OK..GOP candidates suck...so enlighten me...

[Amelia]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

Brilliant!!!!

 

[grunt11b]

I had hope he would be a change from the Bush methods of running things.
I quickly found out I was wrong. The guy turned out to be a bush clone.
It did not take me 7 years to admit my being wrong though. Just a matter of months.
It was in my opinion the lesser of the evils at the voting booth.
I honestly do not believe McCain/Palin would have done any better than Obama has though.

Bush clone? Bush never even thought of a takeover of healthcare. Stimulus I can agree on though, Bush started it off with $400,000,000,000 and Obama ran with it and racked up another $800,000,000,000 even though it was clear that the Bush stimulus had no effect. Bush also adhered to the war powers act, something Obama clearly did not do and I feel should be impeached for. We could go on and on with this, but it is starting to bore me already.

 

[grunt11b]

with phil Gram as their economic adviser of choice we would have been a third world country.

And we are not on the verge of that right now? Is this country better off now then it was 3 years ago?

 

[Amelia]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8]How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jarhead]

The platform he ran on. It doesn't matter who wrote it, he said it was his goal. It was better than risking someone as dumb as Palin being near our big red button.

And as you see, his platform was nothing buyt someone elses idea who knew it would get him elected.

His past in school is proven, WITHout seeing his transcripts, unless you're honestly going to sit in your chair and claim that Harvard Law is somehow a part of some conspiracy, or that it's easy to get into with no scholastic accomplishment(ridiculous).


No offense, but I am not one who jumps into conspiracies on here. But why was Yale a "daddy's doing" but Harvard not an "affirmative action" doing?

I also liked his approach.

Fair enough. I seemed to see it as insincere

I also didn't want another Bush, even though we got him.

Thus why I was correct seeing as his approach insincere

I also know that if he had any real dirt of significance on him, the obsessively partisan radio hacks would have uncovered it in a heart-beat.

Well...it depends on what you would consider dirt. Havingt Wirght as your mentor would have knocked anyone out of a race.


He also had a couple of books out, and you could have read about his life pretty easily and took at least a majority of it at face value. Obviously not all of it. (politician).


He wasn't unvetted. That's completely ridiculous. He had Senatorial Campaigns and a Presidential campaign opponent(s) gunning for him at different time periods, and if he was some sort of obvious idiot or danger we all would have heard about it.

He was vetted...but most of what normally is deemed an issue was tossed aside as a non issue.
Dean was knocked out by a rah rah speech.
Hart was knocked out by the actions of one of hius supporters.
Dukakis lost becuase he looked silly sitting in a tank.

But I appreciate an honest answer.

 

[grunt11b]

Brains and what he talked about

Brains? He is so smart every policy he has signed has failed miserably. And what did he talk about that made you vote for him?
And how do you know he is smart? Because that is what the Huff post and Msnbc told you? Because he has spent millions to seal off his college transcripts so why would he do that? Other than you being told he was smart there is no proof to back it up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

he was selected to head teh harvard revue.

They dont pick dummies.

i could tell he was smart from his words.

I said that he would be president someday the first time I heard him speak.

My Bro gave me shit for saying it and called to eat crow they day he was elected.

Yea, Affirmative Action got him to be the president of the Harvard Review.

Ah, yes....another o' those White Trash/"Everybody knows...."-factoids.

 

[grunt11b]

Brains and what he talked about

Well...ytoiu did not know if he did well in college...you assume he did.
Afterall, Bush went to Yale but you do not see him as "smart"...

So then it was just the words of his speech writers? The message of his campaign manager who was hired to help him "win" that won you over?

OK. Thanks for your honesty.

Well, the difference here is that Bush got in on the Daddy credit, not his performance.

Was he re-elected on the daddy credit also?

 

[Sarah G]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

He was running AGAINST McCain and Palin. Simple as that. While Obama may not have had all of the credentials one would hope to find in a POTUS candidate, the thought of McCain dying in office, and turning the reigns of our country over to Caribou Barbie was simply too much to overcome.

So you plan on voting for Barack again considering the Republican landscape today?

 

[G.T.]

The platform he ran on. It doesn't matter who wrote it, he said it was his goal. It was better than risking someone as dumb as Palin being near our big red button.

And as you see, his platform was nothing buyt someone elses idea who knew it would get him elected.

His past in school is proven, WITHout seeing his transcripts, unless you're honestly going to sit in your chair and claim that Harvard Law is somehow a part of some conspiracy, or that it's easy to get into with no scholastic accomplishment(ridiculous).


No offense, but I am not one who jumps into conspiracies on here. But why was Yale a "daddy's doing" but Harvard not an "affirmative action" doing?

I also liked his approach.

Fair enough. I seemed to see it as insincere

I also didn't want another Bush, even though we got him.

Thus why I was correct seeing as his approach insincere

I also know that if he had any real dirt of significance on him, the obsessively partisan radio hacks would have uncovered it in a heart-beat.

Well...it depends on what you would consider dirt. Havingt Wirght as your mentor would have knocked anyone out of a race.


He also had a couple of books out, and you could have read about his life pretty easily and took at least a majority of it at face value. Obviously not all of it. (politician).


He wasn't unvetted. That's completely ridiculous. He had Senatorial Campaigns and a Presidential campaign opponent(s) gunning for him at different time periods, and if he was some sort of obvious idiot or danger we all would have heard about it.

He was vetted...but most of what normally is deemed an issue was tossed aside as a non issue.
Dean was knocked out by a rah rah speech.
Hart was knocked out by the actions of one of hius supporters.
Dukakis lost becuase he looked silly sitting in a tank.

But I appreciate an honest answer.

Well first, affirmative action or not, it's a FACT that he was Magna Cum Laude. Question how he got in there, etc etc................but you can't question that he wasn't out of his league there. In other words, he WAS scholastically accomplished.

Wright is such a non-issue, and so is Ayers that it's completely ridiculous and I won't even go there or re-hash the conversation.

The Dean Hart Dukakis shit has nothing to do with me.

You're comparing a Harvard Grad, Community / Family man to guys who left thier wives under Cancer, caused Gov't shutdowns and are establishment NeoCons, have used bigoted speech against Muslims, flip flop themselves on the same night, on the same stage......

These are all viable issues. Looking back and saying but but but just sounds whinish, a bit. Like, bitter.

Go ahead and Vet Obama now, there's a new election to be had. Stop being so stuck on I told you so's like what's it really do for you?

 

[Jarhead]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

Brilliant!!!!

Thanks...seems to me that a vast majority voted for him as the lesser of the two evils.
Some who applied some thought to him, are disappointed with his performance....I find that interesting.
But it seems most went simply by his words...not by his actions.

And yes, debates often allow you to see a candidate at his/her best or worst....but I am quite aware of the prepping that goes into a debate. Thus why debates are filled with non answers..something Obama did quite often...

But all in all, I find it interesting how many on the left spend much more time vetting a GOP candidate than they did Obama.

And those in the center such as US CItizen and GT?
They admit what they thought of him is not totally what he has proven to be.

 

[grunt11b]

he was selected to head teh harvard revue.

They dont pick dummies.

You where told that he was, but yet noone at Harvard even in his own "Supposed" class even remembers him being there. Now if you where selected of such things, surely someone would remember you. Another lie that they wanted you to believe.

i could tell he was smart from his words.

I work in a Federal Prison and work around con artists all the time, they know how to talk and they sure sound smart, but they can be pretty stupid when it comes to common sense.

I said that he would be president someday the first time I heard him speak.

That settled it then, if you said it then it's all your fault that he made it.
My Bro gave me shit for saying it and called to eat crow they day he was elected.

ANd now you are the one eating crow, his policies will soon effect you just like it does everyone else, you just dont see it yet, but you will. You fell for the hope and change, without even knowing what type of hope and change, but you are about to find out real soon, and you're not going to like it.

 

[grunt11b]

If Romney gets the nomination I might vote for him.
Otherwise I will sit this one out.

Except he will be forced to cow tow to the tea party the whole time to get reelected.

And here I thought according to what the left has been saying on the MSM that the tea party was insignificant. Hmmmm.

 

[Jarhead]

The platform he ran on. It doesn't matter who wrote it, he said it was his goal. It was better than risking someone as dumb as Palin being near our big red button.

And as you see, his platform was nothing buyt someone elses idea who knew it would get him elected.

His past in school is proven, WITHout seeing his transcripts, unless you're honestly going to sit in your chair and claim that Harvard Law is somehow a part of some conspiracy, or that it's easy to get into with no scholastic accomplishment(ridiculous).


No offense, but I am not one who jumps into conspiracies on here. But why was Yale a "daddy's doing" but Harvard not an "affirmative action" doing?

I also liked his approach.

Fair enough. I seemed to see it as insincere

I also didn't want another Bush, even though we got him.

Thus why I was correct seeing as his approach insincere

I also know that if he had any real dirt of significance on him, the obsessively partisan radio hacks would have uncovered it in a heart-beat.

Well...it depends on what you would consider dirt. Havingt Wirght as your mentor would have knocked anyone out of a race.


He also had a couple of books out, and you could have read about his life pretty easily and took at least a majority of it at face value. Obviously not all of it. (politician).


He wasn't unvetted. That's completely ridiculous. He had Senatorial Campaigns and a Presidential campaign opponent(s) gunning for him at different time periods, and if he was some sort of obvious idiot or danger we all would have heard about it.

He was vetted...but most of what normally is deemed an issue was tossed aside as a non issue.
Dean was knocked out by a rah rah speech.
Hart was knocked out by the actions of one of hius supporters.
Dukakis lost becuase he looked silly sitting in a tank.

But I appreciate an honest answer.

Well first, affirmative action or not, it's a FACT that he was Magna Cum Laude. Question how he got in there, etc etc................but you can't question that he wasn't out of his league there. In other words, he WAS scholastically accomplished.

Wright is such a non-issue, and so is Ayers that it's completely ridiculous and I won't even go there or re-hash the conversation.

The Dean Hart Dukakis shit has nothing to do with me.

You're comparing a Harvard Grad, Community / Family man to guys who left thier wives under Cancer, caused Gov't shutdowns and are establishment NeoCons, have used bigoted speech against Muslims, flip flop themselves on the same night, on the same stage......

These are all viable issues. Looking back and saying but but but just sounds whinish, a bit. Like, bitter.

Go ahead and Vet Obama now, there's a new election to be had. Stop being so stuck on I told you so's like what's it really do for you?

No GT...not an i told you so thread.

I was actually using my time to discerne the partisan from the non partiosan.

You and US Citizen were the only honest ones in my book.

And as for Wright.....sure those others had nothing to do with you...

But the electorate as a whole?

They knocked them out for lesser reasons than Wright...Much less Wright, Ayers and Resko combined.

 

[grunt11b]

As far as the GOP candidates are concerned, only one who does not practice social reforms based on the fringe right wing voters will get my vote. I want fiscally conservative policies, not right wing social policies.

Give me a candidate who follows those two simple points and you've got a vote.

I want a centrist president. It's something we've lacked for a long time.

Ron Paul is the only one for you then.
However he has not a chance in hell of winning the nomination due to his views on useage of the military.

Fuck.

I've studied Ron Paul a fair bit because he piqued my interest, I love his courage and his honesty, but some of his policies are out of wack. Don't get me wrong though he is probably the most experienced politician in the world though.

Just not sure I want him as president.

I dont want an experienced politician in there. I want a non-politician who will do what's right for america, and follow the constitution. I want Herman Cain "I know, I'm racist right?".

 

[NoNukes]

I had hope he would be a change from the Bush methods of running things.
I quickly found out I was wrong. The guy turned out to be a bush clone.
It did not take me 7 years to admit my being wrong though. Just a matter of months.
It was in my opinion the lesser of the evils at the voting booth.
I honestly do not believe McCain/Palin would have done any better than Obama has though.

you did not answer the question...

What about Obama did you use to evaluate him to determine that he was the lesser of the two evils?

Just look at who was running for Vice President for the GOP. Obama was a much better choice than Grandpa and the Bimbo.

 

[grunt11b]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

Being a life long (62 years) republican but more so a citizen of this country I had to make a choice between Obama and the possibility that Sarah Palin could ascend to the oval office if an old man were faced with the challenges and stress of POTUS and his health failed. I had no illusions of "hopey change" but we, our co.untry had been set on a clear course of destruction by the previous two administrations. If I would have to choose between my worst presidential votes it would still be my vote for Bush compared to that for Obama.

So you gambled your future healthcare on generations of future americans backs and the destruction of the Constitution? At least you're honest about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Brains and what he talked about

So John McCain is stupid?

Id call him alot of things, but I dont think he is that.

 

[NoNukes]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

He was running AGAINST McCain and Palin. Simple as that. While Obama may not have had all of the credentials one would hope to find in a POTUS candidate, the thought of McCain dying in office, and turning the reigns of our country over to Caribou Barbie was simply too much to overcome.

So you plan on voting for Barack again considering the Republican landscape today?

Absolutely.

 

[grunt11b]

You have all taken apart all candidates that are running for the GOP nomination. You have educated us as to why Cain is a poor choice...why Bachmann is a hypocrite.....Newt is not worthy....Rommey.....and I can go on and on.

Fine...thank you.

What you have done is reviewed their years in politics, or thier years in business, their years as a privatye citizen, the actions when they were younger, the actions of their spouses...etc..etc...etc...

So now lets go back to 2008.....

Obama had a mere 2 years as a state senator and less than 18 months as a US senator.

He had a very spotty voting record in Illinois...voted present quite often and voted party lines pretty much the rest of the time...so it was difficxult to see what his thought process was
As a US senator, he voted against the surge...something that was successful and he doubled down on when he was President....so that vote was the wrong vote at the time.
The rest of his votes were either present or along party lines....so again, one can not evaluate his thought process.

So what did we want to know about him......

His acadedmic successes....but we were told no...none of our business.
His writings with the law review...we were told none of our business
His relationships with other people...we were told it is irrelevant and that we should not judge him by the actions of his mentors and supporters.....and we are racists if we try to
We asked who his friends are...we were told none of our business (anyone know of ANY friends that he has?)


SO I must ask all of you....you have dug deep to knock and find fault in the GOP runners...

So what of Obama did you evaluate when you opted to vote for him?

Naturally, there has been extreme vetting of the GOP candidates by the left, I mean what does one expect? Particularly, because of all the founded and unfounded criticism/accusations of Obama. It's more or so a reactionary impulse.
But, I also see founded and unfounded criticism by folks on the right about the GOP candidates and potential candidates. Specifically directed towards the more moderate GOP candidates/potential candidates, (see the most recent Christie thread).
Now USMB reflects most political boards as it's population is heavily weighed with strong ideologues, with very few centralist. So all of this criticism of far right, right, moderate, left and far left political candidates is expected and something one has to accept.

The left spent all that time vetting Mcain, but none Vetting Obama, does that not make you sick to your stomach? I mean, it's a clear violation of their duties, and if anyone needed to be question about being constitutionally eligible to serve, it was Obama, not mcain.