My votes

[Amnorix]

So after a fairly long period of dithering, I'm going to vote for Romney and, less surprisingly, Scott Brown. The vote for Romney is, of course, wasted, as Massachusetts will go into Obama's column.

I could go on and on as to why, but essentially it boils down to this -- I've long stated that I want moderate candidates who have a more business-like approach to running government. I want them to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Under the current circumstances, I think it's even more important that we start being fiscally conservative (though not in a dramatic fashion such that the tepid recovery is undermined), and pro-business in order to encourage growth. I also cross my fingers that Mitt won't simply cave to the religious right and social conservatives to keep them in line. I know that his personal policies on such matters are, well, wishy-washy at best.

In voting for Romney, I'm not really rejecting Obama, as I don't think he's done such a bad job. He's had brutal circumstances, etc. I just think Mitt is the better candidate under the current circumstances.

And, frankly, I sorta feel like if I don't vote for Romney, then I might as well just admit I'd never vote for a Republican for POTUS. Usually their candidate is further to the right than I am comfortable with. Having nominated a more moderate candidate, I should reward that effort. Or something like that.

As for Brown, it's a relatively moderate Republican versus a die-hard liberal. I'll take the moderate.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Is this not a bit hypocritical?

Did the democrats work with GWB? I seem to recall quite a bit of name calling, divisive behavior, and the same BS party line politics.

I think its shameful how liberals seem to think shit only runs one way.

This right here is why I left the Democratic party, I cant stand a lot of things...but Hypocrites are the worst.

Plenty of Democrats voted in favor of Bush's policies right up until he went off the deep end with social security in 2005.

Plenty.

Meanwhile, under Obama, Republicans have shattered the filibuster record. Even as Democrats have proposed Republican ideas.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

It's also an amazingly dishonest or ignorant statement.

Once again, you can present an argument if you wish.

Would probably help pass the time while you're busy losing the Presidency and seats in both chambers of Congress.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Really?

Harry Reid to Romney: Senate Dems Won't Work With You
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...-Work-With-You

Just stop while you can

Try again.

Post all of Harry Reid's quote.

Go ahead.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He didn't HAVE to work with them. The Democrats had all of the votes they needed. They could have put through anything they wanted.

Here's the little secret - they don't WANT to do anything, other than continue to get elected.

Actually, the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history. And they still asked for Republican input on a variety of issues, getting ****-all in return for it.

Other than that, you're doing great.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Focused on small, divisive issues?

Like he fact his opponent's economic plan doesn't make a lick of sense, and the parts that do make sense mirror the lost-decade ideas of the Bush administration?

Small like the ironically named big bird and divisive like his war on women campaign. Where has any inkling of a plan for making medicare solvent been?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Small like the ironically named big bird and divisive like his war on women campaign.

Big Bird was indicative of the idea that Romney's tax plans don't make sense.

You missed the forest for the trees, there.

Intentionally, probably.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Big Bird was indicative of the idea that Romney's tax plans don't make sense.

You missed the forest for the trees, there.

Intentionally, probably.

Obama may have missed it too. Did any of his advisers tell him what was up?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Obama may have missed it too. Did any of his advisers tell him what was up?

So we're basically just killing time at this point, aren't we.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So we're basically just killing time at this point, aren't we.

Let's not kill too much of it. I need to get up early tomorrow so I'm going to head to bed. You'll be back for one more day, right?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Amno, your vote counts. If Romney were to win the ec, and lose the popular vote, then it would lessen the governing mandate. That is reason alone to feel like it counts. Furthermore, if Senator Brown can win in Mass, anything is possible.

I think mandates (or the lack thereof) mean nothing to politicians in terms of what they actually do once the election is over.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Once again, you can present an argument if you wish.

Would probably help pass the time while you're busy losing the Presidency and seats in both chambers of Congress.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-w...5#.UEj4ZSJcjKc

An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward's latest book.

The book, "The Price of Politics," on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs.

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal -- a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone.

The president called three times to speak with Boehner about his latest offer, according to Woodward. But the speaker didn't return the president's phone call for most of an agonizing day, in what Woodward calls a "monumental communications lapse" between two of the most powerful men in the country.

When Boehner finally did call back, he jettisoned the entire deal. Obama lost his famous cool, according to Woodward, with a "flash of pure fury" coming from the president; one staffer in the room said Obama gripped the phone so tightly he thought he would break it.

"He was spewing coals," Boehner told Woodward, in what is described as a borderline "presidential tirade."

"He was pissed…. He wasn't going to get a damn dime more out of me. He knew how far out on a limb I was. But he was hot. It was clear to me that coming to an agreement with him was not going to happen, and that I had to go to Plan B."

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by trndobrd

Out of curiosity, did you vote for Romney for Governor?

Yes. I voted for Republicans from Weld through to Romney. I frankly liked having the governorship in Republican hands since the legislature is very heavily Democratic. What I had seen before with both the executive and legislative branches in the same hands I didn't much like.

You should realize, however, that a Massachusetts Republican would be considered a moderate democrat in nearly any other state. Hell, Jesse Helms purposefully blocked Weld being appointed to some ambassadorship or something because he didn't think he was conservative enough. A fellow Republican!

I did vote for Patrick, however, as I like him and the Republican nominees were very unimpressive IMHO.

[Donger]

And...

While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.

"It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes.

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying.

[Direckshun]

There's a difference between a bargain falling through the cracks -- which happens sometimes -- and a political party that simply does not want to participate in any of the programs they previously supported to avoid bipartisanship.

I don't void the fault of Obama over the past few years in failing to do what's necessary to get some Republican support, impossible though I feel that mission would be.

You, on the other hand, do not believe the GOP is at fault for any of the political stagnation, as the Democrats have moved to the right to compromise, and the GOP has moved even further right to usurp it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's a difference between a bargain falling through the cracks -- which happens sometimes -- and a political party that simply does not want to participate in any of the programs they previously supported to avoid bipartisanship.

I don't void the fault of Obama over the past few years in failing to do what's necessary to get some Republican support, impossible though I feel that mission would be.

You, on the other hand, do not believe the GOP is at fault for any of the political stagnation, as the Democrats have moved to the right to compromise, and the GOP has moved even further right to usurp it.

You're welcome. Always happy to prove you wrong.

the Republican Party for its total obstinence and refusal to work with the President.