One of my friends mom’s is voting for obama, she’s colunteering for the campaign, and has read his book for the following reasons:
-“he’s like the perfect man”
-“we need a black guy as president”
-“I’m sick of old white republicans”
-“republicans are bad”
Now, she’s a very nice woman but she can’t hold a job very long. bitches about stuff that’s her fault, etc.
the feeling of entitlement is growing, and growing fast in america.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
[/quote]
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Tell me you’re kidding…come on I’ll give you one chance to say you were joking.[/quote]
Gee, thanks for that chance. It is so important to me that you gave me that chance.
The connection to the Bush administration is nothing but the political ads of the democrats. Right now they think it would be easier to go against Bush then to go against McCain. You can almost get the idea that it is an Obama, Bush election.
They are currently getting benefit from it, but it is actually a weak link for them. Mostly in the fact that their energy is so focused on Bush that it is softening their blows on McCain.[quote]
Secondly, presumably one of Condi’s biggest political assets is that she’d be able to draw black voters. Now tell me how that happens when they’re all gaga over Obama.[/quote]
Blacks vote Democrat overwhelmingly. Obama will not change that, but he will bring more to the polls.
Previous polls have shown a jump for McCain if he were to get Ms Rice as VP. She actually does have a following of people who are not fans of Bush.[quote]
Condi would not be the worst pick, but certainly one of them.[/quote]
May not make any sense to you, but Obama getting any more then 33% in the polls makes no sense to me.
But since she said no, and I see no indication she is going to change her mind, the point is kind of moot. (Sounds like a cow with a lisp. “MOOOOt!”)
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Ludacris?[/quote]
Lol… Seriously, at this point in history, that would not surprise me. When everybody is famous for nothing, and rap is taken seriously, I’m sure the end is nigh. Yeah. I hate this world.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Just sort of curious. If obama gets elected, and starts chopping apart citizens rights. Basically turning us into a euro-state(no free speach/gun rights). How long do you think it will take him to be assasinated?
Because, if his plans goes into action, He very possibly may end up dead. He’s standing straight against the values a LOT of people hold dear. Tne values our nation was created on.
this could be interesting.
His liberalism that is exposed already is turning stomachs. Imagine if they really brought out what this guy stands for.
Obama won’t win. It won’t be close.
I disagree, He probably will win. People in my generation are flocking to him like the sheep they are. I know maybe 5-6 conservatives, and a bajillion liberals.
If america’s youth goes out there and votes, mccain will lose. None of these people care about facts, or our countrys well being. They want free money, no responsibility, and for daddy obama to take care of them at other’s expence. They don’t care if mccain’s or bob barr’s policies make sense. Conservative=bad by default.
Do not expect a conservative president from my generation.[/quote]
Everybody is on about the ‘silent’ majority coming forward in the elections and Obama not really having the chance he’s made out to have, I’m just not that confident. I agree with Zep, all I see is Obamanationites …everywhere. Now, I can’t stand McCain but I’m not a fan of Obama either. That leaves me right smack dab in between a douche and a turd. But I truly think Obama has a shot, a real shot. Despite this silent majority lurking in the shadows.
So what then? Are we overrating America’s youth, and of course the rest of the lazy government lovers? Will McCain just slip in despite his constant media exposed unpopularity? I really can’t decide which is worse. I do think this though, if Obama is elected , there will be attempts on his life. There are many silent people in this country. It’s the quiet ones you have to watch out for.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.[/quote]
What are you talking about? He made his decisions. You may not like them or agree with the execution of his underlings but he made them.
For example, Katrina, Bush declared a state of emergency 2 days before Nagen did, well before the hurricane hit. Just because you don’t like FEMA’s response doesn’t make Bush indecisive. He made his decision and didn’t micromanage.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.
What are you talking about? He made his decisions. You may not like them or agree with the execution of his underlings but he made them.
For example, Katrina, Bush declared a state of emergency 2 days before Nagen did, well before the hurricane hit. Just because you don’t like FEMA’s response doesn’t make Bush indecisive. He made his decision and didn’t micromanage.
Really…one thing that no one can fault Bush on is his decisiveness.
[/quote]
Bush Derangement Syndrome in action. GDollars has it bad.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Tell me you’re kidding…come on I’ll give you one chance to say you were joking.
Gee, thanks for that chance. It is so important to me that you gave me that chance.
First of all how does McCain distance himself from Bush by running with anyone from the Bush Administration? If he doesn’t shed the Bush baggage he loses…Adding Condi would assure his loss.
The connection to the Bush administration is nothing but the political ads of the democrats. Right now they think it would be easier to go against Bush then to go against McCain. You can almost get the idea that it is an Obama, Bush election.
They are currently getting benefit from it, but it is actually a weak link for them. Mostly in the fact that their energy is so focused on Bush that it is softening their blows on McCain.
[/quote]
So linking McCain to a president more unpopular than Nixon when he resigned, more unpopular than Carter was, is a “weak link”? Even after one of the big reasons Bush beat Gore in 2000 was because he linked Gore to Clinton and talked about “restoring honor” to the White House? Clinton then, obviously, was much much more popular than Bush is now.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.
What are you talking about? He made his decisions. You may not like them or agree with the execution of his underlings but he made them.
For example, Katrina, Bush declared a state of emergency 2 days before Nagen did, well before the hurricane hit. Just because you don’t like FEMA’s response doesn’t make Bush indecisive. He made his decision and didn’t micromanage.[/quote]
You’re not exactly comparing him to the best there are you? There is a world of difference between not micro-managing and not managing (MBA or not).
Iraq is the more egregious example. The occupation was a complete mess largely because no one was in charge. Agencies fought, decisions were made in a vaccuum, including the biggest decision of all, disbanding the Iraqi Army.
And as for Fallujah? Attack despite the wishes of the Marines there, then stop at the last moment, just before victory…
“BDS” my ass.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.
What are you talking about? He made his decisions. You may not like them or agree with the execution of his underlings but he made them.
For example, Katrina, Bush declared a state of emergency 2 days before Nagen did, well before the hurricane hit. Just because you don’t like FEMA’s response doesn’t make Bush indecisive. He made his decision and didn’t micromanage.
You’re not exactly comparing him to the best there are you? There is a world of difference between not micro-managing and not managing (MBA or not).
Iraq is the more egregious example. The occupation was a complete mess largely because no one was in charge. Agencies fought, decisions were made in a vaccuum, including the biggest decision of all, disbanding the Iraqi Army.
And as for Fallujah? Attack despite the wishes of the Marines there, then stop at the last moment, just before victory…
“BDS” my ass.[/quote]
That is not indecisiveness.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
So linking McCain to a president more unpopular than Nixon when he resigned, more unpopular than Carter was, is a “weak link”? Even after one of the big reasons Bush beat Gore in 2000 was because he linked Gore to Clinton and talked about “restoring honor” to the White House? Clinton then, obviously, was much much more popular than Bush is now.[/quote]
Yes, very. Democrats have spent 8 years trying to destroy Bush, and have been fairly successful. And now their strongest tactic is to connect McCain to Bush. Mick was correct in mentioning perception above, and if McCain breaks that connection, or Bush suddenly up ticks.
This is why most of the media has been so quiet about the current success in Iraq, or how we are in a recession that does not exist.
Anyway the worst thing to happen for the democrats is for things to improve. The up trend for oil has finally been broken. (A lot later then I thought it would.) The price drop is being seen at the pump, and that is going to relax financial pressure on people and companies.
And with Bush at a low, he has nowhere to go but up. If he climbs, he will be pushing McCain up too. And because of the Democrats.
I hope it’s Romney.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He’s too decisive? Except during the occupation of Iraq, the first battle of Fallujah, Hurricane Katrina…Some pretty big exceptions.
What are you talking about? He made his decisions. You may not like them or agree with the execution of his underlings but he made them.
For example, Katrina, Bush declared a state of emergency 2 days before Nagen did, well before the hurricane hit. Just because you don’t like FEMA’s response doesn’t make Bush indecisive. He made his decision and didn’t micromanage.
You’re not exactly comparing him to the best there are you? There is a world of difference between not micro-managing and not managing (MBA or not).
Iraq is the more egregious example. The occupation was a complete mess largely because no one was in charge. Agencies fought, decisions were made in a vaccuum, including the biggest decision of all, disbanding the Iraqi Army.
And as for Fallujah? Attack despite the wishes of the Marines there, then stop at the last moment, just before victory…
“BDS” my ass.
You are changing the topic. I understand that you think Bush is a lousy President and very unpopular…But that’s not what we’re talking about, unless I missed something early on which is very possible.
This is not about his abilities relative to managing the war. That’s an entirely different topic.
Just admit that Bush is decisive then we’ll talk about his other abilities or lack thereof if you’d like.
Decisive: “Characterized by decision and firmness; resolute”
Bush is all of that…
[/quote]
No, that’s the rhetoric (“bring it on”, Churchillian homage BS), not the reality. As I said, in Iraq most grievously, this administration had been characterized by indecisiveness, by the lack of a “firm” (per your definition) hand at the wheel. Fallujah was only the most grievous example.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I agree completely. But there are a lot of “if’s”.[/quote]
But that’s just it, everything’s an if.
If the election was today, Obama would win. But it isn’t, it’s just getting started. It isn’t too hard to see the current trends though. But this is going to be a tight race, and those trends can be influenced by events, both manipulated, and coincidental.
The real estate bubble burst, hurting the economy. If that happened later, it would have hurt McCain. Then the oil bubble burst, and at a time when it will have a beneficial impact on the economy, but still have enough sting to push for drilling, which hurts democrats. Had it happened earlier, and the price had dropped enough that the sting was gone by the election, more benefit for the economy, but the loss of the republicans strongest issue.
Iraq has improved quite a bit, and Obama only benefits if the average person thinks it’s still a quagmire. (Gigity gigity.) But if the media is not reporting it, while that won’t give the good news for McCain’s benefit, not reporting it is also an out of sight, out of mind kind of thing, so Iraq will not help Obama as much.
Beyond that, Obama is losing his luster. Before he was untouchable, but that has faded, and is slowly turning into a joke. How quickly that magic he had fades will actually have a big impact on the election. He is hard pressed to keep it from fading over the next 87 days, even if he didn’t have to contend with the hardest part of the election.
Now each candidate has the chance to say or do something smart, or stupid. Then there are unexpected events that could affect either candidate in either direction.
In general I see Obama moving down, and McCain moving up. It’s too early to know if it is happening quickly enough to cost Obama the election yet. (And if it is going to happen in the important electoral states.)
And that is my long winded view of what’s happening.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
)…he’s involved in some sort of corruption etc. Short of any of that…he’s going to be the next President of the United States.
[/quote]
Beyond real estate corruption? He won’t win and it won’t be close.