Archive for Monday, October 24, 2011

GOP primary now a contest of character

October 24, 2011


— The Republican presidential race has become a no-holds-barred contest over character.

With the pace of the GOP contest quickening, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are resorting to tough language online and while campaigning to undermine each other’s credibility and values.

“It’s time for you to tell the truth,” Perry said during last week’s Republican debate, all but calling the former Massachusetts governor a liar.

The Texas governor also is trying to cast Romney as someone who lacks a core set of beliefs, highlighting Romney’s shifts on health care and other issues in hopes of dislodging him from atop the field.

Romney is portraying Perry as a dimwitted novice who coddles illegal immigrants and takes liberties with his economic record.

“The great challenges we have we will overcome,” Romney said in South Dakota recently, “if we have leaders that will tell the truth, and live with integrity, and who, by virtue of their life experience, know how to lead.” It was a suggestion that Perry didn’t fit that bill.

The amped-up rhetoric signals a more aggressive phase in the race and sets the tone in the 10 weeks before the nominating contest begins in Iowa in early January. It also illuminates campaign strategies and previews likely attack ads sure to surface on television soon.

It’s raised concerns among some Republicans, who fear a drawn-out, personal battle between their top contenders will only help President Barack Obama’s chances of winning next year.

“I don’t like that, I’m not for that. I’m a Ronald Reagan Republican, he didn’t think it was smart to attack each other and I don’t either,” oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens told Fox News last week after Romney and Perry got in each other’s faces during the Las Vegas debate.

Despite their oft-stated reverence for Reagan, the two leading Republican hopefuls are ignoring Reagan’s so-called 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Romney, seen as the Republican to beat, has identified Perry as his top rival, even with businessman Herman Cain polling well and lower-tier contenders such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum drawing positive buzz in debates.

Only Perry has been able to compete with Romney in fundraising and the two are expected to have enough resources for a protracted national campaign if necessary. Both have the backing of powerful special political action committees that can raise unlimited funds to run attack ads of their own.


jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

How is it that Perry can even be remotely considered a true contender any more? Listening to him speak off the cuff is reminiscent of poor Miss South Carolina; it's uncomfortable and embarrassing. I don't wince as much watching The Office. We could at least forgive the bumbling if, when it was over, he'd actually made a good point or said anything thought provoking. Not so much.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

So will the latest bumbling Gov of Texas be selected president just like the last one?

Getaroom 6 years, 6 months ago

We can only hope Gov Rev Perry falls flat on his hypocritcal face and never gets up again before that nightmare becomes a reality. Imagine an Supreme court based on Biblical Law.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Intelligence doesn't seem to be a primary interest of many voters when deciding how they will vote.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

I'd like to think that's not true, but we know different. At the very least you'd like to see a mind at work, and just like McCain I don't get that sense w/ Perry at all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

While W. Bush wasn't the sharpest tack in the box (as Molly Ivins, who knew him since high school, put it) he wasn't stupid, either. And I think the same likely applies to Perry.

But what they both do is appeal to a strain of anti-intellectualism that predominates among conservative voters, many of whom are far from stupid themselves.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

No, I don't believe Perry is 'stupid' or he'd never have become Governor of Texas. But I don't believe his draw was initially based on anti-intellectualism, just that he was different from the milk toast first on the scene. Like Palin, the right didn't really know much about him. And like Palin, eventually he was forced to speak.......kaboom!

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, you give those guys a bit more credit than I do.

And, yes, that is a strong strain in this country, as if being intelligent and well-educated is a bad thing.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 6 months ago

It's the Republican plan to dumb down America. This is why education money is always the first thing on the chopping block with them.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 6 months ago

" I feel he is a man of poor character and he was selected/anointed. " === Key words here, Nancy Boy, "I feel." Last I checked, the had an actual election in 2008 and another will be held in 2012. Relax.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Ron Paul might be consistent with his message, but the same can be said of Rick Santorum. Too bad neither is saying things that will necessarily be good for the country. I like some of what Paul has to say, but when he suggests someone in a coma should have a choice on whether or not to receive medical treatment, then he is just off base. He is consistently non-electable. His train has passed.

The ripping into one another by the Repubilcans will certainly benefit Obama, who I still believe will win the re-election. I suspect Romney will be the candidate and the race will be closer than against McCain, but Obama will still win. If not, at least Romney is right of center with the ability to flip positions left if the political winds change.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

I respect Paul for his convictions and his integrity, and agree he is not electable.

But what's wrong with people choosing whether they get medical treatment or not?

Isn't that the whole idea of living wills, advance directives, dnr, etc.?

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

When one is in a coma, they are unable to make a choice. That was the question asked of him at the debate: if a person without insurance is in a coma, should they be denied medical treatment? His response was that it was the person's choice.

I believe someone should be allowed to accept or deny medical attention if they want, but you can't do so when in a coma.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

LO, while your condescending tone is noted, I can assure you I watched the debate, not just a ten second clip. What he was saying was very clear -- poor people can choose to go without insurance if the want. Got it.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

That's not really fair to Paul.

He is pro-freedom, which includes the freedom to choose not to purchase health insurance, even if you can afford it.

And, he doesn't believe that people should be left to die - he believes that compassionate physicians and other private charities should help them.

The real problem isn't his intent - it's what happens if there aren't in fact enough compassionate physicians to meet the demand.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

I disagree. I see it as a problem of his intent. His libertarian view is that we shouldn't, as a society and through our government if need be, help those in need of medical help. Have insurance or die, unless you are lucky enough to be helped by others, is his intent. That is a chilling outlook for a potential president in my book.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

That's really not his intent.

He wants private doctors and others to charitably help those that need it, rather than the government.

He specifically said "no" to the question of whether the man should be left to die.

As I said, the problem is a practical one - what if there aren't enough privately free charitable people/groups?

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

"And the churches took care of him."

Yes, I watched the debate and I am not lying, Paul made it very clear that people need to take care of themselves, otherwise ... well, freedom of choice, after all. Let the person in the coma decide for himself what medical treatment he wants. When asked about someone going into a coma Ron Paul said "He should do what ever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself." I watched the debate and that is what he said. Again, as I stated early, people in comas can't really make decisions, no matter what Dr. Paul has to say on the subject. I don't care where you are from, but I can assure you I am not lying. If you are actually saying people in comas can make their own decisions about their medical needs, then you are the one who isn't being truthful.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Sometimes doing nothing is a choice. If on April 15th., I do nothing (like filing my income taxes), then I've made a choice. And there are consequences for having made that choice. The same is true for the person without insurance, He's had a decade at least to provide insurance for himself, just in case he's in an accident and slips into a coma. Every single day of that decade, he made a choice not to insure himself. What you're doing, beatrice is making an assumption that should he slip into a coma, he would make the same choice you would make. That may or may not be true. But it would be best to look at "his" actions over the past decade if we're trying to determine "his" intentions.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

Right now the only person I think that can legitimately challenge the President is Cain. I don't know how Romney can survive all his extreme flip flopping; he was sold on a woman's right to choose 8 years ago but now stands far right?! And while I'm all for freedom of religion, I'm not sure a Mormon can withstand the scrutiny their religion is going to undergo in this type of race. I hate to scoff, but Joseph Smith seemed little more than a con man. I doubt that plays well. Paul's biggest hindrance seems to be he's just not that likable. But his take on the 'coma' scenario is misunderstood. He was asked what should be done if a healthy and affluent person that had made the personal choice to not buy health coverage happened to slip into a coma; he simply said that's what freedom is all about; taking responsibility for your own risks. In any case, it was a no-win question considering the base he's attempting to attract.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

I don't believe Cain has a chance. His electrified fence comments indicate he just isn't ready for the national stage. His 999 plan is a catchy slogan, but that is all. Republicans are already tearing into it. I think he will slide in the coming debates when he has to face even greater scrutiny.

I also don't agree on your views of Romney. I actually believe he is electable despite his religion, and I see others looking the other way with regard his changing views over the years. As long as he is saying what they want to hear now, they will vote for him. Living in an area with quite a few Mormons, I guess I just don't see his religion being a real issue. I personally think it is as far fetched a religion as any other, but it is accepted. Maybe that is just me seeing it from living in a region where Mormonism is an accepted part of the community's religious base.

I agree that Paul isn't all that likable, but he was pretty clear on his response about the person in a coma having the right to choose. It was pretty clear when he didn't say anything to contradict those in the audience who yelled "yes" when asked if the person should be allowed to die. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people, as far as I see it anyway.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Again, I watched the debate, but thanks for being so condescending (you know, talking down to others).

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

There's no doubt that Cain's inexperience at this level could cost him dearly, but I think that will depend on how bad he slips up. It's gonna happen again, it's the scope of the gaffe that will be the decider. But he is exceptionally likable and a good speaker, and a lot of this seems to unfortunately come down to a popularity contest, so... I definitely didn't intend to make it sound like Romney's religion would be the subject of his demise, just a factor. I haven't lived in an area where the religion is prevalent. Known a few practitioners over the years, but that's it, so my knowledge is mainly from books. At any rate, I have a hard time seeing him as electable at this level if only for the fact that everyone and their brother keeps looking for ANYone else to get behind. Romney was regarded the front runner before a slate had even been formulated, but then Bachmann becomes flavor of the month, and then Perry takes the lead before he's said a word; people are clamoring for Christie and Guiliani and Rubio and the rep from the midwest (can't remember his name) to join the race -- because the 9 we got aren't enough? It's like there's something missing and seems like nobody wants to believe Romney's who they have to hang their hat on. I think that underlying uneasiness is one of the reasons Cain has vaulted to the top.
And I agree with L_O, Paul did respond 'no' while that idiot was shouting 'yeah!' That whole story is one of the most misreported incidents I've seen in a long time.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

You may be right about Romney, but I don't see Cain as the person to beat. Again, I believe Obama will win re-election. Regarding Paul, this is based on what I saw and recall from watching the debate. I haven't watched the clips since. This is what I took away from the actual experience of watching the exchange once, while it was happening. It came across as Paul suggesting that receiving medical treatment is a simple choice of whether or not to purchase insurance before an accident. Maybe it was the shock of more than one person saying "yes" in the audience to whether or not the person should be allowed to die, but that is how I recall the exchange.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

At this point I'd have to agree with you on the prospects of re-election for the President.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Which is sad. I truly wish there were a strong Republican alternative and that the party wasn't overrun with social conservatives. Fiscally conservative yet socially responsible (is moderate the right word?) would get my vote, and probably a lot of others. Oh well. While I feel Obama has done okay given the circumstances, I'm not exactly over the moon with him as president.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 6 months ago

You beat me to it. I was just thinking this would be one helluva contest, because they are some REAL charachters.

voevoda 6 years, 6 months ago

Unfortunately, the Ron Paul Political Reports published in the 1980s and 1990s endorsed all sorts of peculiar ideas, including fomenting racial strife and forming strategic alliances with David Duke and neo-Nazis. Ron Paul didn't write those articles; they were ghost-written by Lew Rockwell based on the ideas of Murray Rothbard (both of fame). Ron Paul himself has backed away from voicing such ideas, but he hasn't disavowed them. That makes him about electable as George Wallace was.

voevoda 6 years, 6 months ago

This is not an unsubstantiated rumor such as the one you'd like to start about me, Liberty_One. I provided a source, and it isn't the only one that says the same thing. See the following:,-In-His-Own-Words These sources come from all over the political spectrum: libertarian, conservative, business-oriented, Christian, liberal. It is hard to imagine that they all misconstrued what was printed in Ron Paul Poliltical Reports, or other publications that bear his name (Ron Paul Survival Report; Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report). And here is a link to one of the stories, copied directly from the Ron Paul Political Report and preserved by an organization that tracks hate groups: This story in itself ought to be enough to give any supporter or Ron Paul pause.

voevoda 6 years, 6 months ago

Liberty_One, I produced evidence, taken from Ron Paul's very own Political Report. Not a rumor. Not an unnamed source. Not an innuendo. Ron Paul's very own publication, copied and posted verbatim. Direct and undeniable. I'd post more links to articles from Ron Paul's own publications, but his publications are not on line. (One does wonder why, if it's all above-board.) His 1970s publication is available at KU, and you can go see it there, if you doubt the veracity of the secondary accounts about the ideas voiced under his name. The fact that Ron Paul's publications contain a lot of other stuff in additional to the racist material is, well, immaterial.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

Can't disagree one bit. That episode, while incredibly overblown and wholly misreported, was still disturbing. That anyone could feel the justification to shout out "Yeah!" when Blitzer asked 'should we let them die?' is stomach churning.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 6 months ago

When you're down to choosing between TweedleDum and TweedleDee there aren't too many differences on which to base a decision.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

Gandalf, you're off on a few things:

I believe you're simply making up the abortion assertion. I've found no quote of him saying the government should make it illegal for everyone. He's said exactly the opposite as a matter of fact, which has pro-lifers up in arms.
It's not 999 and now 909. Cain just clarified that it's 909 (no income tax) if you're at or below the poverty level. The national sales tax would be a replacement tax; that is, the embedded taxes on goods would be replaced by the 9% increase in sales tax without changing the cost of most products and actually making bigger ticket items cheaper.
And Romney is already a prolific panderer, he just has a hard time focusing on whose backside he's supposed to be smooching next.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

First of all, it's a removal of embedded taxes on goods - the business does not dictate taxes and it's not a 'tax break' for businesses; they're taxes the consumer pays but most don't realize.

That's wonderful you provide a couple quotes and sources, but to what end? Neither proves Cain has swapped positions nor that government would make it illegal for all. Read your own quotes: It's a choice for the family, not a bureaucrat, president, or politician. They decide. He would not sign any legislation that would get the government involved.
Yes, he believes abortion should be illegal, he's pro-life. That's not changing a position. Nor is he determined to legislate his opinion, it's just his opinion.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

"And how are those taxes paid? Thru increased costs of products?"

Well, of course the product cost is increased with those taxes embedded. But they would be removed under Cain's plan. No more embedded taxes = lower costing products. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp ?

As to abortion, don't know what else you want. The man said multiple times it's not the president's place to drive the issue and he wouldn't do anything to change the law of the land. In any case, as with all your original assertions, you're still completely wrong on this matter.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

"And of couse those business's would pass on those tax decreases to the public! How dense can I be!!"

Apparently, pretty dense. The topic was Cain taxing the poor with the national sales tax, which I showed you to be false. Now you want to say it's the businesses that will scalp everyone. No sense arguing with someone who builds straw men for a living.

" If that is not support for government control I don't know what is."

You're right. Apparently you don't.

The Koch's had no part in this discussion but I get the sense that doesn't matter to some people around here. It's going to be the fall back for failed arguments and morph into a Godwin like existence. Kind of like a Pavlovian response, wouldn't ya say?

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

It's a flat lie? That's the basis for his plan. Remove the embedded taxes and replace them with the national sales tax. Period. End of story. The good costs X; the embedded taxes amount to Y; the price at retail is the two combined. If you take Y away, the cost at the counter goes down. It's not a "voluntary price reduction", it would be a federally mandated tax shift. For the love, you really are this dense, aren't you? And why do I need to refute jack? Just because you decided to throw that in with the Koch crap? Sorry, pal, but this string was a refutation of your initial post. But I do understand your desperate need to change the subject.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

"cain will mandate the drop of prices that retailer's charge by federal decree?"

Wow. No sense repeating myself, if you can't grasp the concept by now it's hopeless.
Cain worked with for the Koch's; oh dear! So do around 80,000 other people. Does that mean all those people were right a couple years ago when they thought it justified to vilify candidate Obama for his ties to Wright and Ayers? Or is it just as moronic a smear? Is it a fact his plan would increase taxes on 84%? No, it's not. The Tax Policy Center admitted they're not certain of their estimates. Then again, if you don't think taxes are going up no matter who wins the next election, you're kidding yourself.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

"The fact that cain might repeal an embedded tax does not mean prices will drop"

Then Cain's national sales tax wouldn't be the thing effecting the poor, right? At this point it might be wise for you to find out what embedded taxes actually are. If retailers kept prices the same after such a tax shift, everyone would know they were getting ripped off and stop shopping there.

And only a moron would believe Cain was trying to hide ties to the Koch's. He worked for them for years and he's well aware of the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. Yours is a conspiracy theory for the exceptionally simple minded.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

Wow. If you're determined to be this obtuse there's no point in going further.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

"I would strengthen all of our current laws that prevent abortion"

"I would work to de-fund Planned Parenthood"

"I would make sure that I appoint judges..."

"I would make sure that we didn't allow any bureaucrats to get in the way..."

I'm not sure how you get that he's not claiming to be very pro active and active as a president against abortion.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

There's quite a difference between outlawing abortion and that which you list above. And I get "it" from him saying so over and over and over again. If you want a better grasp of what he proposes to do or not do on the issue, scan a few conservative sites to see their opinion on the matter. He's got them hopping mad and anxious, calling him a "pro-choicer" or the personification of the "mythical pro-life democrat".
Yes, he's pro-life. Yes, he believes abortion should be illegal. No, he as president would not get the government involved, it's a family matter. All the things you list above would be part of his purview, however, and the only one I'd have a problem with is de-funding PP. Appointing judges instead of activists is how it should be; strengthening the laws that prevent abortion is about the laws currently on the books, not new legislation ; and keeping bureaucrats out of the way of protecting the unborn isn't a bad thing. In any case, it's a fairly moot argument. Nothing's happening to Roe, this is purely a perpetual campaign plank. And all I was doing was refuting Gandalf's false assertion that he'd changed his position.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

"But he did state he would appoint the kind of judges who would be inclined to consider reversing Roe v. Wade."

Yeah, it's difficult to against that because I found that a little open-ended myself. Here's the quote:

"I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children."

I guess I could argue your choice of the word "inclined" is a little too speculative. And having judges that are committed to the law of the Constitution would be a good thing, and he's correct that the Constitution contains no such right.
I could argue that. But not confidently or effectively. B>}

Ya got me with that one, vertigo.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 6 months ago

Romney is the only one of the lot who is electable in a general election. The GOP must face this. That he is a mormon does not sit well with many in the GOP base.

It willbe fun watching how the GOP handle this one. Pass the popcorn.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 6 months ago

Ron Paul wants to end student loans and social security. The guy keeps proving that he is a nice old quack. We should stop encouraging him and just let him wander off somewhere.

The Republican Party is now eating itself.

The only interesting new thing is Cain and that is the only reason he is getting any traction. As soon as people realize that they are getting conned that will end soon.

There needs to be a change in attitude in corporate America about business ethics and profit and what we want the future of America to look like. I think the challenge that we have seen from the Tea Party/Republican conservatives is a response to a lack of leadership in the Republican Party.

Simply being the Party of No is not leadership. Simply being against everything the Democrats are for is not leadership. It may even be the beginning of the end of the modern Republican Party and a shift toward the center. Something everyone would welcome.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

One fascinating thing is that the details rockchalk supplies often counter his own arguments and conclusions.

tomatogrower 6 years, 6 months ago

Too bad it's not a contest of who has the best solutions to our countries problems. I think Romney had a great solution to health care, but not he's back off of it. I haven't heard too many other ideas, except Cain's 9-9-9 proposal, so poor people can pay a higher percent of their income and the rich a lower percent. If you flip it over, that's 666. That should freak out the religious right.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

How can Ron Paul say he stands for individual liberty and at the same time, say he would outlaw abortion? Would he not be taking rights away from a portion of the population? And several republicans talk about restoring government to the days of the founding fathers. THOSE men couldn't even agree on what kind of government to have.
Took a long time to approve the constitution among the states.
The politicians think they have what the founding fathers wanted figured out? GOOD luck with that and read some history.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

My guess, mom, is that he's applying individual liberty to the unborn as well.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

the candidates are saying their should be less government and government shouldn't be involved in healthcare and other decisions and then turn around and say government should be involved in outlawing abortion.
Which one is it? Involved or not involved?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

And isn't the reverse also true. Democrats want the government involved in many aspects of our lives, making decisions that are best for us, except when it comes to abortion. Then it's an individual's choice.
Both positions are equally hypocritical.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Governor's run on what they have done for their state. Perry talks about all the jobs created in Texas and suggests that this means he can do the same on a national level. Romney's health care program makes his state #1 in health coverage, yet he is simultaniously running with and away from this impressive record. Why again would such a program be bad for the nation when it is so good for a state? That just doesn't make sense.

I still believe Romney is the only candidate among the Republicans who has a chance of winning, and that is a slim chance at best.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Sure, let's revisit it after the election. I wouldn't mind, because I am stating what I believe to be true. If Obama can't beat Romney in a national election, that is on him. Who ever wins, I will want them to succeed at making America a better country. I'm not big on wanting presidents to fail.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

If you mean Rush Limbaugh, he wasn't the only one to say he wanted this president to fail. It wasn't just his falsly named "socialist" ideas. It all had to do with the D behind his name, because Limbaugh gets his money from those who only want Rs in office. The party over country types wanted Obama to fail, and they said so.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

State governments may have constitutional authority to establish such a plan, while the federal government does not have that authority.

It's a tricky situation for Romney though - he's got to run on his record, and at the same time, oppose "Obamacare".

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

But he should oppose "Obamacare", or at least admit the failings his system has and find a way to re-work the national plan so it will work AND stem costs.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Yes. In my opinion, had the Republicans not been so dead set against any national plan being passed under Obama, I feel we could have had a better law passed. Romney should be willing to say he would try on the national level what he admits worked so well darn well on the state level. To not do so seems like disengenuous politics.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 6 months ago

Yes, the "good for the state, bad for the country" argument that Romney has to make is cutting pretty fine distinctions.

The bottom line is that Romney established "Obamacare" in Massachusetts. He must have thought it was a good idea.

Basing heated, angry rhetoric on the "good for the state, bad for the country" argument is pretty thin and transparent. Getting outraged over a technicality.

Pass the popcorn. This will be fun.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

It is a fine distinction, and those seem to be lost on many Americans these days.

But, there are a couple of arguments - one is that states are free to establish a number of different systems, and that's better than the federal government imposing one on all of them.

The other one is the constitutional issue, which is more than a mere "technicality" - state and federal governments have, and are meant to have, different kinds of authority.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 6 months ago

Agreed. And Romney is mad as hell about it.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 6 months ago

Careful making predictions. According to many at this time last year (you know who you are), the economy was going to completely collapse and unemployment would be well over 12% by this time.

How did that work out for you?

The economy is still bad and is taking time to recover, but the fact is that GWB and Obama prevented a worse economic collapse. There are also signa that the economy may be on the road to recovery, such as consumer spending and the stock market.

We shall see.

But as for your predictions of economic collapse, its sad trombones for you.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 6 months ago

The RINO party is a fraud therefore has no character. Nothing but liars,cheats and frauds.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 6 months ago

I disagree, as lying, cheating, and fraud are character traits.

pace 6 years, 6 months ago

Both have the backing of powerful special political action committees that can raise unlimited funds to run attack ads of their own. Gee, election reform GOP style.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.