One in four Democrats wants to dump Obama

[Ridgerunner]

Except for “duped,” I tend to agree. Voters weren’t fools and there was no trickery on his part to get the votes. They of their own free will and being of sound mind chose him. That they did wrong is obvious, but there was no sleight of hand.

I’m not so sure people weren’t “duped”. A lot of people thought he was going to make healthcare “free”. A lot of people thought somehow he would be “bipartisan”. A lot of people thought somehow that electing him would solve race relations in the U.S. A lot of left wing types thought he was going to close GITMO, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not start any new wars.

And most definitely, a lot of people thought he would solve the recession. You know, that “unemployment won’t go over 8% thing”.

But then, if you’re willing, even eager, to be duped, are you really duped?

 

[estesbob]

Except for “duped,” I tend to agree. Voters weren’t fools and there was no trickery on his part to get the votes. They of their own free will and being of sound mind chose him. That they did wrong is obvious, but there was no sleight of hand.

As for me, I wanted Hillary as President. Her competence is unquestioned.

The charitable thing to say they were duped If they vote for him again there is no doubt they are indeed fools n

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’m not so sure people weren’t “duped”. A lot of people thought he was going to make healthcare “free”. A lot of people thought somehow he would be “bipartisan”. A lot of people thought somehow that electing him would solve race relations in the U.S. A lot of left wing types thought he was going to close GITMO, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not start any new wars.

And most definitely, a lot of people thought he would solve the recession. You know, that “unemployment won’t go over 8% thing”.

But then, if you’re willing, even eager, to be duped, are you really duped?

What they “thought” and what he actually promised to do aren’t the same. That’s why I don’t believe that he was being duplicitous. Some read into the election that which wasn’t there, and it would have been their fault for acting on their assumptions.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Competent or not, (and I’m not saying I agree with her policies. Leftists can be “competent” in all but philosophy) she’s as pro-abortion as they come. No vote from me. Period.

If she got the country running the way it should have been run, we could work on abortion later. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[gilliam]

If she got the country running the way it should have been run, we could work on abortion later. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am not sure she would have done anything different than Obama. Heath care would have been the same. What he did on the economy would have been the same. Foreign policy would have been the same.

Other than personality, I don’t see a major difference between the two.

 

[estesbob]

If she got the country running the way it should have been run, we could work on abortion later. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I guess thats sounds good unless you are one of the 1.2 million children a year slaughtered. There is simply no way a Catholic in good conscience can support Hillary Clinton regardless of how “good” she is on the other issues. She would be an abosolute disaster as president regardless-in all probability just a little less incompetent than Obama.

 

[JMJSHJ]

There is no way Hilary is going to get the nod, but like what others have said, I could never have voted for her. I have to laugh at her attempts of trying to be the next President.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

She would be an abosolute disaster as president regardless-in all probability just a little less incompetent than Obama.

You and I differ on her competence. You are a good Republican and think that she’d be a bad president. I accept that. I, however, believe that she’d be a good one. Unfortunately, we won’t have an opportunity to see how well she would have done one way or the other.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

There is no way Hilary is going to get the nod, but like what others have said, I could never have voted for her. I have to laugh at her attempts of trying to be the next President.

I see no reason to laugh because I’m certain she won’t attempt to run in '12. I wanted her in '08…

 

[ishii]

If she got the country running the way it should have been run, we could work on abortion later. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

You’re right. We have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, she’ll get the trains running on time, etc. What’s a few million abortions when we can get our liberal programs in place like Hillary-care. Its worth it. The unborn can wait.

Not a very Catholic position to take is it? No. The talk radio host Dennis Prager says he prefers clarity to agreement. And I think we now have clarity here. We can see where you’re coming from.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The talk radio host Dennis Prager says he prefers clarity to agreement.

He represents your high authority?

And I think we now have clarity here. We can see where you’re coming from.

I’m coming from wanting to drain the water before starting to repave the street.

 

[ishii]

He represents your high authority?

Needlessly sarcastic, and all too predictable. Instead of the snideness, why not actually check Prager out? I would think anyone with an open mind would be willing to do so if they’re interested in different viewpoints. I think even if you disagree with him you’d perhaps respect his intellectual depth - something which is often lacking in talk radio.

dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=1e3d60a0-3a77-443c-b0f2-6e270e07dca6&url=ten_ways_progressive_policies_harm_societys_moral_character

I’m coming from wanting to drain the water before starting to repave the street.

And I’m coming from the point of view of wanting to stop the slaughter before we worry about fixing the pothole.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Needlessly sarcastic, and all too predictable. Instead of the snideness, why not actually check Prager out? I would think anyone with an open mind would be willing to do so if they’re interested in different viewpoints. I think even if you disagree with him you’d perhaps respect his intellectual depth - something which is often lacking in talk radio.

I’ve read his columns and while he isn’t crazy like Limbaugh and Savage and Beck, his views are nothing extraordinary - why do the Jews and the Blacks keep voting Democratic?, why is there so much hatred for Israel? why are Evangelicals the only Christians with an absolute devotion to Israel?, etc. Same topics, different drumbeat.

And I’m coming from the point of view of wanting to stop the slaughter before we worry about fixing the pothole.

There’s no connection between slaughter and potholes like there is between a flooded street and trying to pave it before the water is down.

 

[Nordar]

I’m not so sure people weren’t “duped”. A lot of people thought he was going to make healthcare “free”. A lot of people thought somehow he would be “bipartisan”. A lot of people thought somehow that electing him would solve race relations in the U.S. A lot of left wing types thought he was going to close GITMO, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not start any new wars.

And most definitely, a lot of people thought he would solve the recession. You know, that “unemployment won’t go over 8% thing”.

But then, if you’re willing, even eager, to be duped, are you really duped?

And believing he would pay their mortgages!

 

[ishii]

I’ve read his columns and while he isn’t crazy like Limbaugh and Savage and Beck, his views are nothing extraordinary - why do the Jews and the Blacks keep voting Democratic?, why is there so much hatred for Israel? why are Evangelicals the only Christians with an absolute devotion to Israel?, etc. Same topics, different drumbeat.

If you listen to his radio show I think you’d find he goes a bit deeper. He’s a conservative, but he spends more time on topics and explores them more than a Hannity or Limbaugh. He deals more with the issues, and less with the politics behind them. But if you don’t listen to him once in a while you’d never know…

There’s no connection between slaughter and potholes like there is between a flooded street and trying to pave it before the water is down.

Actually, your analogy works: the supreme court is flooded with pro-abortion justices. We need a president who will nominate constructionist justices who will help stop the slaughter. (hint: its not going to be Obama and definitely wouldn’t have been Hillary). Then we can allow the states to pave over Planned Parenthood clinics.

Ishii

 

[jam070406]

3 of 4 Democrats are still drinking the Kool Aid.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It’s primary season, and they are talking about their desire for another Democrat to contest him. As it stands, his chances of being re-elected in the Democratic Party Primary are pretty good.

Is there a Democrat out there to the LEFT of Obama with enough name recognition to even pose a challenge?

 

[jam070406]

Is there a Democrat out there to the LEFT of Obama with enough name recognition to even pose a challenge?

Rev. Wright?

 

[ishii]

Rev. Wright?

Gus Hall?

 

[Wolseley]

Is there a Democrat out there to the LEFT of Obama with enough name recognition to even pose a challenge?

Van Jones?