Obama's New Vulnerability

According to you he is.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not directly but by innuendo you have.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you give parameters to your statement, "a better candidate then [sic] Hillary, in the Democratic party!"

That would leave the segue open for someone to point out how McCain is really the best candidate for the country!

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you give parameters to your statement, "a better candidate then [sic] Hillary, in the Democratic party!"

That would leave the segue open for someone to point out how McCain is really the best candidate for the country!

He's a better candidate then McCain as well. By a long shot.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Not directly but by innuendo you have.

No, I have not. Not at all. You are making this up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you give parameters to your statement, "a better candidate then [sic] Hillary, in the Democratic party!"

That would leave the segue open for someone to point out how McCain is really the best candidate for the country!

He's a better candidate then McCain as well. By a long shot.

Cycloptichorn

If we were a Scandanavian country. With all our commitments around the globe, Obama can't compare to the depth of knowledge of McCain.

But, let's not ignore the fact that you are for Obama. That's O.K. But, if Obama wins the Presidency, don't complain when other nations start flexing their diplomatic muscle to the detriment of the U.S., since Obama might be considered a bantam weight in the international arena.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you give parameters to your statement, "a better candidate then [sic] Hillary, in the Democratic party!"

That would leave the segue open for someone to point out how McCain is really the best candidate for the country!

He's a better candidate then McCain as well. By a long shot.

Cycloptichorn

If we were a Scandanavian country. With all our commitments around the globe, Obama can't compare to the depth of knowledge of McCain.

But, let's not ignore the fact that you are for Obama. That's O.K. But, if Obama wins the Presidency, don't complain when other nations start flexing their diplomatic muscle to the detriment of the U.S., since Obama might be considered a bantam weight in the international arena.

Sort of like Bush was? Is that what you are saying?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
According to you he is.

You're incorrect. I've never said anything of the sort and on several occasions - including in direct conversations with you - have stated exactly the opposite, i.e., that he is a man, with failings and problems. But a better candidate then Hillary.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you give parameters to your statement, "a better candidate then [sic] Hillary, in the Democratic party!"

That would leave the segue open for someone to point out how McCain is really the best candidate for the country!

He's a better candidate then McCain as well. By a long shot.

Cycloptichorn

If we were a Scandanavian country. With all our commitments around the globe, Obama can't compare to the depth of knowledge of McCain.

But, let's not ignore the fact that you are for Obama. That's O.K. But, if Obama wins the Presidency, don't complain when other nations start flexing their diplomatic muscle to the detriment of the U.S., since Obama might be considered a bantam weight in the international arena.

Sort of like Bush was? Is that what you are saying?

Cycloptichorn

I am not saying that. You are making quantum leaps, based on my simple statements. I think Bush has been a great President. History will judge him very differently than what many people think today. Don't believe me. Just read a few history books in a hundren years or so.

0 Replies

There is nothing remarkable in the propositions put forward in the post that opened this thread (whoever may have written it).

Obama has used his uplifting rhetoric of non-sectarian openness and "change" (to a new, if poorly defined, horizon) to capture the public mind and advance to a leading, indeed dominant, position in the Democrat party primary. This however, does not (or should not to a discerning observer) mean that he really intends to (or can) ignore the vested constituencies of the party he represents, in particular including organized labor and its dominant government employee and teachers unions.

Normally candidates emphasize the polar extremes of their respective parties in the primary campaigns, and then give a more prominent voice to the centrist aspects of theit positions in the final campaign.

This election is working out to be somewhat different in that (1) Obama has taken the different approach, described above, in order to displace a candidate who, until just a few months ago was almost universally regarded to have the nomination sewn up; (2) the Republican primary, in an odd series of zigs & zags appears to be ending up with the selection of the most centrist of its candidates in the primary.

Thus, in this election, in the final stages of the primaries, we can already see the leading candidates leaning ever more strongly towards their more sectarian party supporters - a condition that will likely prevail until the conventions late this summer. After that we will again see a reversion to emphasis on their individual versions of a more uniting, national focus.

The organized constituencies of both the left and right will still be there, in position to influence legislation on their key issues after the new President (and Congress) takes office. Enthusiasts for the "Change" promised by Obama (or McCain) should not delude themselves into thinking that any of the traditional Democrat (or Republican) interest groups will themselves necessarily be subject to any of it.

Obama, in particular,despite the breath of his uplifting rhetoric has, so far, challenged none of the icons of the Democrat establishment - whatever "Change" results will be more in the enhancement of their power and influence than in surmounting any of them for the public good.. They are paying for it, and they are counting on it.

McCain, despite his recent rhetorical assurances, has a record of actually defying some of the vested elements of the Republican base, and doing so in the name of higher goals. This is in stark contrast to Obama's record in the Senate.l

0 Replies

Cyclops,

Your response to the very legitimate point that Obama has little track record and is extremely inexperienced was to point out that the President also came into Office with little experience. Folks on the Left used to argue against the election of Bush because his public service experience consisted almost entirely of his being Governor of the Great State of Texas. Since Bush has been in Office the Democratic Party has assembled an encyclopedic list of charges that he is incompetent and has been "bad" for the country. During the past eight years its hard to find any kind words about this administration from the Democratic Party.

Sen. Obama has even less experience than Bush had. So if Bush's inexperience, etc., was bad for the country, why shouldn't we expect even less competence from a young man whose public service consists mostly of less than a single term in the U.S. Senate?

Obama hasn't been very specific about what policies his administration would follow, but these themes seem to recur frequently in his message:

1. He'll withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard to consequences or conditions on the day he takes office.
2. He'll negotiate unconditionally with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries whose leadership has been anti-American.
3. He hints at shifting portions of the Federal Budget from the Military and security to social engineering projects.
4. There has been no evidence that Obama has the least understanding or knowledge of the international political environment of 2008. Can there be any doubt that Al Quida and the Radical Islamic Movement would far prefer President Obama to President McCain? As Americans, why would we want to "please" our avowed enemies? President Carter, a wonderful human being, was a disaster as a President and Iran (yep, the same country and leadership that Obama wants to sit down with) stormed the U.S. Embassy and held American diplomats hostage for years until it was clear that a new President wouldn't be so "understanding".

The proper comparison isn't Obama to Bush, its Obama to McCain. Senator McCain has years of productive experience in the service to this country. His track record is lengthy, and filled with important accomplishments. McCain has ruffled the feathers repeatedly of his own Party by exercising his own independent personal values and judgments. McCain effectively fought for campaign reform during a time when the status quo, the "old system", favored his own Party. McCain, who is universally respected and trusted within the military, was among the first Republicans to call for a change in policy. He called for more troops, and since the "surge" has commenced, Iraq has become less violent, more stable and secure. Radical Islam and the survivors of the Marxist Experiment know that McCain can't be "pushed around" with impunity, but Obama has sent out the signal that he's open to persuasion.

BTW, I haven't seen anything you (Cyclops) have said that implies you believe Sen. Obama to be anything other than an inspirational speaker whose Idealism promises to radically change how the Federal government operates. However, I'm not so sure you represent the bulk of Obama's supporters. His campaign, his crowds and workers seem more like a slick promotion for a hot rock star, or evangelical preacher, than for a serious candidate for the most complex and difficult CEO position in the world today. I'm certain that the women who feint on hearing him speak are emotionally dedicated to him and his cause, what is less certain is what that might have to do with successfully maintaining the Constitution and the United States. He is a young man in a hurry, and his charismatic attraction to many is strong, perhaps even strong enough to win the Presidency, but ... then what?

How has being an advocate for low-cost housing, or a brief period in a State Legislature prepare a youth for the jungle of domestic and international politics? Many will be voting for him because of his ethnic background, but again... how does that qualify him to conduct the nation's diplomacy? He has never served a day in the military and his speeches strongly suggest that he believes that the U.S. military should be reduced to make possible more and larger social welfare programs. His supporters raise millions in an afternoon, but what hints we get from his sketchy policies is one of financial naivety that would further increase the National Debt, that the Democrats have been complaining of for the past eight years. Electing Obama to the Presidency would be like making a middle-schooler the principal for the local high school. Oh well.....

0 Replies

You wrote two complete untruths, Ash.

Quote:

Sen. Obama has even less experience than Bush had.

Actually, he has more experience then Bush had. Not by a lot. But more.

Quote:

He'll withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard to consequences or conditions on the day he takes office

This is a flat-out lie. He has never said that he would do this. In fact, those of us (such as myself) who would like to see this happen are frustrated that he hasn't said it.

Quote:

Can there be any doubt that Al Quida and the Radical Islamic Movement would far prefer President Obama to President McCain?

Of course they would prefer McCain! Are you crazy? They love Bush - he's legitimized them and gave them everything they want. He did exactly what the terrorists wanted him to do: got bogged down in an expensive and unpopular war which has hurt America worse then they ever could. You do realize that the war in Iraq has cost America more money, prestige and lives of soldiers, then AQ could EVER hope to accomplish through direct methods? Why would they want to change this?

Quote:

than for a serious candidate for the most complex and difficult CEO position in the world today.

The president of America is not a CEO and shouldn't be thought to be anything like that. The fact that Republicans tend to think that way has a lot to do with their failures to effectively govern our nation from an economic or foreign policy standpoint.

You have not done a whit of actual research as to what policies Obama has proposed, it is obvious from reading your post; please do a little and then get back to me.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree with much of what Cycloptichorn has said, but I do think there is an executive element to the presidency. None of the top three contenders have executive experience -- except for when it comes to running their own campaigns. A quick run-through:

Hillary Clinton:

Campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle recently forced out. Doyle oversaw a campaign that spent like there was no tomorrow and planned like there was no tomorrow, too -- nothing past February 5th, anyway. Since then, the Clinton campaign has been losing leads in Texas and Ohio as they take a kitchen-sink approach to knocking out Obama.

John McCain:

Fired his campaign staff when he ran out of funds in July. Just now trying to get a general election plan in place. Major issues with FEC -- may have broken rules.

Barack Obama:

Entered the race as the prohibitive underdog. Carefully pieced together a quality ground game and crafted a win in Iowa. Repeated these surprise, come-from-behind victories over and over again. A common story was for him to be behind by 20 points or more weeks before a given state's primary, and then end up winning. In most of the last 11 primaries and caucuses he's won, the margin was in the double digits, some margins as much as 50 pts. Withstood the full power of the Clinton machine to get within striking distance of the nomination. Raised the most money ever by a presidential candidate in one month in January -- looks like he's set to beat that mark in February.

Hmmm...

0 Replies

I doubt that my "research" is any less than most politically interested on-lookers here, or elsewhere.

Obama has been careful not to point-blank take a strong position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is the expectation he fosters with his leftish following. Why do you think it is that Obama isn't more specific? Could it be that he knows that to take any specific position will cost him votes? Moderate Americans are unlikely to vote for a candidate who specifically wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Of course, you and the far left insist that US involvement and direct confrontation with Radical Islam, is wrong, wrong, wrong, want the US military withdrawn within the borders of CONUS and reduced to a palace guard. That didn't work for Jefferson, and its even more dangerous to the nation today and in the near-term future. I agree with you though, let's get Obama on the record for his intended policies for using the US military. Whatever his stand, it would be a useful bit of knowledge for the voters. BTW, what I said wasn't a "lie", only the reasonable conclusion that many have drawn from glittering generalities Obama's campaign.

What other "untruth" did I utter? That Obama has less experience than Bush had prior to running for the Presidency? That may be a matter of interpretation, but running a large politically volatile state like Texas is a whole different order of magnitude than being an Illinois legislator and going along with the Party leadership in the Senate for a few short years. You want to believe otherwise, all right. To call my statement a lie, or untruth is disingenuous, but what the heck.

You have an interesting notion that the leaders of Radical Islam, the Taliban, Iran and Syria, would prefer a President McCain to a President Obama. A GOP administration will keep up the pressure on terrorism and seek containment of our enemies. We will kill them where and when we can do so. We will oppose their efforts to extend and expand their sphere of influence regionally and around the globe. We will nurture and support any people who will be our allies against the common enemy. On the other hand, President Obama leads us to believe that his administration will leave Southeast Asia to the tender mercies of Iran and Radical Islam. During this campaigning season, the Bush Administration has backed off of pressuring Iran and the result is Iran claiming victory over the U.S. and demanding an apology for disputing their right to a nuclear arsenal. Those folks and other hard-ball international players would chew up and spit out Obama faster than the European Powers made Wilson a joke.

You don't think the Presidency is at least somewhat analogous to a CEO at the head of the most powerful, complex organization in the world? Whoo! What would your analogy be? Den Mother for Cub Scouts? An Illinois State Cheer-leader? Head of the local Toast Master's Club?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

.

Quote:
He'll withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard to consequences or conditions on the day he takes office

This is a flat-out lie. He has never said that he would do this. In fact, those of us (such as myself) who would like to see this happen are frustrated that he hasn't said it.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, here is what Obama said, with my comments in red...

Quote:

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I doubt that my "research" is any less than most politically interested on-lookers here, or elsewhere.

You haven't actually done any reserach; you mis-represent Obama's positions on matters and have not actually studied his policy proposals. I doubt you could name anything he has proposed at all. This robs your attack of legitimacy. Which you know.

Quote:

Obama has been careful not to point-blank take a strong position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is the expectation he fosters with his leftish following. Why do you think it is that Obama isn't more specific?

You are incorrect. He has never said anything about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and has always called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, not the precipitous one favored by his supporters such as myself. This is a falsehood you are perpetrating, and I know you won't actually even attempt to link to evidence to support your position.

Quote:

Could it be that he knows that to take any specific position will cost him votes? Moderate Americans are unlikely to vote for a candidate who specifically wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Of course, you and the far left insist that US involvement and direct confrontation with Radical Islam, is wrong, wrong, wrong, want the US military withdrawn within the borders of CONUS and reduced to a palace guard. That didn't work for Jefferson, and its even more dangerous to the nation today and in the near-term future. I agree with you though, let's get Obama on the record for his intended policies for using the US military. Whatever his stand, it would be a useful bit of knowledge for the voters. BTW, what I said wasn't a "lie", only the reasonable conclusion that many have drawn from glittering generalities Obama's campaign.

No, it was a lie. A flat-out lie. You made claims which directly contradict Obama's position, and then try to attack those claims as if they were his own. A Straw-man.

Also, you may not be aware, but the Iraq war is massively unpopular and polling has shown for over a year that most Americans favor a withdrawal. Now, do you need to me to give you the link to that evidence? Or do you just not trust 'polls' when they disagree with ya? See, I don't think you know the first thing about the 'majority of Americans.'

Quote:

What other "untruth" did I utter? That Obama has less experience than Bush had prior to running for the Presidency? That may be a matter of interpretation, but running a large politically volatile state like Texas is a whole different order of magnitude than being an Illinois legislator and going along with the Party leadership in the Senate for a few short years. You want to believe otherwise, all right. To call my statement a lie, or untruth is disingenuous, but what the heck.

Bush had no legislative and no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Obama has at least some of both. I would also add that Bush made a dog's dinner of his time in Texas, but that's immaterial.

Quote:

You have an interesting notion that the leaders of Radical Islam, the Taliban, Iran and Syria, would prefer a President McCain to a President Obama. A GOP administration will keep up the pressure on terrorism and seek containment of our enemies. We will kill them where and when we can do so. We will oppose their efforts to extend and expand their sphere of influence regionally and around the globe. We will nurture and support any people who will be our allies against the common enemy. On the other hand, President Obama leads us to believe that his administration will leave Southeast Asia to the tender mercies of Iran and Radical Islam. During this campaigning season, the Bush Administration has backed off of pressuring Iran and the result is Iran claiming victory over the U.S. and demanding an apology for disputing their right to a nuclear arsenal. Those folks and other hard-ball international players would chew up and spit out Obama faster than the European Powers made Wilson a joke.

Nothing interesting in this paragraph, just re-iteration of the same things you've been wrong about for years.

Quote:

You don't think the Presidency is at least somewhat analogous to a CEO at the head of the most powerful, complex organization in the world? Whoo! What would your analogy be? Den Mother for Cub Scouts? An Illinois State Cheer-leader? Head of the local Toast Master's Club?

No, President does not need an analogy to explain it. It's a different category then CEO altogether.

I have no wish to snipe back and forth any further with someone who has done no research, yet purports to know a candidate's position on anything. You haven't displayed any actual knowledge about Obama's positions; just partisan bickering. You would say the same about ANY Dem who was up for election. This is eminently uninteresting to me, and if you can't be bothered to do even a little research, unworthy of my attention.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Gee Cyclops, I wasn't aware that you were tracking all of my Internet usage, monitoring my television habits, and reading over my shoulder. How do you do that? You seem to know so much about me, and what I may or may not know. I've never represented anything I've said here, or elsewhere as anything more than my personal opinion. True enough, I don't append a bibliography of sources for the materials that lead me to whatever conclusions I might have. I'm not in the business of "proving" anything to anyone, and I've certainly never believed that Partisans from the far left are open to constructive discussion. I'm pretty sure that you truly do believe that I'm some sort of knee-jerk Partisan of the Radical Right. Actually, that's not even close. I am indeed a Republican, and describe myself as a conservative, but in actual life I firmly believe that my views are much closer to the political center of the American People.

Frankly, of the two contending Democratic candidates I believe that Clinton probably would be less dangerous to the nation as President than Obama. I detest and oppose the Clinton's and their governmental philosophies. She is a crass opportunist and her notions of governing are, in my opinion, in conflict with the Constitutional principles of this nation. Even so, she is better prepared for the office than Obama. In the end I doubt that it will make much difference with candidate represents the Democratic Party in the general election. Both are vulnerable, inexperienced, and hold views certain to make them unacceptable to most voters in this country. I believe that the American voters will weigh the candidates and find substance greater than sex/ethnicity/charisma/and vague promises of radical change in Washington. John McCain is so clearly the best choice that I have no doubts he will be elected.

If that comest to pass, then what will we hear from you? "Sabotage", "conspiracy", "trickery", "The Democratic candidate blew a sure thing", "the world will end within 4 years", etc. I'm sure you'll do everything you can to insure the election of your candidate, we expect no less from you.

0 Replies

More on McCain's UNimpressive campaign so far, with a lot of links/cites:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/the-great-untes.html

Excerpt:

Quote:

At first glance, you might think McCain's primary victory is evidence of his own campaigning skills. But I don't think so. His victory (for unique reasons) doesn't necessarily show his Darwinian chops. Despite all his experience, McCain remains in many ways a roll of the dice.

Consider 2000. While he had some initial success due to fawning press coverage (which is probably his key "skill"), the ultimate result was a spectacular flameout in South Carolina and beyond. The South Carolina tactics were despicable, sure. But Republican primaries aren't pretty. He knew the players involved and should have been better prepared. More to the point, you can't win a Republican nomination when you ostentatiously demonize key coalition members, as he did. Personally, I applauded the criticism of Jerry Falwell, but I'd have been cringing if I were his campaign manager.

Moving on to 2008, the stars aligned perfectly for him. Ross Douthat has made the case more eloquently than I have, but McCain's victory had a lot to do with luck. First, his rapid ascent helped him avoid embarrassing media moments. Remember that, for most of 2007, McCain was ignored. Thus, he wasn't subject to the type of exacting scrutiny that Romney and Rudy (and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson got). He had to keep things together for a month rather than a year - a much easier task.

Second, his victory was less than overwhelming. McCain won a relatively small plurality among a sharply divided field. His victory had less to do with his savvy campaigning, and more to do with (1) a conservative base split between Romney and Huckabee; (2) Rudy's rapid collapse and strategic blunders; and (3) Thompson's silly last stand in South Carolina.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Gee Cyclops, I wasn't aware that you were tracking all of my Internet usage, monitoring my television habits, and reading over my shoulder. How do you do that? You seem to know so much about me, and what I may or may not know. I've never represented anything I've said here, or elsewhere as anything more than my personal opinion. True enough, I don't append a bibliography of sources for the materials that lead me to whatever conclusions I might have. I'm not in the business of "proving" anything to anyone, and I've certainly never believed that Partisans from the far left are open to constructive discussion. I'm pretty sure that you truly do believe that I'm some sort of knee-jerk Partisan of the Radical Right. Actually, that's not even close. I am indeed a Republican, and describe myself as a conservative, but in actual life I firmly believe that my views are much closer to the political center of the American People.

Frankly, of the two contending Democratic candidates I believe that Clinton probably would be less dangerous to the nation as President than Obama. I detest and oppose the Clinton's and their governmental philosophies. She is a crass opportunist and her notions of governing are, in my opinion, in conflict with the Constitutional principles of this nation. Even so, she is better prepared for the office than Obama. In the end I doubt that it will make much difference with candidate represents the Democratic Party in the general election. Both are vulnerable, inexperienced, and hold views certain to make them unacceptable to most voters in this country. I believe that the American voters will weigh the candidates and find substance greater than sex/ethnicity/charisma/and vague promises of radical change in Washington. John McCain is so clearly the best choice that I have no doubts he will be elected.

If that comest to pass, then what will we hear from you? "Sabotage", "conspiracy", "trickery", "The Democratic candidate blew a sure thing", "the world will end within 4 years", etc. I'm sure you'll do everything you can to insure the election of your candidate, we expect no less from you.

Your 'opinions' would be more worth discussion if they did not include gross errors pertaining to the position of the candidate in question; a charge which you are unwilling to admit, yet which is clearly true. Failing to provide supporting evidence for one's 'opinions' is a sign of a weak argument. But, you know all that.

You also seem to have forgotten that the Republican brand isn't so popular at the moment. I have no idea what evidence you use to come to your conclusion that McCain will be the nominee. He isn't even liked within his own party, let alone outside of it; Obama will beat him handily, having massively out-raised and out-organized him.

McCain's stance on the Iraq war makes him unacceptable to more then 2/3rds of Americans. His embracing of Bush's economic policies is folly that will lead to a slaughter this fall. His personal failings in the areas of infidelity on his wife (a serial problem for him) and his hot temper will be used to gut him on the moral issues. His flip-flopping on torture will work against his experience with the military. There are a lot of problems with the McCain candidacy, whether you like to admit it or not. Add in the fact that he can't fund-raise with any sort of effectiveness and you see a Republican loss coming right down the pipe.

Am I wrong in recalling that you made the same bold predictions in 2006, about what Americans would do? I think I will go back and look.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Oh, I forgot this part:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that you truly do believe that I'm some sort of knee-jerk Partisan of the Radical Right. Actually, that's not even close. I am indeed a Republican, and describe myself as a conservative, but in actual life I firmly believe that my views are much closer to the political center of the American People.

News Flash: Everyone thinks that they are close to the political center of America. Everyone. You should have realized this by now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Obama's New Vulnerability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know