Obama Election Termed "Landslide" by most pundits = Mandate or no?

  • Thread startersexycouple2011
  • Start date
S

sexycouple2011

Not quite a lurker
Beloved Member
Sep 29, 2008
165
0
16
I'm curious what people think on this topic.

On the one hand, you could claim it's difficult to say Obama has a true "mandate" when he won by "only" about 7% of the popular vote. (Please note: I've seen many people in here comment that Obama only won by 2%, but this is not correct...the final numbers have Obama at 53% and McCain at 46% of the vote, with Obama nabbing just short of 10 million more votes than McCain. I've also seen many people say off-hand that Obama "only" got 52% "or so" of the vote, without noting that historically the *margin* of this victory is actually quite large).

Taking this further, Bush actually LOST the popular vote in 2000 by 500,000 votes and won by the slimmest of margins in 2004 (numbers which are up for debate due to strong Republican efforts to scrub/purge Democratic votes in a variety of states)...yet despite this fact, he and his administration quite obviously claimed a "mandate" (no doubt, at Karl Rove's instruction) in several speeches following both elections.

In absolute terms, I'd have to say that despite my personal political preferences in this election that I am open to hearing arguments why Obama might not have a clear-cut mandate...after all, there are still a lot of people out there who voted against him despite the electoral landslide.

Yet, in relative terms, this election is *absolutely* a landslide both in terms of the electoral vote and the popular vote when compared to both Bush elections.... Most analysts I've listened to make the very compelling point that the days of massive popular vote landslides a la Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 may never, ever happen again since the country is now much more sharply divided along ideological lines than at any time in our past. We are a nation of polar opposite views with a small but significant middle who generally decides elections one way or the other. So, if this is a correct assessment then in relative terms...in MODERN election politics terms...this is about as big of a landslide as we're likely to see again in our lifetimes. It rivals the landslide of Clinton in 1996 in terms of its scope.

My feeling is that because of this the Obama camp can indeed claim a cautious "mandate". And, beyond this, facts on the ground tend to back this up...the absolute turmoil we find ourselves in after a disastrous 8 years under the W regime has the country in need of something different, that's for sure. If not a mandate for change now, then when?
 
Sorry SexyCouple but I still believe (despite Wills exit poll info) that if McCain had picked a moderate VP, that four of those close swing states could well have gone the other way.

Anyway no landslide no matter how you want to change the definition or how badly the Obamaites want one for their "dear leader" and that means no mandate. Though they don't need a mandate. They have control of Congress and the Presidency which in itself is a mandate.

I believe that the followers of the "Messiah" thought that the whole country hated the Bush Presidency so much that McCain would be crushed in a real landslide and are shocked that he wasn't. With all the mistakes McCain made in this campaign and he lost 53% to 46%? That's not bad. (I think Hillary would have won by more)

Here is my take on the election in a very general and simple statement. The Bush Presidency was the catalyst that swung the pendulum back the other way. And the half of the country that pays 3% of the taxes voted themselves a better livelihood from the half of the country that pays 97% of the taxes. (in general)

I had believed that the higher the turnout would be, the worse for McCain and I still believe that because in this country it seems that we are coming to the point where the taxsucking voters are outnumbering the taxpaying voters. I have always believed that only income taxpayers be allowed to vote. When you enter the workforce you vote. When you retire you don't. You should vote for the betterment of the country, not to pick the wallet of someone who made better decisions than you. But then the democrats have always been about the politics of envy. The "look at what he's got, its not fair" type of politics.

Norman
 
Actually, the exit polls show that the 'rich', the 6% of the population that makes more than $250K, voted for Obama by a margin of 52% to 46%. So there goes the theory that those that those who don't pay taxes "voted themselves a better livelihood ".

Although it wasn't a landslide, it's a clear cut mandate, certainly by Republican standards as professed by the Bush administration. The mandate, however, is to fix the economy which was the voters' overwhelming major concern and reason to vote for Obama. He should focus on that and put the social issues aside for the most part during his first term.
 
I voted for Obama, most voters in rural areas went the other way in my opinion because if there is "social change" it will only do the city folks any good. Ma Same made a bad choice with Carabou Barbie, he already had the right wing vote, he needed a moderate for VP..and I think would of won if he had one.
I think quite a few voters were influenced by the churches coming out against candidates that are pro killing babies also.
I for one am happy with Obama and hope his economic policies get passed. If he turns out to be a bad choice, like Bush was...he will be the LAST black presidental candidate for quite a while
 
Well as Norm is a East Coast money man with so damn much he dont know what to do with it he liked that McCain ticket but he made a interesting point if McCain would of had a good VP running mate I think four of the States would of swung the other way if not more they should of left Palin on a bed Norm you old shit so we could enjoy her instead of vote for her now get back to counting all that damn money and if you would put some in the banks they wouldnt be needing goverment money lol Good to see ya ole friend
 
what cost Mccain the most wasn't Palin it was the economy. If you look at the polls Mccain was doing pretty good until the economy turned. That's when Obama's camp kept saying Mccain was going to be 4 more years of bush which is actually pretty far from the truth. But it was an excellent plan.

Honestly if the economy didn't get so messed up Mccain probably would have won.

Remember before the economy turned the big issue was the Iraq war and most americans liked Mccains plan over Obamas
 
I agree with Will. Mandate on the economy? Yes. mandate on all the rest... Not so much. But Obama's already showing signs of abandoning his most left wing supporters and moving to the middle. if so, I predict he'll be Bill Clinton the sequel, and I think we can all live with that. Honestly, I'm more scared of Nancy Polosi. Now that she has unlimited power, God only knows what she might try to push through.
 
I think it's difficult to say that any one factor was responsible for McCain losing. It was a perfect storm of stupidity in many ways, starting off with the 8 years of a Bush fiasco which caused this economic situation, followed closely by the Palin pick, and sowed up into a nice tidy flaming bag of poo by the shameful way Schmidt et al ran the campaign. Although I disagree on the exact percentages on how much each of these factors played in bringing the McCain campaign to defeat, I do have to say that the economy certainly was the biggest factor. It's just that I think the Palin pick and the general mismanagement of his campaign were a close second/third. Rightly or wrongly, it's hard to argue against the mass exodus of conservative support for Palin as the Veep. Pundits, super-delegates, and big-wig conservatives far and wide were running from her like a five alarm fire. That said, I don't think her treatment post election has been fair to her and it's actually quite sad how quickly political operatives eat their own when they are scared about whether or not they'll get another job. It's pretty clear people in the Schmidt group picked her, pushed her on McCain, and then when it went badly they want to distance themselves from the pick so they can try to get a job in the future that doesn't involve flipping burgers.

As for whether or not this was a "landslide" or not, well, again I guess that's up to interpretation and depends on whether you want to look at it in absolute terms in the entire history of elections or more recent relative terms now that the political landscape has changed and the electorate has become so polarized. I'm not alone in saying/thinking this qualifies as a "landslide" within the current political landscape, many many right wing pundits think so too (Joe Scarborough being one of them who is on the record saying "McCain got his butt kicked").

Also, in relative terms, when we compare this to the Bush elections in 2000 and 2004, when you think about those guys claiming a mandate (which is laughable if you're being honest) then you have to, by default, sort of say to yourself, "OK, if the previous President can claim a mandate even when he loses the popular vote in one election and basically ties in the next, then isn't it possible to have a legitimate 'mandate' when the newest President wins by almost 10 million votes?"

That said, I agree the idea of any mandate does pretty much turn 100% on the economy at the moment, and nothing else. By the way, I agree with you on the guns issue...nobody is taking mine away. But, I don't believe Obama would be stupid enough to take on the NRAA and have any hopes of re-election. Now, in the same breathe though, I have to ask you...um...how exactly could anyone "liberalize" abortion? LOL Hmmm...would that entail making it possible to legally kill babies after they are born? (yes, a morbid thought...but I say it to make a point...I'm not sure I see how you could liberalize abortion any more than it currently is unless you're talking about easing restrictions on getting them to allow minors to get them without parental approval in all states, etc...). By the way, I'm pro-choice...but I tow that line pretty hard. I think partial birth abortions should absolutely be outlawed and that we should have somewhat tighter restrictions for who can get an abortion with/without parental participation...although that becomes a sticky issue that is a whole 'nother discussion. I abhor abortion...have personally felt its effects on myself and a girl I've dated...it's not a fun process and can have lasting effects on all involved...but I believe the alternative of outlawing it in all cases has far deeper and further reaching negative implications on society as a whole and would reduce abortion to something that is sought out on the black market in dingy, dangerous, un-clean, un-sanitary back-alleys. There's just no way you can legislate something like that away and expect society to follow suit. It will always be a necessary evil.

(and, yes, I realize I'm potentially opening up a big ol can o worms by discussing abortion as a topic...lol)

Will & Eve said:
^^^
You are exactly right. Exit polling confirms that the economy was far and away the major factor and it cut against McCain. Those who talk about Palin being a bad choice don't travel in conservative circles (I do) and i can assure you that if McCain had taken Ridge or Lieberman right wing voters would have stayed home in droves and more than cancled out the marginal gains in states like Virginia or North Carolina.

As to the question in the OP - Mandate: yes. Landslide? Ridiculous.

Ro has it right. This election turned on the economy. If Obama sees it as a mandate to go after guns or liberalize abortion or whatever else, he'll flame out fast. If he seems to be working on the economy above all else he'll have the power still to do the social stuff when times are better.


Right now, the thing that's on my mind is whether or not Obama does well enough to be well set for re-election or if the economy is in too much of a tailspin for him to pull it out.

If the former, then I'm for letting Huckabee or someone waste himself as token opposition in 2012 and keep the good young talent in reserve for 2016.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps even facts will not convince people that do not wish to be convinced and i can understand that. I like what Ro said regarding the percentage of those making above 250K voting almost side to side with the national average.

i think that despite the loud voice of those who want minimal income taxation to be the only issue in the spot light, that most voters are seeing the whole picture. they realize that deregulation might sound like something nice, that pure capitalism and free market based economy sounds dandy, but have come to hard terms with the reality of those situations.

also, it has become all too apparent that there is too much blood on our hands in the middle east. it has become too obvious that we have sought imperialism-NOT justice for those that lost their lives on 9-11. bombing Syria just a few weeks before the election was nothing to ignore. invading Iraq with a tyrannic and racist methodology and leaving trails of bloodshed and trying to sweep it all under a rug of righteous delusion, too, is nothing that has not gone unnoticed by the younger voters! Preemptive strike has it's place but what we've done is no different than to send a gigantic herd of locusts to feed on a forest in order to prevent a fire...it is unheard of...it is redefining classical invasion. We have become the bad guys and not all Americans wish to go that path as this election has shown.

It sucks that taxes have to go up on the rich but to say that this is the only issue you can think of is frightful!
SaltandPepper98 said:
Sorry SexyCouple but I still believe (despite Wills exit poll info) that if McCain had picked a moderate VP, that four of those close swing states could well have gone the other way.

Anyway no landslide no matter how you want to change the definition or how badly the Obamaites want one for their "dear leader" and that means no mandate. Though they don't need a mandate. They have control of Congress and the Presidency which in itself is a mandate.

I believe that the followers of the "Messiah" thought that the whole country hated the Bush Presidency so much that McCain would be crushed in a real landslide and are shocked that he wasn't. With all the mistakes McCain made in this campaign and he lost 53% to 46%? That's not bad. (I think Hillary would have won by more)

Here is my take on the election in a very general and simple statement. The Bush Presidency was the catalyst that swung the pendulum back the other way. And the half of the country that pays 3% of the taxes voted themselves a better livelihood from the half of the country that pays 97% of the taxes. (in general)

I had believed that the higher the turnout would be, the worse for McCain and I still believe that because in this country it seems that we are coming to the point where the taxsucking voters are outnumbering the taxpaying voters. I have always believed that only income taxpayers be allowed to vote. When you enter the workforce you vote. When you retire you don't. You should vote for the betterment of the country, not to pick the wallet of someone who made better decisions than you. But then the democrats have always been about the politics of envy. The "look at what he's got, its not fair" type of politics.

Norman
Click to expand...
 
I'm not so certain that the country will be the same by 2012. I understand why you say he will be the last black president if the country is doing poorly in four years. BUT you are only looking at society as it is now, one that has NEVER EXPECTED having a black pres so soon let alone having one four full years! Seeing a black president for four full years, good or bad, will have a subconscious effect on the majority of people. Also, there will be much learning by our society not to judge his race but his merit. In the end i think society will not be as it is now and even if Obama "fails" (for lack of a better term) I think it will not be seen as racial at that time. Let's hope I'm right on this.
b
Susan said:
I voted for Obama, most voters in rural areas went the other way in my opinion because if there is "social change" it will only do the city folks any good. Ma Same made a bad choice with Carabou Barbie, he already had the right wing vote, he needed a moderate for VP..and I think would of won if he had one.
I think quite a few voters were influenced by the churches coming out against candidates that are pro killing babies also.
I for one am happy with Obama and hope his economic policies get passed. If he turns out to be a bad choice, like Bush was...he will be the LAST black presidental candidate for quite a while
Click to expand...
 
RoSquirts said:
Actually, the exit polls show that the 'rich', the 6% of the population that makes more than $250K, voted for Obama by a margin of 52% to 46%.".
Click to expand...

Ya know that does make sense now that I look at it. 52% of 6% of the population would not be a whole lot of net votes for Obama but I can picture your average PBS watching elitist full of liberal guilt voting for Obama.

Thanks Ro and what do your exit polls show for the average middle class to upper middle class working families? Especially the average middle aged, middle class to upper middle class working families. The ones who feel that they pay all the taxes since the "poor" don't pay taxes and any democrat can tell you the "rich" don't pay their "fair share."

Anyway, if I were Obama, with the money I spent and the media kissing my ass and the anti Bush protest votes and Iraq and the economy and the best I could do was 53%? I would not be talking mandate. I would be worried that its all downhill from here.

The media can be very fickle. If they turn against him like I felt they started turning against Hillary, he could be in for a tough go. But he would have to really screw up as I believe the media is committed to Obama.

Norm
 
missouri_hubby said:
I agree with Will. Mandate on the economy? Yes. mandate on all the rest... Not so much. But Obama's already showing signs of abandoning his most left wing supporters and moving to the middle. if so, I predict he'll be Bill Clinton the sequel, and I think we can all live with that. Honestly, I'm more scared of Nancy Polosi. Now that she has unlimited power, God only knows what she might try to push through.
Click to expand...

I myself haven't noticed any signs of Obama moving to the middle (isn't he thinking of Robert Kennedy Jr. for environmental czar) its a nice thought but I surely agree with you on Piolosi. (or however the hell you spell it)
 
SaltandPepper98 said:
Ya know that does make sense now that I look at it. 52% of 6% of the population would not be a whole lot of net votes for Obama but I can picture your average PBS watching elitist full of liberal guilt voting for Obama.

Thanks Ro and what do your exit polls show for the average middle class to upper middle class working families? Especially the average middle aged, middle class to upper middle class working families. The ones who feel that they pay all the taxes since the "poor" don't pay taxes and any democrat can tell you the "rich" don't pay their "fair share."

Norm
Click to expand...

It's interesting that, when presented with exit polling data that shows that those earning over $250k voted for Obama, these people transform themselves from "taxpaying voters" to "your average PBS watching elitist full of liberal guilt". How quickly we turn,lol.

As for the "middle class" vote -

$30-50,000 which constitutes 19% of voters 55% voted Obama and 43% McCain
$50-75,000 which constitutes 21% of voters 48% voted Obama and49% McCain
$75-100,000 which constitutes 15% of voters 51% voted Obama and 48% McCain

Apparently this segment,which constitutes 54% of the electorate, also voted for Obama. The argument that the "half of the country that pays 3% of the taxes voted themselves a better livelihood from the half of the country that pays 97% of the taxes" simply does not hold water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will & Eve said:
You'd be surprised at how much is stated as fact in any political debate is actually anything but.
Click to expand...


No surprise at all to me,lol.
 
Heh heh thanks Ro. I so enjoy the spankings you give me on occasion that I feel I should be sending you a check.

Norm
 
I didn't mean anything offensive by the "perfect storm of stupidity" comment, certainly not in terms of it being directed at anyone in here. I meant it as a general summation of the circumstances surrounding the McCain campaign, some of which were out of their control but but some of which was the campaign's own mis-management. Everything I've seen and heard is that it's generally agreed it was a very poorly run campaign. Without even looking at the big blunders, the general strategy was far too scattershot, careening from one talking point to another with each passing day. They didn't convey steadyness during a time when that's what the American public needed. Then they blamed Palin when it was all over. LOL Yes, I think Palin was a bad pick...but she was THEIR pick. Obviously the Schmidt group throwing her under the bus is simply their best effort to try to get jobs again doing something other than flipping burgers. With how badly the campaign went every one of them should be afraid of being employable.

Conservative pundits against Palin:

Start here: Pajamas Media » Even Female Conservative Pundits Embrace Palin Bashing

Read more here: Winds of Change.NET: Conservative pundits on Sarah Palin

This is a well thought out article that I tend to agree with.

As for making a list of 20 names, why don't you come up with a "Top 20 Conservative Pundit Endorsement" list first and then we can find out together who supported her and who didn't? ;-) My guess is you'll find a lot of names on the list who weren't real positive about her.

Just with these 3 articles we have Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, and David Brooks.

Highly notable is the defection of Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley's kid) who openly and "controversially" endorsed Obama in large measure due to the ill-preparedness of the Palin Veep pick. You really should check out his articles at the Dailybeast.com, they're pretty entertaining. :)

Read his endorsement here: Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama - The Daily Beast

Read why he left the National Review here: Buckley Bows Out of National Review - The Daily Beast

Some additional commentary on the subject which is worth a look: Christopher Buckley Resigns From National Review After Obama Endorsement

One interesting point which I tend to agree with is that a lot of the opposition within the Republican party to her being the Veep was because she was not someone who did what she was told. That's not the part of her story I have a problem with. In fact, I like that about her. The problem I have with her is that she simply isn't qualified. If she was *qualified* AND a *maverick* then I think they'd have had something. But a person who just wants to come in and change the status quo without really having any grasp of a realistic alternative or really even understanding how the world generally works is a scary idea.

As for the abortion stuff...it's interesting how two people can differ in so many ways and then find common ground in an unlikely place. ;-) I'm not a big fan of abortion...so from that basic premise I find the idea of "loosening" up the restrictions to be extremely distasteful. I'd be opposed to most of the ideas on that list you provided.

Will & Eve said:
I know it's difficult but I must INSIST that you use less abrasive descriptions here. Most people - including me - simply can't resist tit-for-tat and soon we'll be flaming each other again. That has to stop.


No, it's not hard to argue against that at all.

This files under the catagory of "only bad news get reported"

Can you list 20 prominent names who "ran from" Palin? Maybe so - but how many prominent conservative voices are there in all? the number of well known names which expressed reservations makes up, I'd suspect, well under 1% of all the prominent conservative voices out there.

But they don't write news stories about conservative pundits supporting a conservative nominee.

1. Do away with the "Gag Rule" which forbids federal funding to any UN agency which promotes abortion as an alternative
2. Reverse policies which forbid federal funds being spent on abortions in the U.S.
3. Reverse policies which forbbid the use of government hospitals or employees to preform abortions
4. Pass legislation punishing pro-life activists in ways that Planned Parenthood and others have tried to get the court to do (essentially suppression of free speech)
5. Pass Federal legislation suppressing parental notification laws
6. Pass Federal legislation requiring pharmacists to provide abortifecient birth-control
7. Pass legislation forbiding Religious owned hospitals and clinics from refusing to provide abortion services
8. Amend the "Partial Birth" abortion law to allow a mental health exemption (which is essentially a blank check which nullifies the law)

Just off the top of my head.

Which virtually no one on either side wants.

Did you ever know that that whole "back alley abortion" mythology was made up out of whole cloth?

I've seen photographs of a Planned Parenthood publication from the early 50's (and checked it out at the time on snopes, it's not fake) which had a column written by the PP president at the time which stated (paraphrased) "virtually all illegal abortions take place in a doctors office or clinic after hours or undercover of secrecy"

No one ever mentioned "coat hangers" and "back alley abortions" until the fights over legalizing abortion began in the very late 60's.

Bernard Nathanson, one of the main advocates of legalized abortion at the time has stated that the figures cited by them at the time of the number of illegal abortions and the number of maternal deaths was made up out of whole cloth with no research at all to back them up.

You'd be surprised at how much is stated as fact in any political debate is actually anything but.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The election was less a mandate for Obama, than a reputation of George W. Bush (for right or wrong). It had little to do with McCain and even less so after the economic collapse, which both parties are responsible, but perhaps more so the Democrats.
 
No matter how you SLICE IT, George Bush started a war that will cost the lives of more than 100,000 people. He deserves/will leave office as a disgrace - he will remain defiant to the end, as believing that the America is in very great danger. He sees that which is not true.

Barrick Obama is NOW the MOST POWERFUL LEADER IN THE WORLD. What he says, GOES. But he will work for ALL PEOPLE.

Those Americans who are earning more than $250,000, should be proud to pay a little more tax if it will help the American economy get off its knees from bankruptcy - and it is bankrupt, you had better believe it, it has been for quite some time - and George Bush funded Iraq war on credit as there were no funds in the bank.

Recently, we have seen another African-Black man win Formula One World Motor racing championship. Also, the fastest 100m runner in the world is a black man, who is capable of 9.55 for 100m anytime he decides to go for broke and not wave at the crowd.

It is time to stop thinking that the black race are inferior.

Obama has a CLEAR MANDATE, and millions of Americans are still frightened to vote Democrat to back a man who can make a VERY POWERFUL DIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD.

Bush was a disaster, his policies stripped the country of money to fuel a war that he could not win. All that happened was that the hopes and dreams of many Americans were destroyed when they lost their homes.

There are 6,000 companies "pushing credit cards on the poor", tricking them into signing up for money the companies know the lower income classes can't afford. Obama needs to immediately penalise these companies by putting a morotorium on the loans and mortgages; and sacking the bosses for their greed in siezing commissions any man with a shred of decency would not have sought. It is revolting stupid to foreclose on mortgages the banks knew the low income earners would never be able to sustain.

I would like to see greedy business whipped on their bare ass in PUBLIC STOCKS, then pelted with rotten fruit and tomatoes........then put to work in factories, cleaning toilets and slowly working up to working on the assembly lines. Prison is too good for those that damaged the economy, keep them where every one can see who they are.

I have made huge profits on the share market - it is not hard work - but the profits are obscene. Rich people can't do without the efforts of those who work in factories for low wages.

There are 6,615,295,019 people alive on this earth and if trhe total wealth of the world was divided amongst them, the average person would be an instant triple millionaire.

Very, very, very sad that the richest people DON'T CARE A STUFF THAT CHILDREN DIE EVERY DAY FROM LACK OF FOOD.

Americans will have to come to the conclusion that continuing to vote for parties that are afraid to move forward is really quite stupid. A lot of the old school need to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century - they need to let go of the old predjudices that saw so many people downtrodden.

Let go of War, start putting your hands out to LET PEACE COME TO THE WHOLE WORLD.

OBAMA has a FULL MANDATE. Get in the line to help him walk the Path to world peace. America only has guns because there is too much hate for the various cultures. Extend the hand of friendship to those you meet every day, and the hatred of the world can disappear in a few short year.

McCain and Palin are both nice people, but Obama WILL LISTEN to what young people want. This is their country, THEY ARE THE FUTURE, this is their time, they don't want all the corruption any more.
 
it's a football match. if you want real constitutional conservatism then go with Ron Paul in '12 and not these neocons! They distance themselves from big government and big spending only in rhetoric and absolutely nothing else. I really don't understand the appeal behind the modern republican party with regard to what their constituency is looking for. Ron Paul, while I will not agree with him on MANY things, is the only respectable republican that I can think of because he stands close to the center of the party core values, i.e. the TRUE traditional stated values of that party. The others are basically "bushites", meaning history will show the Republican candidates of 2008 as inheritors of W's policies, quite different from the Reagan and Bush I policies of the earlier times. And even then Reagan and Bush I were themselves very far from "constitutional conservatism" assuming that is synonymous with general conservatism or conservative values.

I know many will come back at me attacking Obama but that is not the point here. I'm trying to actually point out some positive element in the Republican party.

Will & Eve said:
You know, I actually respect that. I have never really debated anyone on the notion that she's not ready (though I've been known to argue Obama isn't either) and I don't blame anyone for that impression. the one thing Obama did have on her is that having been running for President for almost two years, he's had a chance to school himself on good ideas in a way that she hasn't.

My counter point to that was that she wasn't going to be president in 2 months or, most likely, in 6 or 18...so she was going to have that chance to process national issues too.

But i respect differences of opinion on that and the paranoia that McCain would wake up dead on any given morning.

But I have no problem with admitting she'll be a MUCH more solid candidate at the top of the ticket in 8 years or even 4 because now she has a national horizon instead of a state horizon. To be perfectly honest - part of me is relieved that Palin WON'T be so close to McCain for the next 4/8 years...'cause I DON'T like his governang style (I respect him personally but I disagree with him wildly on many points) and I would not want her "infected" with McCain-ism.
Click to expand...
 
Josetta said:
No matter how you SLICE IT, George Bush started a war that will cost the lives of more than 100,000 people. He deserves/will leave office as a disgrace - he will remain defiant to the end, as believing that the America is in very great danger. He sees that which is not true.

Barrick Obama is NOW the MOST POWERFUL LEADER IN THE WORLD. What he says, GOES. But he will work for ALL PEOPLE.

Those Americans who are earning more than $250,000, should be proud to pay a little more tax if it will help the American economy get off its knees from bankruptcy - and it is bankrupt, you had better believe it, it has been for quite some time - and George Bush funded Iraq war on credit as there were no funds in the bank.

Recently, we have seen another African-Black man win Formula One World Motor racing championship. Also, the fastest 100m runner in the world is a black man, who is capable of 9.55 for 100m anytime he decides to go for broke and not wave at the crowd.

It is time to stop thinking that the black race are inferior.

Obama has a CLEAR MANDATE, and millions of Americans are still frightened to vote Democrat to back a man who can make a VERY POWERFUL DIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD.

Bush was a disaster, his policies stripped the country of money to fuel a war that he could not win. All that happened was that the hopes and dreams of many Americans were destroyed when they lost their homes.

There are 6,000 companies "pushing credit cards on the poor", tricking them into signing up for money the companies know the lower income classes can't afford. Obama needs to immediately penalise these companies by putting a morotorium on the loans and mortgages; and sacking the bosses for their greed in siezing commissions any man with a shred of decency would not have sought. It is revolting stupid to foreclose on mortgages the banks knew the low income earners would never be able to sustain.

I would like to see greedy business whipped on their bare ass in PUBLIC STOCKS, then pelted with rotten fruit and tomatoes........then put to work in factories, cleaning toilets and slowly working up to working on the assembly lines. Prison is too good for those that damaged the economy, keep them where every one can see who they are.

I have made huge profits on the share market - it is not hard work - but the profits are obscene. Rich people can't do without the efforts of those who work in factories for low wages.

There are 6,615,295,019 people alive on this earth and if trhe total wealth of the world was divided amongst them, the average person would be an instant triple millionaire.

Very, very, very sad that the richest people DON'T CARE A STUFF THAT CHILDREN DIE EVERY DAY FROM LACK OF FOOD.

Americans will have to come to the conclusion that continuing to vote for parties that are afraid to move forward is really quite stupid. A lot of the old school need to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century - they need to let go of the old predjudices that saw so many people downtrodden.

Let go of War, start putting your hands out to LET PEACE COME TO THE WHOLE WORLD.

OBAMA has a FULL MANDATE. Get in the line to help him walk the Path to world peace. America only has guns because there is too much hate for the various cultures. Extend the hand of friendship to those you meet every day, and the hatred of the world can disappear in a few short year.

McCain and Palin are both nice people, but Obama WILL LISTEN to what young people want. This is their country, THEY ARE THE FUTURE, this is their time, they don't want all the corruption any more.
Click to expand...




This is the truth and trying to minimize Obama and his huge lanslide mandate win is typical of sore losers.

Watch and learn as he governs in a way that includes all of us rich ,poor black, white conservative, liberal.

The Gop needs to focus on 2016 and they need a lot of luck and a sea change in tactics and philosophy. The people have spoken and reject the politics of fear and corruption.
 
the last 8 years the last 8 years the last 8 years




I rest my case
 
Will & Eve said:
You know, I actually respect that. I have never really debated anyone on the notion that she's not ready (though I've been known to argue Obama isn't either) and I don't blame anyone for that impression. the one thing Obama did have on her is that having been running for President for almost two years, he's had a chance to school himself on good ideas in a way that she hasn't.

My counter point to that was that she wasn't going to be president in 2 months or, most likely, in 6 or 18...so she was going to have that chance to process national issues too.

But i respect differences of opinion on that and the paranoia that McCain would wake up dead on any given morning.

But I have no problem with admitting she'll be a MUCH more solid candidate at the top of the ticket in 8 years or even 4 because now she has a national horizon instead of a state horizon. To be perfectly honest - part of me is relieved that Palin WON'T be so close to McCain for the next 4/8 years...'cause I DON'T like his governang style (I respect him personally but I disagree with him wildly on many points) and I would not want her "infected" with McCain-ism.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I think my problem with Palin is this: if she has not been "curious" enough...intellectually curious enough...up to this point in her life to really, truly understand the world outside of Wasila, Alaska then can we seriously consider that she would truly ever learn for what could be considered the *right* reasons and not just because she is suddenly in the national spotlight?

Let me clarify: based on sheer knowledge about the world I'd confidently say that several of us in this forum alone are easily more qualified to be Veep than Palin. Bear with me. People are either just naturally intellectually curious...or they are not. They are born with the need to understand how things work...or they aren't. You don't just suddenly pick that up somewhere along the way. I don't believe Sarah is dumb. Far from it. But, I also don't believe she is intellectually deep enough to truly handle a position of such high office in what could be considered a truly "statesman-like" manner.

I had this talk the other day with someone and I broke it down simply: My girlfriend and I went puppy shopping a couple weeks ago and decided on a Labradoodle. So, we were playing with all the pups in the litter and part of me wanted to go for the pup that was sleeping and quiet. But the more I watched them and played with them I realized I was drawn to the curious puppies the most...the ones that investigated everything...sniffing, licking, biting, wandering around and tripping and falling...trying to figure out how shit works.

Sarah Palin is that sleepy little puppy, content to stay in Alaska her entire life, never wandering off to really learn how shit works. She is not likely to ever really discover that sort of curiosity which could make her truly lead from a place of wisdom or experience.

To come full circle, it's clear that several of us in this forum read a lot...and some of us travel as well. In that sense alone, many of us are more qualified than she is. Many of us clearly understand many things about how the world works. I'm not convinced Sarah has that inherent inclination or capability. And to me that is a disqualifier for the highest office.
 
Will & Eve said:
^^^
Paul will be 77 next time.

There's a a very solid group of relatiely young Republicans - I agree the old gurad needs to go but there are some young ones who cut their teeth idolizing Reagan who are really good...

Sarah Palin
Bobby Jindal
Mark Sanford
Mike Pence
Jeff Flake
Eric Cantor
JC Watts
Michael Steele
Jim DeMint
Marsha Blackburn
Chip Pickering (If I'm right that he's going to run for Governor next time)
Tim Pawlenty
Tom Coburn (who's probably the most "Paul-like" of anyone in Washington right now)
Tom McClintock


That's not to say there are not a FEW of the Old Guard who still have skills but the thing for them to do is mentor the young talent and realize their day is past. Gingrich and Barbour and Duncan Hunter spring to mind in that category.
Click to expand...


I especially like Ron Paul and JC Watts. But I got to tell ya Will, I really think Palin has had her 15 minutes of fame. Rightly or wrongly I just don't think she will ever be taken seriously.

Also I believe that moderate Republicans have to ditch the real right wing. So they'll stay home on election day. So what? At least the moderates won't cross over and vote against them.

We had a Republican Governor here in Mass awhile back by the name of Bill Weld. He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (like me). I think that is more of what you need nationally in the future.

As it stands the Republicans are seen as unwelcoming to too many groups. Women because of the abortion issue, gays because of the religious right, blacks, and the list goes on. I think a social liberal/fiscal conservative would begin to address the Republican stand on those issues and thus become more inclusive.

Norman
 
You are right as far as you go Will. The problem is the times have been changing. And they will keep changing. The old time right wing looks like your daddy's Oldsmobile now. Not too many years ago you would have never thought there would be Prop questions about gay marriage. Sure they are losing now but ten years from now they will be winning. Each generation is more and more socially liberal overall.

Ya see Will, they peck at you a little at a time. Just one example. I will see my guns banned in my lifetime. I am sure of it. They are doing it a little at a time. They are adding misdemeanors now to the list of things that disallow you to get a gun permit. Gun owners are getting older and gun club memberships are dwindling thus fees go up. The younger guys are brainwashed in school and most now never go into the military so have no experience with weapons. Land owners are finding that they are now liable for hunting accidents on their land so now they don't give permission to hunt which takes away large areas like the great numbers of acres that paper companies own up in Maine. Eventually, as the number of gun owners goes down the laws get even tougher and more guys give it up. Past a certain point the ones that are left are crushed.

And thats the way they do it with everything. They wear you down over time. People are talking about banning fishing. I don't mean commercial fishing, I mean the little kid with a pole and his dog fishing. Sounds crazy? Sure, but ten years from now? Twenty? I am sure the schools are working on it.

The same with gay marriage Will (which I am not against by the way). Eventually any gay couple will marry anywhere in this country.

The old GOP just keeps looking older and weirder to each succeeding generation. Lets face it Will, you see some of those younger GOP future leaders and they look like a bunch of no fun nerds. Sure a lot of people still believe in the right wing. A lot of Catholics still believe in the Church too but every year the Church becomes less and less of a force and I believe the GOP is going the same way. The face of the Catholic church now is a little old lady and the face of the GOP now is a little old white man.

Too bad because I believe there should be at least four strong parties in this country but we may have just one for awhile.

Norman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back