I did not vote for Barack Obama, but he is my president.
I am disappointed in his performance, and will not vote for him in this election. One reason is that I do not remember hearing anything concrete from him beyond “100,000 math and science teachers.” And that is something that should be decided at the state level and by local school districts.
What I want from my president is that he stand by our country when we are right, and more especially when we are imperfect. I believe that President Obama had his chance, and it is time for someone new to try a different approach.
I may not understand how 12 million jobs will be created in the next four years, I may not agree with all the deductions and expenditures that must be reduced, but I do feel hope and I am looking forward to a change.
Vote for Mitt Romney as President of the United States of America.
Patrick Shepherd
Mesa
Arizona Willie posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
So ... because with the Republicans swearing to make Obama a one-term President and resisting every effort Obama made to fix the mess made by the Bush administration during 8 years of BORROW AND SPEND driving the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, in only 4 years --- you think we should go back to the same policies that created the mess in the first place.
OK
We understand
No one ever said you had to be smart to be a Republican.
xyno posted at 9:05 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Lying Leon, the "Muslim-Socialist-Marxist" spent 20 years in a Christen Church? He wasn't a good Muslim was he. You should vote for a guy that won't let anyone see his tax returns and loves all of his wives a lot but loves his teenage wives the most.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
First, let's make clear that Obama is far from perfect, as the muddled-at-best Benghazi has shown, as did his focus on health care inclusion rather than health care costs.
But his actions clearly helped lead this country away from a second Great Depression. Entering into his first year, we faced the worst economic conditions since the late '20's.
Today, we are in much better shape. And Republicans can't take any credit for it, given that the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, made clear the goal of the Republicans when Obama took office: to stop anything Obama did or tried.
And now, four years later, we have a choice between the direction Obama has gone and Romney's alternative.
That alternative is to go back to the Bush years, economically and internationally.
To argue that Romney's proposals are markedly different than Bush's is deceptive.
That return to the Bush policies is just one reason I'll be happy to vote for Barack Obama. Again.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:22 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Patrick,
You are right in your assessment of president Obama. His promises have been broken, his leadership is nonexistence, there is no transparency in his administration and he has used the power of the presidency to enrich his political friends and pander to his political base. Our economy is at a stand still, our foreign policy is in tatters and all Obama wants to do is continue the next fours years the same policies of the last four years. It's time to let him go.
Stop the deficit spending.
Stop big government.
Let the free market do it's thing, make money and jobs.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:31 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Hey, Chat, how'd that unfettered free market work out for you in the last decade?
And as to deficit spending, where were you in the Bush years, when Cheney said that "deficits don't matter"?
Oops, sorry, I forgot: All history began in 2009.
DonMey posted at 9:47 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Obama is inept. He can't get things done, and has no idea how. He can give a great speech, but can't seem to get beyond his own words and into action. Democrats have done an excellent job of admitting Obama has accomplished nothing, but instead of recognizing Obama isn't leading, they try and blame others for his failures.
JNelson posted at 10:15 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Mike, a couple of things. Since when has the US had an "unfettered free market"? We began losing free market capitalism with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. It has distorted market interest rates and has ballooned the money supply ever since causing massive misdirection of capital, not what a rational person would call conducive to a "free market". Then we had the abandonment of the gold standard which had stabilized the dollar for over 150 years, leading to an ever-increasing devaluation of the dollar to where it now takes more than 9 times as much money to purchase what the dollar could purchase 100 years ago. That is reflected accurately in the price of gold, over $1,700 now compared to $20 way back then. To top all that off, we've had Congresses in the last 8 decades which have abandoned the restraints upon it written into the Constitution, supported by agenda driven Supreme Court majorities, a rapidly ballooning national debt which can never be repaid, entitlement programs (none of them authorized in the Constitution) which sap the Treasury and burden taxpayers beyond belief, a never ending system of fighting wars, useless nation building and crony capitalism, plus ever-expanding government interference in the so-called free market with excessive regulations and gross mismanagement of its own programs.
"Unfettered free market"? Hahaha. Get real, Mike.
As for Obama and the Republicans, Obama hasn't proposed a single policy which would really help generate a growing economy. His only thought is to increase taxes, borrow to the hilt, spend as much as possible, increase the size of government and maximize union and government control, increase entitlements to create a more favorable Democrat voting base, and defy the laws in place through Executive Orders, even when he's stated earlier that he has no authority to do the things he then did under them. Is it any wonder the Republican House of Representatives opposed him? And too, his Democrat controlled Senate hasn't even proposed a budget in over 3 years, something by law they are obliged to do. Obama submitted two budgets to his Senate and neither one of them got a single "aye" vote, Dem or Repub. And you call this being frustrated by the Republicans????
As for the Republicans, they are no wunderkind, either. I call them Democrat Lite because they've long abandoned any real Conservative and/or Constitutional policies themselves in chasing their own big government agenda, hardly much better for us than the Democrats.
So the choice this year is again one of the lesser of two evils: Obama and his ultra-progressive clone copying of failing Western European nations or Romney's likely drawback to somewhat more reasonable policies in the economy but probably continuing the Republican failure to really address the major problems which must see swift correction to keep us from sliding over the fiscal cliff. At least the near future with Romney has some kind of a chance to postpone the inevitable disaster looming ahead of us while re-electing Obama means the opposite.
The only real solution to our massive problems is a return to true Constitutional government with the definite restrictions of power in it placed upon Congress, re-backing of the dollar by gold/silver or a basket of precious metals, removal of the overburdensome government regulations on every aspect of our lives which would return true freedom and liberty to American citizens, and appointment to the Supreme Court of justices who abandon re-invention of Constitutional meaning when the words of it are plenty plain enough for anyone with English comprehension to grasp.
Engaged Voter posted at 11:01 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
I find this letter shocking...absolutely shocking!
I have never, ever heard a right-winger utter the phrase "I may not understand".
Many do not understand what they are debating about...but for one to publicly admit it?
As I said, shocking. ;)
Bluepoet posted at 12:46 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
I'm looking forward, with hope, that, someday, the American public will see through the circus that is the two party system, and realise, that it's just two sides of the same coin--and both sides are heads, while we are the tails...
I decided to do something different, this time, for me. Instead of voting for Pat Paulsen, again, I decided to go with the living, and vote for Obama. I think he's done a lot of good for this country, albeit most of it will not be noticed for several years, and he may not get due credit, even then. And, despite the concerted, and traitorous efforts of the Republican Party, he stopped us from economic free fall...
It doesn't make for very good slogans, to say, "We Stopped It From Being Worse", but that's what he's done...and it would have been much, much worse...
The alternative is to vote for a Party that hasn't accomplished anything positive, in the last twelve years, and, a party that wouldn't recognize change if it fell out of its collective pocket! A group that wants to continue the crippling policies of supporting the Neavu-Riche, as the Royalty, while the rest of us beg for crumbs, like dogs at a King's table, in the Dark Ages.
No thanks...
truth posted at 2:40 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
Preparing for ciber war: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. was at risk of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and cited recent attacks widely attributed to Iran as a sign of "a pre-9/11 moment." Iran created a military "cybercorps" after the 2010 Stuxnet cybetattack on it's nuclear enrichment efforts, and the Russia and China also have impressive cyber war capabilities. Panetta warned that enemies of the U.S. could now "basically take down a power grid, take down a water system, take down a transportation system, and take down a financial system."
The proposed Cybersecurity act would have forced them to set up a cybersecurity system, but it died in the Senate this summer REPUBLICANS said it imposed "to many burdens on businesses." HuffingtonPost.com Bloomberg.com
George W. Bush prior to 9/11 had at least six warnings of a pending 9/11 attack but ignored them all, is this another warning ignored by the Republican party?
sockratties posted at 3:26 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
When a speeding train is heading for a break in the rail, you’ve got to bring it to a stop before you can reverse direction. We may actually have the train of recession stopped. Is this the time to slam the controls forward again and hope for the best?
As for voting for Romney… which one? The one that said what needed to be said to get the Republican nomination or the one that’s busy saying what he hopes will win over independent voters or the one that mostly agreed with Obama in the last debate because he doesn’t have any new ideas?
We have seen job loss reversed, we have seen the banking and auto industries remain viable, and he did make progress with Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) and gays in the military. These were some of the promises he made during the 2008 campaign. He was not as successful as we (and he) had hoped, but he made more progress than he gets credit for and against greater political obstacles than a functioning congress would have thrown up.
With Obama we know we will still get a president who has the same goals as most of the American people. With Romney we will get whatever is behind door #2. I don’t want to take that chance.
Rich posted at 6:20 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
The chief reason for voting anybody but Obama has nothing to do with most of the points being made here. Obama has done a poor job. If you re-elect people who have done poorly, you encourage politicians to do poorly and rely on a campaign staff to pull them out. Pretty much what is going on with Obama. The fact is you want your politicians to do a good job and, no matter what you figure about opponents, you don't have a clue as to what they can or will do. So you give someone else a chance to excel, knowing only that the incumbent won't. It isn't just re-rolling the dice, it's making the statement that we, the American people, won't settle, be great, or be gone. And making that statement, every election, is our best course to finding ways to make it better. Sockratties and Mike are willing to settle, are you?
Mike McClellan posted at 8:27 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
"Be great or be gone"? Gee, I wonder if we had that attitude for the eight years of the Bush Administration?
And I'm not settling -- Obama is clearly superior to whichever version of Mitt Romney you want to support, either the Moderate Mitt or the Pro-choice Mitt or the anti-assault weapons Mitt or the global warming is real Mitt or the "severe conservative" Mitt, or the write-off-46% of America Mitt or the I Care About 100% of the people Mitt, or the . . .
Rich posted at 9:00 pm on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.
No Mike, you miss the point. I'm an old man, not many adventures left. Obama, I know, and it's banal and boring. The globe isn't going to warm enough that effects my life or yours, it isn't happening tomorrow, it's happening, as it always does over a thousand years. Obama is mired in failure, You haven't a clue as to Mitt, just as no one had a clue to Reagan, who BTW presided over the longest period of prosperity America has ever seen. Both will lie to you to get elected and if you believe either you're just a child.
Obama is a banal exercise, Romney is an adventure, I really haven't a clue what he will do, how cool is that? Only so many adventures left. But then I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Just to record the fact that I am pissed.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:18 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
"I have no clue what he will do, how cool is that?" is half-true. No argument about that.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:35 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
8 years of BORROW AND SPEND under the Bush Administration with two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare Prescription benefit because the Republican administration refused to raise taxes to pay the bills it was creating.
GEE WHAT A GOOD IDEA THAT WAS.
We needed a humongous National Debt. Yes we did. Obviously Bush thought so, and Republicans will tell you he was never wrong.
Republican policies are SOOOO good for this country.
If you are in the top 1% perhaps.
If you own your own island in the Caribbean and keep your money hidden in offshore accounts so you don't have to pay taxes -- Republicanism is great FOR YOU.
Not so good for the rest of America -- but hey -- you got yours.
The Republicans declaring their only job was to make Obama a one term President and their voting against EVERYTHING he tried to do to fix the mess they made under Bush -- all that didn't hurt a bit.
It's amazing that Obama managed to accomplish as much as he did.
If Bush deserved a second term --- Obama deserves another shot too.
Cerulean posted at 12:03 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Rich said, “Reagan, who BTW presided over the longest period of prosperity America has ever seen.” And Reagan raised deficit spending more than anyone should have seen. So he made you feel rich and you were then happy but you still have to pay for it. You will never be happy with a president, like Carter, who was a pragmatist.
Bush did not veto one spending bill that came for his signature.
In my opinion, Romney is only motivated by the tax code.
truth posted at 2:41 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Reagan presided over the first great recession since the great depression, this recession started in his 17 month of this first term and lasted till 1991. Lets get our facts straight, Reagan raised taxes 17 times and sign the last aministy, making 3 million illegals U.S. citizens.
Now Georgr W. Bush holds the record for the greatest recession.
If Twit Romney is elected president he will have the chance to be the third republican to create the next super recession out doing both Reagan and Bush.
Maddog posted at 3:51 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Bush, Bush, Bush! He's not running! That's first of all, second- Carter was the worse economy since the Great Depression, gas lines, double digit inflation, and so on. He destroyed the Military, US Embassy seized and hostages taken. How hypocritical are u to say Bush spent too much when Obama spent twice as much in half the time. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and never complained about it; he fixed it. Obama had TWO years of Democratic House and Senate with majorities in both. They did not balance the budget, raise taxes on the rich, reform immigration, approve gay marriage, fix unemployment, ban guns, create job growth, make the world safer, stop the violence in the Middle East, close Gitmo etc... He made Obama Care and then exempted himself, Democratic controlled house and senate, and his unions. As far as the ridiculous notion that Bush ignored 6 warnings before 9-11; you’re as ignorant as they come. There were two enormous attacks on our Embassies, 1st attack on the WTC, and the bombing on the U.S.S. Cole under Clinton and NOTHING was done. The hijackers went missing inside the US and Trained for 2 years before the attack happened and before Bush was President. Not to mention Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights 3 times and did NOTHING about it. There were rumors of someone using planes for an attack, nothing about Airliners and the WTC.
Rich posted at 6:10 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Gee guys, let's not get that desperate. The current economy is Obama's, and no one else's. He blew it badly, stop looking for some Republican (apparently any Republican from the above posts) to blame. Harry Truman told you where the buck stops, and right now that's on Obama's desk. And Truman was a Democratic liberal. If Obama had turned everything around, the way Reagan did, he'd be headed for a landslide, he didn't, and if you re-elect him you are voting for it to get worse, because he has proved that he can't handle it, it is beyond his capability. Is Romney better? Heck, he could be worse, but Obama is a guaranteed failure, Romney isn't yet. I'm rather hoping for a miracle where we don't get either one, but that would be a miracle indeed. This Bush, Reagan blaming just sounds like desperation, and that's probably all it is.
Slabside posted at 9:29 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
Well said Rich.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:25 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
Rich, Reagan didn't have an opposition party that swore to make him a one-term President and who voted " NO " on everything he tried to do.
Obama didn't even have Democratic control of Congress, like some right wingers claim, for the first two years because of Blue Dog Democrats from the South who are actually Republicans but run as Democrats because of local traditions. They solidly voted with the Republicans and gave them effective control of Congress.A far far far different situation than Reagan had.
JNelson posted at 1:17 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Rich...."Reagan didn't have an opposition party that swore to make him a one-term president...." Are you kidding? I don't know if you are old enough to remember but I am, and I distinctly recall Speaker Tip O'Neill standing before the TV cameras, throwing a copy of Reagan's budget on the floor and saying it was a dead issue because the Democrats had their own budget and would pass it over any Reagan veto. Of course, that wasn't an idle threat because the Dems DID control Congress. Even when Reagan managed to get the Dems to agree to cut the spending budget more than the tax cuts proposed, they agreed but then wouldn't cut the budget but increased it instead! Reagan wanted a line-iten veto but the Dems wouldn't give him one. Yup, the Dems sure played fair with Reagan then, didn't they.
Attempting to revise history to make a point isn't going to work with people who have lived through that history, my friend. And even attempting to revise it by saying that Obama didn't have Democrat control of Congress for his first two years won't work. If he couldn't get anybody but the most rabid leftist in the Dem Party to work with him, whose fault is that? And the comparison with what Reagan had is no where near accurate.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:35 pm on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
AZ Willie: Obama borrowed and spent too! Also, he's tried multiple times to pass another amnesty program, then FORCED IT down the US Taxpayer's throat,JUST BEFORE ELECTION TIME! It's crystal clear why!
JNelson raised some very good points!!! Interesting how Mike IGNORED all of them...