world

Obama plunges into campaign, tearing into Romney

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

Key point there Farmboy- Whatever Obama IS doing ISN'T working and most people know it! I watched Obamas "show" live Obama from his half filled stadium, all he did was belittle Romney anyway...The difference is what?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Hmmm. What is the difference? Both want Nationalized Healthcare, neither has been in the military, both play to partisan groups... Is religion a factor here? Other than skin color, they both seem like the same person on opposite sides of the political fence.

America needs a leader to bring both parties together so that the problems can be fixed without all the partisanship blockades. Unfortunately, Neither Obama nor Romney will do that. Whoever wins the election, all America will lose out for at least another 4 years.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

yanee. Don't kid yourself or us, Romeny has nothing to offer. Obama's plans have largely been thwarted by the GOP resistance movement in congress. So just who are we to blame?

Bottom line, no party in America today has the best interests of working class and middle class people in mind. Not one.

So what about this election? It is a question of choosing the least damaging option. Obama is clearly that least damaging as we all know where GOP politics fall, on the side of the wealthy. Give me moderate inaction over idiotic right wing action any day.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

America needs a leader to bring both parties together so that the problems can be fixed without all the partisanship blockades.

When pigs fly, methinks. Neither major party wants to see the other party succeed, and therefore partisanship blockades are the order of the day.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

tknoid. I am not kidding myself nor anyone else. During the first two years, his most popular time in office, your faithful Obama, with BOTH the Senate and Congressional majorities could not pass any legislation that he wanted. Even they did not agree with him. Even Obamacare was passed illegally in the middle of the night. If this president was half the leader that you thought he was, he would be able to swing many of the Republican votes his way and get on with it but he is not willing nor capable of that kind of leadership. Why? I honestly have no idea. He certainly seemed like he could. However, he has proven time and again that he is a weak leader. I agree that no party in America has the best interests of the working class, however anyone that can get the Congress and Senate to work together will be the best for America now and in the future. And it ain't Obama.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

As has already been pointed out the selfish repblicans have thwarted their own country EVERY time if the dems were for something, the re-pubs wud fight it.

I think Obama has done surprisingly well considering how congress etc fought him tooth & nail. I mean come on there is no way the re-pubs wud have been able to handle the lehman thing, the dems did & prevented MASSIVE damage to the US of A.

The yanks economy is seriously messed up the rich have pilfered for far too long & are destroying their own country for personal gain, when are the majority of yanks going to see whats plain as day! Hopefully soon otherwise ya'll will have to kiss the american dream sayonara & welcome the american nightmare! The re-pubs WILL be pushing for the latter, you have been warned

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Let's look at Obama's record: biggest deficit in any presidency, over 8% unemployment, largest Americans rely on food stamp ever, dictators across the globe gone wild, almost no influence over Iraq and Afghanistan after heavy investment, reset with Russia to nowhere, foreign policy of kicking can down the road, a divider, class warfare, bigger government, higher taxes ... and playing BLAMING game. Yes indeed, Obamacare now refers to Obama cares about himself the most. America does not need to follow a failure European model (e.g. Greece) at all. America deserves better than that.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Romney has very lukewarm acceptance by voters, but support by GOP Establishment. Obama is likewise getting tepid voter support. The Establishment, as usual, has offered two sock-puppets for the proles to choose from so that the illusion of democracy is maintained. As always, follow the money. Both of these puppets have the financial backing of the SAME groups of Big Money: Goldman-Sachs, just for example. Other points, Obama has been on the campaign trail at least since the Republican nomination process began. Also, the Republican nomination process is NOT FINISHED. As often said, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings". And that won't happen until the Republican Convention in August. It's very possible there could be Warren Harding-type result.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Farmboy: "If Romney were prevented from saying negative things about Obama, he would have absolutely nothing to say. He has no ideas, except to not do whatever Obama is doing."

This actually extends to most Republicans in general, if not all, but Romney seems particularly incapable of coming up with any ideas. I like how it's euphemistically stated in the article and media of late: "While Romney has yet to flesh out a detailed economic program..."

He hasn't fleshed out ANYTHING. He's just been spouting "hype and blame" while he blames Obama for everything under the sun and makes promises without any hint of how he plans to see them realized.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Obama's plans have largely been thwarted by the GOP"

Whew!

I want to know when Obama is going to make good on his promise to close Gitmo.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

You either have to be an idiot or a Rush Limbaugh ditto head to believe the BS that Romney and the entire Republican party are trying to sell the American people, Mr.Obama is no fool, and most good Americans are neither fools but sadly enough many can be fooled into thinking that the crappy situation of the US economy is Mr.Obama's fault, how many Rep.governors REFUSED $$$$ from Obama to make new high speed rails in their states?? Republicans never want to see a non Republican and a NON WASP president do something good for the nation.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Serrano: "I want to know when Obama is going to make good on his promise to close Gitmo."

Why, so you can complain about the decision more? It's funny because when Obama promised to close Gitmo Republicans could do nothing but rail and shake their fists and talk about how necessary Gitmo and torture are, but when the decision on when to close the place is delayed you complain. I guess in a way that IS a lot like Romney, though -- the guy slams Obama for taking credit on the OBL kill and then goes to NY to meet with Guliani and make speeches at the places where people died on 9/11 on the anniversary of OBL's death, saying he would have made the SAME call!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Romney: to know him is to distrust him further. He was fortunate in the primaries in that his opponents could only attack him obliquely. There are things all Americans at every point on the political spectrum will dislike about Romney once they get to know him better, and be sure, Obama will ensure Americans become very, very familiar with him.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I want to know when Obama is going to make good on his promise to close Gitmo.

A fine example of the sort of "you can do nothing right" attitude that will see the Republicans lose the WH again. Smithinjapan nailed that one.

The Republicans are going to keep losing until they can choose a position and stick to it instead of being dissatisfied even when they get their way.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

how many Rep.governors REFUSED $$$$ from Obama to make new high speed rails in their states??

3 so far.

In the most significant blow yet to the Obama administration’s vision of a national high-speed rail network, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida on Wednesday rejected plans for a high-speed link between Tampa and Orlando, in the process turning down more than $2 billion in federal money. A stretch of Interstate 4 outside Tampa, Fla., where the federal government would have committed $2 billion for a rail link. Mr. Scott is the third newly elected Republican governor to turn down a portion of the administration’s national rail system, joining John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html

Obama will ensure Americans become very, very familiar with him.

Going to be the most negative campaign ever run by an incumbent President. It's all he's got as he can't really run on his record and needs to do everything to deflect from it in this election.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

3 US governors refusing federal $$$ from President Obama is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG, maybe I should rephrase this questions so even Rush Limbaugh lovers can get the meaning of this, how about how many evil, rich, filthy, GREEDY Republicans have done everything and anything to make Mr.Obama's time in the White House a living hell?? They try and try to make him look bad by keeping the US economy in a horrible situation, waiting for?? For some idiot like Romney who only panders to the filthy rich and those who want to keep their $$$$$ in off shore bank accounts??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ridiculous headline. Obama has been in full-blown campaign mode for weeks now, and his campaign plus their media supporters have been ripping Romney for months.

Slow news day?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Romney helped balanced the Massachusetts budget by cutting funds for anti-terror programs (remember, two of the four 9/11 planes took off from Boston) by making up the difference with Federal grants. I don't blame him for that, but it certainly goes against what he seems to stand for now. One of his prospective running mates, New Jersey's Gov. Christie, killed the ARC Tunnel because he did not want to spend state funds even though the Federal government would have footed the bulk (he instead used the funds to help balance his state budget); this leaves New Jersey connected to New York by early 20th century connections, a fact every economist polled deplores.

Mah, roads, railroads, bridges and tunnels - who needs them? Romney seems to prefer turning the nations infrastructure over to the private sector. Is it too far to imagine the privatization of the Interstate Highway System? Under Romney, no.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Laguna,

Romney helped balanced the Massachusetts budget by cutting funds for anti-terror programs (remember, two of the four 9/11 planes took off from Boston) by making up the difference with Federal grants.

Not exactly true. He used the federal grants to clean up a mess that he inherited to remake Mass's State homeland security operation (it was being investigated for corruption by a grand jury) he used his business experience to totally remake the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety with the grant money and he also did it in a totally bi-partisan manner and brought on board ex-Clinton administration officials for their experience and expertise for the overhaul and was actually awarded a good Government award by The Pioneer Institute, a conservative Massachusetts think tank,

Huffpost has the all the details:

The two planes that crashed into New York's World Trade Center took off from Boston's Logan International Airport. It was no coincidence that Logan would become a laboratory for dozens of security programs later introduced at airports nationwide.

But it was Romney's business experience that he used to fix the mess he inherited in the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety, where a federal grand jury was investigating allegations of corruption in the awarding of federal law enforcement grant funds.

The executive office through which Romney planned to remake the state's homeland security organization itself needed to be remade.

Romney brought in Ed Flynn, the former police chief of Arlington, Va., who had rushed to the Pentagon soon after it was hit on 9/11, to head the cabinet department. Flynn, now chief of police in Milwaukee, told The Huffington Post that Romney had "no ideological litmus test" when it came to homeland security.

"He said to me, 'If you take the job, I promise there will no patronage,'" Flynn recalled of his interview with the new governor. "He allowed me to pick an array of experienced people -- most of them Democrats."

Flynn chose as his deputy Jane Wiseman, a veteran of the President Bill Clinton's Justice Department, whose job was to help him overhaul the Office of Public Safety. Together, they instituted an automated, simplified grant application system based on merit, not connections. The Pioneer Institute, a conservative Massachusetts think tank, gave them a good government award.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/mitt-romney-homeland-security-massachusetts_n_1467940.html

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I agree, Sailwind, that he did what he felt he had to do for his constituency, the citizens of Massachusetts (who, incidentally, in common with most Democratic-leaning states, receive far less in Federal spending than they send in taxes), and that was to offset cuts in state security spending with Federal grants. He did this quite directly by appealing directly to the DHS to release funding. There is nothing wrong with this, except that he would excoriate current governors who would attempt to do the same thing.

Mitt: he appealed to the Federal trough to help balance his budget. For whatever reasons, and however admirably he achieved this goal, there are many on the right who will dislike this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"he ( Obama ) really can't run on his record"

He doesn't have a record yet, he's still in the process of "fixing the mess left by Bush" lol.

If closing Gitmo is the right thing to do, why hasn't he done it like he promised he would?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Laguna,

There is nothing wrong with this, except that he would excoriate current governors who would attempt to do the same thing.

Respectfully disagree, according to his website he's a huge proponent of block grants back to the States so that they can innovate programs on the local level to better serve people and he believes it will save about 100 billion off current spending levels. It's from his official website.

Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion

Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.

I'm actually not totally on-board with this policy he envisions due to the fact that the grants to many times just go into basically locally corrupt political payoff and payout schemes, but on the whole the idea is very sound if it can be implemented honestly with strict oversight on the actual spending at the local level and realistically aligned with the goals that can be realistically expected to be achieved with the grant {i.e say set a 20 percent reduction in duplicate Medicaid claims by using the grant money to consolidate say three current regional data bases into just one single database to avoid duplicate claims]. I'm more curious as to what enforcement mechanism that he envisions to monitor the grant money and accountability standards in place for the grant at the local levels so that his policy also doesn't fall into being called "shovel ready" and just money once again wasted instead.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sailwind, Republicans love block grants for two reasons: first, they allow (mostly Republican - again, let's remember where the bulk of federal spending goes) state governors to siphon federal dollars to cover the general budget; and second, because the eviscerate the purpose and support for the very programs themselves.

Let's take the example of food stamps. The federal government grants funds to states to administer this program with the understanding that funds will be provided to a defined segment of the population for a defined purpose. A block grant would blur the former while totally ignoring the latter: while under It actually gets worse. The federal government is the only floor on the "race to the bottom." The poor naturally gather in states which provide the greatest benefits, but with a federal standard, these remain marginal. If states are allowed fuller autonomy as to how to utilize federal dollars intended for social aid, a trend will undoubtedly emerge where aid to the less fortunate is marginalized; generous states will be flooded, while stingy states will be relieved. The result will not be a more prosperous America but the realization of a "bugger they neighbor" mindset.

As voters see fewer benefits coming from ostensible "federal" programs, support for these will drop - and then, so will the block grants, eliminating both the funding for the programs and that sided for general expenses. This is what the "small government" party wants: block grants are a Trojan horse for minimal government, and nothing less.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Laguna,

Republicans love block grants for two reasons: first, they allow (mostly Republican - again, let's remember where the bulk of federal spending goes)

Not sure where you getting this from might want to check the source to see if it's not some partisan talking point instead of actual fact. Federal spending is spread pretty evenly between the so called Blue states and Red states. Largest recipient is the District of Columbia, Blue State Vermont is next, Red state Alaska is after, Blue states New York and Massachusetts follow, then Louisiana (due to ongoing Katrina rebuilding (it's still going on there believe it or not) then Red state Tennessee, Blue State Maine, a "purple State" New Mexico and 10th is Mississippi ( Katrina again)..........This is from the latest Census data most federal dollars are spent on the Medicaid programs tothe States. You are correct though some are more stingy then others and others feed off the trough as if there is no tomorrow (it's why Vermont is the number 1 actual State that feeds off the federal trough).

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0309/How-states-rank-Federal-spending-driven-by-census-data/%28page%29/2

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Largest recipient is the District of Columbia, Blue State Vermont is next, Red state Alaska is after, Blue states New York and Massachusetts follow, then Louisiana (due to ongoing Katrina rebuilding (it's still going on there believe it or not) then Red state Tennessee, Blue State Maine, a "purple State" New Mexico and 10th is Mississippi ( Katrina again)..........This is from the latest Census data

Full of misleading errors. The ranking is only for Medicaid and housing/recovery dollars, and not total Federal spending by state.

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf page: xxiv

Top ten: Virginia (generally Red), Maryland, Alaska, Kentucky, New Mexico, Hawaii, North Dakota, Wyoming, Connecticut, Massachusetts.

You are correct though some are more stingy then others and others feed off the trough as if there is no tomorrow (it's why Vermont is the number 1

Vermont is actually number 17 in total federal spending per capita. Maine is 22nd.

Not sure where you getting this from might want to check the source to see if it's not some partisan talking point instead of actual fact.

LOL. The source above is the most recent census data for total federal spending by state. (Which does not include the District of Columbia -- being the federal district, would naturally get the most federal spending,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"He hasn't fleshed out ANYTHING. He's just been spouting "hype and blame" while he blames Obama for everything under the sun and makes promises without any hint of how he plans to see them realized."

He does have a set of detailed plans that don't get much coverage about for the obvious reason that they basically go against the interests of the groups he is attempting to court. But for all his faults, and they are legion, Romney is a very competitive guy that has been groomed for this for years and I think has a good chance of rising to the occasion, or at least doing whatever it takes not to go down in flames as a failed president. As a first order of business, somebody has to figure out how to get us to the point where we're creating 300,000 jobs a month. Obama policy is never going to accomplish it so we need to basically look at what is going on now and reverse the ‘wet blanket’ of regulations and threatened taxes while getting the county in the ballpark of fiscal shape. Romney is hardly a stand up or principled guy like Huntsman or a voice of reason like Gingrich but he If his gets into office, and if he wants any role of significance once he gets there--he will need a newly empowered conservative bloc in Congress. I personally don't believe that he can form any kind of common cause with liberals because they can't even get a budget passed with a Dem majority in House and Senate--why would they make a deal with Romney? That the US is becoming a 1% society profoundly dysfunctional and unfair to the 90% is a huge concern. But until the economy is growing and there is a deficit reduction plan in place it is like worrying about your CD collection when the house is on fire.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yabits,

Full of misleading errors. The ranking is only for Medicaid and housing/recovery dollars, and not total Federal spending by state.

The left leaning Brookings Institute is the one that went through the census data and crunched the data on your link. It's what they came up and Vermont was number 1. The left leaninh Huffington Post duly reported the findings.

Brookings analyzed federal spending in fiscal year 2008 to assess which states got the most fed dollars per capita.

Under the headline: The Federal Aid Jackpot: States That Receive The Most Federal Assistance

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/the-federal-aid-jackpot-s_n_492411.html#s73091&title=10_Mississippi

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"America does not need to follow a failure European model "

The problem is not inequality but the lack of upward mobility in this country, which continues to worsen. Unlike the Left, we don’t want to enforce equality of outcomes. But we should want policies that enable the lower classes to rise as far as their talents can take them. Right now, we’re not doing a good enough job of that. And the the rich have seen a net rise in income during the recession since an inevitable result of any welfare state is to further concentrate wealth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If I was American, I would vote for Romney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites