Why Mitt?

Why would we believe you on Obama? You're not even smart enough to spell his name right.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: He can't layoff, downsize, outsource the country.

True, Mitt can't do this because Obama already has. 12 million Americans currently unemployed and BHO has spent a trillion dollars to create 80,000 jobs a month. At that rate, it will take the US how many years to get back to 6%?

And again, conservatives are unable to provide qualifications for their candidate without invoking Obama.

I did at first, but I was responding to an attack here.

But really Dog, do you think Obama or his team have a clue about how to fix this economy? One of the keys to getting people to buy into this economy is to inspire people to invest and spend, but I just don't see Barack as an effective cheerleader. I don't know if Romney will be able to do this either, but I think he should be given the opportunity.

So we have to accept the bringing up of Bush when we talk about any negative economic news, but we can't bring up Obama when it comes to who we want to pick for president. I would pick any non-flaming liberal off the street over Obama at this point so Mitt actually looks pretty damn good right now.

archer wrote: Why would we believe you on Obama? You're not even smart enough to spell his name right.

3 1/2 years and the economy is in the toilet. Do you think we really want 4 more years of Odumba.

As to not being smart enough, let me just use an LJ quote

You can hear the disappointment in my voice...

And your generalizations and baseless charges don't mean much at all either.

True, Hilary looks more competent than Barack at this point. I am truly surprised no one was willing to launch a challenge at the 8.2% president.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why Mitt?

I am a PBS mind in an MTV world.

I agree you have a Sesame Street mind for sure.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: He can't layoff, downsize, outsource the country.

True, Mitt can't do this because Obama already has. 12 million Americans currently unemployed and BHO has spent a trillion dollars to create 80,000 jobs a month. At that rate, it will take the US how many years to get back to 6%?

And again, conservatives are unable to provide qualifications for their candidate without invoking Obama.

I did at first, but I was responding to an attack here.

But really Dog, do you think Obama or his team have a clue about how to fix this economy? One of the keys to getting people to buy into this economy is to inspire people to invest and spend, but I just don't see Barack as an effective cheerleader. I don't know if Romney will be able to do this either, but I think he should be given the opportunity.

I believe it takes more than being a cheerleader. The policies were sound to revive the economy, but the obstructionism (IMHO) of the opposing party and constant barrage against the policies have made it difficult. Also, I believe the structure of the economy today does not enable a quick turnaround. Corporations have too long been focused on short term gains as opposed to long term economic stability, the fund managers manipulate the economy for personal gains, etc. What is the US economy today? Manufacturing has been shipped offshore, technology has been outsourced to India, etc. The US is no longer a leader in producing goods and services, merely consuming them. What will Mitt bring to the table? More outsourcing and offshoring? The financial industry has proven time and time again that more regulation is needed, while he wants to deregulate it even more. We see devastating effects to the economy from the large fund managers manipulating markets, whether it be in the mortgage and banking industry (i.e., Barclays just recently) oil markets, energy speculation, etc. Will Mitt do anything to rein them in? No way. We constantly hear the need for even more tax breaks for the one percenter "job creators", yet how many jobs have they been creating in the past five years with the hefty tax breaks they have already received? If you examine Mitt's record as a one term governor in Massachusetts, he did terrible at job creation and improving the state economy.
I just don't see how Mitt would be anything other than an unqualified disaster.

Ryt_Rick wrote: So we have to accept the bringing up of Bush when we talk about any negative economic news, but we can't bring up Obama when it comes to who we want to pick for president. I would pick any non-flaming liberal off the street over Obama at this point so Mitt actually looks pretty damn good right now.

There are thousands of Obama bashing threads in this forum, I was wanting to know if it was possible for conservatives to articulate reasons why Mitt is uniquely qualified to lead this country other than that he is not Obama.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Ryt_Rick wrote: So we have to accept the bringing up of Bush when we talk about any negative economic news, but we can't bring up Obama when it comes to who we want to pick for president. I would pick any non-flaming liberal off the street over Obama at this point so Mitt actually looks pretty damn good right now.

There are thousands of Obama bashing threads in this forum, I was wanting to know if it was possible for conservatives to articulate reasons why Mitt is uniquely qualified to lead this country other than that he is not Obama.

And I gave you a long list above... which you totally ignored. You don't really want an honest answer to your thread topic question.