No different than what Obama is doing, so why not.

Seems to me we're paying the piper right now. Did you equally critizes Obama when he had dinner at George Clooney's house?

Whats wrong that and i have to wonder why obama wants to turn our country into a socialist state

I agree with Lynette Paulson. Nobama2012

Oh, please, the Hollywood liberals are falling all over themselves to support Obama.

That dog would be safer on Romney's limo than on Obama's dinner plate.

No Chris, his base is hard working people that believe that the government didn't build their small business, they did through their hard work. Workers that believe a good job is the first step toward raising a family. Over 50% of America, that's his base.

Getting the vote of 50% of America would be an amazing feat, considering that only 100 million out of 300 vote in every election. He would have to get 50 million more people out to vote and have no one vote for Obama.

That's actually a sobering and embarresing thought. Thanks for the correction Stuart, I meant over 50% of the people who vote. It's hard for me to believe that about 45% will vote for someone who can't lead.

"government didn't build their small business."

He mentioned how people had help somewhere in their life. From a teacher, from the infrastructure, from many places...yes, including the government. But he also said in the same speech "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/

I just post to point out that this rally cry is taken out of context. Yes, I am left leaning, but before you torch the site and me for being too liberal, make sure you see that the site I quote points out inaccuracies from both camps. Reading these rally cries from both sides and how people take them as the whole story bother me....that's my only point.

The comment was not taken out of context. The infamous comment came directly after he MOCKED business owners for being proud of what they had accomplished. Here it is:

"Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Not only does the "you didn't build that" comment fit the surrounding context, it fits his entire approach to the economy, and indeed the general outlook of every big government liberal I've ever come across in my life. That one basic misconception about government leading business to prosperity instead of the other way around is the primary reason all the Democrats' plans have failed so badly.

It sticks because it explains everything quickly. President Obama and the Democrat party own that comment, and the Republicans won't let them forget it. You can't spin this one.

So you feel that the entire part about having help, being taught what you know, using the government built infrastructures, possibly getting loans...all that isn't true...the govt didn't help them? Was saying directly "you didn't build that" a poor choice of phrasing? Obviously. But, at least to me, the message is coming from the fact that everyone at some point benefited from government funded programs or people around them as well. Not the way it is being portrayed as the owner did nothing and the government should get all the credit.

I understand that you are concerned that the speech talks about "big govt" and getting in everyone's business. Which I can get that from it as well. But there is a difference in talking about "you didn't build that" alone and then adding in all the things that he said about using govt funded things (roads, schools, etc)

Obviously being on different sides of an issue will affect how we read into something, and I get what you are saying. My point here is that it really bothers me when I see political ads and hear people screaming about 1 line of text to make something sound worse then it was. The right won't agree with the entirety of the speech and picked one line to rally on to fire up people who want to be spoon fed anger (and you don't need to get on me....I know the left does the same thing.)

Very well said Jen. Brian, after reading Jen's post above hopefully you'll understand our rallying cry.

Great post, Jen.

"every measurable criteria" seems broad. Here are some things he's done that some find important. Obama voluntarily discloses who visits the White House. Remember we still don't know what energy executives help set the Bush energy policy and we had to sue to see that Jack Ambramoff visited the White House. Obama appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court. He endorsed same sex marriage equality. Signed the Fair Pay Act to make pay discrimination against woman illegal. Signed the Children's Health Insurance Act to cover 4 million children who didn't have health insurance and a total of 11 million. Repealed restrictions on Stem Cell research. Designed the Stimulus Package which helped us from falling off a fiscal cliff in 2008, and yes it has its successes. Ended state sanctioned torture. Got Health Care reform passed.Expanded Pell Grants. Created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in his 8 years as President. Gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
I'm glad the someone put the entire quote in the comments it seems clear to me that "that" means "roads and bridges."
Maybe my list doesn't mean anything to you. You may not care that more children have medical coverage or it's harder to pay women less for the same work. But I think it's a criteria to measure the man. It's also a criteria to measure what came before and the choice we have in front of us.

The fact that he discloses visitors the White House is important because the last administration didn't. Pell Grants are just that Grants, not loans. Health care reform is partly funded by savings in Medicare not "funded by Medicare". This meme of Obama gutting Medicare is false. The statement that "the changes affected every single American in a negative way" is just another false generalization. If I have a son going to graduate school I can now keep him on my insurance. That is a positive change. If I have a pre-existing condition an insurance company can't deny me coverage. That's a positive change. The unbalanced budget is a problem, but not one any Republican cared about before a Democrat was the President. Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter. I think they do but who passed the last balanced budget amendment. That was Bill Clinton and it required Al Gore to vote in the Senate because not one Republican voted for it. To suggest that we should return to the Presidency to the same party that drove us to ruin in 2008 because Obama hasn't solved everyone's problems seems silly to me. I don't expect to change your mind.