That isn't logical. Does it follow that Clinton would be the same failed administrator as Carter was? Or that W would be the same leader as Reagan was. Each electionand each candidate stands on its own. The only real past you can go by is each candidate's past. If you do that then you compare BHO's poor record the last 4 years and his previous lack of experience in any job to Romney's successful leadership at Bain, as savior of the Salt Lake Olympics, as Gov of Mass.
Those that don't like him for a reason they can't articulate resort to this. It's the big flaw with democracy, people don't have to have a sane reason to vote the way they do-and it counts as much as yours or mine.
The question was "what has Obama done that is anti-American?" This is more guilt by association. Don't be so naive as to think that private diplomacy does not on behind the microphones and always has. And what you imagine that Obama wants is irrelevant. It is certainly nothing anti-American. The facts regarding the missile defense system is that it does not defend the US at all! It protects Europe from attack, yet WE are expected to pay for it, deploy it taking the foriegn relations hit with the Russians, and man it with Americans. The European missile defense system is a Bush era blunder that Obama inherited. The idea was to defend Europe against Iranian nuclear missiles that don't exist. It foolishly assumed that the Russians would go along with this even thought it also defends Europe against Russian missiles that did exist. Worse, the bases for these missiles would be in former Soviet client state on Russia's borders which was definitely tweaking their nose for something that gains us nothing. Problem 1 is that the system isn't needed to defend against Iran. Deterrence will work for that if they ever develop a nuclear missile. It also isn't needed to defend against Russia who has already taken pains to overwhelm it with multiple missiles and pre-emptive strikes on the bases that are only minutes from Russia. Problem 2 is that if the system were needed, it is the Europeans that need it and it is the Europeans that should pay for it, deploy it on their own territory, and man it themselves. Collective the European nations have an economy and military force that rivals ours and they can handle this themselves. They are paying far less of their GDP on defense than us and we are getting the bill for defending them so that they can compete against us economically. No, the European missile defense system is an bloody expensive and trouble-causing adventure that needs to go in our tight budget situation. It is defense money saved that doesn't hurt us strategically. The Pentagon does not object to its demise, they have other thing thy would prefer to spend the money on. The reason that Obama is stalling with the Russians is a smart one. We want them to concede on some other issues in return. One is the Alaskan/Californian missile defense system which is already operational to defend against real North Korean missiles. It also defends against Russian ones, but they know that they can overwhelm it. They object to this one, but they can live with it if we shit-can the other one. We're going to get an agreement on that. Secondly, it is currently a non-violent but threatening tool to use against Iranian ambitions to threaten Europe. It is a pawn we can play in negotiations with the Iranians to end their nuclear weapons program. We need the Russians to indulge us for a while until we can play the card against the iranians. So, of course Obama and the Russians have secret negotiations going on. Foreign relations are complex. I think this is a naive believe that ignores history. We dealt with and negotiated with the Russian all during the Cold War and continuing on through the Bush administration. We have treaty after treaty with them including one concerning anti-missile systems that the European missile defense system will require us to abrogate. You are conflating anti-Republican politics with Anti-American politics. You have no case at all. You admit it is only suspicions that you have. Political opinion. You have every right to dislike Obama politically. I simply object to his characterization by you as Anti-American. I have made my case that he has done nothing Anti-American at all. Just anti-rash, anti-foolish, and anti-Republican.
I don't think Obama is Anti-American. He just has a fundamentally different view of where this nation should go and how it can get there.
Obama's record is only considered to be poor by his political opponents, just as Romneys is considered poor by his. But lets examine the experience thing. Romney primarily offers experience of being the CEO of a finance company that made money by outsourcing American jobs among other things. He is an acknowledged expert on enriching himself at the expense of a laid-off workforce. He was briefly director of the winter Olympic games, what exactly makes him a "savior"? Is that a Mormon thing? He was a one-term governor of a state as his only political experience. He has no national or international political experience whatsoever. Obama has experience as a practicing lawyer, editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. He has political experience at the state level with three terms in the Illinois legislature. He has national experience as a US senator and international experience as President of the United States of America for four years. Comparing Romneys record to that is laughable.
I think comparisons relate to the experience Obama had WHEN he got elected to Romneys. On that plane, an argument can be formed, but again, it was still two very different experience paths. Still different, but 4 years of presidency is much much better than what Obama started with.
Red I love the way you twist the facts (or is it interpert?). Romney as head of Bain job was to make money for investors. He did that by either investing in or buying failing companies. His objective was to take what he purchased and do the best for his investment. He made money for his investors (Teachers and other unions and retirees among them) which was the object of his business. While doing that he created domestic jobs by buyings companies such as Staples and others. His job was not to create jobs but to create wealth. The strength he gained from his time at Bain is the analytic tools to look at a situation and deal with it in the best manner for his investors. As president his investors will be the whole people of the US. I guess you don't remember that the SLC Olympics were on the brink of failure when he was recruited to run them. Again he took a failing institution and turned it around in a very quick time. He was universally praised for his work. During his term as governor he was a republican in a democrat state and had to find ways wo work with an entrenched opposition. Guess what HE DID and crafted Romneycare. Whether you like it or not he worked better with his entrenched opposition than BHO has with his. As to BHO's experience previous to his election. What koolaid are you drinking? To list graduating from law school as an accomplishment is the same as W's graduating from Harvard or Yale business school, It is meaningless and being an academic does nothing to prepare one for life in the real world. He has some training as a politician but he was a best a back bencher in both. As to his time as president he rather than lead sloughed off responsibility. The Obamacare law is Pelosi and house leaders more than his. Read Bob Woodward's book about how he leads a choatic executive branch where then is poor communication and he shifts his position without consultation and with apparent whimsey. One thing I agree Red is that to compare records is laughable, Romney outshines BHO everyday EXCEPT as a campaigner.
I like how you used the entire first paragraph of your post to suppose how Romney's Bain experience would make him a good President. The problem is that it doesn't translate. To make the assumption that a good business person would make a great President is a stretch at best. In the business world both parties have a stake in making an agreement. Politics is the only business where there is often more to gain by NOT reaching an agreement and the Republicans have embodied this for the past four years. Regarding the SLC Olympics, if you gave my three year old 1.3 billion in government funding she would also "rescue" the Olympics. Romney became a lobbyist and went to congress begging for money. He didn't "fix" anything. He bought it with government funding. During his term as governor he operated like a Democrat and that is why it was easy for the Massachusets democrats to work with him. Going to the democratic congress in Massachusets and asking them to pass a health care law would be akin to President Obama getting congressional Republicans to go along with him on over turning Roe vs. Wade. So please don't act like Romney was this bi-partisan who united everyone around his cause. He swam with the current. Real leadership huh?
SO what I have gathered from NC and Red is that, the only real experience is that of the presidency itself?
Not necessarily. Winston was making the point that Mitt is more qualified than Barack and I detailed why I disagreed with his assessment. That said, each election is different and influenced by different dynamics. Business experience might not be considered as strong of a virtue if the economy were not such a large and looming issue. If foreign policy were the chief issue, the Republicans would have likely nominated someone whose credentials more closely matched the task at hand.
