It's Still About The Economy, And We're Not Stupid

[Politico]

Look, I realize that this election will be primarily about the economy,as it should be since it effects all Americans. And maybe some of the other issues brought up have been diversions.

But if offends me when Romney refuses to talk about anything other than the economy, brushing off issues like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage as unimportant,

Well, clearly Romney opposes gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. What more is he supposed to say? I disagree with Governor Romney on these issues. He has stated his position, and wants to talk about the economy because that is the most important issue facing America and the rest of the world. I do not see much of a problem with this, really.

Obama and Romney both know what their strengths and weaknesses are. The only difference is that Obama, in fact, is willing to talk about all issues, including the economy, with the voters. Obama knows that as a candidate he needs to be held accountable for his entire record on all issues, and that's something Romney just doesn't get.

Romney is always willing to speak about his record as Governor. And he is on the record on all issues, including gay marriage, which is not something he wants to talk a lot about because if somebody is overly interested in gay marriage and a discussion about it, they should see Obama or Santorum, not Romney. Romney is in the middle on this issue, and the Obamas and Santorums of the world can duke out that fight while Romney focuses on the economy.

[Politico]

Afghanistan is ending, Libya was a success, defense spending has been cut by hundreds of billions of dollars, only silly libertarians on the internet are mad about NDAA, Congress didn't let Obama close Guantanamo. I guess you wanted him to somehow get a PATRIOT Act repeal through Congress also?

there is a serious disconnect between your increasing interest in radical thought and your persistent Obama fanboyism.

Obviously I grade Obama on a curve, and on that curve, his foreign policy has been pretty good.

Even I will admit that Obama has been good on foreign policy although I do think we could use a harder stance on Iran and North Korea. To a lesser extent, I think we could give China more grief with regards to currency manipulation. In addition, a strengthening of the Mexican border along with more free terms of trade with Mexico would probably be beneficial for both Mexico and us. Perhaps even covert support for Mexico's BIG problem, which is starting to trickle into some border cities.

But Obama's foreign policy success doesn't makeup for his poor domestic policy. In a way, Obama is a reverse Clinton. Bill was pretty woeful on the foreign policy front, especially in retrospect, but he delivered the goods, for the most part, on the economy with a relatively pragmatic, respectable and moderate approach to policy. In other words, what Obama should have been on domestic policy instead of being somebody who provides quasi-socialist signals and class warfare rhetoric.

[Politico]

Once again, is there any particular reason an election focusing on the economy is a plus for Romney? Outside of gas prices, it's fairly solid.

Employment growth is not keeping pace with population growth. In other words, this is a jobless recovery. Good jobs are not readily available. We have many productive workers who are sidelined (and many times more productive workers who are employed yet afraid of joining this group), younger adults who are discouraged by weakening prospects, and some unproductive workers who are clogging up parts of the public sector. We need much stronger growth, especially with Boomsday (i.e., retirement of most of the Baby Boomers) on the horizon.

Bernanke and Co. have done their job and can do no more. Obama could have done worse, of course, but he also could have done a lot better. The phrase "not good enough," comes to mind.