Voted 4 Bush, think he did a good job, now voting McCain?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sorry Parivar (I need glasses, darnit) - I do however stand by my opinion that it makes sense to vote for a politician who is intelligent. My opinion of Bush has always been that he simply isn't intelligent enough for the job of president. Kerry would have done a better job on that score at least.

I am not offended by that, but I think perceived intelligence and personality together is why some voters make the choice. Whether you see it or not, maybe you do, some people liked that Bush seemed more of the guy you could watch a sports game with or something, while maybe the other choices seemed more out of reach. As for education, Bush did attend a good college and graduated. It's a matter of perception.

Yeah but education doesn't = intelligence, or rather you can be intelligent but not have wisdom; or indeed you can scrape by and still pass college. Would Bush have gotten where he was if it weren't for his father? Had to say - but I rather suspect his life would have turned out quite different.

What I think is a problem in our election system is the influence that campaign marketers have in defining (and protecting) brand images for candidates, and obscuring their real faults as it were. How else can the appeal of someone like Sarah Palin be explained - when she can single-handedly "revitalise" the McCain campaign with a convention speech containing little more than a few anecdotes about her family life?

[chri'stina 190]

Ling Ling, thanks. I am not so thrilled w/ Palin as the choice. I think it's great for us to have a female VP, but I think it wasn't a great choice, though I see the strategy behind it. It's really hard for me to think about having to choose between Palin and Obama. I like Obama's personality better in a way but I disagree with certain issues that are important to me, meanwhile I might agree with Palin on some more things, her personality isn't as appealing to me. As for experience, I see them about the same but Obama I guess had more time to get involved in things you need to now when running as Pres, while Palin just appeared from nowhere and has had a lot of catching up to do knowledge-wise. I would be torn really. Can I say, I'd pick neither?

OK Parivar, I think we've got some good dialogue going here.

Back to Palin vs. Obama.

What about Obama's law experience, for example, editor of the Harvard Law Review?

That doesn't sway you even a tiny bit?

I mean, Presidents have to review, approve, veto, and suggest legislation.

Well since Palin is a Governer, I think that's even better than editor. I would be slightly swayed towards Obama but I'm not sure why besides what I said earlier.

If you want respectful dialogue, I'm your gal.

[Heracles 417]

Yeah but education doesn't = intelligence, or rather you can be intelligent but not have wisdom;

Interesting considering how much you beat on about education being the key to solving inner city poverty and crime..

[pedroh 21]

all this proves.. that we should never let a guy 'who we'd like to go have a beer with' run the freaking country..

the president should be a smart person.. not a 'joe six pack'

Edited October 9, 2008 by pedroh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah but education doesn't = intelligence, or rather you can be intelligent but not have wisdom;

Interesting considering how much you beat on about education being the key to solving inner city poverty and crime..

Interesting how you consistently misrepresent my ideas.

[sly_wolf 199]

There is intelligence and there is leadership. Intelligence does not equal good leadership. "Good" leaders dont lie to the people .... once found out they lose credibility as leaders.

Sly

[pedroh 21]

There is intelligence and there is leadership. Intelligence does not equal good leadership. "Good" leaders dont lie to the people .... once found out they lose credibility as leaders.

Sly

a good leader wouldn't abuse fear tactics to justify illegal acts as wiretapping.. or emotionally blackmailing Americans by saying 'criticizing the war demoralizes the troops'

[sly_wolf 199]

There is intelligence and there is leadership. Intelligence does not equal good leadership. "Good" leaders dont lie to the people .... once found out they lose credibility as leaders.

Sly

a good leader wouldn't abuse fear tactics to justify illegal acts as wiretapping.. or emotionally blackmailing Americans by saying 'criticizing the war demoralizes the troops'

Agreed. We lack good leadership. I think this is something that is an extremely rare trait. Globally, who would even come to mind as a good leader these days?

Sly

[alienlovechild 75]

What I think is a problem in our election system is the influence that campaign marketers have in defining (and protecting) brand images for candidates, and obscuring their real faults as it were. How else can the appeal of someone like Sarah Palin be explained - when she can single-handedly "revitalise" the McCain campaign with a convention speech containing little more than a few anecdotes about her family life?

Obama's whole campaign was based on marketing with focus groups and the polls. Both candidates do this. Obama was a nobody until he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He's a talker and has nothing else to rely on without a much of a track record for doing anything. Some of his early success came from is opposition to the Iraq War (he wasn't in Congress then either to vote on it). Strange how even own supporters of VJ didn't remember that and end up with the same talking points as if Obama was running for class president instead of U.S. president. He plays basketball and was a good student and he's popular. Cue the cheerleaders . . .

I've never seen so much blind faith on a guy as Obama running for president and with so little reason to deserve such faith. Ok, I admit it. The guy comes across as creepy and he doesn't send a shiver up my leg but does send a shiver up my spine when I think we will probably elect a slightly animated blank slate in the most powerful position in this country in less than a month.

[HAL 9000 96]

of course

noone can't resist the palin wink

wink* wink*

and because most dumb@sses won't vote for obama because his middle name is Hussein

Just wondering if

1. There are people who will admit to voting for Bush (extra credit if you voted for him twice)

2. If there are people who think he did a great job over the last 8 years.

3. If there are people who think he did a poor job over the last 8 years.

4. If there are people who think they chose poorly, but are absolutely right this time.

Just wondering...

And of those people who answer yes to any of the above, I wonder how many are holding a bong right now?

I just love your siggie!

and because most dumb@sses won't vote for obama because his middle name is Hussein

There's more people voting for him just because he's black. He had the least experience of any candidate from a major party and looking different was asset in the primaries. Most people voted for him long before they knew what he stood for. People voted for Bush because of his family name and being a state governor.

I know it's hard to believe but there were other people to vote for in 2000 and 2004. Neither Gore or Kerry impressed me. They didn't impress many other people either because neither of them developed a strong base to run for president again.

Obama is going be a big let down as he has been billed as the new messiah and he's going to find out he can't talk his way out of problems. He'll a lot of power at home, little real media criticism and supposedly a lot of support abroad. If he fails, it will fall on him but I believe Bush will get the blame for the next 4 to 8 years whether it has merit or not.

Only by morons who can't separate their own opinions from what Obama's opposition likes to label.

[HAL 9000 96]

You really think people are THAT stupid, that they would vote for someone just because they have a certain skin color?

It couldn't be that they're voting for him because they like his message?

What message? Very few Democrats in the primaries knew what he stood for besides "hope" and "change".

Come on, it's not like this is M.C. Hammer for president.

More like Bill Cosby as president.

I'd like to think that all people are smart enough to vote based on the issues and merits of the candidate,

not based on how much sun tan lotion a candidate needs or doesn't need.

When people voted for Bush twice they were fools. Now that they vote for Obama they're intelligent? It has little to do with issues and there little merit earned in Obama's background; however, the economy and oil prices will hurt the GOP this time even if the Democrats have had a big hand too in screwing up both.

Like I said, it all depends on how much a voter distances him or herself from what others want him or her to think. Do some factchecking. Obama has had proposals for governing since day 1. So has McCain.

[HAL 9000 96]

So what? This is the system we have. and of course the Reps Controlled congress through the majority of Bush's time in office.

My point of course was that the Republican party doesn't exact represent the idea of "big government", yet GWB has done more to expand the remit of the executive power than any other president in recent memory.

"So what.." you don't know what you are talking about. That is what...

GWB does not have unlimited power to do as he pleases. The US has three levels of government. Checks and balances..

He is also not responsible for everyone's actions. Especially not in a country which prides itself in letting everyone do as they please. You either let people do whatever they want and then suffer the consequences or you setup rules and draw lines in the sand, as those under the parliamentary system. Also know as rules and regulations. You cannot have it both ways.

"Do Nothing Congress" didn't exactly get its name from the last 2 years.

And yes, how much of a check is a check system where the Do Nothings are of the same party and political philosophy as the sitting President? Not much accuracy to your logic there Bill.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I think is a problem in our election system is the influence that campaign marketers have in defining (and protecting) brand images for candidates, and obscuring their real faults as it were. How else can the appeal of someone like Sarah Palin be explained - when she can single-handedly "revitalise" the McCain campaign with a convention speech containing little more than a few anecdotes about her family life?

Obama's whole campaign was based on marketing with focus groups and the polls. Both candidates do this. Obama was a nobody until he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He's a talker and has nothing else to rely on without a much of a track record for doing anything. Some of his early success came from is opposition to the Iraq War (he wasn't in Congress then either to vote on it). Strange how even own supporters of VJ didn't remember that and end up with the same talking points as if Obama was running for class president instead of U.S. president. He plays basketball and was a good student and he's popular. Cue the cheerleaders . . .

I've never seen so much blind faith on a guy as Obama running for president and with so little reason to deserve such faith. Ok, I admit it. The guy comes across as creepy and he doesn't send a shiver up my leg but does send a shiver up my spine when I think we will probably elect a slightly animated blank slate in the most powerful position in this country in less than a month.

Obama seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to articulating ideas about policy and explaining the current state of the Country. I don't agree with all of his ideas, and how effective he'll turn out to be in government is obviously a separate question.

Demonstrating that you know what you're talking about is always going to be more appealing than someone who trumps up their background and experience but doesn't bring anything to the table.

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe I am being oversensitive lately, but you don't ask people to answer a question and then have people start insulting them before they even answer. I am so tired of the insults towards people like me, then if I come around people might be like, "oh....well no you aren't an idiot--- just everyone else like you is." That's basically how people are acting. I am getting so annoyed by the bias around here. I don't even adore McCain but I like him more than Obama, and people are all getting lumped together under insulting labels in my opinion. I know there are McCain supporters who are insulting too, but it seems there are a lot less of them than the opposite these days. Or they have gotten more quiet lately. I know on both sides there are the outrageous posters who shoot off at the mouth and people don't take very seriously, but then there are those who just think they are better than those who don't agree with them. I bite my tongue all the time.

I voted for Bush twice and I know some people around here who did also even if they won't admit it! I don't think he did a great job the past 4 years. I do think he was great right after 9/11 and then given the choice between him and Kerry, Kerry was not better. So why would I vote for someone who I didn't think was a better choice? When it comes donw to it, I don't hate or despise Bush nor think he is the world's biggest idiot. I think he has made some poor choices. You should hope people like me give the same attitude to Obama if he wins so you don't have to hear a bunch of people saying how much they hate him or whatever all the time and making you feel dumb for voting for him.

I am just tired of the insults and "comedians" who think it's funny to constantly make sarcastic comments about people who don't agree with them, whether it be in politics or religion. Whatever side you are on, I'd feel the same. I fit in less and less around here it feels like. Yes this is a boohoo post. I had to vent this eventually.

Sorry you have to read that and yes, I wish the insulting would quit on both sides. I guess the outrage can be quantified selectively though and whining about it (not you) won't do much either.

You have your opinion about Bush. Most voters have theirs- and I do note even McCain distancing himself from Bush as much as possible- even though in reality that is pretty much impossible. That says a lot in itself.

[HAL 9000 96]

OK Parivar, I think we've got some good dialogue going here.

Back to Palin vs. Obama.

What about Obama's law experience, for example, editor of the Harvard Law Review?

That doesn't sway you even a tiny bit?

I mean, Presidents have to review, approve, veto, and suggest legislation.

While if I could vote I would vote for Obama, I think his Law background is a negative. We need politicians who are fiscally knowledgeable and responsible. The legal field is a drain on a country's resources. Especially in America where one can pretty much sue for the sake of suing and where criminals can easily get off on technicalities.

In that case its what's a means to an end? Frivolity can be regulated- but idiocy that drives the frivolity is another issue much deeper to fix.