Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Republican candidates for 2012

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Republican candidates for 2012
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Sep 14, 2011 2:45 PM
Then why is it ok for you to compare President Obama to President Carter,who has been out of office for what....35 years?
Sep 14, 2011 2:45pm
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Sep 14, 2011 2:51 PM
Ty Webb;896003 wrote:Then why is it ok for you to compare President Obama to President Carter,who has been out of office for what....35 years?

Let's start with the fact they were both presidents...
Sep 14, 2011 2:51pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 14, 2011 3:25 PM
The discussion was about how self-absorbed Obama is. I believe it's one reason he's failing miserably at his job. That, and his agenda is too liberal for most Americans, who tend to be more politically central than he is.

I also believe this ego-driven personality of his keeps him from doing things most presidents in his position would: not the least of which is learn how to work with members of Congress on proposals. With him, it's typically "my way or the highway." He is in love with trying to use the bully pulpit to get his way; and it has failed miserably almost from the moment he got in office.

People now see through the veneer of rhetoric that got many of them excited to vote for him. They've looked closer and now realize the Emperor has no clothes. This is particularly true of independents who wanted to be part of something historical and special -- but gave no thought to the fact that Obama was the least qualified candidate for president in a long, long time.

When Clinton found himself facing strong public opposition to his policies, and a Congress that became Republican and adversarial, he moved himself much closer to the center on many of his stances. It was a shrewd move that won him a second term.

Obama's ego and narcissism won't allow him to do the same. It's why I see him losing next year.
Sep 14, 2011 3:25pm
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Sep 14, 2011 3:30 PM
Writerbuckeye;896065 wrote:The discussion was about how self-absorbed Obama is. I believe it's one reason he's failing miserably at his job. That, and his agenda is too liberal for most Americans, who tend to be more politically central than he is.

I also believe this ego-driven personality of his keeps him from doing things most presidents in his position would: not the least of which is learn how to work with members of Congress on proposals. With him, it's typically "my way or the highway." He is in love with trying to use the bully pulpit to get his way; and it has failed miserably almost from the moment he got in office.

People now see through the veneer of rhetoric that got many of them excited to vote for him. They've looked closer and now realize the Emperor has no clothes. This is particularly true of independents who wanted to be part of something historical and special -- but gave no thought to the fact that Obama was the least qualified candidate for president in a long, long time.

When Clinton found himself facing strong public opposition to his policies, and a Congress that became Republican and adversarial, he moved himself much closer to the center on many of his stances. It was a shrewd move that won him a second term.

Obama's ego and narcissism won't allow him to do the same. It's why I see him losing next year.
All of which is directly responsible for BHO's current 55% DIS-approval rating.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/cnn.poll.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"President Barack Obama's disapproval rating has reached a new high of 55% while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low, 48%, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday."

And this reported on a predominately eft-wing website.
Sep 14, 2011 3:30pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 14, 2011 3:36 PM
Writerbuckeye;895992 wrote:You folks can't discuss the weaknesses of Obama, even though it's so obvious a child could see it -- yet you have no problem diving back into the blame Bush mantra when we're basically 4 years removed from it.

Pathetically sad.
You say that as if having a conversation with you is akin to having a conversation with a rational, fair minded individual. Sure Obama has weaknesses but you sit here and make these claims that he's the "most narcissistic president ever" and comment about what you think he "believes" based upon tenuous correlations at best. You have claimed that President Obama desires to destroy the United States. (You said I did as well because I support an economic policy that is taught in a widely read introductory economic textbook written by Romney's chief economic adviser but I digress).

If you talk to most people who are not deeply committed to one party or the other or aren't emotionally invested in an ideology; the type of people who don't post on politics forums and they do not share these types of sentiments that you do. I am sorry my friend but there are no casually interested independents saying "Wow Obama's obviously an ego-maniac...it's clear as day." But I know, I know, they are just naive.

You literally are worse than mouth-frothing liberals during the Bush years and I didn't believe that was ever possible but alas. I'm sure you remember how impossible it was to have a reasonable discussion with them don't you?
Sep 14, 2011 3:36pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Sep 14, 2011 4:16 PM
BoatShoes;896081 wrote:You literally are worse than mouth-frothing liberals during the Bush years and I didn't believe that was ever possible but alas. I'm sure you remember how impossible it was to have a reasonable discussion with them don't you?

Just a couple big differences, Bush was a defender of freedom, advocate of equal opportunity (not outcome), and pro-busines, pro-growth, pro-wealth creation, pro-private sector jobs, pro-American. Thus when people attempted to defame him, it was incumbment upon real Americans to defend him, even in light of the lack of mental acuity of the liberals berating him.

With obama, I see nothing in his makeup worthy of defense.
Sep 14, 2011 4:16pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Sep 14, 2011 4:19 PM
Ty Webb;896003 wrote:Then why is it ok for you to compare President Obama to President Carter,who has been out of office for what....35 years?
You could be right; I am starting to think that obama is going to make Carter look like George Washington.
Sep 14, 2011 4:19pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 14, 2011 4:26 PM
QuakerOats;896127 wrote:You could be right; I am starting to think that obama is going to make Carter look like George Washington.
Thanks for the belly laugh, Oats. :laugh: I owe you a Yuengling...or two. :cool:
Sep 14, 2011 4:26pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Sep 14, 2011 4:26 PM
BoatShoes;896081 wrote: You literally are worse than mouth-frothing liberals during the Bush years and I didn't believe that was ever possible but alas. I'm sure you remember how impossible it was to have a reasonable discussion with them don't you?
Them?
Sep 14, 2011 4:26pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 14, 2011 4:45 PM
I'm 1,000 times more rational with regard to Obama than the Bush haters are (they've never let go). And I don't childishly call Obama names in the same way those folks called Bush a nazi, murderer and a host of other ridiculous names.

I happen to believe Obama is so delusional in his own political belief system that he simply is incapable of considering anything dramatic in the way of change. The only hint of pragmatism I've seen from him has been his actions with regard to Gitmo, and the war against terror...and I believe he only made those changes after being slapped with reality, and also being power hungry enough to know that if he messed up on one of those fronts, it would mean an early end to his presidency far more quickly than anything else. Otherwise, he would have done all the things he promised coming in.

But it's his unrelenting belief in failing economic policies that will eventually be his downfall and allow one of two Republicans to beat him in an election a year from now: either Romney or Perry, depending on who gets the nomination.
Sep 14, 2011 4:45pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 14, 2011 5:29 PM
Writerbuckeye;896159 wrote:But it's his unrelenting belief in failing economic policies that will eventually be his downfall and allow one of two Republicans to beat him in an election a year from now: either Romney or Perry, depending on who gets the nomination.
And then the floodgates will open.
Sep 14, 2011 5:29pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Sep 14, 2011 10:07 PM
Ty Webb;895987 wrote:Doesn't matter....you bring up the comment about Obama,the exact same thing applied to Cheney.

Cheney pretty much told Bush what to do,and expected everyone else in the administration to follow suit. At least Colin Powell had the balls to tell him to **** off.

Make no mistake about it,President Obama run his administration. He doesn't play second-fiddle to his VP.
That's because compared to Darth, his VP has the IQ of a turnip.
Sep 14, 2011 10:07pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Sep 15, 2011 6:06 PM
wkfan;896072 wrote:All of which is directly responsible for BHO's current 55% DIS-approval rating.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/cnn.poll.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"President Barack Obama's disapproval rating has reached a new high of 55% while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low, 48%, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday."

And this reported on a predominately eft-wing website.
But yet.....he is still leading Romney by 5 and Perry by 8. Does that show you how much the American people hate Republicans right now?
Sep 15, 2011 6:06pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Sep 15, 2011 6:07 PM
QuakerOats;896126 wrote:Just a couple big differences, Bush was a defender of freedom, advocate of equal opportunity (not outcome), and pro-busines, pro-growth, pro-wealth creation, pro-private sector jobs, pro-American. Thus when people attempted to defame him, it was incumbment upon real Americans to defend him, even in light of the lack of mental acuity of the liberals berating him.

With obama, I see nothing in his makeup worthy of defense.
So non-Bush supporters aren't real Americans?
Sep 15, 2011 6:07pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Sep 15, 2011 6:48 PM
[h=2]Will Perry Open Door to Independent Candidate?[/h]NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd predicted that if Rick Perry wins the Republican presidential nomination, a "semi-credible independent candidate" would emerge, Matt Lewis reports.

Said Todd: "If Perry's the nominee, I think there's going to be be a serious effort of some sort of moderate Republican linking up with a conservative Democrat of trying to run in some sort of like, 'let's throw all the bums out -- let's crash the party,' you know, a la Perot."

He added: "I just continue to believe that's what's coming."
Sep 15, 2011 6:48pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Sep 15, 2011 9:27 PM
Ty Webb;897628 wrote:But yet.....he is still leading Romney by 5 and Perry by 8. Does that show you how much the American people hate Republicans right now?
No.

Ever heard of New York's 9th Congressional District, where registered Dems outnumber Republicans 3 to 1? Where a Republican hasn't served since the 1920's? Anthony Weiner's old seat?

Ever heard of Bob Turner?

Or have you been drinking what Debbie Wasserman Shultz has been drinking?
Sep 15, 2011 9:27pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 15, 2011 10:45 PM
QuakerOats;896126 wrote:Just a couple big differences, Bush was a defender of freedom, advocate of equal opportunity (not outcome), and pro-busines, pro-growth, pro-wealth creation, pro-private sector jobs, pro-American. Thus when people attempted to defame him, it was incumbment upon real Americans to defend him, even in light of the lack of mental acuity of the liberals berating him.

With obama, I see nothing in his makeup worthy of defense.
Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to Bush's defense, or even try to define him in the ways you've mentioned.

A defender of freedom by forcing democracy overseas, and signing the PATRIOT Act, one of the most intrusive acts ever signed?

Pro-wealth creation ... with his own stimulus packages? Granted, they weren't nearly the size that the subsequent ones have been from the current schmuck, but "not as bad" doesn't make something good.

Pro-growth, yet spent obscene amounts of money (money we didn't have, and therefore, couldn't responsibly spend) invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attack on the US ten years ago?

I believe that both of the presidents in question are well-intentioned. Both screwed up ... royally ... in more ways than one. Neither was a great president.

It is my personal persuasion that both these presidents were fiscally irresponsible. The difference has only been what they've been spending their money on. It's one more reason why the two parties have become more similar than either would care to admit.
Sep 15, 2011 10:45pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 15, 2011 10:47 PM
Ty Webb;897628 wrote:But yet.....he is still leading Romney by 5 and Perry by 8. Does that show you how much the American people hate Republicans right now?
I dunno. They seem to like the REAL Republican that is currently running, and whose rating has been nearly dead even with Obama ... and who is sure to garner the easy majority of independent votes.
Sep 15, 2011 10:47pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 16, 2011 5:44 AM
O-Trap;898006 wrote:I believe that both of the presidents in question are well-intentioned. Both screwed up ... royally ... in more ways than one. Neither was a great president.
I cannot recall anyone claiming that Bush was a "great president." I scratched my head at many Bush decisions and "Bush-isms."

Nevertheless here's a fair question that begs to be asked: Is the average American better off (at least economically) after 3 years of an Obama Administration than we were under most of Bush's 8 years in office? Intellectually honest folks know the answer.

There's no question that Bush liked to spend money and that Obama has taken it to new heights.

Yet if I had to choose between Bush's "well-intentioned" views on what America should be vs. Obama's, I can say without hesitation that the choice is a no-brainer.
Sep 16, 2011 5:44am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 16, 2011 8:27 AM
I love it when Perry speaks the truth - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/perry-repeats-socialist-charge-against-obama-policies/

The take-home:

“Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington, D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s health care policy, that is, on its face, socialism,” Mr. Perry told Time’s Richard Stengel and Mark Halperin.
Sep 16, 2011 8:27am
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Sep 16, 2011 8:45 AM
Maybe I am missing something on Perry. All I get from him is sound bites and talking points. I dont hear solutions or original ideas. Please help me understand why people like this guy. Im serious about that.
Sep 16, 2011 8:45am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Sep 16, 2011 9:21 AM
pmoney25;898232 wrote:Maybe I am missing something on Perry. All I get from him is sound bites and talking points. I dont hear solutions or original ideas. Please help me understand why people like this guy. Im serious about that.
Because he says the right things, even if he has never governed that way. He knows most people will never look at his record, and in order to keep a guy like Ron Paul from getting the nomination the media isn't going to look at his record either.
Sep 16, 2011 9:21am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 16, 2011 9:30 AM
pmoney25;898232 wrote:Maybe I am missing something on Perry. All I get from him is sound bites and talking points. I dont hear solutions or original ideas. Please help me understand why people like this guy. Im serious about that.
He wrote a book, titled, "Fed Up". You can Google it and read as much as you like or buy it for $14.95. It's the document all the other 7 Pub candidates are hitting him with in the debates. Here's what he's about:

Now, do not misunderstand me, America is great.

But we are fed up with being over-taxed and over-regulated. We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what we are allowed to do to elect political candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what doctor we can see. What kind of nation are we becoming? I fear it's the very kind the Colonists fought against.

But perhaps most of all, we are fed up because deep down we know how great America has always been, how many great things the people do in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way.

Our fight is clear. We must step up and retake the reins of our government from a Washington establishment that has abused our trust. We must empower states to fight for our beliefs, elect only leaders who are on our team, set out to remind our fellow Americans why liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, and take concrete steps to take back our country. The American people have never sat idle when liberty's trumpet sounds the call to battle-and today that battle is for the soul of America.
Sep 16, 2011 9:30am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Sep 16, 2011 9:33 AM
O-Trap;898010 wrote:I dunno. They seem to like the REAL Republican that is currently running, and whose rating has been nearly dead even with Obama ... and who is sure to garner the easy majority of independent votes.
The only polls I have seen break it down have Paul dominating Obama with independents. In fact, Paul is the only Republican who beats Obama with independents, which is why he is the only Republican that can beat Obama in a general election.
Sep 16, 2011 9:33am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 16, 2011 9:38 AM
Cleveland Buck;898246 wrote:Because he says the right things, even if he has never governed that way. He knows most people will never look at his record, and in order to keep a guy like Ron Paul from getting the nomination the media isn't going to look at his record either.
Never look at his record? Have you watched either debate he was in? The other 7 couldn't wait to bring up his record. The next debate is this coming Thursday. You might want to watch the wolves go after him...especially your favorite wolf.

While it's true there are things I don't like about him - most importantly his amnesty plan and unwillingness to build a fence on his southern border, I can't have every candidate agree with everything I want. Not going to happen. He is a leader. He lays it out in front of you. Much like Reagan, he's a plain speaker and doesn't claim to be able to calm the seas like the current buffoon-in-chief. He doesn't back down from things that he truly believes are right and admits mistakes when he's wrong (Bachmann's HPV vaccine attacks).

Speaking of that, has Barry ever admitted a mistake? Any politician admit one in front of a national TV audience? Did your hero ever admit to one in full public display?
Sep 16, 2011 9:38am