This past Saturday, Sen. Barack Obama attended something called a “forum” held in a building deemed a “megachurch” hosted by a celebrity pastor. I’m sure he felt right at home.
Back on the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama declared on Saturday that, had he been president at the time, he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The crowd of predominantly evangelical voters clapped with approval
Evangelical voters? There we go again with the media distorting the word. More like flighty spiritual seekers seeking to reclaim that ever elusive first spiritual high feeling. I digress.
For those of you that think there would be no difference between Obama and McCain regarding the judiciary, how does this grab you? He would not have nominated Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. And he thinks that his vote against Chief Justice John Roberts has been justifed by the actions of Judge Roberts during his tenure on the court.
But it was his comments about Judge Thomas that caught my eye.
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”
Well, isn’t that special. A celebrity cult of personality presidential candidate with as much experience behind him as Paris Hilton thinks that experience matters. And the flighty spiritual seekers applauded.
Interesting. Hopefully the voters think the same thing come November.
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
77 Responses to “Obama Makes Case Against Himself”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
“Interesting. Hopefully the voters think the same thing come November.”
One can only hope. The appeal of this clown baffles me.
Contrast between the two responses:
BO went right in on Justice Thomas. McCain prefaced his comments with,”With due respect…” McCain railed against legislating from the bench, BO said that the Supreme Court was there to rein in the Executive branch. No comment about reining in the Legislature. I guess that’s good though, he at least understands part of the concept of checks adn balances.
My personal, biased opinion is that McCain came off mre presidential, more decisive, less equivocating. No questions were asked about illegal immigration, not follow-up questions were asked.
BO responded that either 150,000 or 250,000 was rich and to be fair, those with more should have to carry most of the burden (like we don’t already). McCain said he wants to make us all rich. When pinned down to a number he said 5 million.
I did not like BO’s flippant comment when asked what is rich that he thought that selling 25 million books would be rich, a slap at Pastor Warren.
He forgot to say that CT was the non pc kind of Black man. …. If CT wasn’t qualified then it was affirmative action… and that should be ok for Obama. He wants affirmative action to be president.
Depends on your point of view.
I think BO came off very well to the more open minded and I’m confident that voters will breath some fresh air into the White House this fall instead of continuing with neocon criminality.
Little mike, what do you consider the more open minded? Democrats? Republicans? Undecideds?
I missed Obama’s side of the event because I was on the phone with my Dad, but did catch McCain’s side. Anyone know if the video is up somewhere?
I don’t know about video, moose, but texpat posted this link to the unedited transcripts.
Transcripts are good, but since I saw McCain speak I thought it would only be fair to watch Obama too since much cna be communicated not just in what you say, but how you say it.
McCain is a long experienced senator and wise to the ways of Washington. Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. The editor of the Law Review is elected by all of the law students at Harvard.
The Review is not your typical college newspaper, but rather a widely read review of current legal topics. Some of the former Review Board Members (as students)
1. Chief Justice John Roberts
2. Antonin Scalia
3. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
4. Stephen Breyer
5. Michael Chertoff
6. Felix Frankfurter
7. Dean Acheson
8. Barack Obama
Does being the editor of the Harvard Law Review and a graduate of Harvard Law give Barack Obama any credibility with regards to the qualifications of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia? I think so, although I do not agree with him, but that is our legal system. It is like noses….Everyone has one.
I would also point out that Barack Obama was elected the editor of the Harvard Law Review with the assistance of the conservative law students who felt that Obama would at least give them a fair hearing on their viewpoints, whereas they felt that the candidate promoted by the liberal faction would not.
Simple
duhmoose, I saw it live and commented about it on the weekend OC thread, to the sound of crickets chirping. The contrast between the two of them was shocking! It was on CNN last night and I’ll bet that it will be on again. I’ve never been a Mc Cain fan, BUTT I decided a long time ago that I’d be voting for him. Mc Cain was VERY impressive, sounded more like Reagan than Bush I or II, very decisive and quick to answer no talking around the subject like Obama. Obama did look at ease and did a good job at handling the questions that he didn’t want to answer. I really liked this kind of Un-debate and the guy that put it on, who the he!! Is he anyway? That said, I hope that folks that want to “SIT” this one out, thinks about their unbridled determination to get Obama elected.
little mike - I like you, your silly…
Is there any doubt that Clarence Thomas is the weakest legal mind on the bench?
Say what you will about the liberals on SCOTUS, such as they are - they’re all heavyweights, and the same can be said of Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, the swing vote, each in their own way. All are agenda driven activists, but no one disputes all eight possess major-league legal minds. I’m quite certain history will not render the same judgment about the caliber of Clarence Thomas’ legal thinking or his contributions from the bench.
Then you would agree that a lightweight such as Obama should not be POTUS?
No, he’s just another lawyer. And judging by Obama’s track record, he’s not exactly a deep thinker himself.
He never published an article in the Harvard Law Review. Kind of like what he’s done since then - he gets to be the figurehead “leader”, but doesn’t have any of the qualifications that should have been required for the job.
“BO” doesn’t have much time to think or is incapable of thinking things out because he had to vote “present” on most issues before him. Maybe that was his way for utilizing the John Kerry position for “flip’flopping”. I hope by November that the voters realize what “BO”s experience level is to lead this mighty country which won’t be one if “BO” and the Dimwits get control of things. Hopefully the “fad” thing that is “BO” will fade like the “pet rock”.
Obama is a racist for not wanting to nominate Clarence Thomas. Just wait… he’ll still nominate some white person.
I saw both sides of the forum - there was no comparison. McCain looked and sounded like a President. Obama looked and sounded like a used car salesman.
Apparently Obama’s campaign thinks so too - now they’re claiming that McCain cheated:
And they’re getting their friends in the media to front the idea.
Personally, I believe that an Ivy League education is vastly overrated based on the candidates for President of the United States the past decade. Gore? He showed an intellect of a snail. He was a rich son admitted on who his daddy was. Same with Bush. Kerry doesn’t show any intelligence other than the penchant for marrying rich women. BO shows the same traits, and what is most interesting is the lack of candor in releasing his academic history.
Clarence Thomas is USSC judge whose rulings on constitutional law will be based on actual law, not looking for new law…………….
The US Presidency is not for OTJ training……….and BO is right, the job is way above his paid grade.
Wagonburner,
Actually, I miss spoke. Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. His job was to ride herd on the various editors and factions that were on the Law Review.
His tenure was marked by an even-handedness when dealing with disputes. Sounds like a pretty good qualification for a leader who must govern by consensus instead of decree.
Simple
20. Simple
You’re not seriously suggesting that being President of the Harvard Law Review qualifies one to be President of the United States?
Is that the best you can do for Obama?
BigJolly makes good points about this supposedly “evangelical” crowd. I was stunned at the lovefest they showed for Obama, despite the fact that he opposes most every key issue evangelicals embrace. It makes me think BJ is right - these are emotionally-driven folks who are more into cult of personality than disciplined spirituality.
Hmm. I think I know the perfect venue for a follow-up performance in Houston.
22
The “evangelical crowd” covers a lot of different people.
We need some new nomenclature.
#22 rick
The drive-by media thinks that anyone who regularly sets foot in a church is an evangelical.
Fixed that one for you.
I would not be to hard on the church, many times these events bring in lots of people that never attend. I don’t like the mega(feel good) churches myself.
But to be fair many times these events bring in all sorts of people. I personally felt like the crowd cheered much louder for McCain when he was speaking.
The question on evil was great.
McCain said evil is terrorist and gave a great example of a situation in Iraq.
BO made a quick reference to Darfur and then immediately went back to America for examples of evil.
This pretty much showed me what I need to know, I admit I liked Ron Paul and was thinking of sitting this one out. But its no longer a vote on lesser of two evils. Its a vote for preserving what little we can of our country.
Simple - I’d like you to keep something in mind. Sheila Jackson Lee is a Yale law school graduate. I think that pretty well covers what some of our most prestigious law firms can turn out. Obama is another wonderful example.
It’s not getting any better for Obama in the AOL straw poll! 284,046 votes nationwide, and McCain has maintained his 66% advantage and controlled all 50 states for more than 24 hours.
Obama the “great pretender” saying CT is not a strong enough thinker, LOL!
Obama seems incapable to think for himself. Throughout the interview he stumbled and was unable to give any clear answers.
How could anyone cheat? It wasn’t a math exam. It was simply a matter of stating one’s beliefs.
KRAUT, I agree with you. BO’s answers were more of the political response, avoid a straight answer, push your agenda, while McCain’s seemed to be much more straightforward.
Frankly, I expected the opposite. I’ve heard McCain equivocate before.
24. Shannon
Maybe, but I have never met someone who calls himself an evangelical who supports partial birth abortions, though they may be out there.
31. Mikey51
I was thinking the same thing. I expected the “eloquent” BO to get rave reviews and McCain to be found wanting. If one were to view only that event, one would conclude McCain has the quicker mind and stronger will.
33: Rick G.
Obama is “eloquent” only when he has a pre-written speech and a teleprompter. As soon as he has to actually discuss or debate or answer questions, he becomes insecure, halting and unsure of himself. He is also prone to making realy dumb statements. An example is the statement Saturday night about kicking the abortion question to a “higher pay grade”. Just a quick reminder B.O. - as another Democrat noted some time ago, as the President the buck stops at you desk.
31: Rick G.
Obama is eloquent only when he has a prepared speech and a teleprompter. When he has to speak off the cuff he is unsure of himself, he rambles, and he’s prone to substantial gaffes.
An example is the comment Saturday night about kicking the abortion question to a higher pay grade. That would be what office Mr. Obama?
#28 - Oh lordy - ANYONE but aol!
KatFish, That would be A-HOLE-L
Keep in mind it’s not AOL’s data. Just a straw pole of AOL subscribers. Now since you would think AOL subscribers would tend to be a bit more liberal, that poll should tell you something as to the mood of the country regarding Obama’s candidacy.
Correction, it’s a straw poll of anyone reading that website. Anyone can vote - including you.
I frankly did not like Obama’s reactions to the many questions posed and felt as though he did not think any of his answers through before responding. He did seem to pause much more than necessary albeit the impromptu questions (no, no candidate is perfect). Not good presidential material besides not being experienced enough due to short tenure in the U.S. Senate. He may have an eloquent speaking style, but no substantive answers (fancy words don’t do any candidate justice - too much lawyerese).
#34 pudgy al
TEO hemmed & hawed over his answer and never really answered it.
McCain immediately said “At the moment of conception.”
Easy to see from that who has core beliefs and pays them heed and who doesn’t.
#37 - Big45 - makes no nevermind to ME - I was merely observing the FIRST syllables that will fall out of any naysayers pie hole………………and yes I’m an aoH%$&l subscriber…………don’t have to pay for it anymore (which is exactly what it was worth all along - namely ZIP)
Still, 285,000 citizens nationwide voting and McCain has maintained 66% for two days worth of voting. When there were only 163,000 votes, Obama had the lead only in Hawaii and Vermont. Now he holds zero states in the poll. With that many people voting, that would seem - at least to me - that it would scare the heck out of the Obama camp.
#43- For my 2 cents until they QUIT - it didn’t scare them ENOUGH………….
The more Nobama opens his mouth the more afraid of him and his policies and ideas I am. The man will self destruct and destroy our way of life. How does he think he will pay for all his ideas and dreams of so called change. Its not change guys its socialism, bordering communism
AOL is doing second straw poll straw poll. They must not have liked the results of the first one.
Now Obama holds one of 57 or 58 states, one is tied, but McCain now has 78%!!
The 2 or 3 presidential appointments to the supreme court that the next president will make is the issue that will bring the lefties and centrists out to vote on election day. The left feels that having another Scalia or Thomas on the bench would be abhorrent. This is the single most effective motivator to get voters off their duffs and propel Barack Obama to victory.
#47 Izzy
That works both ways !
#9 Simple
Actually, the President of Harvard Law Review is elected by the approximately 80 Law Review editors. For nearly 90 years that position went automatically to the second year student who had the highest academic rating. When meritocracy first began to be assaulted in the 1970s, the system was changed.
One of the perks, if not the best opportunity, of being President of HLR is you get 2 freebies for publication in HLR. In other words, you do not have to compete with everyone else’s submittals. From what I have heard, Barack Obama was the only person who ever served as President of HLR and published precisely nothing !
Virtually every President of HLR has gone on to serve a clerkship on the federal appellate courts or the SCOTUS. Barack did neither and while he eventually began as a lecturer at the University of Chicago, when they offered him a tenure track prof position, he turned it down. He may have graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but it is safe to say he has done very little of substance with that degree. It appears Obama decided very early to cultivate a network and connections in Chicago to launch a national level political career. The best reason to get a HL degree if you don’t intend to practice law is as the shiny credential it gives you for you political bio.
21. Rick
Stating what might definitely qualify a man (or woman) to be President might just be above my pay grade. What I did say was that being able to govern by consensus is a pretty good talent for a leader (remember that phrase). Next time you have to chair a department or project meeting; try to get 8-12 people to agree on what to eat for lunch and not antagonize someone.
I am in awe of folks who can finesse a group into a single decision. It takes a while and sometimes a little deception is needed, but in the long run things go better if everyone supports the decision of their own free will. Myself….I am one of those “rule by decree” folks. It doesn’t always work well.
My batting average for picking good Presidential material is well…..good enough for the majors, but not good enough to be an amateur pundit such as yourself.
I thought Jimmy Carter was a moral and decent man and would be a fine President. Little did I know he was an obessive micro-manager, but I should have guessed it since he was a protege of Adm Hyman Rickover.
I thought Ronald Reagan would be a terrible President, but was pleasently suprised by his first term. His second term was a let down. I respected and liked Bush-I (still do); the man is a genuine hero, but his Presidency was a disappointment.
We have had guys elected to the office with little or no prior experience in political office, but did great jobs. (Lincoln, Washington, Kennedy) They were natural leaders.
We have also had guys with pedigrees who should have been steller Presidents, but were mediocre to poor (Grant, Fillmore, Harding, Hoover, Coolege, Nixon, Bush-II). Grant was a superb General, but he put friendship to cronies above the welfare of the American people and as a result had one of the most corrupt administrations on record. (Warren G. Harding probably is the chart topper on that note.)
I believe there are too many factors that come into play in defining a President. Sometimes events work in their favor Dwight Eisenhower was a good President, but the booming U.S. economy made it easy for him, although he failed to act on Civil Rights and he let the madness of the Un-American Activities Committee to continue.
Jackson was regarded as great, put his supporters used very heavy handed tactics to squash criticism. The great expansion of the West worked in his favor, yet he was responsible for terrible atrocities against the Cherokee peoples.
I am not happy with the prospect of Obama or McCain becoming President, but I suppose the Republic will survive…there has been worse.
Simple
49 Tex,
I have a close and personal friend who graduated from a highly rated law school, but choose instead to go back and earn a degree in Engineering because he realized that the law was not for him. He is still a practicing engineer and has never regretted his decision.
A fair number of the folks who earn law degrees never practice. The halls of Congress, corporate boardrooms, and the various statehouses are littered with them.
Simple
Iz,
The majic number is 60…..that is the important number. What will be the number of senators from each part.
Whichever party has 60 votes in the Senate will control the nomination process without regard to who is elected.
I don’t believe the Democrats will get the necessary 60 votes….but who knows? In any case…..If McCain is elected…he will have to make nominations that are acceptable to 60 or more senators (for now)
Simple
#12 Grits
Doubt ? Oh, yeah, absolutely. Souter and Ginsberg are heavyweights ? You must be kidding. Breyer is whip smart, but of course, dead wrong, in my opinion. Stevens is, shall we say, long outlived any usefuness he ever had. Kennedy is so self-absorbed I can’t believe they can tear him away from the mirror to come to the bench. The last time AMK was on Charlie Rose I was embarassed for him it was so bad. Rose was genuflecting before him like some addled groupie and Kennedy just ate it up. It was sad.
Tex,
They have been holding on until there is a less conservative face in the Whitehouse.
Simple
Texpat your analysis is thorough as usual. BO, his wife Michele and even Sheila Jackson Lee are products of the affirmative action system which we all now know was a failure. Yet, we average citizens are suppose to put our lives in the hands of these amateurs.
BO cannot speak without a prepared text or prompter (as has been adequately noted in other comments). His wife shoots off her mouth with her dedicated hate for the country that has provided her and her husband with so many opportunities. SJL has gained the reputation of being the most presence and least substance of anyone in Congress. All three are nothing more than race baiters. I realize there are others in the black congressional coccus just as bad. I just happened to be in SJL Gulag for a number of years
#51 Simple
I, too, know and have met in my life many people with law degrees who eventually chose another career path or never actually practiced law. However, none of them were President of HLR or were running for President of the United States.
Barack Obama did not decide to start a business, become a novelist or law professor. He did decide a very long time ago to seek the highest office in the land, possibly before he attended Harvard Law. He was not a combat naval aviator, managing partner of a professional sports franchise, drilling company executive or U.S. Naval liaison to the U.S. Senate. It is fair to say every career move he has made was not the result of a dedication to some thing larger than himself like the law, legal education, military service, or building a successful business. Therefore, the scrutiny and criticism of his life, his choices and the character driving those decisions are warranted.
Let’s see on Bush 43:
Unemployment
The current unemployment rate is comfortably below the average unemployment rates for the 1970s (6.2 percent), the 1980s (7.3 percent) and the 1990s (5.75 percent). The April unemployment rate of 5 percent is the same as the 2000-07 average rate.
Interest rates over the course of GWB’s administration, in spite of 9/11 and fighting an expensive, long term war have still been lower than President Clinton’s administration when military spending was slashed, but non military spending exploded. Remember, during Clinton - and this was with the help of the GOP congress, we lost 1/2 of our tactical ground and air forces.
War & Casualties - this is the second longest war in our history. Yet has the lowest casualty rate. We lose more Americans to abortion every two days than we’ve lost to this war in 5.5 years. Look at our other leading causes of death.
Then in 2006 alone we lost 6,862 people in our top 72 cities to murder. The vast majority of those in blue cities. Our deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have totalled less than 5,500, with about 60% of those being combat related. And that’s after 5 years.
Yet violent crime has been on a decrease since 1992, and continues downward during this administration.
Stock Market has seen wild ups and downs. Considering 9/11 and fighting a war for 5 years, we have see very healthy markets for several years - until the Dems took over congress in 2006.
Now what is it about GWB that you’re finding a problem with?
#50 Simple Simon, very well said, sir. I’d be interested in reading more of your thoughts regarding Reagan’s second term vs. his first.
#50 Simple
Regarding your observations on leadership, I believe there is a time and place for leading by decree and leading by concensus. The essence of true leadership is knowing which to use in any given situation. Having been in leadership positions where I held information no one knew, and could not know, I have had to issue orders by fiat. There are also those times under pressure when the seeming difference between options are razor thin and a leader must simply rely on intuition and gut instincts.
It is not always easy to command employees to do something that seems illogical when the impulse is to explain why you want to something puzzling. There were other times when I wanted to do something that was going to be very difficult, or seemed over the top, and I knew it would take a convincing sales pitch to get them to do it correctly. And I had the time to plan and execute that pitch - sometimes you don’t.
Simple
You give short shrift to Eisenhower and so do most people, but he has enjoyed a renaissance of sorts among historians of late. If you go back and look at the record, you will see he was far more decisive in the arena of civil rights than the credit you extend him.
#58 Texpat, I do see the essence of your point, but am all the same troubled by the comparison of a business to a government.
In the case of the former, the relationship between employee and management is a voluntary association that can be quite easily ended by either. Such is not the case in the relationship between citizens and government, and especially not in the case of a “management decree” from a government that serves at the will of the people.
Surely you’re not saying that citizens are employees of their government, are you?
(Apologizes in advance for calling you Shirley.)
# 12
What good is having great legal mind if supreme court judges decide to grease the palm of the president who nominated them..
Talk about independent judiciary?
Gimme a break!
Bob, I took texpat’s comments to reflect the running of the Government, not the running of the people. Our Federal Government is the largest employer in the nation, oddly enough. And the President is effectively the CEO of the huge enterprise. The board is the Congress, and he’s beholden to them to get anything done. And yes, anyone actually working for the Government as an employee (even our wonderful Senators and Reps) can quit and go home. I wish most would.
And for that matter, any US citizen can denounce his citizenship, and find somewhere else to live. Ask the nuts in Hollywood, they’ve been threatening it for years. Maybe they can all move in with Michael Jackson.
# 57
Mr. Bigman
Don’t know where to start.
George Bush inherited a robust economy. Where are we todaay?
George Bush inherited a surplus budget.
Where are we today?George Bush inherited a peacefulnation.
Where are we today?
George Bush inherited a nation respected by international community.
Where are we today?
#64 -
Ab So LUTE Caca Del TORO!
64 noodles -
You see son, there was this little thing that happened back in September 2001. Think hard, maybe the fog will clear and you’ll remember.
#61 bob42
Oh, come on. The discussion of leadership I was having with Simple has everything to do with how a leader makes decisions and directs those immediately under his command. It can be a Boy Sout Troop Scoutmaster, the CEO of a corporation, the guy who runs your local fire department, a bishop, a rabbi or the Captain of an armored brigade company of the U.S. Army or even the President of the USA.
62: noodles -
What on earth are you blathering about? What President? What Judges?
Kant hep myself - got to feed the troll!
#64 Ratman
See #66 and who has controlled the House since 2002? Duh?
Okay, let’s review Pres. Clinton’s successes. During the first two years of his administration, when they controlled the House, Senate, and WH, the DOW went up 600 points. When the GOP took over the House in 1995, they forced reductions in the rate of GROWTH (Not spending cuts), and the market went up 3,000 points in 2 years. Pres. Clinton signed off on this over the tremendous objections by Democrats in the House and Senate (remember how the GOP was going to starve Grandma and Grandpa the children?). Then the GOP also gained control of the Senate in 1997 and forced further reductions in the rate of GROWTH (NOT spending cuts), and the DOW went up another 3,000 points. This was also signed off on by Clinton, again over the screams of liberals. Sadly, the GOP lost the Senate in the next election, and many of the reductions in the rate of GROWTH in spending were stopped. Consequently the DOW lost 1,000 points and the NASDAQ lost half its value before Pres. Bush ever took office. So tell me, what did Clinton do to help the economy? Name the specific policies he instituted that achieved this great growth. What did the Dems do to cause this? Name them specifically? Other than the largest tax increase at that time in history (and retroactively on the dead), I can’t think of one thing Clinton and the Dems did to help, other than signing off on GOP policies.
Now let’s examine Clinton’s record of fighting terrorism:
Well, not much of a record. Monsoor Ijaz, an advisor to Bill Clinton confirms Clinton let bin Laden slip away on multiple occasions. This was confirmed in Buzz Patterson’s book, Dereliction of Duty, covering Patterson’s tour as one of the officers assigned to carry the nuclear football, and often within close physical proximity to Clinton. In fact, when Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan to distract from the Lewinsky fiasco, he personally (very unusual), went to the WH pressroom to inform them. At the time they were watching the movie Wag the Dog, and at first did not believe him since Clinton’s story and the movie line were so close.
Now let’s couple that with Clinton’s treason in selling our ICBM staging and guidance technology to Red China, thereby denying any future president the ability to deal with Red China from a position of strategic nuclear strength.
Well, we see Clinton wasn’t a success as Prez. He’ll never be a success as a man. And in fact, he’ll never be a success as a human being.
Rahman
Don’t know where to start.
George Bush inherited a robust economy. Where are we todaay?
George Bush inherited a surplus budget.
Where are we today?George Bush inherited a peacefulnation.
Where are we today?
George Bush inherited a nation respected by international community.
Where are we today?
Too bad you didn’t know where to stop. Let’s break it down:
“George Bush inherited a robust economy.”
Tell me what role the President plays in influencing our economy? Was Jimma Carter responsible for 20+% interest rates? Absolutely not! Was Clinton responsible for the dot.com boom? Was Bush responsible for the dot.com bust? No!
“George Bush inherited a surplus budget.”
Was Bush responsible for busting our budget surplus? Sure was. The Republican and later Democrat Congress had even more to do with it. Don’t forget, Congress approves the budget, the President only submits it. Congress can make changes along the way. Bottom line: Plenty of blame to go around.
“Bush inherited a peaceful nation.” Three words: Osama bin Laden.
“Bush inherited a nation respected by the international community?” Come on. When were we respected in the world community? Answer, NEVER! They are all jealous of us because we made democracy work and were prosperous and because we bailed their asses out of two world wars. Make no mistake about it, no one likes us, and they haven’t for a very long time. Reference “The Ugly American” 1958, “Political science” Randy Newmann 1972
57 Big….
Has GWB’s approval rating gotten above 32% yet? The only folks with a worse approval rating are “The Entire Congress” and Dick Cheney.
Your points are well taken, but yep…I am worse off than I was in 2000 and I tend to vote my wallet.
Does GWB get 100% of the blame? No! I think the drunk-sailor Republican Congress of the first six years of this century gets a fair amount. So far, I not impressed with the Democrats either.
There is an argument put forth by some Republicans that goes like this….Vote for Us…We are not as bad as the other guys. It is lame and I am not buying it.
Frankly, most of them are just as bad and I do not believe that I am alone in that feeling. We deserve better!!
The Republican and Democratic Parties are like a couple of aging streetwalkers. They really don’t look all that good in the full light of day.
Simple
Mikey,
To some extent I agree with you….but isn’t ironic that when things are going well, whoever is in the Whitehouse claims, “See! Look what I have done for you!”.
When things go sour…..same guy is the last one to belly up to the bar and take responsibility.
Republican or Democrat….Can’t have it both ways!
Simple
#73
Sometimes, we just need to do a little critical thinking instead of listening to the hype. It’s not ironic, it’s politics in the 21st century. Okay, 20th century politicians pulled the same crapola too. So did the 19th century ones.
Something in me wants BO to win. I think it would be the springboard for a viable conservative third party in this country. That is, if we could survive long enough.
As for your comment aboput aging streetwalkers, this bunch doesn’t look too good by street light either.
Simple:
Will you be better off four years from now with OB in office?
It’s something worth thinking about NOW. Four years down
the line may be too late.
Mr Fish,
Actually, I think there is a good chance I will be worse off in four years and it does not matter who sits in the White House.
1. We are entering a period of inflation which will probably last for at least two years.
2. The Stock Market will be flat to declining during this period.
3. All government entities will have to raise taxes to cover the debts they have already incurred. Lord help us if they cannot get earmarks and stupid spending into to some form of control. (I don’t have much hope here and BOTH parties have a similar bad record so far this century)
4. I see us getting dragged into more idiotic no-payout conflicts for poorly thought out reasons.
5. But then again….I will be on Social Security and retired….Work like slaves suckers!
Simple