BeeR Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 Is there a button for "third party" and/or "don't know"? beg pardon that may be why he is electable... he has nothing to flip flop on .. look at GW It's exactly why he's electable. People are sick of the whole Repub/GW "thing" and he's a breath of fresh air. How good or "worthy" he is really won't matter in the end. It's all about perception. Frankly I'll be shocked if he doesn't win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 a straight-up bet on a 35 point popular vote spread? that is DOUBLE reagan's margin over mondale ....way to really put your money where your mouth is He said destroy, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 that may be why he is electable... he has nothing to flip flop on He has nothing to flip-flop on because he has very limited experience (six years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U.S. Senate). That's not exactly a strong selling point for a lot of people. Not being a Washington insider and not having connections to the previous administration is what overwhelmingly put Carter in office and look how that turned out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 He has nothing to flip-flop on because he has very limited experience (six years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U.S. Senate). That's not exactly a strong selling point for a lot of people. Not being a Washington insider and not having connections to the previous administration is what overwhelmingly put Carter in office and look how that turned out. And George W. Bush had executive experience in one of the largest states in the country, and look how well that turned out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Baaaaaaaa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Obama joke on Cheney: The 'black sheep in family' by Andrew Malcolm Campaigning is a lot like foraging. Candidates meet someone, hear a story or see something along the way and they grab it and work it into their regular speaking routine. Barack Obama is having fun all over with the news that he's a distant relation to Vice President Dick Cheney. It was actually Lynne Cheney, who put that out in public during an MSNBC TV interview when she was trying to change the subject away from Hillary Clinton and back to her new book on her families and genealogical research. She announced last month that she'd found out Dick and Barack are eighth cousins. She called it "an amazing thing." Last night, speaking to a fairly raucous crowd of more than 500 at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the L.A. Times' Aaron Zitner reports that Obama was going along on a familiar subject, stagnation in the nation's capital on some very important issues, such as energy independence. "It doesn't help," the Illinois senator said, "that you put my cousin, Dick Cheney, in charge of energy policy." Then, pausing for the oddity of the line to sink in, he added: "I've been trying to hide this for a long time. Everyone has a black sheep in the family." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 He has nothing to flip-flop on because he has very limited experience (six years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U.S. Senate). That's not exactly a strong selling point for a lot of people. Not being a Washington insider and not having connections to the previous administration is what overwhelmingly put Carter in office and look how that turned out. Listen to what he said about Iraq before the war, hell listen to what Cheney said in the 1990's. They were both right. Experience matters little if you are wrong in what you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 And George W. Bush had executive experience in one of the largest states in the country, and look how well that turned out. Experience matters little if you are wrong in what you do. You're both right that bad decision-maker will make bad decisions regardless of experience. But having little experience at all puts both bad AND good decision-makers at a disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 You're both right that bad decision-maker will make bad decisions regardless of experience. But having little experience at all puts both bad AND good decision-makers at a disadvantage. FWIW, as far as the Democratic nomination goes, I fail to see how Barack has less substantive experience than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 FWIW, as far as the Democratic nomination goes, I fail to see how Barack has less substantive experience than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I totally agree. I've find it fairly amusing to listen to Hillary go on about Obama's lack of experience while just hoping beyond hope that people simply believe that she somehow magically has 35 years of experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 FWIW, as far as the Democratic nomination goes, I fail to see how Barack has less substantive experience than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Given that Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for a little over three years, the other two certainly have more experience in Washington. That said, I share Savage's laughter over Hillary's two-plus decades of riding Bill's coattails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Given that Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for a little over three years, the other two certainly have more experience in Washington. That said, I share Savage's laughter over Hillary's two-plus decades of riding Bill's coattails. Edwards had 6 years in the Senate with no political / public service experience prior. Barack had 3 years in the Senate with 8 years of experience prior in the Illinois State Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 ( I should really stop "carrying water" for Obama. I'm not sold 100% on him, but it's nice to have some hope of a decent candidate. Yes his lack of Washington experience is worrisome. I hope he doesn't disappoint.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 You're both right that bad decision-maker will make bad decisions regardless of experience. But having little experience at all puts both bad AND good decision-makers at a disadvantage. That's true but Bush, Reagan and JFK didn't have much either. They relied on others with experience. I hope whoever is elected will listen to experts. They can pick any experts they want but I want someone who listens to professionals whatever party they are. Having political operatives re-writing scientific reports needs to change. And deciding countries are dangers when evidence points elsewhere does too. For me someone who listens is even more important than experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Giuliani you Dems are so funny. You learn nothing from the past. Nominate anyone on the face of the earth except John Kerry and you win the election easy. Here we go again. Nominate anyone but Obama and you win election easy. Nothing to do with race. The guy is unelectable. He has done nothing in politics. He is a force created by the media. He will get destroyed in general election. I bet this post would have been totally different if any other democrat were in the lead. I really can't picture moneymakers making this exact same post about Hillary. Really. That's not sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Edwards had 6 years in the Senate with no political / public service experience prior. Barack had 3 years in the Senate with 8 years of experience prior in the Illinois State Senate. State senate positions are nice stepping-stone jobs, but they're maybe half a step above state representative positions. One of the state representative nominees in my district last year had the credentials of a high school diploma and a job as a lifeguard (I'm not making this up). IMO, being governor or mayor of a major city better prepares one for the Presidency than being a state senator. I'm not saying that Obama has no experience at all and that he's ill-prepared to serve as President. His relative lack of experience is just something that people on the bubble will consider. That's true but Bush, Reagan and JFK didn't have much either. They relied on others with experience. I hope whoever is elected will listen to experts. They can pick any experts they want but I want someone who listens to professionals whatever party they are. Having political operatives re-writing scientific reports needs to change. And deciding countries are dangers when evidence points elsewhere does too. For me someone who listens is even more important than experience. I agree with this. I'll take it even further and add that listening to the RIGHT people (e.g., people not named Dick Cheney) is even more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Giuliani you Dems are so funny. You learn nothing from the past. Nominate anyone on the face of the earth except John Kerry and you win the election easy. Here we go again. Nominate anyone but Obama and you win election easy. Nothing to do with race. The guy is unelectable. He has done nothing in politics. He is a force created by the media. He will get destroyed in general election. Really. Bush had the greatest smear machine in the last 100 years. Look at what he did to McCain. If McCain had won in 2000 we would be much better off today. I have no doubt he would have stopped 911 and kept us out of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 i believe Republican will win again ...I believe it will be Rudy or John Mccain ...and I believe the Children are the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) Really. Bush had the greatest smear machine in the last 100 years. Look at what he did to McCain. If McCain had won in 2000 we would be much better off today. I have no doubt he would have stopped 911 and kept us out of Iraq. I don't see how he stops 9/11 ... but, I would bet that the response would have happend MUCH faster than one year after the fact. And, the response would have been much swifter and we would never have ended up deploying to Iraq at all... Possible McCain Timeline (had he been POTUS on 9/11): 9/11 -- bombings 9/12 to 9/17 -- plan to go after bin laden 9/18 to 9/24 -- flatten mountains and make glass 9/25 to 9/30 -- apologize to anyone who needs apologizing 10/1 -- carry on Edited January 8, 2008 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I don't see how he stops 9/11 ... but, I would bet that the response would have happend MUCH faster than one year after the fact. And, the response would have been much swifter and we would never have ended up deploying to Iraq at all... Possible McCain Timeline (had he been POTUS on 9/11): 9/11 -- bombings 9/12 to 9/17 -- plan to go after bin laden 9/18 to 9/24 -- flatten mountains and make glass 9/25 to 9/30 -- apologize to anyone who needs apologizing 10/1 -- carry on Possibly. Bush had multiple warnings he ignored. At least McCain would have investigated "Bin laden determined to strike inside the US: and had the agencies work together. Clinton put the heads of those agencies in the same room and made them talk. At least McCain would have tried. If he had failed at least he would have captured or killed Bin Laden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 At this point I would go with Obama. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Possibly. Bush had multiple warnings he ignored. At least McCain would have investigated "Bin laden determined to strike inside the US: and had the agencies work together. Clinton put the heads of those agencies in the same room and made them talk. At least McCain would have tried. If he had failed at least he would have captured or killed Bin Laden. I know that you like to blame Bush for everything under the sun, but implying that Clinton did more to combat terrorism than him is flat-out retarded. I was detained briefly and had my car searched while coming back into Detroit the summer prior to 9/11. This was most likely because my friend who was born in Jordan was with me. I can tell you first-hand that the U.S. government wasn't exactly sitting around with their thumbs up their butts in the months prior to 9/11. They knew that something was going on. And LOL at McCain invading the mountain region of Pakistan and boming the hell out of it to kill Bin Laden. No way that would've happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 but implying that Clinton did more to combat terrorism than him is flat-out retarded. PDD#62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 PDD#62 The Clinton administration had the chance to assassinate Bin Laden in Aghanistan back in the '90s and balked because some prince from Yemen was in his company. They also failed to take action after the U.S.S. Cole and Khobar Towers bombings. While the Clinton administration obviously didn't ignore the threat, the assertion that they did a lot more to combat it than the Bush administration is pretty silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 the assertion that they did a lot more to combat it than the Bush administration is pretty silly. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.