I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.
However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).
I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.
However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).
I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.
However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).
Wow
Those are just blurbs and of course context is important but if all those are true and not taken out of basic context, anybody that wants this lady near the white house needs to seriously rethink that crazy idea.
She is a nutcase, a walking talking point, all about shock factor (or ignorance), nothing more than hot air and obviously has diarrhea of the mouth lol
Can't decide if she's stupid, crazy or both but no. I don't want her anywhere near the White House.
Michele Bachmann is a well educated, disciplined and very experienced politician who is well known by her former Minnesota opponents to be an extremely energetic and effective campaigner.
Chris Matthews on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week predicted she would win the Republican nomination and I fear he's right.
Mitt Romney can't win in the South and Bachmann was born in Iowa. I think she'll do well in New Hampshire, too.
Why don't we have direct presidential elections in America? In my opinion it's because the founding fathers feared populists like Michele Bachmann.
As a Democrat I take her very seriously; she'll be a tough opponent for Obama.
In the poll you voted that you think she will win, and that you hope she does win. Sort of conflicts with your posts in the thread....<scratches head>
.
Sometimes she can't control her tounge, but make no mistake she is very intelligent.
Sometimes she can't control her tounge, but make no mistake she is very intelligent. That was the same deal with George Bush, though Bush represents the country club big spending Republican faction and Bachmann represents the Tea Party fiscal sanity faction.
Cain is my first choice and Bachmann is my second.
Electing Romney or Huntsman would be better than Obama, but..........
I don't like it when the two choices are:
1-Shooting yourself in the head(Obama)
2-Shooting yourself in the foot(Romney or Huntsman)
I think the ideal ticket is Cain/Paul. Paul is perfect as long as he isn't in charge of foreign policy, and young people and moderates love him.
So carbon dioxide IS safe?
I fell bad for you bigfoot and NO this is not a jab. Im saying I feel bad for you because IMO that ticket has no chance.
While I agree that ALL politicians lose substance on the surface because of media etc but a Cain or Bachmann ticket will be viewed as a Shock Jock or Birther ticket.
IMO both those candidate never win because they are whats wrong with politics today. They will do nothing but attack, and use talking points with bias and partisan rhetoric and hyperbole.
now mind you they may LEAD a different way but that doesnt matter because they will RUN how I described above and the american people are done with that currently. That stuff will always be around in politics but right now objective people are totally fed up with these antics and it will drown any and all candidates that choose this route.
To a certain degree, absolutely. Not just safe, essential
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.
Nobody wants a moderate Republican.
This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.
When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.
Reagan went after Carter but he also had an uplifting, positive message and a vision for America's future. I have yet to see anything positive or inspiring about Bachmann's message, in fact just the opposite.
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.
Nobody wants a moderate Republican.
This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.
When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.
I know nobody like this in real life. Not saying they dont exist just saying.
Everyone I know dem, rep, ind wants a candidate that has IDEAS not just attacking and not just talking points and they all want civility if the other option is moronic blind bias attacking.
Attacking will fail and cause Obama to win, just like blind attacking and no substance cause Bush jr to get his second term.
I made a bet with Babrtx that Cain will never be president Ill gladly make the same bet with you about cain and michelle
You wouldn't because you are a liberal. She is always talking about making America better. Did you watch the debate?
You wouldn't because you are a liberal. She is always talking about making America better. Did you watch the debate?
You don't look for substance which is why you don't see it. You focus on seeing how often they are attacking. They all have plenty of substance and give Obama his shots when he deserves them.
Bush Jr. won again because Kerry was about as exciting as a puddle of mud.
I don't make bets, but Cain is who I will be supporting. Will he win? Who knows he has a shot.
This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.
The problem of course is not necessarily the attack but HOW the attacks are done. One can attack and still have a positive campaign.
Not all liberals are close-minded hacks. Perhaps I need to change my lean as 'slightly liberal' because I am always approached by those who are 'conservative' or 'very conservative' as being a blind partisan who can never see the other side, which simply is not the case. I just in that very post acknowledged that Ronald Reagan had a positive message, which was a large part of why he was able to look so attractive to independents and even Democrats. Obama had a very similar sort of appeal in 2008, like it or not. Currently, Jon Huntsman does as well - I know it's not resonating with folks like you because you'll never be able to look past his stances on, say, civil unions and cap and trade. But the fact of the matter is that, policy aside, he is sitting there advocating civility in our debate and a positive way forward for our country. As opposed to Gingrich and Bachmann and even Pawlenty who are nothing but doom and gloom and depression. Bachmann is barely a step above a bomb thrower like Hannity or Coulter. She does nothing but rail against government and everything it does and everyone in opposition to her as if they are enemies out to ruin America and piss all over everyone's liberties. That may rile up the base who hate Democrats and will always hate them. But it will do little to appeal to the moderates and independents she will need to win over if she's going to win a general election.
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.
Nobody wants a moderate Republican.
This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.
When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?