Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

It's hard to argue that the son of George Romney, former Chairman of an auto manufacturer and a governor, is a self-made man.

Do a little research. You seem to be assuming that he inherited all of his wealth. (Our nominee in 2004, married most of his. Did that bother you at the time?) From Politifact.com:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

Do you realize that George Romney was rather self made and didn't graduate from college?

Yes, Mitt was raised in privilege (though USA Today has written admiringly of his lack of "affluenza"). But it's simply not true that he inherited all this money. Obama needs to drop the class warfare stuff and start extolling his own very significant accomplishments. People who subscribe to class warfare are already going to vote for him, but he's turning off some folks who trend moderate and/or independent. Why do you think Bill Clinton is trying to get Obama to lay off this tack?

Spare me the lecture, I knew about a dozen guys at Bain during his time there. I never said he inherited his wealth, but neither did he have to fight his way up the ladder of success.

No, it doesn't bother me that he is wealthy at all. It does not bother me that John Kerry married a wealthy woman. It does not bother me that Bill Gates made billions of dollars.

The questions of wealth are:
(1) do they understand the everyday struggles of middle class families?
(2) does their financial situation create potential conflicts of interest?

For Romney, (1) He hasn't known what it means to make ends meet. And (2), particularly when it comes to hedge funds. The tax treatments of hedge funds is a huge issue, and he stands to lose tens of millions of dollars if that ever changes. And his other investments may create other conflicts. Problem #2 has been addressed before, for example with Dick Cheney. I don't think it's a showstopper.

But let's face it, we are looking at a candidate who needs to help the middle class, yet he has never known what it means to be middle class. And we are looking at at guy whose career puts him solidly on the side of the industry that created a lot of problems leading to our financial meltdown. It's not THE issue, but it is A consideration. It always is, no matter which party.

I'm betting that the elite background of John Kerry contributed to his loss.

PP, I hate to say it, but Obama is looking a bit out of touch too. He's having to walk back his comment that "the private sector is doing fine" and his statement, "Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with cuts in state and local government" (see Politico for the full story). Does he really mean to imply that unemployment is over 8% because we don't have enough government workers? Was he not paying attention to this week's votes in Wisconsin, San Diego, and San Jose? This is not the way to win re-election. Obama wants to be re-elected has to step it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

It's hard to argue that the son of George Romney, former Chairman of an auto manufacturer and a governor, is a self-made man.

Do a little research. You seem to be assuming that he inherited all of his wealth. (Our nominee in 2004, married most of his. Did that bother you at the time?) From Politifact.com:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

Do you realize that George Romney was rather self made and didn't graduate from college?

Yes, Mitt was raised in privilege (though USA Today has written admiringly of his lack of "affluenza"). But it's simply not true that he inherited all this money. Obama needs to drop the class warfare stuff and start extolling his own very significant accomplishments. People who subscribe to class warfare are already going to vote for him, but he's turning off some folks who trend moderate and/or independent. Why do you think Bill Clinton is trying to get Obama to lay off this tack?

Spare me the lecture, I knew about a dozen guys at Bain during his time there. I never said he inherited his wealth, but neither did he have to fight his way up the ladder of success.

No, it doesn't bother me that he is wealthy at all. It does not bother me that John Kerry married a wealthy woman. It does not bother me that Bill Gates made billions of dollars.

The questions of wealth are:
(1) do they understand the everyday struggles of middle class families?
(2) does their financial situation create potential conflicts of interest?

For Romney, (1) He hasn't known what it means to make ends meet. And (2), particularly when it comes to hedge funds. The tax treatments of hedge funds is a huge issue, and he stands to lose tens of millions of dollars if that ever changes. And his other investments may create other conflicts. Problem #2 has been addressed before, for example with Dick Cheney. I don't think it's a showstopper.

But let's face it, we are looking at a candidate who needs to help the middle class, yet he has never known what it means to be middle class. And we are looking at at guy whose career puts him solidly on the side of the industry that created a lot of problems leading to our financial meltdown. It's not THE issue, but it is A consideration. It always is, no matter which party.

I'm betting that the elite background of John Kerry contributed to his loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

It's hard to argue that the son of George Romney, former Chairman of an auto manufacturer and a governor, is a self-made man.

Do a little research. You seem to be assuming that he inherited all of his wealth. (Our nominee in 2004, married most of his. Did that bother you at the time?) From Politifact.com:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

Do you realize that George Romney was rather self made and didn't graduate from college?

Yes, Mitt was raised in privilege (though USA Today has written admiringly of his lack of "affluenza"). But it's simply not true that he inherited all this money. Obama needs to drop the class warfare stuff and start extolling his own very significant accomplishments. People who subscribe to class warfare are already going to vote for him, but he's turning off some folks who trend moderate and/or independent. Why do you think Bill Clinton is trying to get Obama to lay off this tack?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

It's hard to argue that the son of George Romney, former Chairman of an auto manufacturer and a governor, is a self-made man.

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

Anonymous wrote: lol...google Obama Rezco. Obama has never worked for wealth...ever.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure Romney would if asked.

Anonymous wrote:when will the most open presidency in history allow it's birth certificate to be analyzed. open up admission/grades/financing and term papers in college? such a sneak,,was he born that way?j

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:36 here. Obama has to win moderates and independents in order to be re-elected. Attacking Romney for his wealth will turn off a lot of those people. And for 8:25, it's worth remembering that Romney actually earned his money. As a Democrat, I looked at Kerry in 2004 and thought, is this really the best we can do for a nominee?

did I just enter the twilight zone? say WHAT?

If you REALLY want to elect someone who EARNED what they have, you really should be looking in the other direction. Obama didn't come from wealth and a connected family. Neither did his wife. They are the bootstrap couple the right likes to rave about...but, damn they're the wrong color and party. Guess we'll have to sell the little rich boy as the hard-worker.