Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

That's "if" on the re-election. At least Obama has 90% of the media cheerleading for him. Approval rating is 46% according to a CBS poll. The only healthcare debate going on (except among citizens) is Harry and Nancy debating behind closed doors on how much to screw America.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Of course it is...but I'm just pointing out that for every righty who thinks Obama is a tragedy, there is another who doesn't feel that way and many who are waiting to see how things play out. There just seems to be an assumption by conservatives...what a surprise...that he is one and done.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

regardless of what people think of Obama, even if you think he is beatable you still have to muster up a candidate that can win.

So far you have a crackpot liar from Alaska that doesnt understand subtle details like why there is a north and south korea and a mormon from Massachusetts trying to sell to the bible belt.

Good luck on that one and done thing boys.

Originally Posted by GBBob

But..but....what about...

JEB BUSH!!!

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Well...If the Venerable Jeb Bush were to run then Obama would be in trouble. I mean...the previous two Bush administrations have been wildly successful and I am sure the american people are anxious to get back to the good old days.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Of course it is...but I'm just pointing out that for every righty who thinks Obama is a tragedy, there is another who doesn't feel that way and many who are waiting to see how things play out. There just seems to be an assumption by conservatives...what a surprise...that he is one and done.

Originally Posted by Danzig

kind of like the whining when bush was a tragedy....

wait, he was. but we survived it. obama may not be one and done; after alll, bush got reelected.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I've always said you could do a Weekend at Bernies with Ronald Reagan and he would get 40% of the vote

Originally Posted by Danzig

article reminds me of people hearing that southern drawl and automatically assuming the speaker is less than intelligent, and knows how to skin and cook raccoons.

maybe reid could have spoken better, but if anyone takes a moment and a deep breath, and then reads his comments-then they might not have such a knee-jerk 'rush and fox said it's racist so it must be' reaction. this somewhat reminds me of when that fellow (a council member i think) used the word niggardly and got lambasted for it. demands for apology ensued-for what?! apparently for him using a word that some were unfamiliar with, and didn't understand...

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Well...If the Venerable Jeb Bush were to run then Obama would be in trouble. I mean...the previous two Bush administrations have been wildly successful and I am sure the american people are anxious to get back to the good old days.

Originally Posted by gales0678

jeb bush would win the same states as mccain and he would pick up florida , nc and va most likely

he would then have to win a few more states in the midwest - ie ind , ohio etc

he is not impossible

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'm starting to get the hang of this trolling thing;)

Originally Posted by GBBob

Of course it is...but I'm just pointing out that for every righty who thinks Obama is a tragedy, there is another who doesn't feel that way and many who are waiting to see how things play out. There just seems to be an assumption by conservatives...what a surprise...that he is one and done.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'm starting to get the hang of this trolling thing;)

Originally Posted by dalakhani

regardless of what people think of Obama, even if you think he is beatable you still have to muster up a candidate that can win.

So far you have a crackpot liar from Alaska that doesnt understand subtle details like why there is a north and south korea and a mormon from Massachusetts trying to sell to the bible belt.

Good luck on that one and done thing boys.

Originally Posted by Riot

I was reading a GOP party survey last week - Mitt is the frontrunner so far. Airhead is completely off the radar except for the wingnuts , and Jeb is a "dark horse", politically cursed by the legacy of his genetic predecessors.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Airhead should not get one vote by anyone. Unless its a vote for sexiest politician.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Nobody whines like Republicans Z

Originally Posted by miraja2

I would bet on the field over Palin, Romney, Jeb, or Huckabee right now. I think Republicans will want somebody "new" for 2012.
Their best strategy figures to be constructing a message that acts as if the world began when Obama took office. The last thing they'll want to do is discuss 2001-2008, and I think primary voters and Republican Party insiders will all figure that a "fresh face" will give them the best chance of pulling that off.

Originally Posted by Riot

There's alot of media and political sites looking at the "what has really been accomplished in the first year" type of thing now, and the first year of this Presidency is looking to be up there with the very historical best, so far. Some pretty outstanding accomplishments, and numerous, too.
Of course, if one doesn't agree with the agenda, yes, the world is ending.

That said, the bankers are in Washington today, sworn in and trying to explain themselves. Overshadowed by Haiti disaster, of course, but it's happening.

Originally Posted by Riot

There's alot of media and political sites looking at the "what has really been accomplished in the first year" type of thing now, and the first year of this Presidency is looking to be up there with the very historical best, so far. Some pretty outstanding accomplishments, and numerous, too.

Of course, if one doesn't agree with the agenda, yes, the world is ending.

Originally Posted by miraja2

I would bet on the field over Palin, Romney, Jeb, or Huckabee right now. I think Republicans will want somebody "new" for 2012.
Their best strategy figures to be constructing a message that acts as if the world began when Obama took office. The last thing they'll want to do is discuss 2001-2008, and I think primary voters and Republican Party insiders will all figure that a "fresh face" will give them the best chance of pulling that off.

Originally Posted by Danzig

you are kidding, right? it seems to me that more than anything, it's just continued on from where bush left off. economy still a mess, still talking about more stimulus packages, unemployment still far too high, and two wars still being waged, deficits still rising, housing still a joke. what exactly is it that has been accomplished? what has changed? what's different?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The inference that there is some measuring stick that "first years" are ranked by is even stupider than trying to say a country with as many continuing issues as we have just had an all time great year.

Originally Posted by Danzig

well...i guess you could say it was a good year compared to some from our past. no plagues, no yellow fever, no smallpox, we can buy fresh meat and dairy and we have electricity and running water. in that respect, obama is ahead of many presidents.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have his first year ranked 40th, above Harrison and Garfield (both croaked in their 1st year) and above Hoover (stock market crash of 1929) and Jimmy Carter (general purposes)

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Where would Bush's first year rank?

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

We were headed for catastrophe. It was a great year compared to how awful it might have been if Obama hadn't rode in to head off a certain Apocalypse.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Catastrophe?..Haiti is a catastrophe..Higher taxes are an inconvenience at best and unjust at worst. It sucks when the right uses end of World phrases to describe politicians they don't like. Put things in perspective man..

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you expect perspective on a thread titled "democrats in disarray" over the career ending racist comments of harry reid?

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'd respect you a lot more if you would capitalize god

Originally Posted by GBBob

Catastrophe?..Haiti is a catastrophe..Higher taxes are an inconvenience at best and unjust at worst. It sucks when the right uses end of World phrases to describe politicians they don't like. Put things in perspective man..

Originally Posted by miraja2

I would bet on the field over Palin, Romney, Jeb, or Huckabee right now. I think Republicans will want somebody "new" for 2012.
Their best strategy figures to be constructing a message that acts as if the world began when Obama took office. The last thing they'll want to do is discuss 2001-2008, and I think primary voters and Republican Party insiders will all figure that a "fresh face" will give them the best chance of pulling that off.

Originally Posted by Danzig

you are kidding, right? it seems to me that more than anything, it's just continued on from where bush left off. economy still a mess, still talking about more stimulus packages, unemployment still far too high, and two wars still being waged, deficits still rising, housing still a joke. what exactly is it that has been accomplished? what has changed? what's different?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The inference that there is some measuring stick that "first years" are ranked by is even stupider than trying to say a country with as many continuing issues as we have just had an all time great year.

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I'm not kidding, 'Zig. Your opinion is certainly not shared by all. You want specifics? Here's a sampling - you can just dismiss what you disagree with as "left wing" propaganda ;) (you might like The Economist stuff):

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/ how is 'prevented a depression' provable? and at the time it was passed, it was to keep unemployment from rising above ten percent. whoops as for fixiing health care, that whole bit was prefaced with 'if it passes'-that's not a done deal yet. based on an unprovable thing, and an unfinished one, they're saying he could have a good year-not that he has had one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31098.html i'll have to re-read this, since the first two times i went through it, i didn't see anything obama actually accomplished...but i did see
'To be sure, Obama’s first year accomplishments are more in the realm of creating good inputs to policy rather than achieving good outputs. Results to date have been relatively few..'




http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...=hptextfeature yeah, this starts out well. i'd cringe if i read this in my eval:
One year on, how well has he done?

Not too badly, by our reckoning

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/rich...imeline-110309 er, gitmo is still open....

http://themoderatevoice.com/57560/obamas-first-year/ yes, those are accomplishments, but is that list really something to crow about? reset relations? really? iran still developing a nuclear program, we're no closer to getting out of iraq or afganistan, pakistan still a huge issue, and here's a newsflash-we're still hated by most of them. yeah, that's a reset. what about our dealings with russia last year, we're a laughingstock with them too. they got us to back out of the missile shiled for our allies, what'd we get in return? nada. oh, and yippie-he nominated a supreme court justice. certainly no other president could have managed that-that certainly was beyond his predecessor. :rolleyes:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opin...f8472a67a.html