go bankrupt. It will have gotten rid of the management that caused the bankruptcy. It would be a new deal, a new paradigm and better auto industry.

What the government handout out did was to say to management, you can play your dangerous games and when you fail we will bring you back to life.

--------

Obama has a record, as you said in your previous comment, that we can and should look at. Romney also has a record, as Governor of Massachusetts. In many ways, the two men are similar, but I trust the former far more than I do the latter.

ib----

Obama has a dismal record, he didn't meet his critical promises, and the Obama care is not an accomplishment. It is a new Tax Revenue for the government.

Trust what about Obama, his dedication to his personal goals over that of the people and the country. Spending his last two years as Senator campaigning. Spending the last year of his presidency campaigning.

People are still without jobs, and his job panel hasn't met in the last six months. The housing market is very weak, and the bailed out financial institutions have not helped the people that they stuck with their bad loans. Short sales have not been completed because the banks come up with excuse after excuse until the cash buyer goes away.

People are still losing their homes, and their jobs, and without money to pay for health insurance, Obama care wouldn't help them.

The financial industry was bailed out yet congress and the president did nothing to change the way that they do business. The banks didn't help refinance their troubled loans.

President Obama is on par with ex President Jimmy Carter for the worst president in recent times.

I have no idea if Romney would be a good president or whether he would be able to move the country forward, but he only has to focus on the job to be better than Obama.

What is Obama going to do if he has another four years. He already has the National Debt up from 10 trillion to 17 trillion.

Trust him to do what?

--------------------


Nathan Orf profile image

Nathan Orf 4 years ago from Virginia

ib radmasters,

Actually, as far as polling statistics go, the worst President in recent times has been George W. Bush. And you are wrong to say that Obama has not focused on jobs. In the four years of his Presidency, 4 million jobs have been created, including 163,000 for this month.

I am not sure whether the employees who worked at the companies you wanted to go bankrupt would agree with you. Had they lost their jobs as a result of a bankruptcy, they would have been hard pressed to find new jobs.

The point of the Health Care law is to make sure that companies are required to offer it, period. And because the law is a piece of social legislation, it allows all taxpaying citizens to shoulder the cost. It is only fair for everyone to pay for something that everyone needs to have.

And while Obama is certainly responsible for a part of the debt, you conveniently overlook the fact that when George Bush came into office, the country was running a surplus. Bush took that and turned it into 10 trillion dollars worth of debt, through those unfunded tax cuts, and those unfunded wars overseas.

And while we are on the topic of war, you said that Vietnam was lost because "politicians and the liberal didn't want to challenge Russia and China". Not true. Politicians were starkly divided over whether the war should or should not continue. And the mass protests against the war, which is what I assume you meant by "liberals" were protesting the draft, as well as a war they saw as corrupt and unjust. And victory was never possible anyway. South Vietnam was too corrupt and divided to last long, and the North was fighting on their own ground.

We could not have won in Korea either, once the Chinese started fighting in that war. They came in just in time to save North Korea from invasion from the south, and once they did, the war was at a stalemate.

We seem to be on two completely different topics about Iraq; you want to talk Desert Storm, and I would rather discus the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Fine. I saw nothing particularly wrong with Desert Storm. Saddam invaded Kuwait and broke international law by doing so. We were well within our rights to invade Iraq then. But Iraq would never have been a haven for terrorists if it weren't for the 2003 invasion. No nuclear weapons, no WMD's of any kind. Why were we there, again?

Russia was too weak to fight a war right after WW2, it is true, but so was the rest of Europe. I don't think Britain or France, having just been in one devastating war, would have been in the mood to support another. What we had, then, were two sides itching to have at each other, but both too weak and unwilling to carry on to the next step. The nuclear weapons only made the stalemate even more profound.

As for the raid on Bin Laden's compound, you seem to be determined to see no good in it. We left the ruins of the stealth helicopter plain for all to see, true. It nearly did go wrong. But it didn't. It would have been Obama's fault had the operation gone wrong. He made a tough call, and it paid off. No one should be held accountable for the downed helicopter. It was a ruin. What use is it to anyone?

And as for the campaign trail, you are overlooking Romney's part in it. For he, to, is campaigning. If elected, then by this point in his first term, Romney will be spending most of his time running for reelection. Its what Presidents do. It is how American politics works. And Obama needs all of the fundraisers he can get. Because Romney has Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers, and others to back him up. Again, this is all part of politics. Your argument here is a false argument.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Nathan

Actually, as far as polling statistics go, the worst President in recent times has been George W. Bush.

ib---------

What poll, did you take it, I didn't take it. I don't know anything about its criteria, who they asked etc.

That is the problem today, everyone is taking a poll, but polls are sample statistics, and statistics can be swayed.

So more importantly would be the accomplishments and the problems caused by these presidents. That could be compiled from their records.

----------

And you are wrong to say that Obama has not focused on jobs. In the four years of his Presidency, 4 million jobs have been created, including 163,000 for this month.

ib----

The unemployment rate is too high, and the job panel hasn't met, and many people over 40 have their unemployment insurance run out, and they can't get hired. Many have given up. The types of jobs that were lost are not factored into employment. Getting jobs at McDonalds, Wallmart and Home Depot are not the jobs that were lost.

-----------------

I am not sure whether the employees who worked at the companies you wanted to go bankrupt would agree with you. Had they lost their jobs as a result of a bankruptcy, they would have been hard pressed to find new jobs.

ib ----

So your argument is that these people are incompetent and saving their company saved them. These were the industries that had companies that were causing the economic problem, that lost jobs for people working in other industries because they collapsed the economy. The execs of these companies had the gall to give themselves seven figure bonuses for bankrupting their companies, and they used bailout money for these bonuses.

---------------------

The point of the Health Care law is to make sure that companies are required to offer it, period. And because the law is a piece of social legislation, it allows all taxpaying citizens to shoulder the cost. It is only fair for everyone to pay for something that everyone needs to have.

ib----

There are millions of illegal aliens in California that are not paying for their medical. Is it fair for government employees have the taxpayers pay for their lucrative benefits and pensions.

Adding thirty two million more people to the health insurance industry isn't going to improve the quality of this already pathetic industry. For the government workers to get these benefits while the rest of the workers

These government workers are a tax liability and they need to be getting only what the average wage earner in the private sector is getting from their employer.

In addition, robbing Medicare to pay for this Obamacare is also wrong.

The pre existing condition problem in the health insurance could have been solved with a specific legislation rather than Obamacare.

--------------

And while Obama is certainly responsible for a part of the debt, you conveniently overlook the fact that when George Bush came into office, the country was running a surplus. Bush took that and turned it into 10 trillion dollars worth of debt, through those unfunded tax cuts, and those unfunded wars overseas.

ib-----

911 makes that George W Bush years different from that of Obama or Clinton. Congress funds wars, presidents start them.

Enough with the whinning, and if the country was doing well in 2008 Obama wouldn't have had a chance to be president. He failed.

Bush was in office for eight years, and Obama added 7 trillion in just three and a half years.

-----------------

And while we are on the topic of war, you said that Vietnam was lost because "politicians and the liberal didn't want to challenge Russia and China". Not true. Politicians were starkly divided over whether the war should or should not continue. And the mass protests against the war, which is what I assume you meant by "liberals" were protesting the draft, as well as a war they saw as corrupt and unjust. And victory was never possible anyway. South Vietnam was too corrupt and divided to last long, and the North was fighting on their own ground.

ib-----

President Johnson escalated the Vietnam War from 15,000 troops to 550,000 troops and you think that we couldn't have won the war.

These same people also wanted to get out of Iraq, and Afghanistan. MY point is that for whatever reason the US goes to War, they need to go to win, and not wimper out. This only emboldens the enemy to believe it is a weakness that they can take advantage of in the future.

The government and especially the democrats need to take care of the troops that they send to war. In these wars the troops have not been given the necessary protective gear to be safer than they were in these wars including Vietnam.

--------------------

We could not have won in Korea either, once the Chinese started fighting in that war. They came in just in time to save North Korea from invasion from the south, and once they did, the war was at a stalemate.

ib------

That is my point, the US knew this from the beginning yet they went into the war. The government is responsible for the future wars, because they wimper out in a war, but Russia and China came back in Vietnam. The same cards were being played, and even worst results came because the politicians wimpered out once again.

You don't have to be a military genius to know that you go to war to win. And that means militarily and making sure that it doesn't happen with the same players again, and again. Which is what happened with the US since WWI.

-----------------------

We seem to be on two completely different topics about Iraq; you want to talk Desert Storm, and I would rather discus the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Fine. I saw nothing particularly wrong with Desert Storm. Saddam invaded Kuwait and broke international law by doing so. We were well within our rights to invade Iraq then. But Iraq would never have been a haven for terrorists if it weren't for the 2003 invasion. No nuclear weapons, no WMD's of any kind. Why were we there, again?

ib----

There would have been no need for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, if the US had dispatched Sadam Hussein in Desert Storm. All we did there was to defer the 2003 invasion.

--------------

Russia was too weak to fight a war right after WW2, it is true, but so was the rest of Europe. I don't think Britain or France, having just been in one devastating war, would have been in the mood to support another. What we had, then, were two sides itching to have at each other, but both too weak and unwilling to carry on to the next step. The nuclear weapons only made the stalemate even more profound.

ib----

Regardless of your reasoning, the fact is that allowing Russia to get most of Europe set the cold war, Korea and Vietnam in motion. War is hell, and if you can't go the distance than just surrender.

--------

As for the raid on Bin Laden's compound, you seem to be determined to see no good in it. We left the ruins of the stealth helicopter plain for all to see, true. It nearly did go wrong. But it didn't. It would have been Obama's fault had the operation gone wrong. He made a tough call, and it paid off. No one should be held accountable for the downed helicopter. It was a ruin. What use is it to anyone?

ib----

You keep avoiding why the decision to kill OBL was made by Obama.

As for the downed helicopter there is a loss of our technology when it is left like that.

------

up. Again, this is all part of politics. Your argument here is a false argument.

ib----

Romney is a private citizen and he doesn't have an existing job. So he can do all the campaigning that he desires.

You are right that this is the way politics works, but it is also the reason why the US is on its knees today. You avoided responding to the fact that congress was out campaigning for 2 years before the 2008 election. Duri


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Nathan

Ran out of characters in the previous comment.

ib------

The 2 years prior to the 2008 election was spent campaigning and during that time the economy was set to collapse. But nobody cared, and government business was put aside for the business of the democratic and republican parties.

This last year of Obama's presidency was entirely focused on getting reelected instead of doing his duties as president. That is something that should be changed in the way politics works today.

If President Obama had a worth public record he wouldn't need to campaign, he could just say look at my record. This is what I have done, and I am not finished working for the people and the country, give me some more time so I can finish the work.

Of course he can't say that because he has a dismal record, and he spent the entire year too date working on his campaign.

You know that say that talk is cheap, but not when President Obama does it. And that is all he does is talk.

Obamacare was to take ten years to take its full effect, yet the economy, jobs, housing market and energy were full fledged critical problems from the day he took office as president.

At the very least, it was bad judgement on the part of President Obama to focus on a problem that was not critical instead of those that were critical. If the economy was the focus, then it would bring back quality jobs, the kind that were lost. It would then stimulate the housing market and so on.

The Obamacare does none of that, and it wouldn't even been implemented during Obama's term. But during that term the other problems would be significant for the people and the country.

An accomplishment is not simply the passage of a law, that is merely an action. For an action to be an accomplishment it has to demonstrated that it is really beneficial.

Obamacare has not demonstrated the benefits.

-----

ib----

If you want things to remain dismal, then support the current politics and actions or non actions of the government. You can look at the last one hundred years and see that the way the government works has not moved the country forward. The congresses have put party over the people and the country.

The country can never move forward, if the way the government and politics work doesn't change.

Are you really happy with the country and the government today?

I want a president and a congress that will work together on problems rather than trying to see how they can pass the buck.

It is the fault of the voters not to pressure the politicians to work together for the common good, rather than the goal of a single party. The voting paradigm for everyone should be to not reelect the incumbents that were at the helm when the iceberg crashed into them.

-----------------


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Most astute, Charles, I believe that Romney is distrusted by the right wing of the GOP, but Satan himself would be preferable to another term for Mr. Obama. The right wing is keeping their mouths shut as Romney panders to the moderate middle knowing that if their policies were laid bare, they would be seen as extremist and would most certainly lose.

After what we went through in September, 2008, I certainly would not suggest that less regulation of the financial markets is the answer. Or given the size of the deficits, greater tax cuts in favor of the wealthy and placing the burden of the profligacy of the wealthy on the middle and working classes is fair. The solution is to increase demand, infrastructure projecrs are necessary and can put people back to work. I prefer this then to be at the mercy of the 'Lords" on whom we all wait to have enough confidence shower us all with their largess as"job creators" who would have us all eating out of their hands like a foal being fed sugar. Unfortunately, they do not do this without exacting a price on regulations, subsidies, workers rights, wages and the ability to organize. In the face of their demands, you just might decide to leave the 'sugar' alone.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working