Community Organizer 1, CEO 0
Options
Azdak
Posts: 8,281 Member
A common theme I saw among supporters of Mitt Romney for President was that they preferred him because of his "business experience". Because he was a "businessman", he would be better suited to deal with economic issues than President Obama. The idea of the "CEO in Chief" has been raised many times in elections before. As a society, we give a lot of deference to corporate CEOs. Successful ones--or even those who create the appearance of success--are seen to have extraordinary abilities and insight into almost everything, not just business. (see Bill Gates and his f*cked up ideas on education)
President Obama, on the other hand, was and is constantly denigrated as a "community organizer" by conservatives. "Community Organizer" has a nice "liberaley" ring to it. Just the right blend of condescension and bigotry, without being too overt. An easy way for shallow people to dismiss Obama's abilities and accomplishments without actually having to present a cogent argument--you know, one with facts and stuff.
The "community organizer" theme conveniently ignored some very important facts. The most blatant was the fact that Obama had shown an extraordinary level of executive competence. From scratch, he created a billion-dollar company, with an organization that stretched to all 50 states. That company had a focused strategic vision and business plan. The company created innovative technology and marketing strategies. The CEO and his executives managed a substantial labor force and also had to negotiate with dozens of state and local government agencies. This start up company took on the most well-established and successful competitors in its market. In the end, the company executed it's business plan flawlessly, and Barack Obama was elected President in November 2008.
And this week, he and his company did it again.
Tell me again--how did the so-called expert "businessman" do?
IMO, the "business" of running a the US government is different than running a corporation. That's not to say that a successful corporate CEO cannot be a successful President. It just means that the abilities that make one a CEO do not mean they are substantially more qualified to be President than anyone else.
I think this is patently obvious, not just in the case of Romney, but looking at other recent attempts by CEOs to run for public office, and by the behavior of other executives as they become more active in politics.
Does anyone remember the spectacular failures of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman? The more recent stumbling about by Linda McMahon?
And what about those who have decided to become "kingmakers" behind the scenes, taking advantage of the Citizens United SCOTUS decision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections. Or the CEOs who tried to intimidate their workers by threatening job losses if Obama was re-elected?
The almost painful-to-watch public meltdown of Jack Welch--considered one of the most successful CEOs of modern times.
Donald Trump.
It seems obvious to me that the drive and talent that it takes to be successful in business, does not automatically translate into competence in politics, or even in the real world in general.
The stories that are now coming out about the obliviousness of Romney, his campaign team, and his corporate backers to what was happening in the electorate in the days leading up to the election are unbelievable. At first, they were just comical--a chance for Obama supporters to revel in schadenfreude. The more I read, however, the more frightening it became that these guys came really close to being in charge of our government.
It seems that the Romney campaign, and his financial backers completely bought into the fantasy of the "Unskewed polls" that echoed throughout Fox and the right-wing echo chamber. They flew their jets to Boston, prepared the big fireworks display, and then looked on in stunned disbelief when the artificial realty they thought they had bought and pre-assembled did not materialize. (I keep seeing Karl Rove as the Rankin Fitch character played by Gene Hackman in "Runaway Jury").
A large number of the supposedly smartest guys in America were intellectually unable or too lazy to even consider the possibility that the wealth of objective, professional polling data that pointed to the Obama victory could be accurate. It's not like it was hidden or anything.
Quotes have come out saying, "they (Obama campaign) blindsided us"; "they turned out voters we didn't even know existed".
Smug with the assurance of their inherent superiority, the got their *kitten* kicked again by the skinny black "community organizer" with "no business experience".
The fact is that the Obama campaign and their lazy, big-government-handout-loving supporters out-organized, out-strategized, out-innovated, and just plan outworked Romney, Karl Rove, **** Armey, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, Marvin Adelman, and the best that the Republicans had to offer. Just as they did the Clintons and the Republicans in 2008.
So the next time we do this, can we put the whole "we need a CEO to be President" nonsense aside and look at the actual abilities of the candidates running?
President Obama, on the other hand, was and is constantly denigrated as a "community organizer" by conservatives. "Community Organizer" has a nice "liberaley" ring to it. Just the right blend of condescension and bigotry, without being too overt. An easy way for shallow people to dismiss Obama's abilities and accomplishments without actually having to present a cogent argument--you know, one with facts and stuff.
The "community organizer" theme conveniently ignored some very important facts. The most blatant was the fact that Obama had shown an extraordinary level of executive competence. From scratch, he created a billion-dollar company, with an organization that stretched to all 50 states. That company had a focused strategic vision and business plan. The company created innovative technology and marketing strategies. The CEO and his executives managed a substantial labor force and also had to negotiate with dozens of state and local government agencies. This start up company took on the most well-established and successful competitors in its market. In the end, the company executed it's business plan flawlessly, and Barack Obama was elected President in November 2008.
And this week, he and his company did it again.
Tell me again--how did the so-called expert "businessman" do?
IMO, the "business" of running a the US government is different than running a corporation. That's not to say that a successful corporate CEO cannot be a successful President. It just means that the abilities that make one a CEO do not mean they are substantially more qualified to be President than anyone else.
I think this is patently obvious, not just in the case of Romney, but looking at other recent attempts by CEOs to run for public office, and by the behavior of other executives as they become more active in politics.
Does anyone remember the spectacular failures of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman? The more recent stumbling about by Linda McMahon?
And what about those who have decided to become "kingmakers" behind the scenes, taking advantage of the Citizens United SCOTUS decision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections. Or the CEOs who tried to intimidate their workers by threatening job losses if Obama was re-elected?
The almost painful-to-watch public meltdown of Jack Welch--considered one of the most successful CEOs of modern times.
Donald Trump.
It seems obvious to me that the drive and talent that it takes to be successful in business, does not automatically translate into competence in politics, or even in the real world in general.
The stories that are now coming out about the obliviousness of Romney, his campaign team, and his corporate backers to what was happening in the electorate in the days leading up to the election are unbelievable. At first, they were just comical--a chance for Obama supporters to revel in schadenfreude. The more I read, however, the more frightening it became that these guys came really close to being in charge of our government.
It seems that the Romney campaign, and his financial backers completely bought into the fantasy of the "Unskewed polls" that echoed throughout Fox and the right-wing echo chamber. They flew their jets to Boston, prepared the big fireworks display, and then looked on in stunned disbelief when the artificial realty they thought they had bought and pre-assembled did not materialize. (I keep seeing Karl Rove as the Rankin Fitch character played by Gene Hackman in "Runaway Jury").
A large number of the supposedly smartest guys in America were intellectually unable or too lazy to even consider the possibility that the wealth of objective, professional polling data that pointed to the Obama victory could be accurate. It's not like it was hidden or anything.
Quotes have come out saying, "they (Obama campaign) blindsided us"; "they turned out voters we didn't even know existed".
Smug with the assurance of their inherent superiority, the got their *kitten* kicked again by the skinny black "community organizer" with "no business experience".
The fact is that the Obama campaign and their lazy, big-government-handout-loving supporters out-organized, out-strategized, out-innovated, and just plan outworked Romney, Karl Rove, **** Armey, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, Marvin Adelman, and the best that the Republicans had to offer. Just as they did the Clintons and the Republicans in 2008.
So the next time we do this, can we put the whole "we need a CEO to be President" nonsense aside and look at the actual abilities of the candidates running?
0
Replies
-
I never understood how people used the fact that Obama was a community organizer as a slam. Ok, maybe if that was the only accomplishment on his resume, I could see that. But the more amazing thing are the people who criticize him. Take Sarah Palin. That ding bat consistently disparaged him because at the age of 24, he was a community organizer. Yes Sarah, we all know that presidential hopefuls should spend their early 20s doing things that really matter, like entering and winning beauty pageants. It's like I keep saying in all of these posts...when you debate these people, it's as if they just say the first idiotic thing that comes to mind, accept it as truth, and stop thinking about it after that.
As far as I am concerned, CEO Romney lost any chance of my vote when he was asked if he would consider striking Iran without the authorization of congress and he said.."I would have to check with my lawyers." He said this during a live debate. I thought poor Ron Paul's head was going to explode and he began sqawking "CHECK YOUR LAWYERS, why don't you just read the constiturion!' It was sort of funny.0 -
Sorry, you lost me at the title.0
-
Sorry, you lost me at the title.
Was there a different election last Tuesday that I missed?
Or are you clinging to the "moochers" rationalization?
Or, addressing the larger question, do you agree with the idea that "businessmen" make better political leaders? Or that the performance of Romney demonstrated any leadership ability whatsoever?
Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but it seems that a lot of people have invested a lot of their psychological well-being into the idea that Obama is some incompetent fool, a cardboard figure elevated to the Presidency by a fawning media, minorities looking for a handout, and ignorant white people suffering from racial guilt.
It is testimony to the power of denial, that these people continue to insist this, despite mountains of easily-accessible data to the contrary. And now that we have the inside stories coming out about how the campaigns were run, we know (again) that Obama was able to put together a billion-dollar operation that, in terms of strategy, organization, and tactics, was superior to anything done before in American politics. (Oh, and at the same time serve as President).0 -
Nope... I get irrated when people (regardless of political leaning) perpetuate this idea that politics is us vs them or that it's no different than the local football rivalry. It's a reason I didn't vote for the Republicans in our state... it's the reason I didn't vote for any incumbant. I'm tired of it and I will tell anyone... here, on facebook, in the comment section of an editoral in our local paper.... that keeps perpetuating this idea that is only driving a wedge between our country... And just because it seems like I am picking on you for it, I assure you I am not... I lay it on my friends on facebook that do it too (and most of them are Republicans)... again, Republican or Democrat....
That is how you lost me at your title... It's basically scoring your "side" with a point.0 -
The fact is that the Obama campaign and their lazy, big-government-handout-loving supporters out-organized, out-strategized, out-innovated, and just plan outworked Romney, Karl Rove, **** Armey, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, Marvin Adelman, and the best that the Republicans had to offer. Just as they did the Clintons and the Republicans in 2008.
So what you are saying is lazy, big government handout loving supporters will work their *kitten* off to keep the gravy train flowing?0 -
Nope... I get irrated when people (regardless of political leaning) perpetuate this idea that politics is us vs them or that it's no different than the local football rivalry. It's a reason I didn't vote for the Republicans in our state... it's the reason I didn't vote for any incumbant. I'm tired of it and I will tell anyone... here, on facebook, in the comment section of an editoral in our local paper.... that keeps perpetuating this idea that is only driving a wedge between our country... And just because it seems like I am picking on you for it, I assure you I am not... I lay it on my friends on facebook that do it too (and most of them are Republicans)... again, Republican or Democrat....
That is how you lost me at your title... It's basically scoring your "side" with a point.
Not the entire idea behind the OP--but you have to admit, I had SOME justification for at least a small end-zone dance......
But I do appreciate your perspective.0 -
The community organizer ran an amazing ground game, contacting voters directly and making sure they came to the polls. The businessman bought a lot of television ads that people ignored.0
-
Nope... I get irrated when people (regardless of political leaning) perpetuate this idea that politics is us vs them or that it's no different than the local football rivalry. It's a reason I didn't vote for the Republicans in our state... it's the reason I didn't vote for any incumbant. I'm tired of it and I will tell anyone... here, on facebook, in the comment section of an editoral in our local paper.... that keeps perpetuating this idea that is only driving a wedge between our country... And just because it seems like I am picking on you for it, I assure you I am not... I lay it on my friends on facebook that do it too (and most of them are Republicans)... again, Republican or Democrat....
That is how you lost me at your title... It's basically scoring your "side" with a point.
Not the entire idea behind the OP--but you have to admit, I had SOME justification for at least a small end-zone dance......
But I do appreciate your perspective.
I get that it's not the idea behind the op... and I can see where your prespective comes... personally, I would have seen them skip the CEO bit and focus on his term as Governor... but then why would they want to do that... that would mean painting Romney as a Centrist instead of a Conservative... because only businessmen can be conservative... *rolls eyes*
It's just irritating, when someone wins it seems like everyone all around you is trying to rub in the face of the losers, thus producing sore winners and losers. I come from Texas, where football is king (Mac Brown and a couple of other college coaches, get paid WAY more than the Governor does)... and so when you start seeing it in things that truly do matter it's tiring... and then things like our congress happen... What happened to compromise... Hell, even in the 90's where Republicans really took the "moral authority" crap to heart, we still saw compromise... But not anymore.
And I really hope that Boehner is not paying lipservice when he is saying that he will compromise (though I'm sure that hope will be very short lived).
ETA: sorry for any misspellings and grammar errors... I have a headache and am on a rant this morning.... fighting with stupid people on our local paper's website on whether or not Texas should secede (which I am on the no side btw)0 -
I'd say "Good Riddance." And "Would you please take Florida with you?"
I'm joking. I'm joking.
0 -
I'd say "Good Riddance." And "Would you please take Florida with you?"
I'm joking. I'm joking.
Hey leave my poor state alone :grumble: Not everyone who lives here is nuts you know0 -
I especially loved this part of the original post:Obama had shown an extraordinary level of executive competence. From scratch, he created a billion-dollar company, with an organization that stretched to all 50 states. That company had a focused strategic vision and business plan. The company created innovative technology and marketing strategies. The CEO and his executives managed a substantial labor force and also had to negotiate with dozens of state and local government agencies. This start up company took on the most well-established and successful competitors in its market. In the end, the company executed it's business plan flawlessly, and Barack Obama was elected President in November 2008.
Running a presidential campaign is not the same as running a presidential administration, but it's a closer than running a private company is.0 -
Nope... I get irrated when people (regardless of political leaning) perpetuate this idea that politics is us vs them or that it's no different than the local football rivalry. It's a reason I didn't vote for the Republicans in our state... it's the reason I didn't vote for any incumbant. I'm tired of it and I will tell anyone... here, on facebook, in the comment section of an editoral in our local paper.... that keeps perpetuating this idea that is only driving a wedge between our country... And just because it seems like I am picking on you for it, I assure you I am not... I lay it on my friends on facebook that do it too (and most of them are Republicans)... again, Republican or Democrat....
That is how you lost me at your title... It's basically scoring your "side" with a point.
Not the entire idea behind the OP--but you have to admit, I had SOME justification for at least a small end-zone dance......
But I do appreciate your perspective.
I get that it's not the idea behind the op... and I can see where your prespective comes... personally, I would have seen them skip the CEO bit and focus on his term as Governor... but then why would they want to do that... that would mean painting Romney as a Centrist instead of a Conservative... because only businessmen can be conservative... *rolls eyes*
It's just irritating, when someone wins it seems like everyone all around you is trying to rub in the face of the losers, thus producing sore winners and losers. I come from Texas, where football is king (Mac Brown and a couple of other college coaches, get paid WAY more than the Governor does)... and so when you start seeing it in things that truly do matter it's tiring... and then things like our congress happen... What happened to compromise... Hell, even in the 90's where Republicans really took the "moral authority" crap to heart, we still saw compromise... But not anymore.
And I really hope that Boehner is not paying lipservice when he is saying that he will compromise (though I'm sure that hope will be very short lived).
ETA: sorry for any misspellings and grammar errors... I have a headache and am on a rant this morning.... fighting with stupid people on our local paper's website on whether or not Texas should secede (which I am on the no side btw)
The book "Showdown" by David Corn did a really good job of giving a behind the scenes view of what took place during the "debt ceiling" fights in the first term. Essentially, both Obama and Boehner were willing to agree to things that would anger their bases. However, Boehner could not deliver his caucus and basically just melted away and did a 180. It was at that point that Obama finally decided that the "bipartisan" thing wasn't working and he would have to do things on his own.
Given that the same figures are shaping up to fight the same battle, I plan to read it again, and I would recommend it to everyone. It will provide some interesting background, even though the political landscape may be different this time.
Before, it was Republicans who were in the ascendancy after the 2010 elections. Now Obama would seem to have more leverage.
Obama really wants to be the guy to deliver the Grand Bargain--to the point where (IMO) he is willing to compromise a lot more than his supporters are comfortable with. But the last time, the Republican position ultimately was: "Compromise" means you giving us everything we want, so he may not be so willing to give away the store before negotiations start. Curious to see what he says today.
And no matter what, it still remains to be seen whether Boehner can deliver his side of the votes.
One thing: I would not put too much stock into what anyone on either side says right now--the public posturing has just begun.0 -
Sorry, Jenbit. I've spent three weeks in Florida in the last two years, where I had a great time and met some great people.
It's just that every time I see Florida try to count its ballots or every time I turn on 60 Minutes, it seems Florida has invented some new form of corruption to foist on the nation.
Nothing against you or the average Floridian, just the political culture.0 -
I'd say "Good Riddance." And "Would you please take Florida with you?"
I'm joking. I'm joking.
Hey leave my poor state alone :grumble: Not everyone who lives here is nuts you know
Not all of us in Texas are nuts either... However, I do wish we were a little more libertarian than we pretend to be... but what do I know.0 -
I haven't been to Texas in a decade or so, but I used to spend a fair amount of time there and have happy memories of the place. I know y'all are not all crazy. You gave us the Dixie Chicks as well as two or three Bushes, after all!0
-
Sorry, Jenbit. I've spent three weeks in Florida in the last two year, where I had a great time and met some great people.
It's just that every time I see Florida try to count its ballots or every time I turn on 60 Minutes, it seems Florida has invented some new form of corruption to foist on the nation.
Nothing against you or the average Floridian, just the political culture.
I would also like to point out that Florida is the only state that Fark.com had to give its own story tag.0 -
I haven't been to Texas in a decade or so, but I used to spend a fair amount of time there and have happy memories of the place. I know y'all are not all crazy. You gave us the Dixie Chicks as well as two or three Bushes, after all!
Hahaha... I used to love the Dixie Chicks.... I'm from the same area as Natalie... and her family are local legends in our area (even though people that I used to know that went to highschool with her said she was a spoiled brat)... but I digress... I used to like them BEFORE the whole debacle... and not necessarily what happened or what was said, but more the backlash and then the bitterness... but I digress again.
Republicans might win again if they didn't put up wishy washy candidates that couldn't tell their front from their back... It really has little to do with the work they have done in a previous life... because let's face it... unless they are still living like middle class folk, and having to struggle like middle class folk, I just can't believe that they know or remember what it's like. But that's just my opinion that once you are so far removed from the struggles of a certian life, you forget what it was like. The money makes you soft.... now that's not to say that if one gets to that point of ease that they don't deserve it or shouldn't live that way if it is within their means... but don't pretend that to know what it is like to pay $4 for a gallon of gas, when you probably have someone do it for you... or you have a large enough balance on your plastic card that you don't have to worry about it and it's been that way since before gas was $2 a gallon. So community organizer or CEO... I just can't believe that they are remembering or knowing all that well what people down here are going through... But that's just my opinion on all politicians... not just Obama or Romney... considering most of them make more than twice what even my husband does in a year... AND they have a job at home they earn income off of as well.0 -
I don't really think anyone would have been able to beat Obama. His base loves him and he really has not done a bad job. I just hope he can get together with Congress and fix crap that should have been fixed years ago. Hopefully, without having to worry about getting reelected he can give more then he would have last term and Republicans with their backs to the wall give more then they would have last term. It may take letting the Bush tax cuts expire to really light a fire under the Republican's *kitten*.
With regards to Republicans... If they continue putting social conservative up for national office they are going to get killed. Maybe its time for Republicans to disappear and let the Libertarians take over.0 -
I don't really think anyone would have been able to beat Obama.
I agree that none of the clowns who ran for the Republican nomination could have beat Obama. And all the Republicans who could have beat him came to the same conclusion as you and decided to bide their time until 2016.
Pretty amazing considering the continuing poor state of the economy . . . until I remember that polls show that most voters still remembered who put us into this mess and decided four years aren't enough to climb out of a hole that it took eight years to get into.0 -
I don't really think anyone would have been able to beat Obama.
I agree that none of the clowns who ran for the Republican nomination could have beat Obama. And all the Republicans who could have beat him came to the same conclusion as you and decided to bide their time until 2016.
Pretty amazing considering the continuing poor state of the economy . . . until I remember that polls show that most voters still remembered who put us into this mess and decided four years aren't enough to climb out of a hole that it took eight years to get into.
That's the thing... Every poll I saw pre-election showed that voters thought Romney would do a better job with the economy then Obama. This election should have been about the economy but ended up not. Romney brought too many negatives to the table which outweighed any good he could have done on the economic side of things. In the end, I hope Obama kicks some *kitten* with the economy and gets to appoint a bunch of supreme court justices along the way.0 -
I don't really think anyone would have been able to beat Obama.
I agree that none of the clowns who ran for the Republican nomination could have beat Obama. And all the Republicans who could have beat him came to the same conclusion as you and decided to bide their time until 2016.
Pretty amazing considering the continuing poor state of the economy . . . until I remember that polls show that most voters still remembered who put us into this mess and decided four years aren't enough to climb out of a hole that it took eight years to get into.
That's the thing... Every poll I saw pre-election showed that voters thought Romney would do a better job with the economy then Obama. This election should have been about the economy but ended up not. Romney brought too many negatives to the table which outweighed any good he could have done on the economic side of things. In the end, I hope Obama kicks some *kitten* with the economy and gets to appoint a bunch of supreme court justices along the way.
This exactly. The social agenda of the Republican party outweighed the economy. If Romney had run as the moderate he really was while also choosing a less extreme running mate, he would have easily won.0 -
From scratch, he created a billion-dollar company, with an organization that stretched to all 50 states. That company had a focused strategic vision and business plan. The company created innovative technology and marketing strategies. The CEO and his executives managed a substantial labor force and also had to negotiate with dozens of state and local government agencies. This start up company took on the most well-established and successful competitors in its market. In the end, the company executed it's business plan flawlessly, and Barack Obama was elected President in November 2008.
And this week, he and his company did it again.
Tell me again--how did the so-called expert "businessman" do?
been sitting here scratching my head.
What COMPANY did he create? His own presidency? Is that what you're referring to?
How profitable has this "company" been? What sort of "company" refuses to even write a budget, much less adhere to one? What sort of company has the ability to force consumers to spend money against their will? Or just go to foreign countries and keep borrowing money endlessly?
That is NOT the def. of a COMPANY. Companies should be profitable before they get declared a success.
This is out there, even for you.0 -
And what about the CEOs who tried to intimidate their workers by threatening job losses if Obama was re-elected?
One day after the election, Boeing announced it will be leaving California. Guess they were serious.0 -
Boeing announced no such thing. I don't know where you get your news, but if that is typical you should not believe a word they say.0
-
been sitting here scratching my head.
What COMPANY did he create? His own presidency? Is that what you're referring to?
The 2008 and 2012 campaigns, obviously. They were huge organizations with one goal: get Obama elected. And they succeeded both times.0 -
been sitting here scratching my head.
What COMPANY did he create? His own presidency? Is that what you're referring to?
The 2008 and 2012 campaigns, obviously. They were huge organizations with one goal: get Obama elected. And they succeeded both times.
I guess the financial health of America was just a secondary thought then......0 -
Boeing announced no such thing. I don't know where you get your news, but if that is typical you should not believe a word they say.
if you say so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8A61Z3201211070 -
been sitting here scratching my head.
What COMPANY did he create? His own presidency? Is that what you're referring to?
The 2008 and 2012 campaigns, obviously. They were huge organizations with one goal: get Obama elected. And they succeeded both times.
I guess the financial health of America was just a secondary thought then......
Every politician is constantly running for reelection. One could argue that the financial health of America was a secondary thought to the US House which is why they refused to compromise as well.
The point of the OP was that while Obama was being painted as having no executive experience, the management of his campaign showed that he is capable of running a large operation to successfully achieve its goals.
I, for one, disagree that it requires someone with executive experience to be president because a top executive is not used to being overruled or having to compromise. Also, the accounting structure of a nation is quite different from a large company.0 -
Boeing announced no such thing. I don't know where you get your news, but if that is typical you should not believe a word they say.
if you say so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8A61Z320121107
From the article:Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest supplier, said it also will close some facilities in California and consolidate several business units in an effort to trim $1.6 billion in costs by the end of 2015, on top of $2.2 billion in reductions achieved since 2010.Boeing said the changes were not a direct response to the threat of additional, across-the-board budget cuts due to take effect on January 2, or the outcome of U.S. elections, but marked another step in its long-term effort to be more competitive.0 -
The point of the OP was that while Obama was being painted as having no executive experience, the management of his campaign showed that he is capable of running a large operation to successfully achieve its goals.
So? The head of the Mafia is qualified to run the country under those qualifications.....running a large organization and accomplishing its goals.......and the Mafia boss even makes sure his organization is profitable.
I wanted a president whose goal was to improve America's financial health, not just get re-elected at any cost.0
This discussion has been closed.