News Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[Vanadium 50]

so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?

Obamacare.

 

[Astronuc]

Obamacare.

and what else?

Meanwhile - Unger strike: Obama’s former professor says he ‘must not’ win in 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/unger-strike-obama-former-professor-says-must-not-160604104.html

 

[aquitaine]

It appears that Romney wants to increase the Defense budget and decrease income taxes. OK - so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?

Well that's what he says, we all know what that means. In any case, given what the potential consequences are of continued runaway deficits, the fact that this is not at or near the top of the campaign, and that no one has a definite plan to do anything about it, indicates pretty clearly that neither takes this issue seriously.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like somebody's moral values really needs to be examined if they were a part of a society that excluded black preachers up until 1978.

And it's not like it was little Mitt Romney as an eight year old kid who didn't know better, he was an adult, yet willingly practiced Mormonism.

I don't think that either candidate will do this country any good. As far as Obama's public speaking skills, I think there's a lot lacking (persausion, as was noted earlier). He's also bad (in my opinion) at holding someone's attention. He may be smooth and have a relatively appealing rythym to his speech, but ultimately it comes down to what he says, and whether or not people want to listen.

Neither candidate seems to have any productive plan for immigration, either. It's such an easy concept (allow more H1-B Visas... for one thing), especially when you consider how many other developed nations, like Canada, have successful immigration laws.

Essentially it comes down to reducing the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. due to having a family member live there (which Democrats won't have anything to do with), and increasing the number of skilled workers who come the U.S.

 

[ThinkToday]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like somebody's moral values really needs to be examined if they were a part of a society that excluded black preachers up until 1978.

And it's not like it was little Mitt Romney as an eight year old kid who didn't know better, he was an adult, yet willingly practiced Mormonism.

I don't think that either candidate will do this country any good. As far as Obama's public speaking skills, I think there's a lot lacking (persausion, as was noted earlier). He's also bad (in my opinion) at holding someone's attention. He may be smooth and have a relatively appealing rythym to his speech, but ultimately it comes down to what he says, and whether or not people want to listen.

Neither candidate seems to have any productive plan for immigration, either. It's such an easy concept (allow more H1-B Visas... for one thing), especially when you consider how many other developed nations, like Canada, have successful immigration laws.

Essentially it comes down to reducing the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. due to having a family member live there (which Democrats won't have anything to do with), and increasing the number of skilled workers who come the U.S.

And the Catholics still don't allow female priests, Wright & Obama, etc... I sure hope we can get away from religious testing. Unless it reflects substantially on their recent or current governing ability, a candidate's religion should be dropped from discussions. Although we should be able to discuss religion in the context of current events.

I haven't seen Obama do anything that would instill confidence in the business community. This isn't an environment I'd start a business in. There are just too many unknowns with what the government may do next, health care, taxes on small businesses, environment, energy, etc.

I'm hopeful that Romney has enough business ability to get that rolling again. Cut taxes for businesses for dollars spent in the US for expanding and creating jobs, for example. IMO, the key will be creating an atmosphere that's good enough for business to feel comfortable about spending assets to grow the economy here. There entire regulatory environment needs to be turned over. We have government involved in everything. IMO, one way to shrink deficits is to shrink the roll of the federal government and it's unfunded mandates. IMO, we don't need the Depts of Energy or Education, beyond setting basic standards. Companies were making electricity log before there was a DoE. Kids were getting an education long before DoEd, and giving the drop in world rankings, probably a better education. Additionally, the government needs to stop with the property hording http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal/excess-property-map There is no need for the federal government to sit on unused or underused prime properties.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Just a heads up, I wasn't trying to start any controversy or bring religion into this at all. I mentioned that solely because I felt like the issue isn't addressed in the media or public as often as I would personally feel that it should be, but like ThinkToday mentioned, Obama has had similar controversies, and you can find dirty details in everybody's past if you're willing to look hard enough.

Just wanted to make sure that I wouldn't offend anybody with that post. Thanks.

 

[BobG]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

Only the portion that disagrees with giving young illegals immunity.

Granted, a few people are more concerned with the integrity of the process than the outcome, but most form their opinion of the process based on whether or not it gets them the desired outcome.

This is a winner for Obama. It seems pretty heartless to the average person to deport someone that had no control over whether they came here or not. Especially considering that most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.
Polling Report polls on immigration

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

On the other hand, it's a small winner for Obama. Most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.

It will help him with Hispanic voters in Colorado, which is very close and which is a must win for Romney - and the folks that have strong anti-immigration opinions are Tancredo Republicans that won't be voting for Obama, anyway.

And it could help Obama in Florida, where Rubio (Republican) has championed a very similar policy. Romney looks a little out of touch with Florida, at least, if he makes an issue of this and Florida is another must win state for Romney that's virtually tied.

It's a small issue, but a small issue that could potentially be the difference in 38 electoral votes in a very close election.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Only the portion that disagrees with giving young illegals immunity.

Granted, a few people are more concerned with the integrity of the process than the outcome, but most form their opinion of the process based on whether or not it gets them the desired outcome.

This is a winner for Obama. It seems pretty heartless to the average person to deport someone that had no control over whether they came here or not. Especially considering that most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.
Polling Report polls on immigration

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

On the other hand, it's a small winner for Obama. Most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.

It will help him with Hispanic voters in Colorado, which is very close and which is a must win for Romney - and the folks that have strong anti-immigration opinions are Tancredo Republicans that won't be voting for Obama, anyway.

And it could help Obama in Florida, where Rubio (Republican) has championed a very similar policy. Romney looks a little out of touch with Florida, at least, if he makes an issue of this and Florida is another must win state for Romney that's virtually tied.

It's a small issue, but a small issue that could potentially be the difference in 38 electoral votes in a very close election.

In terms of the longevity of the U.S, immigration isn't a small issue at all. Unless it is reformed for the better, the U.S. will be falling behind nations with smarter immigration policies that allow for skilled workers to improve their workforce. It is a small issue in regards to the voters' opinions in the election, but in the grand scheme of things, it's something that definitely needs to be looked at further.

 

[ThinkToday]

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain. And, he didn't do this in his first three years because? Oh yea, doesn't have the election/voter value it has this close to the vote. We are a Republic, which means we are a nation on laws. Perhaps the President's education was more symbolic than substance.

On the compassion side, I don't disagree with the substance, e.g. not punishing kids for the sins of the parents. On the other hand, we have laws, and they must rule until changed.

 

[BobG]

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain.

The motivation for what he's doing (or not doing) is pretty clear. In fact, the only unusual thing he's doing is making sure he publicizes it.

Government officials always have to make decisions about which laws to enforce and how vigorously to enforce them. It's unrealistic to think every law is going to be prosecuted to its fullest extent.

For example, from the Texas constitution:

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

No one in Texas is ever going to enforce this provision because it clearly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.

And the US will never completely shut down drug traffic from Mexico/Central America in spite of us technically having the capability - at least if we used our military to its fullest extent. The reason being that the military has other things we'd rather have them do than shut down drug trafficking. In fact, for over a decade, we've had a lot of things we'd rather have them do.

And I imagine there are very few cities, if any, that have launched an effort to stop every speeder on the roads (or every drunk driver, for that matter). We pull over just enough token speeders to make other speeders worry a little bit (well, a tiny bit, anyway).

Realistically, how many resources to you want to devote to finding and deporting people that are here illegally, but have no other home of memory other than here (and how large of a tax increase would you support in order to obtain those resources)? It would be easier to track down and deport illegals that have come to the US and overstayed their visas and we don't pursue them very vigorously, either. If they come to the attention of authorities because they committed a crime, deportation is just one extra penalty they could pay, but we just don't go looking very hard for them.

This is an issue that's more rhetoric than anything else. And making sure the public knows this is one law that won't be enforced is just another form of that rhetoric.

 

[aquitaine]

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain. And, he didn't do this in his first three years because? Oh yea, doesn't have the election/voter value it has this close to the vote. We are a Republic, which means we are a nation on laws. Perhaps the President's education was more symbolic than substance.

On the compassion side, I don't disagree with the substance, e.g. not punishing kids for the sins of the parents. On the other hand, we have laws, and they must rule until changed.

The problem is not really Obama, he is merely the latest part of a trend going back a couple of decades. The decline of Congress as an institution is very much related to the mess we find ourselves in.

 

[mege]

The problem is not really Obama, he is merely the latest part of a trend going back a couple of decades. The decline of Congress as an institution is very much related to the mess we find ourselves in.

I'd rather have a congress and president that only did things when necessary - too often politicians pass policy/commands just for votes (ie: the President's immigration statement) without any long term consideration.

We shouldn't need government to save us.

That is ultimately my biggest beef with the President's immigration statement: now, any real/major reform for immigration that doesn't include amnesty will be 'taking away' the quasi-pardon that he's given many illegal immigrants. His order is very short sighted in this manner - it doesn't actually stop the problem, but just makes a few people feel better at the expense of complicating later policy decisions. Should anchor babies be punished? No, but we need a comprehensive approach or all it will do is encourage more of the same down the road. So, his statement just serves to undermine a comprehensive effort for election-year political gain.

Again, back to my initial statement - this is just meddlesome more than any actual long term consideration. I'm 100% ok with our stalemate congress (except for the lack of passing a budget thanks to Sen. Reid!), it gives them less opportunities to screw things up. I just wish that our President would realize that too.

 

[ThinkToday]

For example, from the Texas constitution:



No one in Texas is ever going to enforce this provision because it clearly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.

That's a red herring. No State law or State constitutions can usurp the US Constitution in areas where there is overlap. You are comparing a clearly enforceable immigration law to and unenforceable legacy article in a 100 plus year old document.

While many Presidents have picked which laws they will be most vigorous in enforcing, it isn't common to say "we'll give a pass to all X breaches of the law past, present, and future." Remember this amnesty covers people that are now in their 30s. These aren't just "kids". I don’t recall the section of the oath of office that says I’ll faithfully uphold those laws I agree with, or the part of the Constitution that allows the President the authority to determine which Acts of Congress he/she must defend and enforce. On top of that, there is no urgency in making this decision, it’s not like we had overflowing cell blocks of “kids” to deport. IMO, it’s clear urgency is in securing votes from the Hispanic community.

 

[ThinkToday]

The problem is not really Obama, he is merely the latest part of a trend going back a couple of decades. The decline of Congress as an institution is very much related to the mess we find ourselves in.

Unpopular is an interesting concept, but pretty vague. People often like their congressperson, it's the "others" that are bad. People are elected in a Representative government to represent the people of their district, be the people's voice, and vote the will of the people. IMO, the bailout and ObamaCare prove Representatives vote the will of their Party and Party leadership on both sides, with at least as much weight as “we the people”. Obama is a big part of the problem. He pushed ObamaCare through at full ramming speed without the support of a clear majority of the people. In something that has such a huge impact on our lives, health, scope of government control, and 1/6th of the economy, he should have had a supermajority. IMO, you don't ram through congress and down the throats of 100% of the population with a bare majority of congress and less than a majority of the governed population. Remember, as Lincoln said "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

 

[Astronuc]

Poll: Obama loses advantage as economic anxieties increase
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-obama-loses-advantage-economic-anxieties-increase-063013702.html

WASHINGTON - Fewer Americans believe the economy is getting better and a majority disapproves of how President Barack Obama is handling it, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Meanwhile, new financial filings reveal that although major donors supporting the president and Republican challenger Mitt Romney spent millions of dollars last month on their respective candidate, outside political groups helping Romney are reaping a growing share of the largesse.

With Election Day less than five months away, the new poll shows that Romney has exploited concerns about the economy and moved into a virtually even position with the president.

Three months of declining job creation have left the public increasingly glum, with only 3 out of 10 adults saying the country is headed in the right direction. Five months before the election, the economy remains Obama's top liability.

. . . .

More Americans seem less optimistic. The next jobs report is due July 9 - in two weeks. Romney could begin to pull ahead.

Apparently Romney had his best fundraising day yet, and Obama's campaign went into the red during May! I don't know if that means his campaign treasury went into the red, or if he simply didn't raise as much money as spend for the month.

 

[Astronuc]

Unpopular is an interesting concept, but pretty vague. People often like their congressperson, it's the "others" that are bad. People are elected in a Representative government to represent the people of their district, be the people's voice, and vote the will of the people. IMO, the bailout and ObamaCare prove Representatives vote the will of their Party and Party leadership on both sides, with at least as much weight as “we the people”. Obama is a big part of the problem. He pushed ObamaCare through at full ramming speed without the support of a clear majority of the people. In something that has such a huge impact on our lives, health, scope of government control, and 1/6th of the economy, he should have had a supermajority. IMO, you don't ram through congress and down the throats of 100% of the population with a bare majority of congress and less than a majority of the governed population. Remember, as Lincoln said "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Perhaps the Obama administration lobbied Congress, but I seem to remember the Ted Kennedy was a principal sponsor (and co-author?) of the health care bill in question. I believe the House and Senate, as representatives of the people, voted for the bill, and then sent it to Obama for signature.

 

[mege]

Unpopular is an interesting concept, but pretty vague. People often like their congressperson, it's the "others" that are bad. People are elected in a Representative government to represent the people of their district, be the people's voice, and vote the will of the people. IMO, the bailout and ObamaCare prove Representatives vote the will of their Party and Party leadership on both sides, with at least as much weight as “we the people”. Obama is a big part of the problem. He pushed ObamaCare through at full ramming speed without the support of a clear majority of the people. In something that has such a huge impact on our lives, health, scope of government control, and 1/6th of the economy, he should have had a supermajority. IMO, you don't ram through congress and down the throats of 100% of the population with a bare majority of congress and less than a majority of the governed population. Remember, as Lincoln said "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

I'm definitely not a fan of the ACA in the least (or how it was fast-tracked through congress), but I think that 'without the support of a majority of the people' is not the right way to look at it. While yes, we expect our representation in government to do things we desire - sometimes I hope they just do what is right. Are raising taxes and cutting programs ever popular? No, but they're necessary to keep the country running. Currently, that is something that I think many politicians don't get - they just want to do what's popular rather than what is honestly right. There's almost too much at stake, politically, to do something that is unpopular (hence - the problem of democracy). We have an ever bloating library of laws and regulations because it would be politically impossible to get rid of some of them...

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps the Obama administration lobbied Congress, but I seem to remember the Ted Kennedy was a principal sponsor (and co-author?) of the health care bill in question. I believe the House and Senate, as representatives of the people, voted for the bill, and then sent it to Obama for signature.

That's only because Obama didn't write the bill and hand it to Kennedy like he should have for a bill that was a centerpiece of his campaign. It is largely his failure of leadership that caused it to languish for months in a friendly Congress. Instead of saying "here it is, vote on it", he said "write and pass me a healthcare law", then left the many details to them to figure out.

 

[ThinkToday]

That's only because Obama didn't write the bill and hand it to Kennedy like he should have for a bill that was a centerpiece of his campaign. It is largely his failure of leadership that caused it to languish for months in a friendly Congress. Instead of saying "here it is, vote on it", he said "write and pass me a healthcare law", then left the many details to them to figure out.

Writing bills isn't his role. He can help shape them by using his Office to put forth ideas, but Congress does whatever it wants. Even when Carter was President and the republicans were little more than a footnote in the Senate and House, Congress didn't do all he wanted.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The Clinton administration wrote their own healthcare bill. One of the criticisms of that bill was that it had more penalty clauses in it than a crime bill that was submitted at about the same time. I think Russ' point is that Obama claims credit for a bill he had no hand in writing. I have a great knock-knock joke. You start it.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Knock knock.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Who's there?

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Healthcare bill.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

See? I told you I had a great one.

 

[Astronuc]

Seems apropos:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'd vote for Allen Fisher, but he's not running.

Obama declares war on arm-wrestling.

 

[BobG]

The campaign is getting long (and deep).

Best question of the campaign, so far, on Fox News:

As a man, is this a scary time to be a woman?

The answer should have been: "Yes, it is, especially in prison!"

But, alas...

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/...a-scary-time-to-be-a-woman/?playlist_id=87937

 

[Oltz]

Does Obama know that Robin hood was stealing back tax money and giving it to the people who paid the taxes?

We all say he stole from the rich but the rich was the government who got rich from taxes...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Does Obama know that Robin hood was stealing back tax money and giving it to the people who paid the taxes?

We all say he stole from the rich but the rich was the government who got rich from taxes...

That's not really the case. The folklore goes that Robin Hood stole from the feudal oligarchs who acquired their riches through immoral means. The moral of the stories aren't "stealing from the government" or even "stealing from the rich" but "redistributing wealth from kleptocratic oligarchs".

 

[BobG]

An interesting side effect of Super Pacs is the use of third party candidates. Third party candidates still have no chance to win, but a focused effort by Super Pacs in swing states could decide the overall election - especially if the donors are anonymous.

The ideal third party candidate for this kind of effort is Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. As an extreme social conservative, he can only steal votes from one party - the Republican Party.

He's only on the ballot in 17 states so far, but those states include Ohio, Colorado, and Wisconsin. And the former Virginia Congressman has turned in enough signatures to get on the ballot in Virginia, with his petition undergoing validation.

Granted, Virginia has the toughest requirements to get on the ballot in the nation (remember Gingrich and Perry failed to get on the Republican primary ballot), but if he gets on the ballot in Virginia, he causes grave damage to Romney's hopes in that state. Based on July polls, Obama held a 50-42 edge against Romney alone, but a 49-35 edge in a 3-way race including Goode (who polls at 9%).

I seriously doubt Goode would pull in 9% of the vote, since third party candidates never perform as well at the voting booth as they do in polls, but it wouldn't take a huge effort by a Democratic funded Super Pac to lift Goode high enough to guarantee the state for Obama.

Similar efforts in sympathetic areas of Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin could similarly hurt Romney in the specific parts of the state he pulls in the most votes from.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, could also be a weapon, although using Johnson would require some very strategic targeting. Johnson is on the ballots in http://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access , including several swing states. But Johnson's effect will vary as he has conservative economic views and very liberal social views.

You could see both Republicans and Democrats contributing to separate Super Pacs supporting Johnson, with each Super Pac targeting specific areas of swing states trying to damage their major party opponent without damaging the major party candidate they support. That's a pretty tricky tactic, but could be effective if done right.