Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[Gary A]

It's quite obvious that our current crop of politicians have no idea of how to balance a checkbook. How long can you continue to spend money that you don't have? I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer. How Obama, who never held a public sector job, was elected in the first place is a mystery to me.

Both parties have experience at fielding poor candidates. Bush would never have been re-elected if the democrats had run nearly anyone except Kerry.

[chuckd]

Most Americans still believe in the tired old adage 'might makes right' and such actions like the 'sucker punch' and 'whomever can stick a gun in someone's face is the stronger or more rightous of two antagonists.' Such beliefs are nurtured by violent movies (as much as any other influences). I like to tell people who believe in such things that even a 4 year old toddler can fire a gun which can kill the biggest baddest green beret, navy seal or Hell's Angel. Romney acting aggressive in the debate venue may appeal to some, but not to all voters.

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong — Ronald Reagan

[Ulysses G.]

How Obama, who never held a public sector job, was elected in the first place is a mystery to me.

The media pushed him and McCain refused to use opposition research which would have doomed his chances. Sometimes being a nice guy does not work out. McCain should have used it.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Businessmen make bad presidents? Maybe, maybe not, but without a doubt community organizers make the worst presidents.

It's way to early to even begin to judge the two term presidency of Barack Obama in a historical context.

The first term judgement could possibly come in on 6 November.

[Chicog]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

(No prizes for guessing).

[Jingthing]

It's quite obvious that our current crop of politicians have no idea of how to balance a checkbook. How long can you continue to spend money that you don't have? I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer. How Obama, who never held a public sector job, was elected in the first place is a mystery to me.

Both parties have experience at fielding poor candidates. Bush would never have been re-elected if the democrats had run nearly anyone except Kerry.

Obama was a state senator and then a United States Senator. Those are public sector jobs. Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

(No prizes for guessing).

Maybe Romney is waiting for Obama to first tell the voting public what he will do differently in the unlikely event he is reelected.

[koheesti]

Businessmen make bad presidents? Maybe, maybe not, but without a doubt community organizers make the worst presidents.

It's way to early to even begin to judge the two term presidency of Barack Obama in a historical context.

True, as he stands now, he is only the most incompetent, unqualified man to hold the office. If he gets another 4 years I'm afraid for my country how history will look at him.

Now, I'm not comparing Obama to another world leader in terms of ideology, but there was this one guy in Europe who took office back in 1934 who enjoyed overwhelming public support and a cult of personality and if he had stopped after 4 years, history would remember him differently if he hadn't remained in power until 1945. Just sayin', sometimes 4 years is more than enough and a leader would be wise to stop there.

[koheesti]

It's quite obvious that our current crop of politicians have no idea of how to balance a checkbook. How long can you continue to spend money that you don't have? I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer. How Obama, who never held a public sector job, was elected in the first place is a mystery to me.

Mystery solved:

Obama Had All His Opponents from his First Primary Race Disqualified in 1996

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

[koheesti]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

(No prizes for guessing).

I like that he isn't saying any more than eliminating some deductions. As President, he can't eliminate anything, he needs to work with Congress and they will end up chooses which deductions - if any - will be eliminated.

[Jingthing]

Businessmen make bad presidents? Maybe, maybe not, but without a doubt community organizers make the worst presidents.

It's way to early to even begin to judge the two term presidency of Barack Obama in a historical context.

True, as he stands now, he is only the most incompetent, unqualified man to hold the office. If he gets another 4 years I'm afraid for my country how history will look at him.

Now, I'm not comparing Obama to another world leader in terms of ideology, but there was this one guy in Europe who took office back in 1934 who enjoyed overwhelming public support and a cult of personality and if he had stopped after 4 years, history would remember him differently if he hadn't remained in power until 1945. Just sayin', sometimes 4 years is more than enough and a leader would be wise to stop there.

You're not comparing Obama to Hitler. But then you do compare him to Hitler. So confusing! Could be a case of Godwin's Law.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

(No prizes for guessing).

I like that he isn't saying any more than eliminating some deductions. As President, he can't eliminate anything, he needs to work with Congress and they will end up chooses which deductions - if any - will be eliminated.

That is NOT leadership. Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

(No prizes for guessing).

I like that he isn't saying any more than eliminating some deductions. As President, he can't eliminate anything, he needs to work with Congress and they will end up chooses which deductions - if any - will be eliminated.

That is NOT leadership.

Please give an example over the past 4 years of Obama displaying leadership.

[koheesti]

Businessmen make bad presidents? Maybe, maybe not, but without a doubt community organizers make the worst presidents.

It's way to early to even begin to judge the two term presidency of Barack Obama in a historical context.

True, as he stands now, he is only the most incompetent, unqualified man to hold the office. If he gets another 4 years I'm afraid for my country how history will look at him.

Now, I'm not comparing Obama to another world leader in terms of ideology, but there was this one guy in Europe who took office back in 1934 who enjoyed overwhelming public support and a cult of personality and if he had stopped after 4 years, history would remember him differently if he hadn't remained in power until 1945. Just sayin', sometimes 4 years is more than enough and a leader would be wise to stop there.

You're not comparing Obama to Hitler. But then you do compare him to Hitler. So confusing! Could be a case of Godwin's Law.

I said I wasn't comparing in terms of ideology. I'm comparing them in that history would have a more favorable view of them if they were both limited to serving 4 years.

[Jingthing]

Please give an example over the past 4 years of Obama displaying leadership.

Are you serious?

[Ulysses G.]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

[Jingthing]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan. Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer

Precisely. So how come he can't say how he's going to pay for his tax cuts?

As President, he can't eliminate anything, he needs to work with Congress and they will end up chooses which deductions - if any - will be eliminated.

Unlike Obama, he knows that he needs to work with both sides to move forward. Obama cut his own throat by refusing to include republicans when he had control of both houses of congress.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

It would have been a lot more risky to do nothing. It would have gotten out. Also, Obama knew that it was his only possibility for winning the election considering his dismal record on the economy.

[carmine]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

yes and still a good call that any president would have made!

[Jingthing]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

yes and still a good call that any president would have made!

It seems a good call because it worked. If it had blown up, you know Fox News would still be screaming blame about it ... directly at Obama. You can't have it BOTH ways.

[keemapoot]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

It would have been a lot more risky to do nothing. It would have gotten out. Also, Obama knew that it was his only possibility for winning the election considering his dismal record on the economy.

That fact may have figured greatly into Obama's decision, and in that respect, I give him credit for making a risky call. If he had gotten it wrong, he would have been impaled on his own sword, but it is indeed good leadership to make the call he made.

Edited October 22, 2012 by keemapoot

[Jingthing]

But if you're afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome, you can't give Obama credit for ... anything.

[koheesti]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

It would have been a lot more risky to do nothing. It would have gotten out. Also, Obama knew that it was his only possibility for winning the election considering his dismal record on the economy.

That fact may have figured greatly into Obama's decision, and in that respect, I give him credit for making a risky call. If he had gotten it wrong, he would have been impaled on his own sword, but it is indeed good leadership to make the call he made.

This is the problem with Obama and his decision - what he was worried about, the risk that he was taking, and what even Bill Clinton said - was that it would hurt his re-election if it failed. NOTHING about American servicemen getting killed. It is always all about Obama.

[carmine]

Allowing the CIA and Navy Seals to kill Bin Ladin is not leadership, but it was a good call that any American president would have made.

Yes I know that is the Fox News line. But actually it was a very risky decision both militarily and politically for Obama. There was no guarantee Bin Laden was even home and there was no guarantee the mission wouldn't have blown up and resulted in a total mess with Pakistan.

yes and still a good call that any president would have made!

It seems a good call because it worked. If it had blown up, you know Fox News would still be screaming blame about it ... directly at Obama. You can't have it BOTH ways.

I cannot cincieve of any president not making that decision but he still deserves a lot of credit ofcourse.

Quite what state the american economy will be in after four more years of Obama is too frigthening to think about. If i were able to vote i'd find both rather uninspiring but atleast Romney seems to understand business.

Edited October 22, 2012 by carmine

[keemapoot]

@Koheetsi:

This is the problem with Obama and his decision - what he was worried about, the risk that he was taking, and what even Bill Clinton said - was that it would hurt his re-election if it failed. NOTHING about American servicemen getting killed. It is always all about Obama.

I agree with this. That's also the reason he pushed through Obamacare when he did, knowing there would never be another chance again, rather than turning all efforts towards turning around the economy and on financial reform. For these reasons, I agree he is a selfish President concerned more with a legacy than other things, but other Presidents have been like this.

One interesting issue is what will he do with his Nobel Peace Prize if not re-elected? Send it back postage collect?

Edited October 22, 2012 by keemapoot

[Jingthing]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Of course the health care reform wasn't selfish, what was selfish was pushing it as his top priority to accomplish first in office, when he should have waited until his 2nd term. He wanted that to be his legacy come hell or high water.

[Chicog]

Please give an example over the past 4 years of Obama displaying leadership.

Obamacare. It not only required leadership and a shedload of negotiation, but he actually fulfilled an election promise, and millions more now have health care coverage because of it.

Ending most US involvement in Iraq, which was a f**king waste of time in the first place. And hopefully he'll end the pointless and costly involvement in Afghanistan as well - that should make a dent in the deficit and debt.

With the technology the US has at its fingertips it can almost prosecute a war in Afghanistan completely hands off. And if (unlike Romney) you actually work with the Russians instead of re-inventing the Cold War, you may have a very powerful ally in the war against Islamic terrorists (let's call it what it is).

[Chicog]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Of course the health care reform wasn't selfish, what was selfish was pushing it as his top priority to accomplish first in office, when he should have waited until his 2nd term. He wanted that to be his legacy come hell or high water.

Not much of a legacy if he gets voted out and Romney dismantles it.