No, Carter was such a bad president that serious thoughts were given to splitting the office up into multiple positions because, it was felt, that no one man could do the job anymore.
Then we got Reagan and the gas lines ended, unemployment went down, home sales went up, and life began to normalize.
Now we have a democrat controlled legislature and the economy that had gone up every month dropped every month, we have a congress with the worst approval ratings ever, a congress that has yet to pass a budget for 2007 and one that has missed the mark on illegal immigrants, bank financing and interest rates.
If we had a smart republican running, and we don’t, he wouldn’t just win, he’d win as big as Reagan, IMHO. The people are looking for a strong conservative - not a democrat wearing a red tie like we have in Bush.
indeed i disagree passionately with those things McCain did. but i agree with him on foreign policy, and domestic policy against terrorism. i’m sure he’ll outsource “24” style interrogation methods to some country….so we dont have to. that works for me. whatever saves us from another attack.
and even with his faults shown by jen, man do i think he’d be better than any liberal viewpoints…and so would every other republican…that doesnt just seethe with hatred of McCain but decides that he’d be better to protect our nation and he will defend america’s social values and try to get our society back out of the gutter.
and mollari…McCains winning in s.carolina. thats something to think about. all conservatives will flock to the polls to keep hillary out. or most anyways. and obama who on all issues has never reached across the aisle politically he has been a staunch left soldier. more so than hillary. people would flock to vote for anyone but him either. but for defense in these times…nobody can say any other candidate is better and more qualified than McCain.
I’m pulling for Giuliani. Any other Giuliani supporters out there?
Here is an article that relates to the Prez that I saw today, which just leaves me in stitches. Wow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322646,00.html
Not trying to fool anyone anymore, I guess.
Why hasn’t anyone raised the fact that Hillary let a racist comment slip on Sunday yet? :P
Anyway, that’s a pretty big gaffe, basically saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was cute, but relatively ineffective, that it took a rich white man to pass legislation (Lyndon B. Johnson-D) to make any progress at all.
Wonder how that’s going to play with the black community, which makes up a big portion of the democratic party. Maybe they’ll rally more behind Obama now? At the least, this is GOING to hurt her in the general election!
@Cmdr:
Anyway, that’s a pretty big gaffe, basically saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was cute, but relatively ineffective, that it took a rich white man to pass legislation (Lyndon B. Johnson-D) to make any progress at all.
Clinton had a few things going against her even before this, but she really blasted herself with that one. Lol.
I’m not a Clinton fan, personally. She strikes me as someone with more ambition than anything else.
Granted, but now I think it would be both irresponsible and rather stupid of the Democrats to nominate her for President. Lord knows that any intelligent republican campaign will be blowing that horn in every black neighborhood throughout the United States driving a wedge between the Democrats and the Blacks in this nation now that she would never win the White House.
After all, here is a woman who’s entire campaign has been to tear down the black guy, to prevent him from taking his rightful place at the table (as far as he, and some of his group see it) and then she besmirches one of their two greatest leaders and heros of all time (the other being Malcolm X.)
I dunno, I think this might knock her out of the running. But I find myself, awkwardly, rooting for her now! (Because we could put up just about any Republican and beat her now.)
I have heard that even the BET guy that helped get this all started is on Clinton’s side that this was NOT racist.
Of course it all goes to my belief that if you are looking for racism in something, you WILL find it.
I know what Hillary was trying to get out with her comments, and while I despise the woman… She actually WAS correct. It was not sit ins and marches and speeches that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law, it was the leadership and signature of a sitting President.
Hillary’s comments were designed to show the difference between the two types of actions… one that brings headlines and public attention, and another type of action that brings real change backed by the power of government to enforce it.
So, I don;t think she was being racist… but I still don;t like her.
I disagree. If MLK had not done what he did, then LBJ would not have been pressured by the people to do anything about it and thus, nothing would have been done.
LBJ was weak and caved into pressure by the people. He is not the hero and that’s what Hillary was trying to paint him out to be. The basic message was:
Obama may have hopes and dreams, but hopes and dreams are irrellevant. It will always take a rich white person to do it, and a poor black man will never accomplish anything.
At least, that’s what I heard from her speech. Then again, I noticed that the only time she cries is when she’s losing, and only as a political gambit, so that kind of colors my perceptions of everything she does. With her, there are no “weak” moments, not “accidents” no “coincidents.” Everything is a calculated, measured action and only when it goes wrong does she do something about it like apologize or fire someone in her staff.
This is a very cold, very conniving woman who is attempting to seek power over all of us. I don’t trust her.
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLK
Which is true, as far as it goes…
@ncscswitch:
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLKWhich is true, as far as it goes…
LBJ alone would not have enacted the Civil Rights Act.
MLK alone, would have eventually agitated any president to pass it. JFK would have, if he had lived long enough, and without MLK. But LBJ wasn’t interested until the civil unrest got so hard to control he had to do it.
The way Hillary said it, and I don’t care what she MEANT, what she SAID was that MLK was worthless, LBJ did it all and MLK did nothing but commit civil disobedience and cause domestic unrest.
And it is THAT message that will haunt her campaign from this day forward. That, the illegal fund raising, and all the rest. Meanwhile, she’s attempting to smear the black man, and keep him from getting ahead so she, a white woman, can take power. Another act that will haunt her campaign.
Either way, she’s damned if she does and damned if she don’t. If she does win, in November, I suspect she’ll have significantly less of a mandate then President Bush started his second term with.
well johnson did state with signing the civil rights act that he probably lost the south for the democratic party for good. and more sinster political machine may not have done it. so mlk might have needed johnson, at that time. maybe not.
@Cmdr:
This is a very cold, very conniving woman who is attempting to seek power over all of us. I don’t trust her.
Oh, please. You are just trying to find any reason to dislike her, and doing a terrible job of it.
There are plenty of reasons not to like her or her campaign, but you are just nitpicking.
No where did she say MLK was worthless; if she actually thought that, she wouldn’t have said she and Obama owe it to MLK to bring the country together.
Once again you are making crap up over nothing.
i can’t say the exacts on the speach, i heard the part she said and it did sound like she was saying what Jen said to me as well.
now that may not be what she ment, but it is how it sounded and how it sounded to others, other wise she wouldn’t be trying to mend the racal tensions with Obama now. i worded that wrong i know, but i can’t think of a better way to say it (i don’t have a speach writer after all or political stratagest to make sure i say things write).
But I don’t have to find reasons to dislike her.
Anyone who is pro-big government, and she is just by the fact she is for universal health care CONTROLLED by the government, means you will NOT get my vote.
I just found it funny that her campaign again shows that the racists and sexists and classists and every other ist seems to be coming from one political party and it isn’t the republicans. It hasn’t BEEN the republicans for a very, VERY long time.
Add to this the media apologizing FOR her when they SHOULD be broadcasting it from the tops of the highest towers like they would if Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson had said the exact same thing, and it makes you wonder?
The basic thing is this:
Hillary thinks it takes dictates from the President to make change.
Mr. King thought it took action from the people to make change.
One is imperial, the other is democratic. I, for one, agree with Mr. King, not Mrs. Bill Clinton. We fought to revolutions to escape from the tyranny of a monarchy, the Revolution AND the War of 1812 (the latter being our fault, BIG TIME.)
Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!
Who thinks Mitt’s successes in Wyoming and Michigan are flukes, as my local media seems to put it?
Honestly, I think New Hampshire was a fluke, mainly because anyone who wanted too, could vote there. No need to establish residency or even to register before hand. That meant you could buss in anyone you wanted to vote any way you wanted.
Iowa, dunno.
But Michigan and Wyoming were probably the local residents voting. And, since Mitt’s won 2 primaries and came in second for 2 primaries, I find it incredulous for the media to keep claiming he is one loss away from dropping out. He IS the front runner at this point.
Anyone disagree?
he is and has been even before Michigan IMHO. he has been the most consistant of all the others. all the others for the most part have been hit or miss in the state primaries well Mitt has been top one or two in most (as you said).
i hope he can keep it up, he is the best man (or woman) for the job when it comes to the economy, better then most on the boarder, and although not the best on war he knows enough in buisness that i’m sure he would put the right person(s) incharge of it making him the best for the job in that area as well. how do i justify that? simple, i would rather have some one who knows they don’t got a clue in war time decisions but dose know how to read a resume and puts the best man (or woman) for the job there, then have a guy who has millitary experiance (although i think this is also important) or thinks they know how to run a war and blunder it through political compermise or poor decisions. i think McCain would compermise or just make blunders because i feel he would get his hands in too deep, Guiliani i think would do the same thing but make bigger mistakes. not that ether would be ill intended in this, i think they would both mean best but good intentions don’t work out like you always plan… accually they seldom do in the government.
they are not running the mormom. even the calculating karl rove had to admit that once the new anti-mormom, scratch that––STRONGLY anti-mormom movie comes out in the summer, and it will get super hype from the media if romney is running, and it takes over 2 hours of peoples time to indoctrinate people to the story(and actual truth) of the mormom leaders being cold blooded killers, mass murderers actually, and that their religion is for fruitloops. (the garden of eden being in missouri, indians being the lost two tribes of isreal, jesus and the devil being brothers, etc. etc. etc. …no freaking way republicans are that stupid) no way people will vote for him in a national election. he flip-floped more than kerry. its sad that some would chose anyone else than McCain. and for what point. McCain is the best to defend the country, and he’s a social conservative. the point maybe being that rush and hannity and the ilk have spent way too long ripping on the man. who’s the only HONEST one out there. he does what he believes and the only time i’ve seen him recant was to the southern evangelicals, whose support is sadly very much needed to win an election.
the movie was made for the election year for the sole purpose of destroying romney if he is the candidate.
McCain has won one that MATTERS… and come in second in michigan who by God romney would have to win. his dad ran the state as governor for pete’s sake. McCain came in second. and he told the truth to michigan people, their jobs arent coming back. they are overseas for good. Romney just told the people what they wanted to hear, it wont make their lives any easier. McCain said he’d start programs to teach new skills, romney only said he’d get the jobs back…and no freakin chance of that happening the opportunist liar.
Huckabee is the only true challenge to McCain. everyone knows this. but McCain is still leading in a place where Huckabee has to win, s.carolina and all the bible beaters there.
McCain will win and be challenged by only Guiliani in the super tuesday BIG STATE primaries like texas, florida, cali, and so on. romney wont even come close.
and remember for michigan, the DAILY KOS wanted every liberal out there to vote for romney on purpose to keep him in the race b/c everyone knows he’s unelectable. perhaps daily kos"ian" liberals are the reason for romneys success. DA DA DA-na-na-na.
But McCain is the candidate the liberals want us to put up because he’s the most liberal of candidates.
Meanwhile, Romney is the most conservative of candidates, and when it really comes down to it, most republicans being polled are voting on issues, NOT RELIGION. We are not ruled by the religious. I know, that flies in the face of what the media’s been telling people for years, but it’s true.
why people bring religion into it like this is beyound me. i’m no fan of the Mormon religion but that is no reason to attack him. he has good plans and has done well on the job.
you argue that McCain dosn’t flip flop, thats true, but he holds true on things that make him un electable, his voting record shows that with his non conservative votes on issues that conservatives find important.
Romney has fliped on one issue that i know of, and that was Abortion, he went from pro abortion to anti abortion. pro when running for office and anti once in office and before sighning any thing into law. i have heard him explain that change and it was a good and to me heart felt ansower.
as for the auto industry, i hope that Romney was telling the truth, only time will tell on that though. the US needs to get manufacturing back in country and away from the globel market, it’s why Romney is best for the job when it comes to the economy, because he has plans to get jobs back into the nation in these areas and he is a buissness man with experiance in running buissness.
on that McCain winning “one that matters” it’s why i don’t like the current system. we have people winning one of the first two states and people become convinced that these little states that have no real value in the numbers are now the “these are how it’s going to go so give up now” states. WY was as large a win as Ohio, Mich was as large a win number wise as 3 of the previous states. i think Romney won the only big win so far.
All the primaries matter. And Mitt is currently carrying the most delegates. However, if you look at the types of people who live in the areas where the primaries have already been taken and the voting laws of the areas, you see that the most conservative states have yet to have their primaries.
The Carolinas, Texas, etc. Meanwhile, the republicans that lean the most liberal have had their elections (Michigan, New Hampshire, etc) and McCain is losing even with them.
Another bench mark one could use is:
What candidate is the media touting? McCain. Why? Probably because he is most like them, that is to say, he’s the most liberal of the conservative candidates and thus, the one they are hoping the conservatives elect.
What candidate is the media slandering most? Romney. Why? probably because he is the most conservative of the candidates with the best ability to win the hearts of conservatives. Thus, Romney is most likely the candidate that the media fears most.
Let’s not forget that McCain was the media’s favorite for the republicans in 1999 and 2000 as well before George Bush beat him by being more conservative. That’s part of the problem with the liberal states holding primaries before conservative states, as well, they tend to skew the results a little. (People inherently want to jump on the band wagon of the winner, if the blue states go heavily for one guy or another, the red states may follow suit.)
And then, let’s also not forget the laundry list of initiatives that McCain has spearheaded and voted for. The conservatives of the corn belt and the conservatives of the west and south have not forgotten and because of them, while he may be able to make in-roads with the other side, he is unelectable by those conservatives as well.
There’s a reason I think we need a strong conservative for leadership. Not some wishy washy pansy who will crawl to the other side of the aisle and try to build a “team.” President Bush has taught us that building a “team” means doing whatever the other party wants (which he pretty much has, except for surrendering in Iraq in 2004) and taking all the blame when things go wrong.
Look what the democrats have done since they took Congress. They have done whatever THEY want and nothing the minority party wanted, no team building. Meanwhile, they have passed the buck and the blame for all the failures and tried to convince us that 2007 was all Bush’s fault.
Do we want another Bush (AKA McCain?) or do we want another Reagan/Bush Sr. (AKA Romney or Thompson?)
