Column: Candidates often have focus on the wrong issues
November 9, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
WORTHINGTON At last, at last the elections have come and gone. I tried to follow all that was going on. The Daily Globe said citizens should keep themselves informed, and I took that seriously. I listened to Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich. My that was a long, long time ago. Continue Reading
The candidates and the electorate are way of course!
Lets see, if you are black we will vote for you. Hey, if you give us amnesty for breaking your laws we’ll vote for you. Same sex marriage we’ll vote for you. Over here, we want to keep our abortions and birth control needs to be paid for then we’ll vote for you. By the way, we need our government assistance then we’ll also vote for you! These are issues but not ones that should be used when deciding on a president! The president should be elected to lead the country, not to preside over social issues.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
To sum up Deano’s view….If your not a white old man, you won’t vote GOP. He is 100% right. That is exactly why the GOP lost this election (not just Romney, but senate, house, and state congresses). Lost the black, hispanic, gay, young, and woman vote, while the white vote is shrinking each year. The GOP will need to evolve (even though they don’t believe in that theory) and start to include more parts of America if they want to win any elections. BTW, I’m white, male, educated, upper middle class, grew up in the midwest, parents are republicans, christian, pay taxes, AND didn’t vote GOP. NONE of the reasons you listed are why I voted for Obama.
Also, ” not to preside over social issues”. Really? Your party wants to PASS LAWS to preside over social issues that you just insinuated that politicians should stay away from. WE JUST HAD AN AMENDMENT to vote on what WAS A SOCIAL ISSUE made by the GOP!! Classic “do as i say, not as i do” logic.
You seem to forget that if you have the right to vote, ANY reason to pick someone and vote for them is justified. You dismiss everyone’s reason as invalid, singular and stereotyped just because it didn’t line up with how you voted. Its insulting.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
16
The amendments were local state issues not presidential. Deano is probably right those are pretty feeble reasons to elect a president on and we all know most of that is true. So merc what would make a man like you vote for Obama ? I know some people lost their 401k and blamed Bush.
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
“pretty feeble reasons to elect a president on”…it doesn’t matter! Right to vote means ANY reason is valid. Also are you saying equal civil rights (gay marriage), immigration reform (amnesty), and womens health rights (abortion and contraception) are “feeble” reasons?
“The president should be elected to lead the country, not to preside over social issues.” So the social issues are to be left to local and states? Really glad that isn’t true or else we would still have slavery and/or jim crow laws in the South since that would be a social issues that the President shouldn’t have addressed. You call them “social issues”, i will call them freedoms and rights.
I voted Obama because my 401k has tripled in the past 4 years. Just one reason. I have many more, but don’t need to add them since any reason to vote is valid.
Romeny added no new ideas, only failed ones including tax cuts for the upper tax brackets. Here is a link to a CRS (bipartisan group used by congress) that shows tax cuts for the upper tax rates doesn’t improve the economy. Thus trickle down/supply side economics is bunk.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/134693051/CRS-Report-Top-Tax-Rates
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
I would think the debt, foreign policy, energy, jobs, in general issues that affect every American, not interests of this or that group might be more presidential. If your 401 increased I’m sure it was no fault of obama. I don’t mean to say those issues aren’t important but that they should be left to congress. He really doesn’t have the power to decide those issues anyway unless he cheats as usual.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/132/2012/11/11/122160_600.jpg
Like or Dislike:
11 
11
“I voted Obama because my 401k has tripled in the past 4 years. Just one reason” Which in effect means that the Wall Street Elite got a LOT richer, you know, those people your side demonizes because they are rich, yet you wallow in YOUR 401K success. Can’t have it both ways. Wait till January when EVERYONE gets to share in the pain. I’m guessing we’ll see a LOT of obama voters grumbling when their favorite program gets cut
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
Actually it ment the economy was doing well. I don’t demonize the rich. Just find it stupid that someone like Romney pays less of a % in taxes than i do.
Speaking of both ways, in January, you will get the cuts you wanted…but will also get a tax raise, which you didn’t want. Guess if the GOP didn’t hold the debt ceiling hostage, this wouldn’t have ever been an issue.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Hundreds of thousands in Ohio’s food stamp program could see a $50 cut in their monthly assistance starting in January, according to the Toledo Blade. Some consider it ironic that the announcement is coming just a week after the election in this swing state, which was won by President Obama. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conveniently-occurring-after-the-election-ohio-food-stamp-program-sees-cuts/
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
“I voted Obama because my 401k has tripled in the past 4 years. Just one reason”– At the rate it’s plummeting since re-election, (Dow down over 700) what’s it gonna look like in another four? Seems like the economy and business environment haven’t got as much faith as you. Unemployment will be going way up again shortly I believe as businesses fight to ward off the obamacare penalties. Yep, you done voted yourself a real good candidate in there.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
“Just find it stupid that someone like Romney pays less of a % in taxes than i do.” C’mon, be honest with yourself at least. You know very well that he has paid MORE than you do. When he EARNED the money, he paid the normal tax rate for his income bracket AFTER they paid the corporate tax on the money. He was then wise enough to invest those earnings. When his investments realized some capitol gains, he then paid tax on that also. Doesn’t really look like 13% at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paid-30-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/
Like or Dislike:
2 
1