Does President Obama Deserve Re-Election?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very well put...

at the top of the list should be "...30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan.." Now there is a gaffe:eek: A deadly and expensive one.

Too bad about the '57' he could have got away with 54 states and territories I think but '57' leaves the impression he had ketchup on his mind-maybe there was a burger waiting back stage:)
 
Matthew said:
The whole 57 states thing is about as dumb as the Dan Quayle "potatoe" episode. The idea that Obama doesn't know how many states there are is ridiculous. If you are going to ridicule Obama for something he said that's gotta be at the bottom of the list of things to use.
Click to expand...

Yep... just a misstatement when he was extremely tired.
 
As we seem to be making simple...

speculation here I would say he was elected in spite of his race or with indifference to it. There is not enough 'liberal guilt' in the country to put anyone in the White House.
Everyone is underqualified for the office. In the whole history of the country how many truly great men hve been President?
3? 4? maybe. Besides his underqualification, if it exists at all, is not the point, his performance is.
 
Chris St-Louis said:
To think that our current presidents race was not a factor in his getting elected is putting way too much faith in your fellow man. To that end, I say that we have a underqualified person in a job that he was hired at least in part due to his race. This isnt racist, this is a observation.
Click to expand...

I think there were people - not an insignificant number - who were caught up in the whole notion that the act of electing a black president said some wonderful things about America (it did, but, unfortunately, the wrong person was chosen), that it had historic implications (it has) and they wanted to be a part of that. They could feel good about themselves. That trumped qualifications, background, record, etc..

All of this - coupled with the perfect storm of the financial meltdown and the cranky, old bastard candidacy of John McCain - has resulted in some drastic consequences and if anything is learned from this experience, it will be that America's future should not be entrusted to inexperienced incompetents.
 
I'll take inexperienced incompetents over experienced incompetents any day. Which is why I'm glad McCain didn't win.
 
There is a way to look at this....

that puts the blame squarely where it belongs and should be an object lesson to the GOP. If you don't want someone like Obama present a better option to the electorate. McCain? even his own party hated him for good reason. Palin? Scared enough independents to at least cancel her appeal to the "core"
It is kind of interesting that in hindsight the GOP always has the good sense to dislike the candidates(Mc Cain) and winners(GWB) that they stick the rest of us with, but looking forward they struggle to learn that lesson.
So who do we get to choose from this time? Obama in the Blue Corner and ???? in the Red Corner. There is a reason for this and it isn't pretty-despite all the talk Americans, don't really like Republicans and the more Republican the Republican is, the less they like them (Barry Goldwater anyone?) The GOP convinces itself that people really dig some marginal overacheiving hopped up housefrau like Bachmann-but really we don't like people like that. We actually kinda like people like the Obama during the election campaign(I know this because he won big). He is suffering now not because he isn't more like his opponents but because he is less like the Obama of the campaign.
Here is another reality-the GOP has crap candidates because the good, smart, honorable people in the party are marginalized by a rush to the stupidist populist in the bunch. Paul and Johnson, who stand for something anyway, are just pretty much laughed at. I would love to see Ron Paul get the nomination and let's see what he does. Let's see how he views democracy when his only option isn't a No vote or when he has to debate someone on his own level of intelligence and political acumen. He would lose the election but he wouldn't embarass himself on the way like McCain did (Joe the non-plumber Plumber, keerist!)
 
"the less they like them (Barry Goldwater anyone?)"

:laugh: You sure you didn't want to reach back to Herbert Hoover, Pops?

I'd argue Americans certainly like them a helluva lot more than they like liberal Democrats... that's why you seldom see a candidate self-identifying as a liberal or "progressive". They do and they get their asses handed back to them... with a few, minor exceptions.
 
Call me Pops one more time...

sonny and I'll ask for you to be ditched from here.

Let's see:
We hate Nixon
We Hate Bush
We Hate Hoover as you say
Half of us hate Reagan
We could care less about GHWB


We Like Ike (but that is because he spent money on the Interstate system and had actually done something before the WH)

We hate Obama
Half of us hate Clinton
We don't care much about Carter-he was a weeny
We hate Johnson-although some revere him for Medicare(the ones who vote all the time, ie old people)
We LOOOOVVVVEEEE JFK
We LOOOVVEEE FDR

I don't know, at best a draw-anyone in the GOP camp except RR who even comes close to the unquestioned iconic stature of JFK? or FDR?
I don't think your case is very stong, sonny!

Oh, and 'liberal' (what 100% of the sainted Founders probably would have described themselves as) has been drug through the mud by FOX and Limbaugh to the point it has no meaning anymore.


Oh, and a link to an unvetted source just 'cause:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860789/posts
 
That's because the politicians...

love to wallow in there pre-approved status as 'Conservatives', they never tire of telling you how conservative they are. How can you not wind up with such a disproportion? If my thesis is correct that 'liberal' has been drug through the mud, you just made my case.
 
I've always believed it was a myth that Goldwater was "unelectable". The fact is there wasn't a Republican on earth that was electable in 1964. You don't beat a president with a 68 percent approval rating under any circumstances.
 
The pretzel logic of an old-timer... always fascinates me.

Well... I guess we'll see what the American voter thinks about all that come November, 2012.
 
It was really FDR that drug "liberal" through the mud by claiming to be one when he was really a progressive. Ever since then "liberal" means progressive and conservative sort of means liberal.
 
Let's see...

Pops and now oldtimer. Trying to see how close we can come to the third rail are you. How about coot or codger or the ever popular gramps or geezer?

I rather like pretzels, they have the advantage of internal consistency and they have stood the test of time. I won't talk about logic, it being a subject of such vast import and it's implications well beyond the abilities of present company, myself included.
 
Belief is funny thing...

it doesn't change facts at all. He got beat, he got bad(the worst drubbing in US history?), when he ran he was unelectable and the best proof of that is that he wasn't elected and was rejected by such a margin that there is no room for argument. Not sure I see where there is any myth in there.
It's immaterial whether no other Rebublican could have been elected either-all that proves is how deep their bench was in losers.
 
The people that voted for him....

would probably not have cared less if you called him 'macaroni'.
Argument by mere labeling isn't argument at all.
 
It's immaterial whether no other Rebublican could have been elected either-all that proves is how deep their bench was in losers.

A Democrat president had been assassinated less than one year before the '64 election. No change was likely in a scenario like that. So we got the loser who sunk us even deeper in to the jungles of Vietnam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top