Associated Press
I know that for many who keep up on political news, the "imagine if a Democrat had done this" line seems tiresome, if not lazy. But once in a while, it's important.
Imagine if, in the midst of the longest U.S. war in American history, a Democratic presidential nominee delivered a 4,000-word speech at his convention, and neglected to mention the war altogether. Imagine if that candidate didn't bother to say a single word about the conflict, the troops serving abroad, or when they might come home.
Imagine if that same Democratic candidate ignored the war despite not having any military background of his own, and even managed to skip visiting the troops during a recent tour abroad.
I think we know what would happen under such a scenario. McCain, Kristol, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Cheney, et al, would reach an unavoidable conclusion: there's simply no way this Democrat has a credible claim to be Commander in Chief during a time of war.
And yet, Mitt Romney, who never wore a uniform, delivered his 4,000-word speech, which failed to even acknowledge the war in passing. The word "Afghanistan" was not uttered. There were no references to "veterans" or "troops," either.
This comes a month after Romney launched a week-long overseas tour, but skipped past Afghanistan.
When was the last time there was a major-party nominating convention held during a war in which the presidential candidate decided not to mention the conflict or those fighting on our behalf? Has this ever happened?
For that matter, can anyone say with confidence what Romney's position on the war is? Or how he intends to execute this war if he's president in five months?
Are McCain, Kristol, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Cheney, et al, on board with this?
As we talked about last week, a voter asked Romney about the war at a town-hall meeting, and the former governor largely dodged the question, vowing to "address the American people about these issues" once he's elected. How reassuring.
I keep thinking about this remarkable anecdote the Wall Street Journal recently published.
Mr. Romney made that clear at a July fundraiser in Montana as he rehashed the challenges Mr. Reagan faced when he took office. He recounted how Mr. Baker, a former secretary of state, held a national security meeting about Latin America during the first 100 days of Mr. Reagan's presidency.
"And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, 'I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days -- all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,' " Mr. Romney recalled Mr. Baker saying.
In reality, this exchange between Reagan and Baker never happened. I don't know who told Romney this or whether Romney simply made it up out of whole cloth, but Reagan dealt with plenty of national-security meetings early in his presidency -- as all presidents do.
But the anecdote, when combined with last night's speech, makes me wonder if Romney fully understands the nature of the responsibilities he's seeking.
If Romney takes the oath of office in January, he'll have tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what he intends to do with those troops and/or how long he intends to keep them there? Does he?
Update: To his credit, Kristol was not pleased with Romney over this.
Leave a Comment:
Romney's speech is disected and discussed on ThinkProgress web page and all his lies and false comments are commented on. His tax plans which will give more money to the rich, corporate and oil companies at the expense of the poor an middle class. This information needs to somehow be published in more newspapers in the swing states so voters have the truth and can vote in their best interests.
Clint Eastwood. Words can't describe what he did last night. I felt pity for him because he looked like a doddering old man with dementia. The GOP allowed him to make an ass of himself.
Rmoney was just reiterating the party line in fewer words, "We've got ours, Screw You!"...
Rmoney/Rayon 2012..
Think its more like
" We got Ours" "We want the rest of YOURS" "Screw YOU People"
The 'official mottos' of the funding wing of the republican party are:
- More is never enough!
- I've got mine, f*ck you!
Greed
Over
Patriotism
As a military spouse...I noticed.
The subtext for the President is foreign policy. He is, after all, known as "The Commander in Chief", right?
Mitt Romney is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be President.
His RNC Speech, which had to be his best effort to illustrate his worthiness, fell horrifically short of being persuasive. He never came close to changing my mind...not even a hint of consideration that he offers me anything...
My issues are best handled by the leader we now have. One who understands that we live on planet earth...you know, with other people.
Let's not let anyone forget one of Mitt's seminal ahole moments that tell us so much about this amoral dickweed's character: while the Vietnam War was going on and after he had his deferment to go to France and ineffectively proselytize for Mormons, he then protested IN FAVOR OF the draft at Stanford. Disgusting.
- Mitt Romney, 19, demonstrated in favour of Vietnam War draft
- The Hypocrisy Behind Draft Dodger Mitt Romney Lecturing America About Sacrifice
Why this hasn't been a topic in this campaign is strange.
I think that thanks to all the draft dodgers that were appointed as a result of the 2000 election they went and made "vet" a dirty word in 2004 and this is the result. Draft dodgers and anti-vets are "the" people of the tealiban now. They are already beating the drums of war and you know THEY won't be going, nor will their families.
You don't know the hardships Mitt endured as a missionary in France. Walking down the Champ D'Elysses which caused a callouses on his feet; learning to speak French, drinking Perrier and eating French food. That is almost third world deprivation.
It's no different than it was when I was in VVAW and going around speaking on campuses as an anit-war vet. The local YAF would come and heckle me as a "commie," and I would shut them down every time by suggesting that if they were such patriots, they ought to follow their fathers' example, drop out of school, volunteer for the Army and specifically ask for assignment to the infantry so they could volunteer to go to Vietnam and show how patriotic they were. They shut up every time.
There are a lot of armchair patriots in politics. And the worst were the last President and VP who were eager to send other people off to war and do a job that they would never do themselves. Voters need to wake up and stop falling for the BS lines these armchair patriots spew to get votes.
@TCinLA...
Are we of the VVAW going to get active again before the war against Iran?
I think that money/wealth is the only decider Mitt Romney is confident about when trying to find a solution for any given problem, and having money is by default somehow seen as a virtue in (t)his country. A decision made for higher profit/less spending is a decision that can be sold to any demographic.
So my hypothesis is that on any issue that excludes money as a factor for moral reasons (especially social issues like abortion), Mitt Romney just has a very hard time deciding what is wrong and what is right (flip or flop?). You can't make a cost-benefit analysis for (soldiers') lives - oh wait, I guess if you take the private-contractor war machine into consideration, there is money to be made... but that's an argument that even Mitt Romney must know he cannot and must not make publicly.
Maybe, if elected, he will keep military posts in Afghanistan for a couple of decades (compare Germany)? That would be handy for a couple of reasons.
There's a reason the military is averaging about 110 suicides a month.
They know they've been abandoned.
D'oh!
And no one is even tracking that statistic among military families! Our small base has had several spouse suicides or attempts in recent months....
Kari, you might want to check my link above to Obama's executive order, then go check out Blue Star Families. There are things out there, you just have to look for them.
And don't forget the wonderful work Michele Obama and Jill Biden are doing to support military families.
bannedagain and KariHL, I know it feels like there's little hope and your world is caving in. I've just spent 19 months waiting for a determination for ptsd and disability. The process is very slow and discouraging.
There's a worksheet every veteran should complete and take to a veteran's advocate, i.e PVA (Paralyzed Veterans of America), DAV (Disabled American Vets), etc. In my opinion PVA is the best but that's just my personal experience.
http://www.ptsdhelp.net/ and click on the worksheet. Fill it out as best you can and use it as a basis for compensation claim. The VA will schedule a C&P (compensation & payment) interview where the vet sits down with a psyc doctor and asks about things like startle reflex, barking dogs, crying kids or any other triggers. Having a DD214 that shows Purple Heart or other combat awards helps to verify triggers that may keep a vet from feeling comfortable in a civil environment. Even a 50% disability determination will net a single vet $797 per mo tax free compensation. http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/comp01.htm
If I had known about the above I could have kept my home out of foreclosure last year and it would have completely changed my like. It's not a hand out. It's the government compensating veterans for their service and inability to readjust to 'normal' society and it's requirements. In some cases spouses of vets can receive compensation for mental anguish and despair.
Don't get discouraged like I did. I nearly did myself in while waiting for help, many times. Start the process now. It's going to take 18 - 20 months but you'll (the vet) be paid from the time of making the claim. The back pay in my case was $40,000 but I imagine I'm a little more f'dup than your spouse. I'm a lot more f'dup than most people I know.
God bless you, kari for being a loving and supportive spouse to a vet. You sound like a wonderful person.
Gordona:
" I've just spent 19 months waiting for a determination for ptsd and disability. The process is very slow and discouraging."
That seems to be a political tradition here. No politician wants to be responsible for this type of cost for any war, in other words, the hidden cost. For many vets returning home with injuries, there is a long line of buereaucratic red tape and endless hoops to jump through, -forming a guantlet between them and the assistance they deserve.
I really don't think this is an IOKIYAR moment. Everyone is bashing on Romney for this today. It's all over my Twitter and Facebook feeds, and every article I've read so far about the speech has mentioned it, as well. I haven't seen a single person trying to defend him for it. It was a truly egregious oversight on his part.
Fair point
Romney will only be interested in keeping the military industrial complex expanding, which would generate lobbyist money for him and his party. American lives committed and lost? Just one look into those eyes and you know the answer, they'll die, and for Romney that's just the price of doing business.
Besides, it's only "those people" dying and "you people" are the only ones complaining.
two things struck me: Ann Romney's speech- good wife, but that ending "love you all women" was too rah-rah cheerleader for me.
then Eastwood and the reaction of the audience to his snide and crude remarks...they weren't laughing out of embarassment, but out of the prevailing meanness in the party...mean spirited & cruel humor.
I found it quite disturbing that Mitt was willing to rattle the saber against Iran, Syria, and Russia. That's all we need - three more military clashes immediately after getting out of Iraq and while still in Afghanistan. Our armed forces and their families have given more than enough for too long now. But now Mitt wants to keep them abroad to enrich his defense-contractor friends, and pretend the troops don't even exist.
The days of a presidential candidate having direct military service experience are probably over. What with all the "private contractor" armies being raised in silence to avoid asking Gongress for declarations of war, college and religious cult deferments, and the general lack of courage among career politicians, it is no surprise that a money-motivated creature like Romney avoids military discussions.
As a former member of the US Air Force, I noticed. The only mention of Afghanistan was made by Clint Eastwood. I was ready to "get OBL"! But he was in Afghanistan. I was disgusted with the war in Iraq. We got the #@%^@*&! Now it is time to leave. The troops STILL need us!
Although he didn't mention Afghanistan, he did underhandedly threaten Iran, Palestine and Russia. WHAT AN IDIOT... Is this where the 12 million jobs will go. (And hey, if we kill them, we don't have to pay them either!)
UNACCEPTABLE!!!!
Many of us have wondered what Mitt's plan actually is for creating new jobs.
Eliminating a good portion of the workforce with a few well-timed wars might do the trick. And who isn't nostaligic for a draft? Maybe he will show he is in favor of equal opportunity for women after all.
Too cynical?
Re: #14
Yes - too cynical.
It's much more efficient to just deny people access to affordable health care.
Like Bush before him Romney would be a puppet of his sponsors who will push for war and profits while also ensuring that Government leaves the boardroom alone and occupies the bedroom instead.
He certainly used his big boy voice when he started talking peace thru strength, tho!
It is unimaginable in today's world that while accepting the nomination from his party, a candidate for president wouldn't say a single word about the war in Afghanistan. And he wouldn't mention Iraq. And it is unthinkable that an individual who wants to be Commander-in-Chief of our nation's military forces wouldn't take a moment to offer a few words of appreciation to the troops serving around the world and to those who are currently in harm's way. And it is inconceivable that in his acceptance speech, a presidential nominee wouldn't offer a word of thanks to the brave men and women who have proudly served our nation. And it is unimaginable that a presidential nominee wouldn't take a moment to recognize our many veterans and their familes for their incredible sacrifice, and at the very least to offer a single proposal to help make their lives better.
It is unfathomable that a presidential candidate would highlight 23 policy areas on his campaign website, but not address veterans or veteran's issues. And it is inconceivable that a nominee would offer his Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth but not include a single word about veterans.
And it is disconcerting that a presidential nominee refuses to even provide an outline of where he stands on veterans issues, except to offer the suggestion of privatizing veteran's benefits and giving veterans vouchers for health care. And it is appalling that a presidential nominee's running mate has proposed a budget that would cut veteran's benefits by $11 billion.
And it is disconcerting that a presidential nominee refuses to even provide an outline of where he stands on veterans issues, except to offer the suggestion of privatizing veteran's benefits and giving veterans vouchers for health care. And it is appalling that a presidential nominee's running mate has proposed a budget that would cut veteran's benefits by $11 billion.
What's really disconcerting is to go to my local VA and find how many of my fellow veterans don't know/don't believe any of that, despite it being true. Turn off their Fox TV and they'll call you a commie (I know, they did when I did)
The Repuiblicans don't care. War is always good for business and besides, it's being fought by "those people."
You're missing one critical point: McCain, Kristol, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Cheney, et al don't have to be on board with Romney. They are already secretly on board with Obama. That's right, Obama is quietly accomplishing everything they want to do in terms of war, regime change, Guantanamo, and torture.
Presenting the new and improved mini-massive Obama missive. Downsized and outsourced to approximately 1700 words.
What follows is a list of the most significant problems I have with Obama’s performance over the last 4 years. In short, he’s pissed on us, dismissed our interests, and ignored our concerns. He has betrayed the clear intent of the democratic base that elected him.
Examples:
(1) Obama reneged on his campaign assertion that allegations of torture of POWs and war detainees should be investigated. Congress had NO control over this decision, it was entirely within Obama’s scope of power and his executive purview. This is the clearest indication of Obama’s ideological discretion and his true agenda.
Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to investigate or prosecute any of the Bush Administration officials responsible for ordering or justifying the use of water-boarding, cold-rooms, stress positions, and other forms of torture as enhanced interrogation techniques. Obama also continued the US policy of extraordinary rendition which allows detainees to be tortured by other countries for US purposes.
POINT: Obama's decision to pass over this issue and not investigate is the biggest GIFT republicans have received since Ford pardoned Nixon. It’s also the greatest political loss handed to democrats since the impeachment of Clinton. By doing this, Obama is serving republican interests at OUR expense. Unlike Scooter Libby, who was convicted of several crimes while protecting his boss Dick Cheney, Obama cannot claim that he was serving the interests of his party. Obama has no one to pin this on except himself.
(2) Heres a rational analysis by Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s true Gitmo agenda and the false mythology propagated by Obama sycophants in “The Obama GITMO Myth” at salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
(3) Then there’s the ugly issue of what Obama did to Bradley Manning to silence the truth and keep Americans in the dark. Obama continues to pursue the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange with trumped-up charges for the same reason, -to prevent us from knowing the truth.
(4) Obama has continued to pursue Bush and Cheney’s unfinished agenda for regime change in every Arab state of the mid east. Do you really think voters who demanded an end to the wars actually voted to continue Cheney’s agenda for regime change by other means?
Obama took advantage of America’s desire to end it’s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has effectively doubled the number of wars we are involved in. The governments of several mid east countries, including Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have collapsed and been replaced, while Obama continues to act against the governments of Syria and Iran.
In his effort to topple Muammar Gaddafi, Obama committed the US military to operations against the government of Libya that resulted in civilian casualties, and he did so without the constitutional approval of Congress. Like Iraq, none of these countries have attacked us. Remember when Bush said "Saddam must go, -he must leave Iraq"? Obama said the same thing about Gadhafi in Libya. It was a Freudian slip. Now he’s saying the same thing about Assad in Syria. It’s unbelievable. Does he think we are blind, or just stupid?
In addition to this, Obama presides over a CIA drone program that targets and bombs groups deemed unfriendly in Pakistan and Yemen. These individual acts tie together like a row of dominos leading ultimately to military action against Iran. Taken together, this strategic agenda seems to follow Dick Cheney’s plan for the mid east more closely than it reflects the will of the democratic base that elected Obama.
Is this what his Nobel Peace Prize was for? I'm sure of one thing: We didn't vote for this.
(5) Does anyone wonder why Donald Trump trots out the birther story whenever Obama's poll numbers show support from his base is low? This is how Obama manipulates his base to shore up support from a group whose interests he has largely dismissed and betrayed. Can't let those lying birthers win, suckah.
The same goes for a complete lack of republican campaign advertisements calling out Obama for failing to uphold his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts. The evidence is on video tape. Obama was very clear as a candidate. He said he would bring change, -that he would end US involvement in wars and foreign conflicts. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for this promise. We assumed that meant in his first 100 days. Failing that, then surely in his first 2 years, right? Well… here we are 4 years later, with secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. Obama also ordered direct US military involvement in Libya to topple Gadaffi, and he just signed an agreement to keep US forces in Afghanistan for an additional 12 years.
Worst of all, Obama has demonstrated a desire to support regime change in Iran. This includes an implicit threat (“all options are on the table”) to attack Iran over the issue of Uranium enrichment.
So what happened to ending US involvement in foreign conflicts? Republicans have a GIANT opportunity to rub this lie in his face, but they have passed. Ask yourself why they would do that. The answer is they don’t want to draw attention to Obama’s ongoing work to complete Bush and Cheney’s unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east.
Instead, we get political theatre on Obamacare, class warfare, and tax cuts for the wealthy. These political arguments have been used as a distraction to divert our attention from what Obama is doing in the mid east, his failure to close Guantanamo, and his decision not to investigate allegations that POWs and war detainees were tortured.
It’s like the establishment is saying ~“Hey, no, no, don’t look at that, -look over here: Let’s argue about health care and taxes! Let’s question Obama’s citizenship and investigate his fake birth certificate!” Folks, we’re being played for suckers.
Let's be honest: We need an aggressive leader in the White House for the political war that is consuming this nation. We need someone who knows how to take the fight to the opposition, -someone who is willing to fight fire with fire. We DO NOT need a Compromiser in Chief, and frankly we are SICK of Obama's polite exasperation when it comes to the tactics of conservatives who oppose our interests.
It seems to me that Obama’s real agenda for the 2008 election was to eliminate Hillary Clinton in the primary, get elected by hitting the "demographic sweet-spot" as a black democrat who was opposed to the wars, then accomplish little to nothing for democrats, compromise at every opportunity with Republicans, complete Dick Cheney's unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east, prevent any investigation of torture of POWs and war detainees, and basically run out the clock on all the hopes and dreams of Democrats and working class citizens who voted for him.
The sad thing is republicans win if Obama gets reelected, and they win if he isn't reelected. Right now they are getting practically everything they could have asked for from a third term of the Bush administration. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. Guantanamo is still open. Allegations of torture were never investigated. The war in Iraq ran it's full term. Worse, Obama just signed an agreement committing the USA to roughly 12 more years in Afghanistan.
Look, we've waited almost 4 years for Obama to prove he really is the man we thought we elected, -the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize who would set things right. I wanted to like Obama. I hoped he would be all he promised, but even hope has limits. Hope won't feed your family and hope don't pay the bills. Hope won't keep a roof over your head, but Obama acts like his base has an endless supply of something that will. Today I'm disillusioned and cynical.
I feel like I'm reading a requiem for a lost dream. I know this dream is genuine, that the basis of these ideas is true and our cause is just, -but we have been sandbagged and choked by the Establishment in an attempt to crush our dream and destroy these progressive ideas. This was THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street, and Big Oil. And for all of this, our leader Barack Obama has consistently bent over instead of leading us in a counter attack. He has gently compromised away pieces of our cause until very little is left standing and the term has become repugnant. This is not what we voted for.
Regarding his campaign promise to end US involvement in wars and foreign conflicts, it is now perfectly clear that Obama lied to the American public. He lied about the wars, he lied about closing Guantanamo, and he lied about ending the Bush tax cuts. He reneged on his campaign assertion that allegations of torture of POWs and war detainees should be investigated.
For me these lies are unforgivable, regardless of whatever the alternative may be. It causes me to question the basis of the decision to award Obama a Nobel Peace Prize. It causes me to wonder if people really fainted at Obama campaign rallies, or whether it was all part of an act. It reminds me of the “Obama Girl” sensation on youtube. I feel like these things were designed to fool us at a critical moment to gain a political advantage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Obama because he's black or because some idiot questioned his nationality. Far from it. I'm against Obama because I think he's red. Obama has kept more of George Bush's campaign promises than he has kept of his own. I didn't vote for that, and I sure as Hell won't vote for it a second time.
Point 1 - The term I have used for The Obomination is "The Capitulator-In-Chief".
Point 2 - The worst part of the Obama administration's failure to investigate (and prosecute as warranted) the War Crimes of the Bush administration is that if RMoney is elected, many of those war criminals will be 'advisors' and 'senior officials' in his administration.
Point 3 - While I largely agree with your points, I believe that RMoney will be much worse. Another war, this time with Iran, is likely. What RMoney (and a repuke dominated congress) will do to the economy (and working classes) will be disastrous for everyone other than the corporate and monied interests. With the lack of other options, We need to 'hold our noses' and work to get The Obomination reelected.
Q: Why should the United States ALWAYS elect a democrat as president?
A: Because we know that when a republican is elected president that the working classes are going to get f*cked. When a democrat is elected president, we can 'pretend' to be surprised when the working classes get f*cked.
I agree with all your replies.
I would only add this thought to your last:
"Q: Why should the United States ALWAYS elect a democrat as president?"
I just want to know if we elected a democratic president the last time. Let's put an end to electing people who "come out of nowhere" with pretty words and very little proven party history.
I'm convinced we would have been better off as a party with practically any other democratic candidate than the bony ass, spineless, two-timing loser we've got right now.
Aside from your other disparaging comments, kiev. What do you mean by 'two timing'? and how does that apply to our President?
Why should the US always elect a democrat? Because the democratic presidents have been the only ones to actually progress us, as a nation, to a better place.
What's with the 'people out of nowhere" meme? Obama didn't drop out of the sky in 2008. He had a history, a loving family, successful academic career as well as a term as Senator, lawyer and educator.
Paul Ryan once drove the wienermobile. That's his business career resume. Ryan has no 'pretty words' he can barely finish a sentence without a cuecard and only wants to dismantle medicare and social security and give those funds to the most wealthy 1% who don't need assistance.
And the next time you use 'bony ass and spineless' in the same sentence I'll shove it up your nether regions.
You give both Kiev and the Ukraine a bad name and I'm certain they'd like to have a word with you. pissoff!
For actual progressive who have not sold out their beliefs in worship of The Obomination, Kiev Ukraine makes many valid points. Although my perspective is that we have to get Obama reelected or get f*cked much worse by the Vulture/Voucher candidates, I still reserve the right to disagree (publicly after the election) with things that Obama has done that are wrong.
A partial list:
- calling off investigations of the criminal/war criminal activities of the Bush criminal enterprise
- Guantanamo and the continuation of Bush's spying on ameriKan citizens
- drone warfare and its slaughter of considerably more civilians than Al Queda or Taliban
- failure to comprehend that the repukes have been out to sabotage him and the country AND lacking the spine to stand up to them
Gordona:
"The next time you use 'bony ass and spineless' in the same sentence I'll shove it up your nether regions."
Save yourself the badass routine. You aren't going to do anything here except embarrass yourself with that bit. Do you really think agressive personal attacks against other posters are the best method to tamp down truth and facts? After all, that's what I'm serving.
Look, I wish that I had nothing to complain about. I wish that I was happy with Obama's performance. I can't honestly say that I am. Can you?
Answering your questions:
"What do you mean by 'two timing'? and how does that apply to our President?"
See subhead (1) in my mini-missive posted previously. I'll repeat part of it:
Obama's decision to pass over the issue of torture and not investigate is the biggest GIFT republicans have received since Ford pardoned Nixon. It’s also the greatest political loss handed to democrats since the impeachment of Clinton. By doing this, Obama is serving republican interests at OUR expense. Unlike Scooter Libby, who was convicted of several crimes while protecting his boss Dick Cheney, Obama cannot claim that he was serving the interests of his party. Obama has no one to pin this on except himself.
So my term 'two-timing' means that Obama is a "democrat" who is serving republican interests at OUR expense. Get it? Got it? Good.
"What's with the 'people out of nowhere" meme?"
Obama had the shortest history of political experience and holding office of any candidate on the democratic primary ballot in the 2008 election. The longer the history, the better we as voters are able to guage a candidate's political provenance. In that respect, we took a gamble on Obama, and I'm not happy with the result.
"Paul Ryan once drove the wienermobile. That's his business career resume."
You're mistaken if you believe I prefer Ryan/Romney over Obama. I don't. I just want MORE from Obama than we have gotten over the last 4 years. No sin in that.
~~~
I should also touch on this:
"Why should the US always elect a democrat? Because the democratic presidents have been the only ones to actually progress us, as a nation, to a better place."
I can't fully agree with that. I will say that I have not seen a republican who I would prefer to vote for over a democratic candidate in my voting lifetime. But I should acknowledge Eisenhower and Lincoln as good, decent men.
I particularly admire Eisenhower's exit speech in which he warns of the aquisition of unwarranted power and influence by the military industrial complex. This speech is featured in a progressive documentary on war titled "Why We Fight" I highly recommend it. Well worth your time to see. It's very odd that conservatives don't speak highly of Eisenhower as one of their presidents. Wonder why...
Link to the Eisenhower speech on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Link to Why We Fight on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/
Bernie Sanders in 2016!