2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[PanzerJaeger]

BRING GOLDWATER BACK FROM THE DEAD.

...who was utterly crushed by a career politician who would say or do anything to be president. He may have even had his predecessor killed for the chance.

I cannot remember a presidential candidate since Goldwater who did not pander. Reagan got close, but even he appeased his core constituencies when necessary - specifically the faux-militarism toward the Soviet Union all while signing away our nuclear stockpile. Courage of conviction has its place in the House, but not in a race to lead a pluralistic democracy. It just does not come with the job. You have to take too many positions on too many issues you simply do not care about. Most presidents come into office with two or three main objectives, the rest is just a combination of checking partisan boxes to maintain the support of the base and putting ones finger in the wind to gauge public opinion.

Romney is really no different than Bush or Obama in that respect, only he is attempting to win over two very different constituencies. Obviously, a Massachusetts Republican has to position him or herself much differently than those of other regions. Bush governed in Texas, so there was no break in continuity from conservative governor to conservative president. Obama hails from Chicago, so again, no continuity break from a liberal city/state to a liberal presidency. However, neither of the two believe half the crap they sold to their bases to get the nomination.

I kind of like Romney's blatant flip-flopping on the meaningless wedge issues only the extremists truly care about. It's like he's signaling to the rest of us that he's still the pragmatic technocrat he's always been.

I don't think anyone necessarily deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what silly cult they belong to, but in terms of OMG-this-is-whack factor, Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.

Mormonism is no more asinine than mainstream Christianity, just less widely adopted.

There's nothing 'brilliant' about Romney. He hasn't an original thought in years.

Name a president, any president, who has ever had an original idea. A president turns other people's ideas into reality. The job is a management position, and by all accounts, Romney is a pretty brilliant manager of large, overburdened, and flailing organizations (sound familiar?). Skilled management requires a certain brilliance all its own.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I should put a /joke next to my ALL CAPS statements from now on.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't get it. You like all the flip-flopping because it means they can marginalize part of their electorate?

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.

You seem to be attributing secret motivations to Romney and Obama that are outlandish at best. I find it much easier to believe that Romney's constant flip-flopping has more to do with him having a distinct lack of political convictions than your idea that its all part of a secret plan.

What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.

More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.

Politics has always been messy, but all the greats took a stand at some point. Firm political convictions are necesarry. The manager needs to have a vision, and he has to sell that vision to electorate and to the people he delegates to. Unfortunately, its been awhile since we had a president who has felt a need to explain himself in any way, shape, or form.

Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that Romney is just an opportunistic yes-man?

Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?

His firm from back in the good old days had nothing to do with him being some coprorate wizard--it was just opportunistic sharking.

I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.

Your unshakable faith in this man seems completely unfounded from any logical point of view. He has shown no political convictions at all.

Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.

If he's elected it will be like Bush never left. I promise. And by that I mean a generally unaccountable big-government GOP administration. Nothing new to see here.

There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.

[Major Robert Dump]

Romney will probably steal the election because all those illegal Mormon voters will vote for him, and a bunch of them will come into the USA from Utah and Illinois and after they vote they will leave again on their stupid little Mormon rafts.

Then once he is president, he will make America a publicly traded company after secretly turning all of America's assets into liquid assets (except NASA). Right before the IPO, he will sell America's liquid assets in an 11th hour deal, probably to Bahrain, pocketing the money and then telling the public he is going to use it to create more jobs. Then he will use the NASA equipment to send Robo Romneys to find his planet and prep it for his arrival after he dies.

He will resign as President and leave on his stupid little Mormon raft, too, sticking us with his VP as President, Chris Christie, who will immediatey eat everything, including minority children.

Romney 2012 will doom America. Obama 2012 will decriminalize marijuana, and ban automobiles, and the country will be much better with people getting high and riding bicycles everywhere. Which would you rather have??

[Moros]

I don't think people who smoke pot will have the energy to ride bikes though...

[Lemur]

For your amusement, I present predictions from before the 2008 election. Not gonna name names, but it's worthwhile to remember how overwrought we can all get in election season.

[Obama] will hammer his agenda through, and people like me will be the anvil. He knows better than anybody there's no tax laws written that the rich can't get around. It's middle class mucks like you and me that are going to pay for bringing up the standard of living for the welfare class.

It will begin with my 401k and my income tax (I'm not going to give him or you the enjoyment of thinking I'm dumb enough to believe that "wealthiest 5%" business. If you work for a living, your wallet is opening up). Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).

And that's just what I consider likely. If I really want to indulge in scary stories, I have a whole bunch of other ideas I've heard that Democrats are considering.

[Lemur]

I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.

Oh I dunno, "sharking" isn't inaccurate, just incomplete. I believe the correct mafia term is bust out.

Warning, video contains Martin Scorcese f-bombs.

[PanzerJaeger]

So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment.

Political convictions (ie, unyielding ideology) limit options. Instead of asking "What is the best solution?", men with deep political convictions ask "What is the best solution within my narrowly defined belief system?" The House has traditionally been the place for ideology, the presidency is the place for pragmatism.

The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.

Is this your first time following a US election? Was 'Hope and Change' any less vacuous than 'America the Great'?

Why are you content to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why are you content to invest your vote in a party that is totally self-contradictory with nothing but vague statements and a successful businessman to point to? What is the GOP's mission statement? What is Romney's platform? What will he do? You have no idea, and you're comfortable with that for some reason. What do you want out of the administration? Why are you willing to settle for something vague?

This is an example of why our system is utterly broken. Both sides can campaign on buzzwords while demonizing the other side and not putting anything meaninful forth. Accountability is a joke, and instead of demanding a candidate with convictions you can bank on you just put the first schmuck on a pedastal who tells you a happy-sounding story.

Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of retreating to a safe, inoffensive 'the system is broken' position. Between my job and the classes I'm taking, I simply do not have the time to whine about our two party system and muse about how wonderful it would be to vote for someone who holds my exact position on every issue that is important to me. I have to try to wade through the pandering, the demonizing, and general campaign crapstorm in an effort to take a measure of both men - to make my best judgment as to how their presidencies would effect my future and the future of the country.

You're free to take the easy way out. Don't vote. Revel in the purity of your position. Hell, get out in the streets and advocate for proportional representation. See where that gets you. If your movement takes off, I might even write you a check. But please do not condescend, as some of us have too much invested in this country to be apathetic.

But its the GOP who expands government every time they get the office. Its the GOP who keeps breaking the debt ceilling. Its the GOP that actually does take away peoples' rights. Its the GOP that calls people unpatriotic when they get asked a hard question. I do not understand how anyone can still vote for that party without demanding far more specific information from your candidates.

Open your eyes. Obama has done each of those things in the last four years.

Give the dems a few more years in office and I'm sure they'll be just as bad. Both parties need to be scrapped, before the standard for presidential candidates drops even lower.

After a while, this whining starts to sound cheap and hollow. Abdicating civic responsibility to pout in the corner is intellectual weakness, not strength. The system is not going to be scrapped by November, so we have to try to make the best decision possible within the current framework.

If you start now, maybe you can build a movement for proportional representation by 2016 - there's nothing in the law that says we have to have two parties.

[Major Robert Dump]

I stopped voting as soon as I realized Idol was rigged.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.



What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.

More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.



Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.



Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?



I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.



Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.



There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.

I agree with this post and,fortunately, I will be voting for my very first choice in this election. Probably for the 1st and only time in my life. Unless Christie runs in 4 or 8 years and then maybe I'll have 2 in a row.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment. The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.

What is a political conviction? You have convictions. You don't have too many of them and you acceptably modify the ones you do have. You do this and then empathize with the convictions of others when they can help you get into office and actualize your core convictions. Not everyone believes in every plank of a hodgepodge party - why would they and who could honestly do that? People who talk about conviction and politics in the same sentence have no idea what they are talking about. We have things that are important to us, things that are core, things that we like, things that we dislike but can deal with especially when being paid (work) and things that we hate and can't tolerate. We keep these in balance and sometimes things merge from category to category because of some stimulus that isn't too clear until we have the benefit of hindsight... and even then are not always so clear.

[Lemur]

If you guys actually cared about my feelings you would get me one of these.

[Lemur]

Interesting tidbit: Whether you worship The One or hate the Obamination, President 44 is really, really good for web traffic. Mr. Romney, not so much. I don't think this is predictive or indicative of the election; I just think it's interesting.

No one wants to read about Mitt Romney.

The well-starched Republican's traffic poison has been felt this year at websites across the political spectrum — including at BuzzFeed — and it's left many editors, publishers, and bloggers yearning for the days of the unpredictable Sarah Palin, the maverick John McCain, and the Obama-Clinton blood feud. [...]

[T]he relatively small readership interested in Romney is painfully apparent, and has editors reminiscing about the 2008 race. Franke-Ruta said, from a purely demographic standpoint, that election pulled in readers who had tuned out politics in the past.

For example, she said, "We know women are more likely to read about female politicians, so to the extent that the cast of characters in 2008 was more demographically diverse, there were more potential readers for the stories."

In the absence of the potential for a First Woman President or a First Black President, is there any saving grace that could salvage the next four months for politics websites?

"This is perhaps one of the reasons we should all be rooting for Romney to pick someone like Marco Rubio for veep," said Lewis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The more people mistake the cynical position as the moderate or the "reasonable" position, the US will only continue to stagnate.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

Right, because waging war with Mexico for nearly the entirety of the American West was hope/change.

[Major Robert Dump]

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

Not the same country, dude.

[PanzerJaeger]

In the case of Romney, you can literally only point to his ambition as a so-called positive trait.

That is just not true. I've written extensively about the qualities that I feel would make Romney a good president - experience, competence, leadership qualities, management skill, pragmatism, and an analytical decision making approach are just a few of those traits that come to mind.

You act shocked.... shocked!... that Romney is running more on rhetoric than reality, as if you hadn't lived through 2008... or 2004... or 2000. Welcome to American democracy. Do some reading on the election of 1800 if you really want to see some ugly populism... or the turn of the century big city bosses and the ballot stuffing that persisted well into the '60s (and handed the JFK his victory). Americans are so much more informed today than they ever have been, and our elections are far more fair.

You're obviously not even reading my posts, so I won't bother to waste my (now crunched) time on a point by point response to yours. My only point to you is that this is a thread about the 2012 election. The constant bitching and condescension about the 'system' is getting tired. I get it, by taking an interest in the election as it stands, by trying to make a realistic (not idealistic) choice, I'm an uninformed dolt propping up a broken system. If I really cared about the direction of this country, I would sit on the sidelines and pout about how awful things are.

Now that I think about it, though, I'm not even prepared to cede the point that the system is broken - at least to the point of dysfunction. It's messy, its dirty, and it often seems unfair, but it always has been. And, yet, America has persisted. After all the drama, the best candidate won. He usually does. There was no question that Romney was the best of the lot, and after all the drama, he managed to make it out of the primaries. While he wasn't my absolute, number one pick, there is no question he has the experience and talents to be president, and I will have no reservations about voting for him. I think he is a pretty admirable guy, much more so than Bush actually, and I can think of few contemporary politicians better suited for the office. The system worked, at least for me.

[Major Robert Dump]

My ideal candidate right now would be Gilbert Godfried.

I do realize that I get into round and rounds with people, and act all offended, and act all pessimistic, and I think I made PJ mad about something because he won't even talk to me anymore or cyber with me on Steam, but in the end what it boils down to is that I just do not care any more. I haven't given up on anything in terms of politics, because that would assume that I actually stood for something to begin with. Nor do I think that people should stop pursuing what they believe in, divisive or wrongheaded or not.

I have now reserved myself to 4 things:
- pursuing my non-profit work, in a country other than the USA
- minor enteprenuership, enough to support my non profit and bad habits
- marrying a little brown island girl half my age, because based on my looks a brown girl+me will make the prettiest babies, and good looks = more success
- having lots of babies with said girl half my age. Very difficult, very hard work, I am a true hero making a sacrifice

These 4 things are not conducive to me staying in the continental USA, running the rat race, and arguing over the things the politicians want us to argue about.

I may get shanked by a crook who wants my watch in the 3rd world, I may get kidnapped by Abu Sayaab from a beach because I am an American, I may die a horrible, preventable disease because I forgot not to drink the tap water...... and it will all be worth it because it means I will never have to listen to Chris MAtthews or Glenn Beck ever again. As of 2013, my taxable annual income will never, ever again exceed $18,000. Have a nice day

Also I am drunk

[ICantSpellDawg]

My ideal candidate right now would be Gilbert Godfried.

I do realize that I get into round and rounds with people, and act all offended, and act all pessimistic, and I think I made PJ mad about something because he won't even talk to me anymore or cyber with me on Steam, but in the end what it boils down to is that I just do not care any more. I haven't given up on anything in terms of politics, because that would assume that I actually stood for something to begin with. Nor do I think that people should stop pursuing what they believe in, divisive or wrongheaded or not.

I have now reserved myself to 4 things:
- pursuing my non-profit work, in a country other than the USA
- minor enteprenuership, enough to support my non profit and bad habits
- marrying a little brown island girl half my age, because based on my looks a brown girl+me will make the prettiest babies, and good looks = more success
- having lots of babies with said girl half my age. Very difficult, very hard work, I am a true hero making a sacrifice

These 4 things are not conducive to me staying in the continental USA, running the rat race, and arguing over the things the politicians want us to argue about.

I may get shanked by a crook who wants my watch in the 3rd world, I may get kidnapped by Abu Sayaab from a beach because I am an American, I may die a horrible, preventable disease because I forgot not to drink the tap water...... and it will all be worth it because it means I will never have to listen to Chris MAtthews or Glenn Beck ever again. As of 2013, my taxable annual income will never, ever again exceed $18,000. Have a nice day

Also I am drunk

I still believe in stuff, but not too much stuff - that's why I find what others believe in to be laughable sometimes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

These are absolute garbage requisites. This is a bare freaking minimum. My problem isn't that you find him to be competent, but that you think competence is enough. Is it too much to ask that we, as a supposedly enlightened society, demand a truly high standard!?

So we need what? a Messiah? Give me a break - we need a guy who is a mover and a shaker and can bring people together and make us all rich without ruining everything. Romney can do that, Obama can't. Obama has proven that he can't, Romney has proven that he can.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So we need what? a Messiah? Give me a break - we need a guy who is a mover and a shaker and can bring people together and make us all rich without ruining everything. Romney can do that, Obama can't. Obama has proven that he can't, Romney has proven that he can.

A messiah indeed.

You are a hollow M&M.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A messiah indeed.

You are a hollow M&M.

At least i'm not filled with turd nuggets

[ICantSpellDawg]

A high standard means you demand specific policy information from your candidates before you vote for them, and it means you're up in arms to make sure they don't get another term when they turn around and do the exact opposite. This isn't rocket surgery man, its accountability. A politician willing and able to be accountable would be a very high standard these days, when its so fashionable to treat the white house as a "do whatever I want with no real consequences" zone.

But who are we talking about here?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nobody, because the American people don't have the backbone to cast off bad politicians, preferring instead to apologize for their party of choice.

Who is this ideal person you are talking about? You try to make it sound like you are a true believer, but it doesn't seem like you have anyone in mind or have ever met anyone capable of filling the roll that needs to be filled. Go write fiction or watch a disney movie if you can't live in the real world. Pull the lever or press a button for Romney if you want a decent President who wants to make the world a better place and satisfy his own ambition after years of making himself and his investors very rich.

Or you can vote for another 4 years for Obama, who clearly sucks. Lets get a manager in there and see how he does, hell, Obama can even write speeches for him and we'll have the best of both worlds.

[PanzerJaeger]

These are absolute garbage requisites. This is a bare freaking minimum. My problem isn't that you find him to be competent, but that you think competence is enough. Is it too much to ask that we, as a supposedly enlightened society, demand a truly high standard!?

You do not seem to understand what I am referring to when I say competence. Proper administration of very large organizations is very difficult and requires a unique skill set that most do not possess. That is why the private sector pays such incredibly high salaries to men like Alan Mulally. It's why Apple sucked after they fired Steve Jobs. He wasn't so much a visionary as he was a taskmaster, keeping the organization's constant focus on its goals. The Peter Principle eliminates 99.9% of those willing to attempt management at that scale, leaving competition for that .1% very intense.

IIRC, the United States government is the largest, most complex organization on earth - that or the Chinese PLA. And that is not even counting the Healthcare takeover.

IMO, the reason Obama has failed is not because of ideology, but because he has been an ineffective manager. An objective look at the Bush administration would show a similar deficiency. Both men could have been great left/right of center presidents, but they simply could not harness the federal government to effect change. Instead, the complexities of navigating Washington overwhelmed them and we were left with wasted political capital and middling results.

At this time, in our current situation, we do not need an ideological president. This isn't Roosevelt versus the monopolies. It's not Reagan versus the Great Society. The country doesn't need a hard ideological shift. We know broadly what needs to be done, and it is largely administrative. The country isn't actually in bad shape long term, we've just suffered too much ideology and too little management at the top.

Romney's unique skill set is not the bare minimum we should expect, but, frankly, more than we could ask for. The man could be making hundreds of millions of dollars in the private sector, but has decided for whatever reason - genuine patriotism, ambition, daddy-issues, or some mix of the three - to put himself through the exhausting campaign process and the personal demonization to take a shot at righting our ship. The presidency was a big income and stature boost for a community organizer turned one-term, record-less senator. He and his family's lives have been upgraded tremendously because of it. In contrast, Romney doesn't need this. He makes more than the presidential salary in less than a week. It's a service.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A. You have no idea if Romney is ideological or not because he was ideological during the primaries and now he is being mister moderate during the general election, like every smooth talking politician.

B. If you want to portray him as a man who just wants to do his service to the country you are going to get laughed at by me when I recall and re-watch the 1990s debates with Ross Perot. Now that was a guy who really didn't need to be in there, but he busts out his charts in a completely unorthodox manner (and some would say embarrassing manner) and doesn't give a **** about how oddball he comes across. That's a guy who is there because he wants to do a service and that actually resonated in the American public with the large percentages he was grabbing.

Romney is the complete opposite of Perot presentation wise, he is the textbook definition of processed and polished.

[Lemur]

YAnd that is not even counting the Healthcare takeover.

Oh please. You mean the thing where we smoothed all the rough patches to subsidize and preserve private medical insurance? That takeover? Next you'll be going on about death panels.

[Kralizec]

Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85_6t6q4lco