"When I left the Republican Party to vote for the President in 2008, I did so with some trepidation. I had been a life long Republican and had always felt that the Republican Party best represented my beliefs about what good govenment represented. Now over two years since I changed my party registration, I am more sure than ever I made the correct decision and as long as the element that now controls the Republican party does so, I can't see myself coming back. I like to vote yes once in awhile. "

What about hte last two years have you seen? The country has had the worst government in my lifetime the last two years, and it is only getting bigger and more ineffective. I call major BS, anyone that has just one non-statist bone can't be happy with our spending/debt situation, the clumsy foreign policy and general petulance coming from this administration. Only a sycophant could not be critical about the direction of the country right now, certainly not a professed "former Republican" - gee, did you like Jimmy Carter as well?

From the Conyers report . . .

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential
election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these
irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave
doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were
chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and
constitutional standards.

When he says "grave doubts", he means that thousands of dead people (along with Disney characters and illegals) were denied the right to vote in 2004.

Ty Webb;747201 wrote:In the passage you posted first...it did not contain one ounce of racism

Wow typical liberal semantics. SORRRRRY Ty I posted the racist part that I didn't continue onto in my first post in my second post. That part DID contain racism. So fucking sue me that I didn't include it in my first post but I did in my second. Jesus you're desperate.

believer;747476 wrote:Kerry certainly wouldn't have been worse than what we're currently enjoying.

I was comparing to Bush.

Swamp Fox;747484 wrote:The biggest problem the conservatives have is that their attacks on Obama have begun to bore the American voting public.

Now see, I completely disagree with this statement. Only because as a democrat (however antiquated I might be) there is absolutely no hope to clean up and improve the party unless time is taken to analyze what is terrible about it. This must include those currently holding office, and that means the President, too. Like it or not.

gut;747486 wrote:I don't know what the actual poll numbers show, but I would guess Obama is on par with about Bush 2004, meaning he only wins if the Repubs trot out some stiff (entirely possible)

Romney? Stiff
Huckabee? Stiff
Trump? Ummm... I hope not
Palin? Hated by the media, therefore looked at as a kook from the average person

There's nobody in the republican party(mainly Huckabee and Romney) who get's moderately positive media attention that will not be considered either stiff or wishy washy.

Likewise, there's nobody in the democrat party who doesn't look/act like a nuttybutty fruitloop.

I really will have to resort (not that it is a bad thing) to vote libertarian or constitutionalist or something as there is absolutely nobody else in the two main parties that I would trust to vacuum my carpet let alone run this country.

I Wear Pants;747525 wrote:I was comparing to Bush.

Bush pushed military, Obama is pushing welfare.
Kinda in the category of "same difference".

CenterBHSFan;747531 wrote:Bush pushed military, Obama is pushing welfare.
Kinda in the category of "same difference".

True, I just meant that I was saying I don't think Kerry would have been appreciably better or worse than Bush, just different.

But yeah, anymore both parties suck but in very different ways. I don't think either really has an edge on being "better".

Sometimes, in cases like this, I think that Kerry and Gore would have been worse than Obama. I mean, even though I don't think that Obama's nuts have dropped yet, at least he wouldn't be filling his diaper the way that I believe Gore/Kerry would.
I'll give him that little bit of credit over them. Which isn't saying much, but still! lol

lhslep134;747159 wrote:So let me get this straight. You think foreign policy (ie the rest of the world) is more important at determining the success of the President of the United States than DOMESTIC policy?

No, I was merely offering an example of an opinion from ptown, that Presidents and their mark on history is usually judged by their foreign policy.

When the average person hears "Richard Nixon" they automatically think of Watergate, the plumbers, the enemy list and "I am not a crook". What is overlooked are his foreign policy achievements, such as opening talks with China, saving Israel's ass in 1973 and his ongoing talks with the Kremlin.

Swamp Fox;747484 wrote:The biggest problem the conservatives have is that their attacks on Obama have begun to bore the American voting public. Reverend Wright is an old issue. The President has disavowed any connection to him other than he was the minister of the President's church a long time ago. It is old, old non relevant "news". The President's birthplace has been established as Hawaii a long long time ago with the certificate of live birth already produced and passed through the media so many times it bores the voting public. By the way, I also have a certificate of live birth signifying my birth in Detroit, Michigan. Thank God I'm not running for president. The conservatives would probably demand proof that Detroit is in the United States. The problem isn't that conservative candidates are being grilled more than Obama...the problem is that in most cases, the issues conservatives chose to hang onto and repeat over and over and over ad nauseum, aren't resonating with the majority of American voters and the fact that the conservative element controls most of the attack strategies against Obama, the polls continually show a healthy advantage for the incumbent. Also, the continual attacks on President Obama's former occupation as a community planner in Chicago are getting old as well. President Obama is well educated, knowledgeable on many different policy areas that most of us have not clue one about, and in my humble opinion will win in 2012 unless the economy takes a sharp decline before the 2012 Election, and sometimes (practically all the time) that's what I think conservatives go to sleep dreaming about. The party of no can't bring themselves to realize that the negativity is getting old and all indications would suggest that while the economy is still a long way from being sound, it is on it's way and as more Americans begin to enjoy the results of President Obama's domestic agenda, it will be a difficult task to unseat him in 2012. When I left the Republican Party to vote for the President in 2008, I did so with some trepidation. I had been a life long Republican and had always felt that the Republican Party best represented my beliefs about what good govenment represented. Now over two years since I changed my party registration, I am more sure than ever I made the correct decision and as long as the element that now controls the Republican party does so, I can't see myself coming back. I like to vote yes once in awhile.

I'll vote "yes" on this post.

I also call BS on swamp fox's comment about switching parties. Anyone who had the least inclination away from big government would not just randomly jump on the Obama bandwagon...especially if they had paid attention to what the man had said in his past (not the lies during the campaign) about using government to solve all our problems.

Having said that, I think the first part of the post is close to accurate with one caveat: the issues that conservatives raised during the campaign (not talking birther stuff here) got about one day of media play and were dispensed with -- like Rev. Wright. No MSM went after Obama on that issue like they did Palin on some others.

Obama sat in that church for 20 years and heard some of the most foul, hate-filled racist rhetoric that you can ever imagine a "minister" spewing, and somehow it had no effect on him? He CHOSE to keep sitting there as Wright belched out one anti-American, hateful sermon after another. He didn't get up and walk out; he stayed.

If a Republican had done that, the media would have stayed with the story and hounded the candidate until they apologized, resigned from the church, condemned the minister and all he represented -- but even then, it would have been mentioned in just about every general campaign story until the election was over.

So it's not so much that the American people "lose interest" in this stuff as it is the media moves on and it gets shoved to the back of the memory. They (media) did this with every controversial story that came up regarding Obama, and never really put him on the hot seat time after time as they did Palin and McCain. It was very obvious who the media favored simply by how they went about their business.

Obama won't be held accountable for all the bad things that have gone down during his first 4 years. The media will give him a pass on everything he's done (or not done) and will make every effort to frame him as a good guy who came into a bad situation and did the best he could. I expect them to treat him with kid gloves UNLESS things get so bad economically and Democrats continue to balk at real spending cuts as the economy teeters on the brink once more.

If things get much worse, he loses. Otherwise, I don't see a Republican candidate out there right now who has the personal strength and power to get his message out without having his character/record assassinated by the media as it defends Obama.

Writerbuckeye;747753 wrote:I don't see a Republican candidate out there right now who has the personal strength and power to get his message out without having his character/record assassinated by the media as it defends Obama.

No question about it. You can set the clock by it.

Here's how I see it, there will be those that are too kind to Obama and don't make him account for enough (Democrats, MSNBC) and there will be those who are too harsh on Obama and want him to account for anything and everything that has gone wrong in the past 4 years including hurting their toe (Republicans, Fox).

There will be very little that will be more towards the middle either in a "I think he did a decent job but didn't keep enough campaign promises and had some missteps" or "I don't think he did a particularly good job though I think not everything was entirely his fault as he inherited some big problems but though I realize that I don't give him a free pass for not fixing them" way.

I suspect anyone who calls Obama either a good/great president or the worst president ever of being mistaken.

It's amazing how quickly the Republicans and Democrats switched roles once Obama took office.

During Bush's terms, the Democrats whined about everything, latched on to every possible conspiracy theory, and prematurely declared Bush the worst President ever.

Now, Obama is suddenly the worst ever, everything he does is wrong, he wasn't born in this country, etc, etc. And of course the Democrats find these viewpoints absurd all of a sudden.

Maybe when people stop looking at politics as a team sport, we'll have better candidates for President.

2kool4skool;747949 wrote:
Maybe when people stop looking at politics as a team sport, we'll have better candidates for President.

LOL 100% true but never gonna happen. I work at the Ohio House of Reps and the party behavior that goes on (Dems vs Repubs) is downright hilarious. I've worked for both parties now (I lean Republican but some of my beliefs align themselves with Democrats FWIW). But these guys I see, which isn't even on a national level, are downright vicious to each other.

Writerbuckeye;747753 wrote:Obama won't be held accountable for all the bad things that have gone down during his first 4 years. The media will give him a pass on everything he's done (or not done) and will make every effort to frame him as a good guy who came into a bad situation and did the best he could. I expect them to treat him with kid gloves UNLESS things get so bad economically and Democrats continue to balk at real spending cuts as the economy teeters on the brink once more.

I Wear Pants;747938 wrote:I suspect anyone who calls Obama either a good/great president or the worst president ever of being mistaken.

There's an old saying: "History is not what happened. History is what is written down." (Or put on video, as it is.)

As such, time will be kinder to Obama.

CenterBHSFan;748041 wrote:There's an old saying: "History is not what happened. History is what is written down." (Or put on video, as it is.)

As such, time will be kinder to Obama.

I Wear Pants;748672 wrote:

Jesus never confiscated money from the producers and redistributed their money to others for political gain. He did, however, take a small basket of fish and loaves and fed 5,000 with it.

Jesus would think America's poor are extremely well fed and quite rich in comparison to the world's truly poor. He'd probably tell America's poor to stop relying on Caesar for a living.

Jesus most likely would not ask Obama for his birth certificate, but he might have a chat with him about transparency and instilling trust in those he leads.

I had just thought that was funny.

It was!

I Wear Pants;748777 wrote:I had just thought that was funny.

Oh I thought it was clever if not waaaaaay off target!

believer;748715 wrote:Jesus never confiscated money from the producers and redistributed their money to others for political gain. He did, however, take a small basket of fish and loaves and fed 5,000 with it.

Jesus would think America's poor are extremely well fed and quite rich in comparison to the world's truly poor. He'd probably tell America's poor to stop relying on Caesar for a living.

Jesus most likely would not ask Obama for his birth certificate, but he might have a chat with him about transparency and instilling trust in those he leads.

Great retort. I don't like the presupposition that one side of the political aisle is calling for "giving money" to the rich, or the notion that anyone in government has "given money" to the rich in the past. Sure maybe some inherited riches, or some got lucky, but a lot worked hard and risked a lot to become wealthy.

Now Jesus certainly had a lot to say about riches and wealth, and that the rich will ultimately give an account to God as to how they handled their wealth and what their priorities were. But forced confiscation of others' wealth for redistribution purposes was not on Jesus to-do list.

ccrunner609;746398 wrote:Fox news is a cable source channel that only gets to the ears of the cable crowd. ABC, CBS, NBC are free airways that can be heard by anyone anywhere. Cable channels should have the right to push any agenda but the others should be held to a fair interpretation of the news.

Do you feel this way about radio also?

If a radio program is just that -- a program -- then there is no reason to expect objectivity. If it's a news program, say like an NPR, then it should be more balanced in how it presents an issue.

The difference is a simple one: is the person a journalist or not? If he or she says they are a journalist, then they should be held to a higher standard of objectivity. If they don't claim to be a journalist but are simply an entertainer, they are held to no such standard. It's their program, much like this web site is the intellectual property of someone, and they can express whatever views they like.