I have to ask this because I just don't seem to understand...

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

A hardline repub/lib journalist has about as much say in the final product as an assembly line worker at an automotive plant.

It's not the "journalists", it''s Jeff Immelt and Les Moonves and Disney and Rupert Murdoch.  This kind of partisan reporting has to be accepted from the top down.  There was a time that you would pay a price for picking sides in a story as a journalist, and now it seems commonplace, top to bottom.

[chunkles]

If Obama is the most evil, radical, secular, socialist horrible human being in the history of the planet, and he is assuredly a one-term president (as I've heard ad nauseum from Republicans), why is this foursome from the Republicans the response to the most critical election in the history of Western civilization?

I mean, seriously, after Gingrich gets done carpet bombing Mitt Romney for the next several months heading into the convention, is there any possible way one of them could be Obama?  If he's so infinitely dislikable and he's as bad as Republicans want people to believe, why won't any of them run against them?

Santorum is still in it.  IN FEBRUARY.  I mean, it's like the people participating in these caucuses are taking crazy pills.

They are just stalling to distract us so they can put the final touches on their Reagan clone who was born of surrogate Thatcher long ago.  rumblings that Reagan291 (his name) loves pillow talk, hunting, collecting sinner tears, and has a wholesome, heterosexual relationship with his lovely wife on their American Flag bedsheets.  They find warmth reading ayn rand to each other under their U.S. Constitution Comforter.  Go America!

[husserl]

Candidates aren't chosen by the media. Good candidates are good at manipulating the media. This is why Obama was one of the best candidates ever and he will probably get reelected despite the economy and everything else that has gone wrong over the last 4 years.

Please don't pretend that there is not an overall liberal bias in the media. That is just insulting. Even if they're trying to maintain objectivity (which I question), it is a fact that most professional journalists are liberals and voted for Obama. Bias is inevitable. Liberal bias is inevitable when the vast majority of journalists are liberals.

now do bush/gore

[felix rex]

pubs are split but even newtites would rather have romney than obama

that's not the point.  the point is, if obama is as vulnerable/disliked as they like to paint him, why didn't any better candidates rise to challenge him?  it's a fair question.

Yep.

Didn't you feel this way when Kerry was nominated in 2004? I did. Was quite frustrating.

Also, Obama was effectively running against one of the least popular presidents in decades, got the benefit of one of the biggest economic crises in decades, and still won by something like 4% of the popular vote. He was a great candidate in 2004, but far from invincible or "best ever".

Either way, if I was a "good candidate," I would also wait four years to run instead of challenging an incumbent from either party who was maintaining 50% approval and had the financial resources and campaign acumen of an Obama.

[06wildcat]

pubs are split but even newtites would rather have romney than obama

that's not the point.  the point is, if obama is as vulnerable/disliked as they like to paint him, why didn't any better candidates rise to challenge him?  it's a fair question.

Yep.

Didn't you feel this way when Kerry was nominated in 2004? I did. Was quite frustrating.

Also, Obama was effectively running against one of the least popular presidents in decades, got the benefit of one of the biggest economic crises in decades, and still won by something like 4% of the popular vote. He was a great candidate in 2004, but far from invincible or "best ever".

Either way, if I was a "good candidate," I would also wait four years to run instead of challenging an incumbent from either party who was maintaining 50% approval and had the financial resources and campaign acumen of an Obama.

Thoughts on Campaign Obama vs. President Obama?

Campaign Obama make you want to run out the door and volunteer or something. President Obama reminds me of a history class I took at K-State 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

pubs are split but even newtites would rather have romney than obama

that's not the point.  the point is, if obama is as vulnerable/disliked as they like to paint him, why didn't any better candidates rise to challenge him?  it's a fair question.

Yep.

Didn't you feel this way when Kerry was nominated in 2004? I did. Was quite frustrating.

Also, Obama was effectively running against one of the least popular presidents in decades, got the benefit of one of the biggest economic crises in decades, and still won by something like 4% of the popular vote. He was a great candidate in 2004, but far from invincible or "best ever".

Either way, if I was a "good candidate," I would also wait four years to run instead of challenging an incumbent from either party who was maintaining 50% approval and had the financial resources and campaign acumen of an Obama.

Thoughts on Campaign Obama vs. President Obama?

Campaign Obama make you want to run out the door and volunteer or something. President Obama reminds me of a history class I took at K-State  

Obama the president is basically voting "present" while the Reid and Pelosi do his dirty work when they can. Very disengaged, mostly.

[OK_Cat]

not sure if discussed, but the mormon thing is going to be a bigger deal than people think.

the fundamentalist christian base of the republican party will not vote for a mormon to lead them. 

[SdK]

not sure if discussed, but the mormon thing is going to be a bigger deal than people think.

the fundamentalist christian base of the republican party will not vote for a mormon to lead them. 

Better than a Muslim though right?

[OK_Cat]

the weirdest thing is that there isn't a really good candidate for the christian base.  You're either voting for a mormon, a liar/cheater, or an old guy that wants to legalize everything.

seems like sarah palin should have ran this year, honestly.

[SdK]

I voted for Obama, and I will vote for him again this election. I am strongly disappointed in his first term. I still believe in the guy though. I think running against him this year will be easier than the last election due to his first term, and the lack of anti-bush sentiment. I still think that campaign Obama is a tough thing to beat. I'm only 26, so I don't have a lot of election experience. I can't think of anyone that would beat him in recent memory. 

Of course I did vote for him, so I'm not the most objective observer. I think the best thing the Republicans will have going for them is being not Obama. And everyone that wants Obama gone may rally around that. This is also one of my least favorite things about the country, voting for someone because they are not someone else.

[CNS]

the weirdest thing is that there isn't a really good candidate for the christian base.  You're either voting for a mormon, a liar/cheater, or an old guy that wants to legalize everything.

seems like sarah palin should have ran this year, honestly.

Palin doesn't want the job.  She wants the pub and she wants the power that comes w/ being in the conversation.  She is getting rich right now with no responsibility.  Seriously running for president would kill that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

the weirdest thing is that there isn't a really good candidate for the christian base.  You're either voting for a mormon, a liar/cheater, or an old guy that wants to legalize everything.

seems like sarah palin should have ran this year, honestly.

Santorum is a better candidate than Palin, imo.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I voted for Obama, and I will vote for him again this election. I am strongly disappointed in his first term. I still believe in the guy though.

What has he done that causes you to still believe in him? 

Saying/promising one thing and doing the exact opposite has historically been more than enough to summarily reject an incumbent.  e.g., "no new taxes"

Why does Obama get a pass here?  He's a career politician, an insider, the kind that everyone in the country is fed up with and "wants out", yet they don't make that connection with Obama.  It's really bizarre.  His free pass with the media helps, but JFC it's not the sole reason.

[8manpick]

Sort of off-topic, but why do many people generally prefer the moderately rich "everyman" candidate over the super-rich "elitist"?  Why is Romney being ultra-wealthy a "bad" thing? Usually people who are super-rich are rough ridin' good at their jobs and have made a shitload of money by being smarter than everyone else.  I just don't get it. I want a super-smart, super-successful guy to lead my country, not the guy who works on my car when it is in the shop.

[SdK]

I voted for Obama, and I will vote for him again this election. I am strongly disappointed in his first term. I still believe in the guy though.

What has he done that causes you to still believe in him? 

Saying/promising one thing and doing the exact opposite has historically been more than enough to summarily reject an incumbent.  e.g., "no new taxes"

Why does Obama get a pass here?  He's a career politician, an insider, the kind that everyone in the country is fed up with and "wants out", yet they don't make that connection with Obama.  It's really bizarre.  His free pass with the media helps, but JFC it's not the sole reason.

I'm about to open myself up for some huge ridicule. Here is what I believe happened with Obama. I believe he meant everything he said in his campaign. I believe he thought he could "change" things like he said he would. I think he was as naive as a lot of the voters that voted for him. I think he got in there and realized crap was a lot more real than he imagined. I think he thought he knew better than everyone else. Perhaps got a little high on himself, and then came crashing back down once in office. I'm not saying these are all admirable qualities. That is just what I think happened. I believed him in his campaign. I think he meant what he said. I know he didn't follow through, and that is saddening.

I don't think he blew sunshine up my ass to get me to vote for him. I think he campaigned on what he believed he could accomplish, and it turned out he couldn't. There is a large difference between someone whispering sweet nothings in my ear that are lies, than someone who says things that he believe and that I support and then doesn't follow through.

These things coupled with Republicans not putting forth a viable candidate in my opinion will lead me to vote for Obama again. I will follow the campaign and am still open to hearing the Repubs side, but I have a feeling it is going to be a story that I've heard before. Like Obama's first term or don't, but I think you have to vote based upon the campaigns, not against a guy because he had a shot and you didn't like where it went. If at the end of the day, you like Romney/Newt is a better candidate, God bless you. I just hope people don't vote for the Republican only because he is not Obama. 

[wetwillie]

8manpick just called obama a mechanic I think. Didn't see that coming.

[8manpick]

8manpick just called obama a mechanic I think. Didn't see that coming.

Wow, I can see how it might be thought that I meant that...oops.  Not at all.  I voted for him once, will probably do it again.  I wasn't referring to any real specifics other than Romney sometimes being painted in a negative light for being really successful.  It just seems that in the effort to appeal to average Joe's, candidates try to seem like they are average Joe's, which is rough ridin' stupid*, because having average Joe run the country is rough ridin' stupid.


*I realize that it probably works well in elections and stuff, but that just reflects on the stupidity of the public at-large that so many see it as a good thing.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Sort of off-topic, but why do many people generally prefer the moderately rich "everyman" candidate over the super-rich "elitist"?  Why is Romney being ultra-wealthy a "bad" thing? Usually people who are super-rich are rough ridin' good at their jobs and have made a shitload of money by being smarter than everyone else.  I just don't get it. I want a super-smart, super-successful guy to lead my country, not the guy who works on my car when it is in the shop.

The dems have spent the last three and one half years trying to convince the country being rich is bad and that being rich isn't a product of being smart or successful, but a product of an unfair conspiracy created by the republicans.  It's populist, class warfare drivel and insane.  What else would you expect?  All that's left is for them to phony up some Romney is a racist crap.  Ironic that they spent 6 times as much money on their campaign than McCain.

When your president is as unaccomplished and ineffective as Obama, this is where you go.  The sad part is that people allow them to get away with it.

[CNS]

I voted for Obama, and I will vote for him again this election. I am strongly disappointed in his first term. I still believe in the guy though.

What has he done that causes you to still believe in him? 

Saying/promising one thing and doing the exact opposite has historically been more than enough to summarily reject an incumbent.  e.g., "no new taxes"

Why does Obama get a pass here?  He's a career politician, an insider, the kind that everyone in the country is fed up with and "wants out", yet they don't make that connection with Obama.  It's really bizarre.  His free pass with the media helps, but JFC it's not the sole reason.

I'm about to open myself up for some huge ridicule. Here is what I believe happened with Obama. I believe he meant everything he said in his campaign. I believe he thought he could "change" things like he said he would. I think he was as naive as a lot of the voters that voted for him. I think he got in there and realized crap was a lot more real than he imagined. I think he thought he knew better than everyone else. Perhaps got a little high on himself, and then came crashing back down once in office. I'm not saying these are all admirable qualities. That is just what I think happened. I believed him in his campaign. I think he meant what he said. I know he didn't follow through, and that is saddening.

I don't think he blew sunshine up my ass to get me to vote for him. I think he campaigned on what he believed he could accomplish, and it turned out he couldn't. There is a large difference between someone whispering sweet nothings in my ear that are lies, than someone who says things that he believe and that I support and then doesn't follow through.

These things coupled with Republicans not putting forth a viable candidate in my opinion will lead me to vote for Obama again. I will follow the campaign and am still open to hearing the Repubs side, but I have a feeling it is going to be a story that I've heard before. Like Obama's first term or don't, but I think you have to vote based upon the campaigns, not against a guy because he had a shot and you didn't like where it went. If at the end of the day, you like Romney/Newt is a better candidate, God bless you. I just hope people don't vote for the Republican only because he is not Obama. 

Right or wrong, all candidates who aren't very high up in other areas of govt have an idea of what they want to accomplish on serious issues(gitmo, iraq, iran, etc) but aren't working with a full set of data.  They just aren't cleared to know what I would imagine is some pretty important information until they are actually president.

Again, I think many presidents don't know what they are getting into fully until they are there.  I mean, can you imagine that first session with the CIA, FBI, etc and being filled in on all the intimate info on such situations?  Talk about overwhelming.  Gotta imagine it requires candidates to somewhat stay on their toes and remap their term almost immediately in some cases.

Not saying this to give Obama a pass on anything.  I imagine this happens to all new pres's, not just the ones w/ blue ties.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I voted for Obama, and I will vote for him again this election. I am strongly disappointed in his first term. I still believe in the guy though.

What has he done that causes you to still believe in him? 

Saying/promising one thing and doing the exact opposite has historically been more than enough to summarily reject an incumbent.  e.g., "no new taxes"

Why does Obama get a pass here?  He's a career politician, an insider, the kind that everyone in the country is fed up with and "wants out", yet they don't make that connection with Obama.  It's really bizarre.  His free pass with the media helps, but JFC it's not the sole reason.

I'm about to open myself up for some huge ridicule. Here is what I believe happened with Obama. I believe he meant everything he said in his campaign. I believe he thought he could "change" things like he said he would. I think he was as naive as a lot of the voters that voted for him. I think he got in there and realized crap was a lot more real than he imagined. I think he thought he knew better than everyone else. Perhaps got a little high on himself, and then came crashing back down once in office. I'm not saying these are all admirable qualities. That is just what I think happened. I believed him in his campaign. I think he meant what he said. I know he didn't follow through, and that is saddening.

I don't think he blew sunshine up my ass to get me to vote for him. I think he campaigned on what he believed he could accomplish, and it turned out he couldn't. There is a large difference between someone whispering sweet nothings in my ear that are lies, than someone who says things that he believe and that I support and then doesn't follow through.

These things coupled with Republicans not putting forth a viable candidate in my opinion will lead me to vote for Obama again. I will follow the campaign and am still open to hearing the Repubs side, but I have a feeling it is going to be a story that I've heard before. Like Obama's first term or don't, but I think you have to vote based upon the campaigns, not against a guy because he had a shot and you didn't like where it went. If at the end of the day, you like Romney/Newt is a better candidate, God bless you. I just hope people don't vote for the Republican only because he is not Obama. 

He's a politician not a motivational speaker.  

If you believe he meant what he said, then you have a really, really, really low opinion of his sanity/intelligence.  Only a crazy person, or a person afflicted with severe mental retardation, could possibly think that all the things he said he was going to do could actually be (or should be) done.  What's worse, if you think he misunderstood the reality of the situations/issues he was speaking on, you must think he's the most naive person on the planet.  The stuff he was saying was ridiculous.

He took advantage of the country when it appeared to be spiraling out of control.  He simply looked at the polls and said everything people wanted to hear.  A stereotypical politician or televangelist.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but not a single legitimate reason has been offered up as to why any of the republican candidates are not "viable" or "legitimate" presidential candidates.  They're all more qualified to be president than Obama was 4 years ago.  Maybe they don't have the same horsepower in their "political machine", but being a "polished" or "slick" politician with an awesome campaign seems to be a dubious reason to vote for someone.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Right or wrong, all candidates who aren't very high up in other areas of govt have an idea of what they want to accomplish on serious issues(gitmo, iraq, iran, etc) but aren't working with a full set of data.  They just aren't cleared to know what I would imagine is some pretty important information until they are actually president.

Again, I think many presidents don't know what they are getting into fully until they are there.  I mean, can you imagine that first session with the CIA, FBI, etc and being filled in on all the intimate info on such situations?  Talk about overwhelming.  Gotta imagine it requires candidates to somewhat stay on their toes and remap their term almost immediately in some cases.

Not saying this to give Obama a pass on anything.  I imagine this happens to all new pres's, not just the ones w/ blue ties.

He was a rough ridin' Senator and sat on the Homeland Security Committee you idiot.  He was privy to all kinds of intel re: gitmo, iran, iraq. 

He either never showed up for committee or lied and misrepresented what he could do and what was possible.  Either way, it's indefensible.

[SdK]

He's a politician not a motivational speaker. 

If you believe he meant what he said, then you have a really, really, really low opinion of his sanity/intelligence.  Only a crazy person, or a person afflicted with severe mental retardation, could possibly think that all the things he said he was going to do could actually be (or should be) done.  What's worse, if you think he misunderstood the reality of the situations/issues he was speaking on, you must think he's the most naive person on the planet.  The stuff he was saying was ridiculous.

He took advantage of the country when it appeared to be spiraling out of control.  He simply looked at the polls and said everything people wanted to hear.  A stereotypical politician or televangelist.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but not a single legitimate reason has been offered up as to why any of the republican candidates are not "viable" or "legitimate" presidential candidates.  They're all more qualified to be president than Obama was 4 years ago.  Maybe they don't have the same horsepower in their "political machine", but being a "polished" or "slick" politician with an awesome campaign seems to be a dubious reason to vote for someone.

You asked a question and I answered it. No need for all the name calling, etc. I didn't say a single negative thing about Republicans, just that I don't think they would make a better President than the one we have now. I wish with every ounce of my being that we had something other than a two party system.  But we don't. Obama obviously had a much different effect on you than he did me, I'm sure we will both vote accordingly.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

He's a politician not a motivational speaker. 

If you believe he meant what he said, then you have a really, really, really low opinion of his sanity/intelligence.  Only a crazy person, or a person afflicted with severe mental retardation, could possibly think that all the things he said he was going to do could actually be (or should be) done.  What's worse, if you think he misunderstood the reality of the situations/issues he was speaking on, you must think he's the most naive person on the planet.  The stuff he was saying was ridiculous.

He took advantage of the country when it appeared to be spiraling out of control.  He simply looked at the polls and said everything people wanted to hear.  A stereotypical politician or televangelist.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but not a single legitimate reason has been offered up as to why any of the republican candidates are not "viable" or "legitimate" presidential candidates.  They're all more qualified to be president than Obama was 4 years ago.  Maybe they don't have the same horsepower in their "political machine", but being a "polished" or "slick" politician with an awesome campaign seems to be a dubious reason to vote for someone.

You asked a question and I answered it. No need for all the name calling, etc. I didn't say a single negative thing about Republicans, just that I don't think they would make a better President than the one we have now. I wish with every ounce of my being that we had something other than a two party system.  But we don't. Obama obviously had a much different effect on you than he did me, I'm sure we will both vote accordingly.

Being willfully ignorant, or painfully naive is no way to live your life.  Hope and change is a campaign slogan, not presidential policy.

[SdK]

He's a politician not a motivational speaker. 

If you believe he meant what he said, then you have a really, really, really low opinion of his sanity/intelligence.  Only a crazy person, or a person afflicted with severe mental retardation, could possibly think that all the things he said he was going to do could actually be (or should be) done.  What's worse, if you think he misunderstood the reality of the situations/issues he was speaking on, you must think he's the most naive person on the planet.  The stuff he was saying was ridiculous.

He took advantage of the country when it appeared to be spiraling out of control.  He simply looked at the polls and said everything people wanted to hear.  A stereotypical politician or televangelist.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but not a single legitimate reason has been offered up as to why any of the republican candidates are not "viable" or "legitimate" presidential candidates.  They're all more qualified to be president than Obama was 4 years ago.  Maybe they don't have the same horsepower in their "political machine", but being a "polished" or "slick" politician with an awesome campaign seems to be a dubious reason to vote for someone.

You asked a question and I answered it. No need for all the name calling, etc. I didn't say a single negative thing about Republicans, just that I don't think they would make a better President than the one we have now. I wish with every ounce of my being that we had something other than a two party system.  But we don't. Obama obviously had a much different effect on you than he did me, I'm sure we will both vote accordingly.

Being willfully ignorant, or painfully naive is no way to live your life.  Hope and change is a campaign slogan, not presidential policy.

Well his campaign slogan aside, the other ticket was a joke. I agree the Republican ticket should be a lot better this election. Obama benefited from running after the Bush administration. Like I said before, I think the two party system does the country a disservice. Whatever the reason people vote the way they do, only having two choices is terrible. I hope whoever wins does good for the country, whether it is Republican or Democrat. I don't really care which. You seem to feel the way about Obama that I felt towards Bush. May the best candidate win.

[Panjandrum]

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but not a single legitimate reason has been offered up as to why any of the republican candidates are not "viable" or "legitimate" presidential candidates.

None of them are viable because three of them are completely unelectable in a national election (Paul, Santorum, Gingrich) and the fourth doesn't have the political polish to defeat as skilled a politician as Obama, who also happens to be a part of a non-traditional religion that still hasn't been fully embraced by the populous.

By the time the general election is done, the Republican effort is going to look like Pickett's Charge.

Look, I get what felix is saying.  Most people wouldn't want to go up against an incumbent President, period.  However, with four years of carpet bombing Obama with everything from birth certificates to putting a visage of Hitler on his face during Tea Party rallies, with the "dire consequences" facing our nation under his leadership, you'd think someone would have the guts to run.  Anyone.