[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What do you think about Rubio?
Mufasa[/quote]
Hey Mufasa I know this isn’t to me but I was standing over there getting insulted by a Ron Paul devotee (and calling him that is insult enough for anyone) and couldn’t help but hear you.
Rubio is untested and I bet not ready for prime time.
What do you think of him?
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
Sorry, Zeb! Just got home from work! (Damn! I check what YOU guys are saying even before I take my shower and relax!)
Marco Rubio.
I admit UP FRONT that what I am about to say as my critique of him is based on 1) knowing very little about the man and 2) my own cynicism about politicians that I’ve developed over the years.
Rubio is a great looking guy who went to the University of Florida and “Thug-U” (TheU); both of which have some of the hottest women on the planet…
South Beach;Miami;Gainesville and hot women…plus a powerful,driven, good looking guy who goes after what he wants…
Is this all a set up for a “skeleton or two” in his closet?
(Politics is brutal, Zeb…you know that…).
Rubio may be as “clean as the proverbial newly driven snow”; but if not, your “MSM” will surely flush it out.
Also; as you have noted; he is a political novice; and the Primaries ALONE are no place for the faint of heart.
Mufasa
The man supports abortion, kick his ass out.
Well, in regards to Rubio, I don’t think he’d be any better a candidate than President Obama was in 2008. Obama was a political novice at the time as well and look at what’s happened to him. I think there are a lot of things that have gone wrong with Obama’s administration and I think the root cause of most of those things comes back to his relative inexperience in big-time politics.
Washington, DC is the fucking big leagues, and you know what they say about the bigs: anyone with talent can get there, but it takes a lot more than talent to stay there. It’s a matter of adjusting to the bigs and readjusting when everyone adjusts to you. Obama hasn’t readjusted and he’s getting his face smashed in by the savvy wizards who feed on the weak. The GOP has proven over and over again that they will NOT play ball with Obama under any circumstances because they care about what is good for the GOP first, the country second.
That’s the nature of politics in Washington, period. At this point the GOP has shown that they will fucking annihilate any and every last thing Obama wants to get done, and then try to convince us afterwards they do so in the pursuit of bettering the country. But what is good for the country may not always be good for the GOP.
Obama doesn’t understand this and I don’t think there is anything in Rubio’s record to indicate that he grasps this concept either. Because believe me, if we end up with a Republican President in 2012, the Dems will do the exact same thing as the GOP is doing now. It’s sad to say, but that is the state of American 21st century politics. Take out everyone in your path in the pursuit of power and then do your best to convince the country that this is isn’t a power grab but a diamterical opposition of what they see as bad policy. I don’t think that everything Obama has sought to do is a mistake on his part, only some of his policies. But that is not what we hear from the GOP and that is not what we would be hearing if the shoe were on the other foot. Shit, we basically already saw it with Bush and the mainstream media.
So who from the GOP can tackle this juggernaut-like attitude in Washington if elected? Who has the thirst for blood, who has the desire to smash all of his political opponents into sawdust and eat their brains in front of his/her victims’ families as a message to those who oppose him? Who’s going to slit some fucking throats? And who can do this in a bipartisan way? No one.
Truth be told, I don’t think it matters who the President is anymore. We look to one man to change/fix all of these problems and one man simply cannot do it. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and designed our system to essentially put Congress at the top of the food chain. We’re simply throwing dolphins into great white shark-infested waters every four years and expecting that dolphin to fix the problems of the ocean.
As doom-and-gloom as this may sound, I think every single President from here on out, regardless of party affiliation, is going to get fucking eviscerated for four years, maybe eight if he’s a sadist, and then we just move on to the next poor soul. So I think the real question here is: how do we move the entire country away from the mindset that forces us into a position where we place unreal expectations on one man? How do we start to understand, as a country, that what the real problem in Washington is has nothing to do with who the President is or what his experience is or who he fucked in college, how good his low-post game is, whether or not you’d like to have a beer with him, or any of that other shit; it has to do with the fact that the office of the Presidency has become a goddamned slaughterhouse where only the truly sadistic could survive.
The paradox is that the only type of person who could really thrive in 21st century American Bloodsport Politics is exactly the type of person none of us would want anything to do with, the type of person you’d steer all that is dear to you away from. In a left-handed sort of way, it is a testament to Obama’s character that he’s getting proven to be utterly incapable of handling himself in Washington, as backwards as that may seem. Rubio’s just more fodder.
You know, I have a t-shirt I had made at one of these online shirt print shops. I think I’ll wear it everyday during the 2012 election season. It says, accompanied with his picture, “Tan, Rested and Ready: Nixon '12”
Simply outstanding as always, DB!
Looks like we need some cross between Theodore Roosevelt and Ghanghis Khan to run for President!
Mufasa
DB:
Do realize who you just descibed “to-the-tee” in terms of a modern-day President?
Comrade Vladamir Putin.
(That damn pesky Constitution keeps him from running in the U.S., though!)
Mufasa
Bump for Zeb and DB…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sorry, Zeb! Just got home from work! (Damn! I check what YOU guys are saying even before I take my shower and relax!)
Marco Rubio.
I admit UP FRONT that what I am about to say as my critique of him is based on 1) knowing very little about the man and 2) my own cynicism about politicians that I’ve developed over the years.
Rubio is a great looking guy who went to the University of Florida and “Thug-U” (TheU); both of which have some of the hottest women on the planet…
South Beach;Miami;Gainesville and hot women…plus a powerful,driven, good looking guy who goes after what he wants…
Is this all a set up for a “skeleton or two” in his closet?
(Politics is brutal, Zeb…you know that…).
Rubio may be as “clean as the proverbial newly driven snow”; but if not, your “MSM” will surely flush it out.
Also; as you have noted; he is a political novice; and the Primaries ALONE are no place for the faint of heart.
Mufasa
[/quote]
O’Rubio vs. O’bama?
St. Patty’s Day will be a wild party.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.[/quote]
I agree for the most part. As conservatives we are never really going to be thrilled with the republican party. With that said, if it were not for the republicans we would be looking in the face of a giant tax increase via the Bush tax cuts expiring. In addition to that it was the republican party that, to a man, fought the democrats on Obama care. Should they move further right? Yes, and I think that’s what the Tea Party is all about. They are pulling the mainstream republicans to the right as they have drifted left in recent years.
As for Presidential history, I am very curious to see if there are game democrats out there who will challenge Obama if his poll numbers continue, as they are now, in the toilet. Maybe Hillary, who knows?
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.[/quote]
I think your statement makes it more interesting that the last two Presidents that balanced the budget where Democrats . Johnson and Clinton
Here’s a little food for thought, or perhaps just a couple of interesting but irrelevant facts.
Since 1950, only three Presidents have had higher or equal approval ratings at the end of their terms than when they initially took office: Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton. This even takes into account the honeymoon period that ALL Presidents enjoy right after they are elected. Given that we look to one man to fix everything now, it’s only fair by that same token to say that these three are the best Presidents we have had since 1950 and that Clinton may very well be the best because when he left office the country had enjoyed 8 years of unprecedented economic prosperity. That’s an assessment that basically uses the same line of logic that would have people screaming for Obama’s head on a stick.
Also, every President but two in the last 100 years has seen a loss of seats in Congress for his party in midterm elections. My point is that while Obama has certainly bombed thus far, his lack of success/popularity isn’t that unprecedented at all. It’s unfair for the country to lay the entirety of the responsibility of fixing the economy at his feet. In fact, the only real powers the President has, independent of Senatorial approval are:
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
Commission officers of the military
Receive ambassadors
To take care that the laws of the country are faithfully executed
with approval from the Senate:
Make treaties
Appoint judges, ambassadors and high officials
So it’s unrealistic to expect the President and the President alone to right the economy because he simply does not have the power to do so (let alone the acumen). The flip side of that coin is that it’s unrealistic for the President or any Presidential candidate to claim that he/she can in fact fix the economy by himself, which is essentially what Obama promised. It’s kind of like placing the blame for a loss at the feet of the coach without placing any blame on the players (Congress). And we have shown that we blame Congress in the midterm elections, but I think it’s foolhardy to expect Obama to graciously step down as President because the economy has not been righted.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.[/quote]
I think your statement makes it more interesting that the last two Presidents that balanced the budget where Democrats . Johnson and Clinton[/quote]
Very true. I know Clinton was somewhat controlled by a Republican congress. I have no idea about Johnson (wasn’t alive). What’s funny is that Dole had run in 1996 on a balanced budget platform which was one of the things that cost him the election with seniors. My grandparents for instance voted Clinton because Dole had mentioned Social Security cuts as part of the balanced budget.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.[/quote]
I think your statement makes it more interesting that the last two Presidents that balanced the budget where Democrats . Johnson and Clinton[/quote]
Very true. I know Clinton was somewhat controlled by a Republican congress. I have no idea about Johnson (wasn’t alive). What’s funny is that Dole had run in 1996 on a balanced budget platform which was one of the things that cost him the election with seniors. My grandparents for instance voted Clinton because Dole had mentioned Social Security cuts as part of the balanced budget.[/quote]
I agree that hurt him. But really cost him the election was that he moved like a robot and acted like he was 100 years old.
If I were Obama I wouldn’t run for reelection, but I think he will. Democrats are, unfortunately, very willing to forgive his missteps.
LBJ presided over a war that hurt a lot more people personally. It’s easy for the majority here to forget about the military entirely. It isn’t a good thing, but I think that’s the way it is.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
If I were Obama I wouldn’t run for reelection, but I think he will. Democrats are, unfortunately, very willing to forgive his missteps.
LBJ presided over a war that hurt a lot more people personally. It’s easy for the majority here to forget about the military entirely. It isn’t a good thing, but I think that’s the way it is.[/quote]
This is an interesting idea, but for him not to run, he would have to think there is someone better to take his place that could actually win (perhaps Hillary in his eyes?). Politicians tend to have a high opinion of themselves (lol), so I doubt he won’t run… but maybe. He certainly has a list of things that he considers accomplishments.
For every election I’ve ever participated in, I chose the lesser of “bads.” Even when I “threw my vote away” on 3rd party candidates, I never thought they were saints, only that they were better than the others on the ticket at the time. I’ve been trying to spend a little time looking at the Republican opponents who could run against him to see if there is anyone better. As of yet, I haven’t seen one (in my opinion). Last time the Libertarians put forth Bob Barr… I, personally, don’t think he is presidential material. Who do you think would be better on the top of the democratic ticket? Hillary? How about the other parties?
It’s a sad day in America when we care more about voting a guy OUT of office than we do voting someone else IN. Are those who want Obama out going to vote for the best person to knock him out, or the best person for the Presidency?
