President May be in Trouble

Actually, I believe we have become a gimmeocracy. That's where the number of working taxpayers who vote is outnumbered by the number of voters who don't work and feel your tax money is entitled to them.

I love that the title of the tread is "President may be in trouble", yet people are frantically reaching for reasons to undermine his strength by attacking the intent of those who vote for him (whether it's warranted or not). Trouble implies that Obama is at the disadvantage. And I'm just asking "the disadvantage to what?". Like him or not, it's evident that Romney is not a solid enough candidate or trustworthy enough human being to get all of the votes, so what does he have (besides not being Obama) that makes him a more worthy nominee that Paul?

And if Romney is not the better option over Paul, than why is their no suspicion of the intent for those voting Romney as well? After all, if these views are so right, how is it so hard to get all of the like minded individuals on the right to at least stand in solidarity for their own choice? Or is Romney (voters) off limits, simply because he's likely to be the nominee? And people are too scared to stir that pot. (...which, if is the case, doesn't seem to imply much trouble for the President).

You blame people for basically having two options, and then try and marginalize all of their beliefs by saying that everyone voting Obama does so for the same reasons. I'm a voter regardless. It has very little to do with Obama, it has everything to do with exercising my right to vote for who I think is the better choice of the two. And I will NOT vote for religious views that jeopardize human rights. Therefor, Romney will not be getting my vote regardless, just as Palin was not last time. And if you're going to blame people for wanting church and state separate, than where is the hypocrisy actually coming from?...

If people in the Ron Paul corner had spent any time whatsoever actually attacking the person directly in Paul's way (Romney, not Obama), maybe people might have had a better chance of strengthening their cause up until this point. But don't get mad when Romney doesn't appeal to the majority, and switch the "our ideas are great" motto to "your ideas don't matter". It's anti-ism at it's finest, and I can promise it won't change the opinion of one voter. Whereas showing some backbone against your own party, and strongly promoting the positives in Paul might (and there definitely are positives).

I really don't expect a pleasant response (or one that tries to answer my questions objectively), even though I am genuinely interested (and would appreciate a response) as to why Romney has not been attacked in any way as well by those who feel that Paul is the significant idea man of the republican party? Clearly he isn't as good of a choice as Paul, so how come he is protected with the same blanket that is accused of Pres. Obama?

Until people can acknowledge why people might be afraid of the direction of the religious right (like Romney), I don't think there will ever be any positive discussion.

Blame is the only tactic being used to run against Obama, so at best it's hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Michael823

Blame is the only tactic being used to run against Obama, so at best it's hypocritical.

NO actually his utterly abysmal performance over the last 3+ years has become an exceedingly relevant tactic. Well I guess you're technically correct he is being "blamed", for his own record! Rest assured I am quite confident his groomers will find a new catch phrase to dupe his minions into voting for his dizzying lack of ability once again.

Rumor mill has him firing baffoon Biden(probably a pseudo retirement) and announcing Clinton as the next term VP at the convention. May be a last ditch attempt to get the establishment dems back and position her for succession in 2016. It could all backfire though who knows.

I agree with Tsst. Obama will not have my vote because of his choices and decisions he made while in office.

Right, but all of that aside (as it didn't answer my questions about Romney in any way). Why is Romney not challenged for his view points? Otherwise you're doing the same blaming as the photo, and the same protecting that you accuse. I'm not saying that sympathetically or emotionally either, I just genuinely want to know why someone could say that voting against Romney is not also warranted for particular reasons.

And if people won't acknowledge the serious flaws in the (likely) republican nominee, than how can you cast stones to the other side for the same thing. It's basically just a one sided show saying "you NEED to vote for Romney, otherwise you're a government leaching drain on society"... And if Paul is the contrast (and hopeful rep nominee), why not target the flawed views of Mitt? Because he's really the only one that Paul (and supporters) should be focusing on right now.

And if Obama is made out to be this horrible figure in everyday, Romney would have to be the antithesis in order for people to have the right to discredit and devalue those who vote against him so harshly. Otherwise, it's just angry bitter people. And no president can fix that type of contempt.

I am not a Romney supporter either.

Basically, it seems to boil down to the Republicans just being idiots. I've seen them do this time and time again. They will seemingly pick the worst of all possible choices to run against the democrat either as the incumbent POTUS or their candidate when the seat is open to all candidates. They seem to feel that they can put anyone up as their nominee and the only selling point is that he is "anyone except the democrat nominee". And they continue to lose elections and can't seem to figure out what went wrong. They act like they aren't at all interested in really winning an election, but the nomination appears to be just some sort of political payback for some one.

I personally don't know a single solitary person who says they WANT Romney as president. The ONLY reason they would vote for him is because they want to vote against Obama. And the Republicans just can't seem to figure out that if they put someone up there that people would WANT to vote for, they would have the election in the bag. So is this all just a choreographed song and dance to entertain us and keep our minds off of the REAL issues, or are they REALLY that dense?

Quite frankly, I believe that if Romney is the republican nominee, Obama will win a second term. Not enough people will just hold their nose and vote for Romney for him to win. Too many people did that for McCain last time around.

Thank you for responding. That is the type of answer I was looking for, and I appreciate that response.

And this is really my question mostly, is why Romney is seen as a palatable choice/alternative to ideals like those of Ron Paul (who seems to be a crowd favorite), when Romney is (right now) is the most challenging to those ideals and threatening to the position than any other politician in Paul's way (as of now). Which leads me to asking why is the discussion is always about Obama, and the negative feelings towards him and his supporters?

Why is Romney not of equal attack? Even when it's in the best strategic interest of free thinking republicans to see him as Paul's most direct threat to be nominated. It's like people are playing it safe, just in case Romney wins the ticket. And that silence really only benefits Romney, who clearly has the nomination in his pocket if people in his own party don't clamp down against him, showing the positive contrast to voting for Paul. Negative attack ads against Obama, or the "just vote against Obama" sentiment by some, seems like a complete waste of resources and time.

Paul really does have some good ideas. I think he's a practical thinker in a party that has formed into one made up of "iffy" choices. But I really don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest (especially Paul's) to focus on the anti-ism of Obama so much. If innovative, helpful, progressive ideas are promoted, people will side with that more often. And like Obama or not, that is at least the direction his campaign has been focused on identifying with (more so than being a campaign built on attacking ideas). And Paul would probably have much more success (as he is an idea guy) if those ideas were on the forefront of headlines made by his supporters, and not back seated to attacking the ideas of our current President (because Romney is proof, anyone can take that angle and get some friction... but it's not an approach that endures).