Any of you watch the Republican debate from Las Vegas?

[Eddie Teach]

He isn't a bad President though. Just...average. He won't do any real harm, but nor will he do any great good either.

At least he's not dead set on actively sabotaging the country like most of his challengers seem to be.

[DGuller]

Replace the word "rich" with "black" and you've described Obama in the run up to the last election perfectly.

I have come to question the "capable" part.

Nah, he is a capable man, just not much of a President.

He isn't a bad President though. Just...average. He won't do any real harm, but nor will he do any great good either.

Unfortunately, he is a mediocre president at a time when we need a really great one.  Even more unfortunately, he's also a mediocre president at a time when that mediocrity is by far the best option we're going to have, evidently.

[Razgovory]

Replace the word "rich" with "black" and you've described Obama in the run up to the last election perfectly.

I have come to question the "capable" part.

Nah, he is a capable man, just not much of a President.

He isn't a bad President though. Just...average. He won't do any real harm, but nor will he do any great good either.

It's hard to judge I suppose.  I'm not sure if anyone could get legislation threw with Republicans dead set against everything.  At Cal's Senator said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  What can you do with someone like that?  I suspect we are going to see something in the near future to put a halt on obstruction.  It's getting near critical mass, the point where government won't be able to function.  I think we still have a mess of treaties just lying around waiting to be ratified.

Obama's biggest problem is that he's naive.  Not with our enemies, but with his political opponents.  Obama is the type who genuinely thinks if we all sit down, talk things through we can find a solution that is acceptable to both parties.  The "Beer summit" is an example of this type of thinking.  There are Ayatollahs in Iran who are more likely to make concessions then the GOP.

[garbon]

It's hard to judge I suppose.  I'm not sure if anyone could get legislation threw with Republicans dead set against everything.  At Cal's Senator said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  What can you do with someone like that?  I suspect we are going to see something in the near future to put a halt on obstruction.  It's getting near critical mass, the point where government won't be able to function.  I think we still have a mess of treaties just lying around waiting to be ratified.

Obama's biggest problem is that he's naive.  Not with our enemies, but with his political opponents.  Obama is the type who genuinely thinks if we all sit down, talk things through we can find a solution that is acceptable to both parties.  The "Beer summit" is an example of this type of thinking.  There are Ayatollahs in Iran who are more likely to make concessions then the GOP.

It might be convenient to blame the Republicans, but it isn't like he really had his party by his side during the last 4 years. It also might be convenient to point out that the Democratic party is less cohesive than the Republican one but that really doesn't change the view from the ground.

[Habsburg]

I'm undecided between voting Obama or writing in something. It'll likely be the latter.
I'd vote for Huntsman because he's sane, believes in science and evolution, and would be a good prsident. For all those reasons he will never get the nomination, sadly.

I would vote for Huntsman.  At the moment I'm thinking of throwing a vote to a third party if there is a quasi-quasi-reasonable alternative.

[Razgovory]

Romney's biggest strength in my eyes is that he's so disingenuous that he probably won't do anything he's saying he will do.

[Razgovory]

It might be convenient to blame the Republicans, but it isn't like he really had his party by his side during the last 4 years. It also might be convenient to point out that the Democratic party is less cohesive than the Republican one but that really doesn't change the view from the ground.

It's nice when the most convenient answer is also the correct one.   Really, it's a problem more with the rules of the Senate.  They are going to have to change the filibuster rules eventually, and probably pretty soon.

[alfred russel]

I forgot to mention Ron Paul. I've never been much a fan of his, but he has some ideas that I like. Such as some of his fiscal ideas. It's good having him in there on those occasions where he kicks butt with common sense ideas,  but he can be a loose cannon sometimes, seem part libertarian and I think kind of part angry.

I like Ron Paul for bravely representing the 19th century.  The man's a mental, but there's a charm to that.  He reminds me of a Republican, right-wing Tony Benn figure.

I can't stand him, so I'm biased, but I'm surprised how little love there is for Romney.  The degree to which everyone seems to want another candidate is extraordinary.

Romney is a smart and capable rich guy who stands for nothing other than getting himself elected, and has spent the last 7 or so years dedicated to becoming president.

Replace the word "rich" with "black" and you've described Obama in the run up to the last election perfectly.

I don't think so. There is no way to say with certainty what Obama believes of course, but I think he does have political convictions that he wants to advance. And he may have had his eye on the presidency for 7 years, but he also kept substantial jobs were he could keep working on those issues in the meantime.

On the minus side for Obama, while he has demonstrated he is smart and capable in roles such as a lawyer, he has not done so as the executive in charge of a large organization.

[alfred russel]

Romney's biggest strength in my eyes is that he's so disingenuous that he probably won't do anything he's saying he will do.

Think about that though. He is so transparently disingenuous that it is hard to even pretend that he stands for anything. Is that the kind of guy you want to be making tough decisions that come up?

Yes, I know that all politicians are like this to a degree.

[The Brain]

There is no way to say with certainty what Obama believes of course,

Except in Mahomet?

[garbon]

Romney's biggest strength in my eyes is that he's so disingenuous that he probably won't do anything he's saying he will do.

Think about that though. He is so transparently disingenuous that it is hard to even pretend that he stands for anything. Is that the kind of guy you want to be making tough decisions that come up?

Yes, I know that all politicians are like this to a degree.

Yes.

[Berkut]

I forgot to mention Ron Paul. I've never been much a fan of his, but he has some ideas that I like. Such as some of his fiscal ideas. It's good having him in there on those occasions where he kicks butt with common sense ideas,  but he can be a loose cannon sometimes, seem part libertarian and I think kind of part angry.

I like Ron Paul for bravely representing the 19th century.  The man's a mental, but there's a charm to that.  He reminds me of a Republican, right-wing Tony Benn figure.

I can't stand him, so I'm biased, but I'm surprised how little love there is for Romney.  The degree to which everyone seems to want another candidate is extraordinary.

Romney is a smart and capable rich guy who stands for nothing other than getting himself elected, and has spent the last 7 or so years dedicated to becoming president.

Replace the word "rich" with "black" and you've described Obama in the run up to the last election perfectly.

I don't think so. There is no way to say with certainty what Obama believes of course, but I think he does have political convictions that he wants to advance.

Really? What might those be? I cannot really tell, it's not like his platform was anything more than boilerplate Dem stuff. How is he different from Romney?

And he may have had his eye on the presidency for 7 years, but he also kept substantial jobs were he could keep working on those issues in the meantime.

What might those substantial jobs be? He was a US Senator, and his record was one of doing almost nothing but run for President. Prior to that he wrote a book and practiced law, but not in anything that appear to be a meaningful manner - his law career seems to be nothing more than a way to get ready to go into politics.

[alfred russel]

Really? What might those be? I cannot really tell, it's not like his platform was anything more than boilerplate Dem stuff. How is he different from Romney?

He probably is basically a boilerplate dem. He has consistently worked on such an agenda and in such environments (a community organizer, civil rights lawyer) that it seems likely. I would be very suprised if he is a part of a future campaign against universal health care, or pro life initiatives, for example.

What might those substantial jobs be? He was a US Senator, and his record was one of doing almost nothing but run for President. Prior to that he wrote a book and practiced law, but not in anything that appear to be a meaningful manner - his law career seems to be nothing more than a way to get ready to go into politics.

The point is he had day jobs. He wasn't an unemployed super rich guy with a focus in life of being president for 7 years.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are Ayatollahs in Iran who are more likely to make concessions then the GOP.

Yes but they are all under house arrest.

Hey wait, there's an idea . . .

[garbon]

The point is he had day jobs. He wasn't an unemployed super rich guy with a focus in life of being president for 7 years.

Unemployed?