Really, Mitt? Shall we compare Obama’s record to the Bush-Cheney record, with all their experience? I don’t think that’s a comparison you Republicans want to invite.

You mean Cheney’s decades in government and Bush’s highly successful and highly bipartisan two terms as governor?   I think anyone without their head up their behind would recognize Bush/Cheney had vastly more experience than Obama.  Heck, a county clerk in a small town will have had more experience. 

Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron. The GOP Committee To Reelect Obama

No doubt they had more experience. It’s hard to argue that. But more is not always better. 

“Deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney  

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” – G.W. Bush

For someone with so much experience why doesn’t President Bush endorse someone or why wont any of the republican candidates mention his name?
Your republican candidates could use an endorsement from a “highly bipartisan two term governor”.

It would be nice to have an extremely successful businessman running things, rather than a communty agitator/rabble rouser/ shakedown artist/ union thug.

 Government is a Business?

Our first MBA president was hardly a success. Bush had a poor track record in the business world before he became governor of Texas. Being from the business world hardly means that you will make a good president. 

No one doubts their “experience.” It’s their results that proved so catastrophic.

Not at all, which is also why you don’t hear Obama comparing his policies to Carter’s, though the similarities are frightful.   Partisanship aside, I expect most Americans would agree Bush/Cheney would have been seen as having done just fine if not for the two wars the liberals so viscerally opposed (though they don’t talk much about how Clinton also was basically at war with Iraq), and Afghanistan was the necessary response to 9/11.   If the libs take their partisan blinders off they’d be able to judge Bush/Cheney on everything else, which although they may disagree with many of the policies they should be honest enough to respect the process and the results.  Ted Kennedy had no problem working with Bush, but apparently by today’s standards Ted Kennedy would be considered a Republican… 

Take your own advice and remove the partisan blinders man. Jesus. The economy went down the tubes during the Bush years, something most Americans believe, because it’s true. Only diehard Bush partisans believe otherwise.

So, lets see what happens when you put someone in charge whose life experiences include being born into an incredibly wealthy political family with ties to a major religion that got him out of military service, someone who has never at any point been through hardship and struggle but does have a lot of experience making decisions that inflict those things on other people.  :)

Yeah, sorry Mitt, you may have experience in the business world, but you have zero experience of the life lived by the people you intend to govern. The result of electing someone with that pedigree from the right was two wars and economic ruin, why would people choose to do that again?

Mitt, I’m not sure I would want to bring up the Salt Lake City Games into this, because that was riddled with corruption. Having said that, that Santorum lacks recent executive experience when that is needed is why I cannot support him.

nice fake likes… in under 5 minutes.. you almost beat norbit.

When did the economy decline and what were the (generalised is fine) reasons?   What did Bush do or not do that caused it?  What might he have done that Democrats would have done that would have prevented it?

9/11 hurt America badly (financially), Bush policies created an impressive recovery from that.  The wars, followed by the continued radicalization of the Democrats compared to their policies in the Clinton years opposed sound Bush policy at every turn, including when he and the Republicans tried to stop what led to the housing crisis.  Remove the partisanship and look at the legislation supported by or coming from the White House and there’s little to criticize other than what you’d have a difference of opinion about.  I’m specifically excluding the wars though, since firstly its too charged a topic and secondly he frankly could and should have executed them a lot better, though I’d argue he did the best he could to accommodate hostile Dems in congress.   Katrina is an excellent example of partisanship placing blame on him when the facts are the real mismanagement was at the state and local level.

Both you and Chuck have the same amount of likes, all from Guests. LOL

Are you that insecure with your comments that you need to pad your data?

hey unemployed, if romney is elected you better get your passports ready, because you’ll all be shipped to india and china to work for $17 a day! that’ll free up enough money to make the state of connecticut one big country club for his buddies!

Does anybody recall Romney’s approval ratings when he left his governorship?

Was it 34%?

Mittens is desperate.  He looks like he dropped his silver spoon and can’t find it.  How dare anyone take away his nomination. 

Yes, extremely successful businessmen make good presidents. Herbert Hoover & George W. Bush for example.

You don’t think the Bush administration could have responded to and handled Katrina better? They are not to blame in any way? Bush was the first president in history to not raise taxes to pay for a foreign war. His tax policies favored the rich and worsened the economy. None of this is a mystery Chuck. 

Gotta hand it to Mitt Romney, he has a knack for crushing the little guy.

I bet he kills himself if he doesn’t get the nomination. 

But, I thought Republicans didn’t like anyone who had worked in the government.

50% is a big number. The President now has it. Mitt will get the nomination but is doomed to lose.

W was touted for his business credentials. He really didn’t have any, other than running a couple of oil companies into the ground, having his father’s friends give him a baseball team, and having the citizens of Arlington and Tarrant County, Texas, build him a baseball stadium. But that didn’t stop you and yours from proclaiming him the MBA President, and just look at the results. The worst recession since the Republican businessman become president, Herbert Hoover’s recession. And, in both instances, Democrats pulled the nation out of the recessions. Really good logic there, Big Petty. But, who am I to argue. Eight (8) guests, 100% of the “likers”,  liked your comment by 10:12 Hours US CST.

I will concede that Willard has had wonderful success in business. Firing people.

I certainly don’t, but I’m not paranoid like some of the far left posters on this site. If they are anonymous (and by the way I don’t how to tell who clicked Like) I suspect it may be non-regular visitors, or perhaps liberals who don’t want to lose their street cred or become targets of attack by hateful liberals.

Then there is this odd “thang”. The purpose of business is generally to make a profit. The purpose of government is generally to secure the nation and its people and to provide for the general welfare. One might thing the processes to reach these goals might well be markedly different. I question the value of business experience in governance. As does history.

But, that’s rounded up, isn’t it?

I wish we had a clearer sense of what the Independent Gretcher O’Van Karlsen thought of this interview.

Robert. What is this “like” crap ? Who the hell cares? Do you care?

Obama has divided the country like no one ever has. Now he wants to get rid of 80% of our nukes. He’s running for office, giving away billions to his donors and running us into bankruptcy. He’s a nut and he has to be replaced with somebody responsible.

I loved Rumsfeld, he was a riot.  I wish he would have served during peacetime.

He is witty. The job seemed simply to be beyond him. And, I don’t particularly blame him. The mission kept changing. You will recall in those seven (7) or so months preceding 11 September, he was tasked with a significant downsizing of the military. He didn’t have yet another war in him.

At 10:39 Hours, US CST, all of your “likes” were from “guests”.

Which relates to business experience, how?

Why don’t you explain it ?

Investigate.

If government was a business, it would have fired people and cut expenses and worked to serve it’s customers better.

But no, they can print money and take money so it’s still here.

Not my job, Big Petty, not my job.

You ought to have used the conditional, “If government were a business ….”

Otherwise, a feeble argument ….

Then it must be your buddy, Gloves, doing all the work for you.  You should thank him next time ya see him.

Government is more like the mafia. Doing favors for money and giving money for favors. Tony Soprano even called the protection money he collected “taxes”.

Robert.

Then you and the rest of the nitwits on here quit making stupid allegations about something so meaningless.

But look what they did with that experience, was there nothing in their experience which warned of the futility of unprovoked war, or did they use their experience to profit from the business of war?  Noone has the experience of being President until they get elected, some get it, some don’t.  OBAMA 2012

you fool, a successful businessman is used to everyone, and I mean everyone

FACTS ABOUT THE PRECIOUS PRESIDENT BUSH THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED:The 2001-2009 presidency of George W. Bush ends in less than a week, so it’s appropriate to evaluate the Bush years and his economic legacy.

Two foreign policy notes (which also affected economic conditions): History will determine whether the Iraq War did/did not further American interests of democracy and an enduring peace in the Middle East.

Also, President Bush effectively maintained the safety of the United States at home: there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

**
As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the ‘Roaring 90s’ — with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut — a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

Tax cut favored the rich

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens — Bush’s political base — and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush’s refusal to build on President Clinton’s successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies — which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually — further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, “If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life.” President Bush disagreed with Clinton’s policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.Low job growthFurther, given a lack of legitimate engines of growth (new sectors), and the continuing march of globalization, low- to moderate-job growth — job creation inadequate for sustainable U.S. GDP growth — was almost guaranteed, as well, and this is exactly what transpired during the Bush years. President George W. Bush presided over the creation of fewer jobs in the U.S. economy in the modern era than any president since President Herbert Hoover, according to U.S. Labor Department data. True, for a while, aided by lower interest rates, and dozens of new mortgage products, GDP growth hit adequate levels of 3.6%, 2.95%, and 2.8% in 2004-2006, but too often the consumption-led commerce gains were fueled by unsustainable sources: home-equity loans, refinances, and house sale gains, not job creation and new sectors of growth. Massive budget deficitsFurther, a debt trap began to build. Excessive homeowner borrowing increased private debt, and that fact, combined with public borrowing to pay for defense spending for the Iraq War and the War on Terror — Bush opposed tax increases to pay for the increased defense spending — meant the United States was piling-up debt at a record rate, in just about every corner of its economy: private, public, corporate. At the end of President Clinton’s presidency, the federal government was running a yearly budget surplus, and the national debt was about $6 trillion. At the end of President Bush’s presidency, the federal government will run a record budget deficit of more than $1 trillion this year, fiscal 2009, and the national debt has grown to $10.6 trillion.In short, Bush’s tax cut massively benefited upper income citizens at the expense of both squandering the budget surplus achieved during the Clinton presidency and jeopardizing the nation’s financial health.No energy policyFurther, Bush had no energy policy, preferring to ‘let the market determine the price for oil’ and the kinds of cars auto makers want to manufacture. Bush also opposed Democratic Party efforts to make domestic vehicles more fuel-efficient. As a result, when emerging market oil demand and investor speculation pushed oil over $80 per barrel in 2007 and then over $100 in 2008, high energy costs squeezed disposable income further, almost guaranteeing a recession. The recession appeared, starting in late 2007, aggravated if not outright triggered by the U.S.’s third oil shock in 35 years. Further, sales of less-efficient U.S. manufactured cars and SUVs slumped badly. And by the end of 2008, Detroit’s auto makers, devoid of stylish, high-m.p.g. vehicles, would need a massive government loan to avoid bankruptcy.To be sure, the oil patch states of Texas and Oklahoma boomed, but every other region of the country suffered economically during the Bush years. Further, when the housing bubble burst and hundreds of billions of mortgage-backed securities went bad, the financial crisis began, spread around the world, and the U.S. recession deepened, with corporate revenue and earnings declining and job lay-offs mounting. More than 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone, and the unemployment rate, which stood at 4.2% when President Clinton left office in January 2001, has rocketed to 7.2% in January 2009, as President Bush leaves office. Another stat for the ages: The current recession is already the worst since the 1981-1982 Reagan recession and many economists say the U.S. will be fortunate to enter a recovery by Q4 2009. Very fortunate. And the stock market? Even after discounting for the overvalued stock market at the end of the Clinton Administration in January 2001, the stock market has still declined, in real terms, as President Bush leaves office in January 2009. That’s eight years, no gain in Dow. Further, the Dow is currently trading around 8,000 and many economists say the U.S. will be lucky if it ends 2009 at that level.There were some economic successes during the ‘Bush 43′ era: trade ties were expanded, exports rose, and inflation remained low/moderate through his eight years. And, as noted, one segment of society (upper-income citizens) saw an increase in wealth. But those few positives in no way blot-out the Bush Administration’s many failures: scant job creation, unemployment high and rising, declining real median incomes, record budget deficits, record home foreclosures, a large trade deficit, no energy policy, no health care policy, and increasing poverty rates, among other problems. Add on to the above two other unknowns: two wars. As noted, it’s too soon tell if President Bush’s foreign policy will further American interests of democracy and an enduring peace in the Middle East, so his foreign policy performance is inconclusive. But on economic policy, President George W. Bush has performed abysmally, and he will most likely rank as the United States’ worst president on economic policy since President Herbert Hoover.

He did struggle here in Massachusetts when he wanted to destroy the landscape with a huge unsightly Mormon temple.  He finally won, but at a great cost in resentment from the neighboring communities.

No, but maybe things wouldn’t be so bad if it was run like one. Do you seriously think there isn’t a crap load of waste on all levels of government (federal, state, local)? Do you honestly believe that any level of government is run efficiently? 

What recourse do the tax payers have? Yes, they can vote out people/vote people in, but it is normally business as usual as the Washington game just continues and that is true for people with a “D” or a “R” at the end of their name. Also, people can’t vote with their wallet if they are upset. They can’t legally refuse to pay their taxes.No, a government cannot be run exactly like a business, but we as a county would be in a lot better financial shape if we took a business-like approach some of the time.

Thank you CNICK, there is not a person alive that has experience as President, unless they’ve been one. Promises can be made during a campaign, but the blissfully ignorant cannot seem to fathom that whatever promises are made, aren’t necessarily going to pan out, there are always circumstances that prevent certain things from happening. I believe more can be done for the economy, but an economy that was on the decline PRIOR to President Obama’s election was in the making since 2001. It amazes me that people cannot see that this is an issue that didn’t occur overnight, but is expected to be fixed in four years. Why is it that the national debt is so high? Well, you can’t say that Obama is the only president to increase the national debt…..I’m amazed that people believe this, and ignore things like these facts: > Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

Obama very well may have a larger increase but it’s hard to not look at what he was working with in the first place.

I am not making any accusations, but merely commenting on the disproportionate number of “likes” you receive from “guests”. You may infer what you wish. I report – You decide.

It is most unfortunate to read comments from the likes of the Gloves person who’s clearly incapable of understanding thus limiting the ability to effectively relate to the complex nature of socialization. In other words, you don’t quite understand how to engage in an intellectual debate but you’d rather resort to juvenile antics as name calling and making biased statements that are not, and can not be supported by any factual data. It’s like talking to child.

Why are you trying to debate issues of politics. You clearly don’t have the intellect necessary to effectively express a valid point. Your comments are quite juvenile.

You are right, companies want to make a profit. The purpose of the government is national security and the general welfare of the its citizens. I don’t disagree with the overall premise, but probably do with the degree it is done.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of “general welfare?” In your opinion, does the government currently do enough for the “general welfare” of its citizens? What things would you cover? Are there any programs that you would eliminate? How does the citizen hold up their end of the deal?

“And I worked with the Catholic Church to put in place a piece of legislation to allow the Catholic Church to stay in the adoption business.”

So what kind of profit margins can you earn in the adoption *business?

*Edit: This is why his handlers don’t let him on TV

Why are you commenting? Shouldn’t you be in school?

Obama has not divided the country. You people seriously need to take ONE stance on the issues at hand and stick to them. You don’t want to give him credit for the positive tasks that he’s spoken on and subsequently delivered, however, you’ll credit him with being so mighty and powerful that he alone can divide an entire country. Amazing. The country was already divided, it is the criticism of THIS president that made that division more prominent. Forums such as this divide the country, not one man.

Excuse me, I’d really like to see a CREDIBLE source that says President Obama has settled on 80% of OUR nuclear weapons. There are none. You probably should just STOP embarrassing yourself with this nonsense. You’re again, obviously, and I might add painfully ignorant to any substantial issue at hand. You haven’t an ounce of intellect to engage in such discussions. You’re spouting off rumors only found on the tinfoil tyrant websites, and think that you’re backing your claims up with facts.

THIS IS PROBALY WHAT GLOVES OLIVER DELIVERANCE IS TALKING ABOUT “The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.”

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.
Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.
A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.
The Pentagon’s press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several “alternative approaches” to nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.
Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, “The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security.”
Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear “umbrella” that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.
The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.
The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.
Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is “poorly suited” to deal with challenges posed by “unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons” _ an apparent reference to Iran.
It’s unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.
The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration’s review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.
Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had “hypothetically excellent,” if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.
In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn’t matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.
New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this “triad” of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.
As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.
In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon’s point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.
In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was “what to do” if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.
“In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?” he said.
Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.
Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran’s suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

YES, it is long, but it’s the closest thing to what you’re referring to. Perhaps to reduce the ignorance factor you have, that is screaming at us on this forum you should take a moment to educate yourself on what the true issue is, and the reasoning behind it. Perhaps then you could get a better understanding as to why THE OPTION of reducing nukes UP to 80% is significant.

Wow….these republican losers are so desperate that they will make up and say any lies about the president.  All these GOP losers are in a position where they are on the wrong side of history and every issue in this nation and they cannot find anything flithier than their own personal reflection.  As such, they have no integrity and the only thing they can try is simply to make up lies about Obama and continue to feed those lies to people who thrive on stupidity.  The hope would be that the idiots within the electorate will eventually begin to believe their GOP lies.  What a bunch of morons on Fox and in the GOP.

 Oh my. I think JCP1975 just exposed why Gloves T. Donahue seems to frequently position his comment so it is at the top when you use the Disqus sort by “Best Rating” feature.

I.E., he creates a bunch of Guest accounts and then deceptively pads the number of likes so he can top post.

Excellent sleuthing JCP1975.

I think you nailed it.

Perhaps Mediaite could improve their credibility by forcing unique names in order to make comments.

I have sent email to Mediaite’s Tip Line regarding what appears to be a deceptive use of the Disqus “Likes” button by Gloves T. Donahue whereby he creates over 25 Guest accounts to pad the number of likes.

If Mediaite replies that they contacted Gloves T. Donahue and I am mistaken, then I will gladly and meekly offer my sincere apology.

For now I am thanking JCP1975 and others for uncovering this deceptive practice.Hopefully he will voluntarily cease and desist.

Gloves is Steve Grammatico.
http://bigjournalism.com/author/sgrammatico/
He is here to disrupt the digital public sphere on behalf of his BIG Boss.
The likes are part of a larger plan.

So Romney thinks we need a CEO president?  Wasn’t the last one a CEO?