Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[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.

 

[BobG]

Too good to pass up: What Mitt would like to tell the Republican convention.

How will posterity judge us . . .? That is the only question for a statesman. But before it can judge us, it must first remember who we are.

Strangely (or not so strangely), Romney looked like a very promising candidate at one time... like back in 2007 before he actually started campaigning to be President. But, then again, I was one that listened to Christie's endorsement of Romney and wished I was voting for Christie (that was an endorsement of Romney, wasn't it?)

 

[ThinkToday]

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.

I'm hoping for a comeback by Nader and the Green Party http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2010/07/21/2012-green-party-presidential-candidate-___________/

or

www.vote-socialist.org to pull some votes off Obama

hehe

 

[mheslep]

...July polls[/url], 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%).

...

Obama won in 2008 in Virginia. But since then, McDonnell, the current Va Republican governor won by 16 points in the 2009-10 election, replacing a term limited Democratic governor. McDonnell campaigns heavily with the Romney campaign. Three of the Va US House seats turned Republican with no Republican losses. I have a hard time seeing how Romney does not win Virginia. This Aug 24th poll has them even at 47% each.

 

[BobG]

How Obama and Romney compare on the top 14 American science policy questions: http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

Overall, the Romney campaign team seemed to take this a lot more seriously than the Obama campaign team and gave some surprisingly detailed answers. That doesn't necessarily mean his answers were better, but they did put in a lot more effort than the Obama team.

 

[BobG]

If you're comparing conventions, I think the Democrats clearly won.

By the end of the convention, the transformation was complete. It was process of confession (why the economy hasn't rebounded as fast as people would hope), and then a transition to a focus on why Obama is the person we need to solve the problems left by the previous administration - which also happens to be Obama's, but they somehow created a feeling that our current problems were Romney's fault and that it was Romney that failed to solve our economic problems.

In fact, the economy took on the feel of a war - a war that's been tough, but we've turned the corner and are finally triumphing over... who? The Republicans? Or is it class warfare between the middle class and the 1%, of which Romney is definitely a member?

Even a cynical person could laugh, just because they pulled it off so well.

I liken it to the 1980 primary debate between Reagan and Bush (and the dwarves) when Reagan stood at the microphone claiming he paid for this microphone and could invite anyone he wanted. It was a scene right out of the Jimmy Stewart movie, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", and was executed so well I had to laugh, even though I was a Bush supporter and was suddenly beginning to realize he just wasn't going to beat Reagan.

 

[ThinkToday]

If you're comparing conventions, I think the Democrats clearly won.

I'm not so sure. I think the Democratic base was infused, but for me, it was a "here we go again" moment. Blame, blame, blame, and Democrats are just victims of Republicans, even though Obama and the Democrats had absolute control of the legislative and executive branches of government for his first two years. One of the more interesting moments was the platform votes on God and Jerusalem; 3 voice votes to "pass", and the passes were booed as fakes. The voice vote sounded like a clear "no", but was ruled as "yes". I doubt Obama will ever take ownership of his presidency for anything that doesn’t work out. IMO, Obama needs to learn to eat the humble pie and be real with people about what has and hasn’t worked, as well as why (faulty assumptions, etc.) and what and why his next solution is best. We also can’t forget the Senate, under Democrat control, hasn’t passed a budget in three years!

Sure, Obama got a raw deal in the economy and the tail end of the Iraq war Bush never should have started, but let’s not forget: Bush got the ".com" bust, which took out 1/2 of my retirement and savings (hit me far more than the housing bust under Bush). The dot com bust was totally under Clinton's watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble . Bush also got 9/11, which put us at war in Afghanistan, and 9/11 trashed the economy, airline industry, our civil liberty, ego, sense of security, etc. And, let’s not forget the housing bubble was set in motion long before Bush ever took office. Some still blame Bush (e.g. Obama) but the Fed, Congress, and previous President (Clinton) carry a good bit of the burden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble . It's been a long time ago, but I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton at every turn for why the economy was bad.

 

[Evo]

How Obama and Romney compare on the top 14 American science policy questions: http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

Overall, the Romney campaign team seemed to take this a lot more seriously than the Obama campaign team and gave some surprisingly detailed answers. That doesn't necessarily mean his answers were better, but they did put in a lot more effort than the Obama team.

What I see is Romney pontificating on his political agenda, inappropriately using this questionare as a platform to attack his opponent. It's a skill to make your points without being verbose, and refrain from making a political speech as opposed to answering the questions. Obama did a much better job of "just the facts".

IMO to above.

 

[edward]

Sure, Obama got a raw deal in the economy and the tail end of the Iraq war Bush never should have started, but let’s not forget: Bush got the ".com" bust, which took out 1/2 of my retirement and savings (hit me far more than the housing bust under Bush). The dot com bust was totally under Clinton's watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble . Bush also got 9/11, which put us at war in Afghanistan, and 9/11 trashed the economy, airline industry, our civil liberty, ego, sense of security, etc. And, let’s not forget the housing bubble was set in motion long before Bush ever took office. Some still blame Bush (e.g. Obama) but the Fed, Congress, and previous President (Clinton) carry a good bit of the burden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble . It's been a long time ago, but I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton at every turn for why the economy was bad.

So if the housing bubble dynamics were all in motion when Bush entered office why didn't the Bush administration do anything about it?? Have you seen the documentary The Warning??

It doesn't look like Bush was alarmed at all about the housing situation in the video below.



As for your blather about Bush never blaiming Clinton...! ; Blaiming Clinton for for what?? Bush inherited a balanced budget.

You talking points about Clinton are oranges and apples especially in this thread.

 

[mheslep]

blaiming Clinton...

For the Community Reinvestment Act, for letting Fannie and Freddie off the leash.

 

[russ_watters]

...for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the Community Reinvestment Act, for letting Fannie and Freddie off the leash.

...for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Aren't you guys talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley? I think Bush might have had a hard time blaming Clinton for signing a bill named after its 3 Republican sponsors.

 

[mheslep]

Aren't you guys talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley? I think Bush might have had a hard time blaming Clinton for signing a bill named after its 3 Republican sponsors.

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

 

[BobG]

I'm not so sure. I think the Democratic base was infused, but for me, it was a "here we go again" moment. ...

You're focusing on the issues. The imagery was the big thing at the conventions.

If they make another Tom Clancy style movie, they'll want a President and Vice President modeled after Obama and Biden.

If they put Romney in a movie, he'll be rescued by Keanu Reeves... not even rescued by a real action hero like Matt Damon!

Obama and Biden owned the economic meltdown in their own way and their way had Francis Scott Key gazing through the smoke and haze and realizing that GM was still there!

There's reasons Romney appears weak.

He was one of the best governors in the US, but he hasn't been able to tell anyone about it. He wouldn't be allowed to even attend the Republican convention if he bragged about what he accomplished in Massachusetts, let alone be the nominee.

He has been a very successful businessman; very good at what he does. He can't brag about that either, because Obama's gaffe gets a slight tweak and becomes "You didn't build it! You dismantled it!" The only way Romney becomes a hero is if he ditches his wife and kids and starts picking up random hookers until he finally finds one that uses dental floss instead of meth... and I don't think he has enough time before the election to pull that one off.

After all this time, the public still doesn't know who Mitt Romney really is. Is he the person that was governor of Massachusetts, pro-choice stance and Romneycare included? Is the real Romney the Romney we see today and his Mass policies simply what he had to do to survive? Or was Mass Romney the real Romney at the time, but his views have evolved to what they are today?

Romney has to keep his strongest assets under cover. The only thing he has to work with is Obama's performance and the issues. Those are pretty strong tools, but he's still working with one arm tied behind his back.

But then again, being President during this economy should do a pretty good job making Obama look weak. Transforming this into a "hero" moment is a pretty good trick and I don't think many could do it as well as Clinton and Biden did (both were much better than Obama, although Obama certainly did prove his bravery by allowing a live microphone within three feet of Joe Biden).

So, perhaps a better candidate could present his strengths in a way that made him look strong - or perhaps this is just the wrong time in the Republican Party for someone like Romney. Let's face it. Just the 'flavor of the month' process the Republican Party went through to find a nominee shows you how excited Republicans were about Romney.

Republicans missed the boat at their convention. They thought Romney had to seem more human and more likeable. Romney really has to look stronger and I don't see how he does that when he can't use half of the successes he's experienced in his life.

 

[Evo]

Bush also got 9/11, which put us at war in Afghanistan,

9/11 got Bush re-elected. It was a positive for him. Did I misunderstand your post, it seems you were saying 9/11 was bad for him. He started the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan.

Bush began his presidency with approval ratings near 50%.[29] Following the September 11 attacks, Bush held approval ratings of greater than 85%, among the highest for any President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush

 

[russ_watters]

Aren't you guys talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley? I think Bush might have had a hard time blaming Clinton for signing a bill named after its 3 Republican sponsors.

What edward and mheslep said are a little different. mheslep mentioned Bush, but what edward said implied (at least to me) that there isn't anything Clinton could possibly be blamed for because he left the economy in great shape. IMO, what Bush might have argued 4 years ago isn't what is relevant: what is relevant is what Obama might argue today.