You people hate Obama

[erfalf]

Surprised that I am an Obama supporter? But I am not an anti-republican or even anti-conservative. A huge difference between guys like Gas and myself. I look for what an elected official says and does before I consider their political persuasion. I am in the great American middle that finds something to like about Bush and something to admire about Obama but can't find much to like about an Inhofe or a Gingrich. I like some things about Christie, Jeb Bush and others who are republican but seem to think for themselves and act for their constituents. My republican friends are frustrated at the ineptness in finding a candidate that will represent them.

Romney has such a weak relationship with public service and the truth. He left politics after one term as governor for private service yet continued to run for president for the last 8 years or so (the Palin strategy). He never holds a political position any longer than it takes to get him what he needs at the moment. The etch a sketch remark by his top campaign manager was a matter of fact reflection of what they all know. And, he is an inveterate liar. His own party knows it and unfortunately could not find anyone with as much money who could overcome his momentum.

There is absolutely no indication that he has the integrity, the knowledge of foreign affairs or the political skills necessary to be anything but a pretty good CEO of a corporation. This country isn't a corporation.

I believe Romney will say anything to get elected, like many if not all politicians. But his actions are not that different than Obama's. So again, what' gives on the assumption that he would be a failure?

Did you have the same perceptions about Obama prior to his election? I mean, what indications did he give you that he would or would not be a success?

[Conan71]

One distinct difference, as I see it, between Romney and Obama is Romney actually has a hands-on grasp of economics.  Obama’s experience is being led by his nose by the likes of Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffett.

[AquaMan]

I believe Romney will say anything to get elected, like many if not all politicians. But his actions are not that different than Obama's. So again, what' gives on the assumption that he would be a failure?

Did you have the same perceptions about Obama prior to his election? I mean, what indications did he give you that he would or would not be a success?

Many politicians, not all. His actions are so different from Obama's that it will get him his party's nomination. Obama toured Europe and the middle east before running for president. He assembled grass roots support and navigated the state politics of Illinois then sat in Congress and participated in the meat grinding. He is an academic having taught as a professor. His outlook is decidedly oriented to thoughtful research of issues, varied input from advisors and cabinet members, then reflection and decisionmaking. What I see, and saw in him in 2008 was a Kennedy, Truman like leader who understands that you need the best and the brightest to advise you but in the end it is your decision. Its an intellectual approach. Yet he is a devoted family guy who can speak to a new generation and knows their language.

Romney blurts out that we should go to war with Iran without much deliberation. He simply follows the party line. He fully supports the Ryan budget but hasn't even read it. He saw how Gingrich was skewered for analyzing Ryan's proposals and judging them as radical. Not going to make the mistake Gingrich did of thinking for himself. He comes from a father whom I admired greatly but he seems to have drawn the wrong things from his father's political failures. His dad spoke out on the lunacy and failure of our Viet Nam strategies in the late sixties. That destroyed his political future. Romney makes sure he says nothing to offend the torch bearers of his party. He knows about the view from the corporate top floor and has made a lot of money from manipulating corporate entities, but when faced with the realities of the common guy he doesn't have a clue. "Corporates are people." "I like being able to fire people" right or wrong it shows his propensity to shoot first and ask questions later. He's a guy who oversaw a great idea into fruition with insurance coverage in his own state and can't run fast enough away from it once his party revulsed at the thought of it. His balls are shrinking to obscurity every day he utters the word Obamacare.

The two guys are real different to me. Some guys like to make money, some guys transcend that.

[Gaspar]

Funny you bring up stuff like that. Yesterday while searching for data on how many presidents have publicly visited OK (couldn't find anything in the last two decades), I came upon a published masters thesis about the subject of presidents campaigning during office. It turns out that since the late seventies presidents have grown to become full term campaigners aided by jets, computers, the internet and constant demands by their constituents. Every president now spends his entire term in what can be construed as campaigning.

This highlights your lack of perspective on politics. You say he's the most political president we've ever had, yet unless I've missed something in your posts I don't think you have a poli-sci degree or have done much political history research. Just in my lifetime Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Clinton, and BushII were all equal to or greater than Obama in political leaning. Lyndon was the master, Roosevelt was pretty good too. When it suits you I'm sure we'll hear how incompetent he is in the political mastery of legislative politics. That shows your anti Obama streak with a spotlight.

You wouldn't recognize good CEO or operations material if it was right in front of you and it is. We have 24 months of recovery, we dodged a deep depression through his leadership, our particular state benefits from his energy policy more than most yet refuses to acknowledge it because of resolute political lunacy like yours.

I know how disappointing it is for your ilk to have to run a prevaricator like Romney against a president who has lead us through a financial nightmare with humor, dignity and respect. A president who is benefiting from a recovering economy and still will visit states hostile to him like AZ and OK. It limits your choices. You can pray for economic downturn or insure one by electing Romney.

Hmm.

You have some very good points.

You cite several accomplishments that President Obama should be very proud of, but that's not what he's campaigning on. Why is that?

You mention:

Recovery-The unemployment numbers are set to go down again this month, but not because of expansion in the workforce, but rather another reduction in those actively seeking work.  Totals are still rather stagnate.  Big corporations and Wall Street are recording record profits, because the competitive landscape continues to shrink, and banks continue to be rewarded for restricting loans and barring entry into the market for business start-ups.

Energy policy-We're all discombobulated here.  Prices are high at a time of the year when they should be low.  We are exporting fuel because of a slow economy, and export provides a higher profit because it's not subject to blending regulations.  Production on private and state land is up from permitting 5 years ago, but no new steps have been taken to grant permits on federal lands.  Trillions are being pumped into green initiatives that promise return but return no promise. The president takes credit for the building part of a pipeline as if it's a mission accomplished moment.

Both items you mention above could be far greater successes, or actual successes, with very simple action on the part of the president. 

1. Stop the .25% interest program for bank reserves and watch small businesses grow. 

2. Quell the uncertainty looming over the private sector through your calls for tax increases and ambiguous healthcare requirements.

3. Gas prices can be temporarily overcome by lifting the restriction on foreign flagged vessels from transporting fuel from one US port to the other (currently they can deliver only, but cannot deliver from port to port even though they may be running at particle capacity).  That adds significantly to the cost of fuel because oil companies are required to run tankers with empty tanks in may cases.  He could also suspend blending standards as a temporary fix. 

4. As a long term fix, he could open up permitting on millions of acres of federal land.  Even if it is only for a small # of wells, this would make the speculators convulse, and lower futures and delivery prices. Because royalties on public land go back to the government this could be the vehicle to fund all green initiatives without punishing the tax payers any more.

5. Create a massive slush-fund for alternative energy fueled by our current reliance on congenital energy (above).  Two birds---one stone. 

6. Because the cost of energy is the biggest drag on our economy, the president would be able to actually celebrate his accomplishments instead of re-inveting himself under the meme of "fairness," and try to get re-elected on the backs of those disenfranchised by his own lackluster performance.

[erfalf]

Many politicians, not all. His actions are so different from Obama's that it will get him his party's nomination. Obama toured Europe and the middle east before running for president.

Before his nomination or after. I recall the Germany speech which was decidedly after he was nominated.

He assembled grass roots support and navigated the state politics of Illinois then sat in Congress and participated in the meat grinding. He is an academic having taught as a professor. His outlook is decidedly oriented to thoughtful research of issues, varied input from advisors and cabinet members, then reflection and decisionmaking. What I see, and saw in him in 2008 was a Kennedy, Truman like leader who understands that you need the best and the brightest to advise you but in the end it is your decision. Its an intellectual approach. Yet he is a devoted family guy who can speak to a new generation and knows their language.

Again, not advocating necessarily for Romney, but what again is the difference? It sounds to me that because Romney is a Republican, he is not capable of critical thought, is rash, and is incapable of making decisions. I could argue just as easily that he is just as capable if not more so in that department by looking at his private equity experience. I know everyone rails on private equity, but in pe you have to make decisions and live with them. If you make too many wrong decisions, you WILL be punished. Your fundraising will dry up in a heart beat if you don't produce.

Romney blurts out that we should go to war with Iran without much deliberation. He simply follows the party line.

How do you know what he is thinking?

He fully supports the Ryan budget but hasn't even read it. He saw how Gingrich was skewered for analyzing Ryan's proposals and judging them as radical. Not going to make the mistake Gingrich did of thinking for himself.

Again, how do you know?

Romney makes sure he says nothing to offend the torch bearers of his party.

Obama doesn't? From where I am sitting, Romney has done far more to offend his party than Obama would ever dream of.

He's a guy who oversaw a great idea into fruition with insurance coverage in his own state and can't run fast enough away from it once his party revulsed at the thought of it. His balls are shrinking to obscurity every day he utters the word Obamacare.

So his mistake is Obama's victory?

The two guys are real different to me. Some guys like to make money, some guys transcend that.

Pretending to be above it all while showing a decidedly Obama biases as you have been is no different than what we rail on these politicians for doing. You (and I) and the politicians are often unable or unwilling to step back and look objectively at what is really in front of them.

[erfalf]

5. Create a massive slush-fund for alternative energy fueled by our current reliance on congenital energy (above).  Two birds---one stone. 

To add to that, the federal government SHOULD take equity positions in these companies and rollover the profits into new deals. Kind of create a snowball. As it stands we guarantee loans and best case scenario is we just get paid back. The way we do it subsidizes the actual company and all the investors as well. The investors get to keep all the profit, their ownership is not diluted at all, and their risk level is alleviated.

I know that generally I am against government subsidizing private industry, but seeing as spending on new energy is not going to go away, this is my next best solution. I know it is government ownership, but let's face it, most wouldn't exist without the government, just like many research positions. Once the entity becomes profitable, the feds can sell their stake and move on.

[Gaspar]

To add to that, the federal government SHOULD take equity positions in these companies and rollover the profits into new deals. Kind of create a snowball. As it stands we guarantee loans and best case scenario is we just get paid back. The way we do it subsidizes the actual company and all the investors as well. The investors get to keep all the profit, their ownership is not diluted at all, and their risk level is alleviated.

I know that generally I am against government subsidizing private industry, but seeing as spending on new energy is not going to go away, this is my next best solution. I know it is government ownership, but let's face it, most wouldn't exist without the government, just like many research positions. Once the entity becomes profitable, the feds can sell their stake and move on.

Can't agree with that, because it ends up giving corporate governance rights to government, and if there is one thing we've learned it's that government has no business governing anything!.

"Gimmy tha keys, ike can drive!"

[erfalf]

Can't agree with that, because it ends up giving corporate governance rights to government, and if there is one thing we've learned it's that government has no business governing anything!.

"Gimmy tha keys, ike can drive!"

Agree or not, we already do. And I'm not talking about GM. Oklahoma has it's own Venture Capital Fund, i2e or something. It can be done. I like you though have little faith in anything getting done right though.

[Ed W]

The government was doing as much as it could to incubate bio-diesel and ethanol during the Bush admin.  The tax credits were there, federal loans were there, business incubator programs were there.  I was giddy with the prospect of so many start ups because they all require some sort of efficient heat source to distill or help catalyze the process.  I even got in on some of those projects, selling equipment.  IMO, that program was grossly mis-managed and what we wound up with was a bunch of small entrepreneurships run on preference/incubator type programs (i.e. race, gender or ethnic minority preference) which had zero clue about running a business and no way to get rid of waste by-products.  I’m not implying that minorities are poor business people, the problems with programs like that is that they seldom take an honest look at the merit of each proposal and business plan along with establishing some sort of prediction of success rather than the XY chromosome arrangement or color of skin as the larger basis for approval.

To be perfectly honest, the government needs big business to be the partner.

...I’m tired of the constant arch partisan rhetoric.  I’m quite certain it wasn’t like this 30 to 40 years ago.  With the need to fill so much content time on radio and television, politics has become a blood sport in America.

There are two distinct thoughts here, so feel free to pick and choose.

First, if you have a thousand acres of corn, what is the best use for it as fuel, corn oil or alcohol?  You could dry it and burn it too, but only steam punks want vehicles powered that way.  Corn oil can run in pipes, I think, but alcohol has to go by truck as it's too corrosive.  Corn oil can become bio-diesel.  Maybe we can just grow our own fuel.  For that matter, I wonder if you can get oil from cannabis sativa?  People would be happier about the resulting exhaust gas.

On the other matter, here's some insight into politics from 50 years ago:

"...The entire page 14 of the Dallas Morning News, November 22nd, 1963, was devoted to an advertisement, ominously bordered in black like an announcement of mourning. Under the sardonic heading, "WELCOME MR KENNEDY TO DALLAS,"...

..."It was another 'Wanted for Treason' broadside. But there were two differences. This denunciation was reaching a vast audience through the pages of a respected newspaper. And it was appearing within hours of the President's arrival.

...In 1963 the Dallas Morning News was published by a man named Ted Dealey [as in Dealey Plaza]. When criticized for it later, Dealey said that before agreeing to print the JBS ad, he'd read it meticulously and approved it, arguing that it 'represented what the Dallas Morning News have been saying editorially'.

"Actually, in agreeing to go to Texas, JFK knew he was heading into extremely hostile territory. Joe Pool - the Democratic Congressman from Dallas - was heavily backed by big money . He told "Big D" constituents that the Kennedy administration had "turned my stomach". The mayor of Dallas - Earle Cabell - was a friend and associate of Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society. The mayor and his wealthy cronies hated JFK. Some of them affixed bumper-stickers to their cars saying "K.O. the Kennedys". Their wives played a game called "Which Kennedy do you hate the most?". Prosperous, well educated young marrieds gathered over jumbo highballs in the trendy suburbs to swap jokes about assassination and lewd gossip about the First Family.

(I forgot to add this: http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkjbs.shtml )

The difference then was that without the internet, all those people with a violent dislike of a politician were confined to writing letters to the editor or running some local newsletter.  Now, they have websites and much greater reach.  My father was fond of paraphrasing Frank Lloyd Wright, who was alleged to have said, "California and New York are the low points of the country.  All the odd balls roll there!"  I think you'd agree that some webpages are the modern low points, and they're just as attractive to oddballs.

[Conan71]

There are two distinct thoughts here, so feel free to pick and choose.

First, if you have a thousand acres of corn, what is the best use for it as fuel, corn oil or alcohol?  You could dry it and burn it too, but only steam punks want vehicles powered that way.  Corn oil can run in pipes, I think, but alcohol has to go by truck as it's too corrosive.  Corn oil can become bio-diesel.  Maybe we can just grow our own fuel.  For that matter, I wonder if you can get oil from cannabis sativa?  People would be happier about the resulting exhaust gas.

Actually you can do both, feed stock and fuel.  The feedstock is a byproduct once you have extracted what you want for energy.

[Gaspar]

Actually you can do both, feed stock and fuel.  The feedstock is a byproduct once you have extracted what you want for energy.

Fattens them up too and produces big beautiful fat livers!

[Conan71]

Fattens them up too and produces big beautiful fat livers!

Fat is flavor!

[erfalf]

Fat is flavor!

Why do we not do bio-diesel in America again? From what I understand it is widely used in western Europe. I saw some thing on CNBC some time ago where a fellow was going around collecting cooking oil from businesses and turning it into fuel. It went on to discuss Bio-Fuels further. I don't know that they are that much better emissions wise, but they sure smell a heck of a lot better when you are sitting behind them in traffic.

[Gaspar]

Why do we not do bio-diesel in America again? From what I understand it is widely used in western Europe. I saw some thing on CNBC some time ago where a fellow was going around collecting cooking oil from businesses and turning it into fuel. It went on to discuss Bio-Fuels further. I don't know that they are that much better emissions wise, but they sure smell a heck of a lot better when you are sitting behind them in traffic.

Places still do, but it's expensive. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I’m tired of the constant arch partisan rhetoric.  I’m quite certain it wasn’t like this 30 to 40 years ago.  With the need to fill so much content time on radio and television, politics has become a blood sport in America.

I agree with that about 1000%.  Second part - you just dated yourself - the arch partisan rhetoric was exactly like it is today.  Nothing much has changed in 40 years, except for the possible inclusion of a few more expletives on TV.  It has always been a blood sport.  Especially those times when the military has been called out to mow down civilians.

Gerald Ford was demonized just as much as anyone today for being "clumsy".  And the fact he pardoned Nixon.  But not electing him President was one of the bigger bonehead moves this country has made - right up there with electing Baby Bush once, and electing Nixon twice.