Remember when McCain wanted to stop the campaign because of the threatening economic meltdown, and came running to DC and screwed up the agreement that seemed ready to happen? The question I'd ask is "Do you honestly think we are not a hell of a lot better off than we'd be if McCain/Palin had been elected?"

I will grant that we would at least not be subjected to the Pawlenty-Bachmann-Perry-Cain-Gingrich-Santorum merry-go-round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the country better off than before Obama took office? If no, the answer is clear.

OP here... Personally, I am better off, and happier with our government. Can't speak for the entire US. However, even if I were worse off I still couldn't bring myself to vote for Santorum. Romney I could handle.

I should add I am glad we are getting out of Iraq, and happy that all children under 18 have health care, too. So maybe I DO think the country is better off...

Anonymous wrote:Is the country better off than before Obama took office? If no, the answer is clear.

OP here... Personally, I am better off, and happier with our government. Can't speak for the entire US. However, even if I were worse off I still couldn't bring myself to vote for Santorum. Romney I could handle.

Anonymous wrote:Is the country better off than before Obama took office? If no, the answer is clear.

I would argue the country is better off than when Obama took office.

In the plus column:

-- Osama is dead
-- Auto industry is back
-- We're basically out of Iraq
-- Economic stimulus slammed on the engine break in 2009 and arrested the freefall. Granted, it had too many tax cuts as concessions to Republicans to be completely effective, but it was better than doing nothing. The recession did end, though.
-- We have an end-game in Afghanistan
-- Dow is 13,000 again for first time since 2008
-- Jobless rate is back down to 8.3%. Higher than when POTUS took office, granted, but the trajectory is right. Unemployment is a lagging indicator anyway. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
-- Health care reform. Yes, that's a net positive. Doesn't feel that way yet because the beneficial effects are delayed for another year or so, but it's a far cry better than what we had before.
-- Repealed DADT
-- Passed Lilly Ledbetter

In the minus column:

-- Didn't act aggressively enough on the housing crisis.
-- Cut too many taxes while simultaneously being tagged (erroneously) as a tax raiser.
-- Income inequality continues to widen
-- Some would say deficit, but that's bullshit -- governments aren't households or businesses and have no need to balance budgets.

Anonymous wrote:I'll start off by writing that I am a moderate Independent, which may or not be of matter to my question. Right now, it seems as if the Republican candidate will be either Romney or Santorum. While I'm not thrilled with, but could deal with, a president that doesn't believe in evolution, I don't think I could handle the leadership of Santorum. What is a moderate to do here? The driving core beliefs of these 2 men are completely at odds with mine.

Vote for Obama. Seriously.

Unless it's Romney, in which case you can pull the lever for him. But he'll just do what he's told, as Grover put it when he made the case for Romney at CPAC.

The irony here is most Democrats could probably live with President Romney, even though they'd grumble. That's why Romney could beat Obama.

Santorum can't beat Obama in the general. No way, no how.

Is the country better off than before Obama took office? If no, the answer is clear.

I'll start off by writing that I am a moderate Independent, which may or not be of matter to my question. Right now, it seems as if the Republican candidate will be either Romney or Santorum. While I'm not thrilled with, but could deal with, a president that doesn't believe in evolution, I don't think I could handle the leadership of Santorum. What is a moderate to do here? The driving core beliefs of these 2 men are completely at odds with mine.