Obama's acceptance speech

[Hoss]

Amazing the ego of some people on here to think I was responding to them....Cheez.

[Red Arrow]

I see the word-parser (erfalf) is at it again...LOL.
Edited to remove ego from a certain poster on here.

More like edited to save face by removing ambiguity.

[nathanm]

Romney has announced his foreign policy team. 17 of the 24 members served in the Bush administration.

Oof. Do we really need neocons in charge of foreign policy again? I guess Romney would be good for the economy after all. War is pretty good as stimulus, as long as it doesn't involve people blowing stuff up here at home.

[Red Arrow]

War is pretty good as stimulus, as long as it doesn't involve people blowing stuff up here at home.

It worked pretty good for Roosevelt and Kennedy/Johnson.  To some extent, it even worked for Bush II if you only look until 2007ish.

A lot of whether war is worth it or not appears to depend on if your generation is the one doing the fighting.

[erfalf]

Uh, the bills before Congress and previously passed legislation have the detail. Nobody expects a significant amount of detail in the actual stump speeches. To be fair, Romney needs little detail with regard to job creation. The number he has claimed he'll create over four years just happens to be right about the typical neutral economy job creation rate.

Yet you attribute the turnaround to Obama and his policies. And we would have been lost without him?

[erfalf]

I am not saying that the two (Obama/Romney) have the same foreign policy experience. I am also not saying that the two had the same prior experience. Nor am I saying it is any kind of indication. I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm. And that being said, Obama had zilch foreign policy experience and it has shown at times. Romney has little if any experience and who's to say if he will be better worse. I am saying this is really a non-issue in most people's minds (unless you are trying to get Obama elected, then it makes a huge difference).

[Conan71]

I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm.

Other than Secretary Of State 

[nathanm]

Yet you attribute the turnaround to Obama and his policies.

Yeah, he was getting what he asked for (plus a bunch of pork and the usual Congressional idiocy) at the very beginning. The stimulus passed, it stabilized things. Since then, not so much.

And we would have been lost without him?

Lost? No. In worse economic shape, probably. McCain and Congress probably would have done similar things at the outset, but had the Republicans still taken the house in 2010, I suspect we'd be much worse off. We've already been pursing a policy of austerity by default, and it's been dragging us down. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we were actively pursing austerity. Well, I don't have to imagine, there are plenty of examples of the failure of that policy in Europe.

[erfalf]

Interestingly, Clinton is the only Democrat President to have won 2 elections since FDR. Wouldn't have guessed.

Democrats:
Truman - Took over for Roosevelt. Won one election. Did not run again, corruption issues
Johnson - Took over for Kennedy, Won one election. Did not run again
Carter - Lost 2nd election

Clinton - 2 Terms

Republicans:
Ford - Took over for Nixon, lost to Carter (all I can say is thank you to Ford for beating Reagan in the primary. I would guess that it would have been unlikely for anyone in the Republican party to win so close to Nixon).
Bush Sr - 1 Term. Lost to Clinton.

Eisenhower - 2 Terms
Nixon - 2 Terms, impeached
Reagan - 2 Terms
Bush Jr - 2 Terms

[erfalf]

Other than Secretary Of State 

Not hardly any. But how many living Secretary of States do we have? And what are the odds of them running for President?

Of course I say that and I would say the odds of one running is about 100% (Clinton). But generally speaking, I would say the odds would be low. So I looked it up and I think 10 former Secretary of State's are still alive. Most than there are of living former Presidents I guess.

[erfalf]

Yeah, he was getting what he asked for (plus a bunch of pork and the usual Congressional idiocy) at the very beginning. The stimulus passed, it stabilized things. Since then, not so much.

Lost? No. In worse economic shape, probably. McCain and Congress probably would have done similar things at the outset, but had the Republicans still taken the house in 2010, I suspect we'd be much worse off. We've already been pursing a policy of austerity by default, and it's been dragging us down. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we were actively pursing austerity. Well, I don't have to imagine, there are plenty of examples of the failure of that policy in Europe.

I understand it is a point of view. There are no facts in hypotheticals. But, my opinion is that had we gotten McCain (ugh) things would be virtually the same. The stimulus was already in the works before the election. The auto bailouts and AIG stuff already happened. What would have been significantly different besides the name plate on the desk. You think the Dems would have extended the Bush tax cuts with a Republican in the White House?

[Conan71]

Not hardly any. But how many living Secretary of States do we have? And what are the odds of them running for President?

Of course I say that and I would say the odds of one running is about 100% (Clinton). But generally speaking, I would say the odds would be low. So I looked it up and I think 10 former Secretary of State's are still alive. Most than there are of living former Presidents I guess.

I'm curious if Hillarity really wants to run in 2016.  I'd think she'd be ready to retire and kick her feet up after this gig is over.

The whole argument about Romney being a foreign policy neophyte is just another straw man like his tax returns.  Something else to try and divert from the fact that there's 23 million unemployed or under-employed, gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon, we are $6 trillion further in debt, etc. 

[nathanm]

What would have been significantly different besides the name plate on the desk. You think the Dems would have extended the Bush tax cuts with a Republican in the White House?

There would have been little difference until Republicans took the House, IMO. I do think the Dems would have approved an extension of the Bush cuts if McCain vetoed a bill to extend the cuts only for people making less than $250,000 a year and promised to keep doing it. After 2010, I would suspect that the Republicans would have passed some rather draconian budget cuts, though, and I don't think McCain would have had the stones to veto such irresponsibility. Maybe earlier in his career when he still had a modicum of integrity, but not at this late stage.

Even Paul Ryan agrees that government spending creates jobs, even though he constantly argues the opposite. However, when it's military spending, any cuts will cost tens of thousands of jobs, says he. Very peculiar, that man. Ryan's peculiarity aside, the House having its way with the budget would undoubtedly have pushed us back into recession, at least if they did what they claim to want to do.

Conan, the debt will only get worse as long as this downturn is allowed to persist. Complain to Congress. Obama has been demanding action on that point for years, and has gotten little to nothing. Not that the debt actually matters, we owe the vast majority of it to ourselves. For all the talk, China owns less than 10% of it.

[AquaMan]

I am not saying that the two (Obama/Romney) have the same foreign policy experience. I am also not saying that the two had the same prior experience. Nor am I saying it is any kind of indication. I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm. And that being said, Obama had zilch foreign policy experience and it has shown at times. Romney has little if any experience and who's to say if he will be better worse. I am saying this is really a non-issue in most people's minds (unless you are trying to get Obama elected, then it makes a huge difference).

How long did it take you to think up that bit of waffling? Your position has "evolved" from -Romney has more experience, to it really doesn't matter, to Obama didn't have any experience, to Obama had experience but it was bad experience, back to it doesn't matter, then a long silence as you ignored my questioning the logic of your posts. Now, Obama had no experience (un-informed at best), no one could obtain such experience without being president, and its a non issue anyway because your candidate has no experience. That's quite a roller coaster.

I'd take a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Commerce, a former vice president, a president of a company that has operations in different countries (like Schlumberget) or has at least visited more than Israel, England and France. I would consider someone with diplomatic corps experience, military experience in overseas operations, a Senator who actually has possessed and used a Visa or a member of one of the intelligence agencies. Romney could have chosen any of those categories, but he decided to go with an economic idealogue. He indicates he'll use old Bushies for his foreign policy brain trust.

Oh, well.

[erfalf]

How long did it take you to think up that bit of waffling? Your position has "evolved" from -Romney has more experience, to it really doesn't matter, to Obama didn't have any experience, to Obama had experience but it was bad experience, back to it doesn't matter, then a long silence as you ignored my questioning the logic of your posts. Now, Obama had no experience (un-informed at best), no one could obtain such experience without being president, and its a non issue anyway because your candidate has no experience. That's quite a roller coaster.

I'd take a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Commerce, a former vice president, a president of a company that has operations in different countries (like Schlumberget) or has at least visited more than Israel, England and France. I would consider someone with diplomatic corps experience, military experience in overseas operations, a Senator who actually has possessed and used a Visa or a member of one of the intelligence agencies. Romney could have chosen any of those categories, but he decided to go with an economic idealogue. He indicates he'll use old Bushies for his foreign policy brain trust.

Oh, well.

It wouldn't be such a roller coaster if you would read all the posts.

Romney's foreign policy experience is on par with Obama's prior to his election. Does it really make a difference?

What vast amounts of foreign policy experience did Obama have in 2008, besides living overseas? I would guess that Romney probably has been in the game longer than Obama (prior to his election) considering his families political background. He has worked with companies overseas, while Obama was busy getting high (by his own admission). and penning his autobiography (at 30 years old mind you). Please enlighten me how Obama's prior experience is more impressive than Romney's?

That or there is nothing to refute my assertion that Obama had no more (if not less) foreign policy experience than Romney has now. And even if we compare the two now, what is Romney looking up to, letting the middle East hash it out on their own? Completely ignoring any western allies in the area? Sounds like his policy is to not have a policy.

And don't even bring up the OBL thing, you and I both know that anyone would have done the same, well except Clinton maybe.

Not once in there did I say that Romney has more experience, or that Obama had none. And you guys are playing me to be the one that doesn't read or understand. Just said Obama's experience wasn't very good (opinion) and that I'd take Romney's minimal experience over Obama's. In Obama there is a known quantity (although in 2008 it was unknown). Romney is unknown for the most part. I'll take my chances in this regard in particular.