This is Karl Rove's way of making himself more valuable. Just wait, he will be the one with the solution that saves the day......for the right price that is. When he suggests that 5 solid Red states are in play there is another motive. What this should do, however, and could be the hidden message here is: If republicans want a change in 2012 then there is only one answer, and his name is Willard "Mitt" Romney. Even if you hate Romney, voting for him is like using toilet paper after a bowel movement, it may not be fun but you know you have to do it (or if your a democrat, pay other people to do it for you)

Jokes are funnier when they don't contain grammatical errors doctor. Sorry, I guess I'm a snob for thinking... well, for thinking.

Actually, We came 20 points behind the country and embarrassed ourselves by falling for newt's glib tongue. Where do we go from here? More Obama?

Sc in on play. remember romney is mormon and the christian far right doesnt like him. they perfer to have a blackman over mormon. sc, az, and even tx will be battle ground states.

Disingenuous means something different than what you think it does. So does the term "flip flopper". Also, just because Obama does something doesn't mean that Mitt doesn't also do it. From a historical policy stance Obama and Romney are basically the same guy.

I agree with you re John though. ^5

be aware--patch is owned by huff post, so consider the source.

It's pretty neat how you left out the word policy when you "quoted" me. Well done.

Obama was the president while the country came back from the brink of financial ruin. He got a law that may implement Romneycare on a national level. I'm sure those won't satisfy your test for executive experience, but they would for anyone who wasn't a partisan hack.

Can you define "major state" for us? I'm curious which states you consider unworthy.

i believe obama once ran a hotdog and lemonaid stand. both were successful...lol

You apologize for leaving out the operative word, then don't address it. Got it, yeah, you aren't a partisan hack at all. Even if it's a newly found ideology for you, which I honestly doubt a little since you seem pretty secure in your Republican talking points, you're still willfully ignoring facts to support your team. The definition of partisan hack.

I for one fail to see how civilian executive experience is necessary or even helpful for a government office. Civil service and businesses don't have the same purpose, in fact often good government does the opposite of good business practices. And nearly as many US presidents were Senators before they became president as were Governors. I'd much rather have a person who is used to and knows how to compromise in office than someone who is used to dictating what direction the organization should go. I guess that is why I'm now considered a liberal.

Strong leadership in the USA is now bribery and hog trading. Bush sold his conservative soul for a war. Obama for health care. We don't need more of this type of "leadership"

@James W. Freston: "...It's the ability to LEAD strong people with strong opinions and diverse agndas to a consensus about solving MAJOR problems like..."

very true if intent of "diverse agendas" is the general welfare (common good) and JOB#1 is not to remove the leader...eg, make BO a one 'termer'...(see book, "do not ask what good we do")

doubt if geo washington could reach a consensus with current congress...

ps. will add JFK

You think that strong leadership means to convince people that your opinion is the only option? And you learned that in college leadership 101? Did you attend Tehran U?

Truman was a senator, he ended WWII AND had to deal with McCarthy and a poor economy initially, I believe that Obama will end up being compared to him most often, and like Truman he will be viewed more favorably as time passes. I think the Bay of Pigs showed Kennedy to be an effective president. I can see why you wouldn't though, since it along with Bush and all his executive experience that you avoid talking about torpedoes your argument.

bottom line-----gas doubled,debt more than all other presidents combined,family income down by five grand, less people emplyed now than when he took over. how could anyone want to give four more years of failure.....the whitehouse was never meant to be a training ground.

Not to worry Joe the fascist Romney will not be carring Florida or Ohio.

To Joe,

NC has gone Democrat in only 2 of the last 10 elections including 2008. NC will go Republican. As you stated, that leaves it up to OH and FL (again).

@James W. Freston: "...as though it is is the only option..."

think it's called compromise...but to repeat my point: impossible to reach a consensus when one side's (GOP's) JOB One" is to destroy the other side (make BO a one termer)...vice consensus for the common good.

re: "the Cuban Missile Crisis, not Bay of Pigs"

dont recall mentioning either...however JFK's handling of both indicated a "profile in courage"...

re: the pig debacle

"Kennedy stood up to it, took the blame for the Bay of Pigs, rearranged his staff and a year later when confronted by the Cuban Missile Crisis steered a steady and successful course through that nuclear peril"

JFK's approval when up after he took the blame...oh/and still waiting for W and GOPneo cons to accept iraq was a huge mistake...think DEM who voted for war have admited it was a mistake (could be wrong)

re: "Facts are useful, speculation less so."

agree. but how about speculation/opinion based on fact...to repeat BO's facts: first black president, nobel peace prize, brought country out of great 2008 recession...healt care for 30-40 million uninsured...mo to come in second term.

some mo speculation/opinion: history will judge current T=GOP policies as some of the worst since my beloved South seceded...weel at least equal to the iraq war mistake.

You are living in a fantasy world, today, money talks, so when compromise is needed or leadership is called for, bribes start flying. We trade leadership like used cars.

True leadership today would call for means testing for ANY social program, no one has the guts to even mention it never mind vote for it.

@Joe: "...We trade leadership like used cars..."

GOPs do. DEMs dont:)

re: "True leadership today would call for means testing for ANY social program"
true leadership calls for a lot more than means testing...eg, concern for the general welfare...but back to means testing...

in CA (DEM majorities) many special needs programs do require means testing...probably other states too...maybe SC.

leadership aside...means testing for social programs is a good idea...might even base taxes on a means test...might get 1% to pay a fair share...

Change out "only" for "best" and I agree with you re leadership. Big difference.

Yes, missile crisis, thank you.

HST was a senator before he was VP.

Don't care for speculation? I'd probably get off the internet, particularly a "blog" like this one, and particularly on a political story where Rove speculates about which states are in play this election.

That hardly seems fair. They paid into medicare and SS, they aren't charity, their insurance.

I agree with Stanley's tax solution below though, as well as universal health care and job training for everyone who desires it. Providing those all but eliminates poverty/hunger for people who are willing to work. I expect and accept that there will always be destitute, just as there will always be greedy sociopaths. It's the majorities responsibility to limit them and the damage they do to society.

Why should ANY taxpayer subsidize anothers home ownership?

How is it fair that Bill Gates collects SS? Because he paid into it. A person may not use public schools, certain roads, and services but they are available to them. Would you deny Gates or Buffett access to the fire department since they have a 401k and cash to pay for a private fire department?

I don't disagree that rich people don't NEED SS and I admire a man who refuses public services that he doesn't need, but they do deserve access to it strictly because they paid into it.

Joe, I'm curious...What do you consider "wealthy?" How much is too much to collect Social Security? And who decides what those thresholds are?

SD

I agree, everyone should pay some percentage of their income to federal income tax.

That said, the wealthy don't balk at paying more tax because of a lack of fairness towards them or wasteful spending, real or perceived. They balk at paying more tax because they want to keep as much money as they can and the most expensive federal programs benefit them less than the do the poor and what is left of the middle class.

lol @ job creation. Yeah, that is what the rich want to do, create American jobs, I can tell by the iPad factory in San Jose, the Nike factory in Portland, and all the American made goods sold at Walmart.

first of all, on some of your comments there was no "reply" button

Oh I'm weeping

Nonsense, Obama knew exactly what he was doing. National health care has been a primary objective of the progressive movement for 75 years now.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess, as nothing you've said has convinced me that executive experience has that much to do with an effective presidency. And I certainly don't agree that the president can have much effect on "job creation" via policy, nor do I believe it's the responsibility of the office.

@: "... Imagine what Obama might have done for jobless when he had control of both houses for two years, if he understood job creation. Instead, he and we squandered a year on health care. A smart executive also knows how to time priorities."

effective leaders like BO can, excuse the over used one liner, can chew gum and walk at the same time...

more than 4.1 million private sector jobs created with 25 straight months of job growth...before BO middle-class security had been slipping away. Wages stagnated while health care costs soared...BO both addressed the immediate economic crisis and laid the foundation for a U.S. economy that’s built to last. see chart: http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy

opine: BO realized past president did not see healthcare as a priority and health care cost rose exponentially and 30-40 million were uninsured...thus he pushed it in his first year...and;

30-40M uninsured are now on the path to affordable healthcare and we are on the path to universal healthcare...BTW;

GOPs made similar arguments in their opposition to social security and medicare...

opine: DEM progressive policies trump GOP conservative ...maintain the status quo...policies.

"Imagine what Obama might have done" if GOPs had not made their JOB#1 to make BO a one termer...vice building a consensus for the common good.

@James W. Freston: "lower the corporate tax rate (ours is now the highest in the world) to pull $1 trillion from off-shore accounts to build and make thing in the U.S--are but obvious examples that no economists dispute

really! highest in world...no economists dispute...weel really:

"U.S. Has A Slightly Lower "GDP Weighted Average" Corporate Tax Rate Than Other OECD Countries. A March 31, 2011, Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled "International Corporate Tax Rate Comparisons and Policy Implications," compared the weighted average of corporate tax rates in the United States and in other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It found that the United States has an effective corporate tax rate of 27.1%, compared to the OECD (excluding the United States) average of 27.7%." http://mediamatters.org/research/201205010008

weighted averages are more relevant to making comparisons of measures of the tax burden...beware of a limbo rush bearing bs.

Pretty much everything you've said since "be careful who you call a hack, I voted for Obama" has been right wing talking points. You're a liar, and that isn't ok with me. Now please, copy off whatever nutjob website you use as your source exactly which policies Obama has pushed through that raised the corporate tax rate, taxes on the wealthy, or created regulations that stifle manufacturing. I'll be waiting forever.

The taxes in America, particularly for the wealthy and very wealthy are lower now than in the last 50 years. I know that facts don't generally interest right wing hacks, but I'll post the top Google result (I know, mainstream media bias against the poor white male minority) for a search of "taxes near historic lows". http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

You talk of adding noise without light and diminished credibility when you've clearly lied about your position, displaying the most fundamental Republican core value, hypocrisy. Bravo.

@James W. Freston: "...If you say no, then we need a change to someone who can because joblessness is such an important issue. If you say yes, say what he can so to help..."

who we gonna change to...surely not to someone who ,espouses the policies that led to 1929/2008 debacles...BO policies have turned the economy around...and his policies would have been more effective if GOPs had not blocked them (many their own original ideas)...but to corporate tax rate:

just as individual taxes need reform so does the corp tax structure...e.g., establish a “corporate minimum tax” (25%, whatever)...especially on global profits...

as suggested for individuals...a two line 1040 type document: line one gross profit; minimum tax rate times line one...enter tax due on line two...oversimplification...maybe...but somewhere between the two liner and where we are now sorely needed.

currently (as with rich folks) some corps pay zip income tax...may even get tax credits...

makes little sense to argue rates when there are so many loopholes...believe BO has a corporate tax reform plan...anyone know its status or what's the T-GOP plan...

there are no levers BO can pull...well perhaps corp rate could be changed...but how yo gonna pay for it...more cuts to programs for the disabled and education...

joSCh--I didn't say Obama raised taxes on anybody. He hasn't. And I agree that the taxes on the wealthy are low and should be raised. My concern is with the corporate rate specifically. Now, would you respond to my question about how Obama might use his power to help with the jobless situation? Bad news about the economy again today.