By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 05 October 2012
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
drkohler said:
dsgrue3 said:

Glad we agree that Obama is detrimental to the US. (The average American scares the hell out of me.)

Never did I imply that. Obama had wrong right ideas when he started, je waas right in many ways. Unfortunately he also had a massive economical burden tacked on his back and the wrong skin coulour for Americans. Tie that with a republican party that essentially refused to do any work in Congress for years (easy to understand as they can only win the next term if the economy stays bad). The inability of Obama to react to criticism added to the situation we have now in the States. Disfunctional politicians everywhere and tons of right wing nuts - it's just interesting to watch as an outsider.

Plenty of "nuts" on both sides of the aisle.

"Lastly, I'm still amazed that the race still is open. With the economic situation (and the short attention span of the average american) , it should be easy for _anyone_ to beat Obama."

I apologize if you did not intend to imply that Obama was detrimental, but the above quotation is what resulted in my conclusion.

Don't let the media fool you, neither side has been budging on issues in Congress. The president has still not passed a single budget while in office.

Obama has few good ideas, but ideas don't help us. Actions do. Legislation does. Compromise does.

Arguably "anyone should be able to beat Obama" the same way "anyone should of been able to beat Bush in 2004".  The problem is that just assuming that anyone can, and merely running a candidate who isn't the current president is likely to not close the deal.  The issue with the Republicans is that it continues to be rewarmed promises that echo Reagan.  To run for office on a policy that the policies of the office is the problem, and you want it to do less, is like campaigning for a CEO position with a company, saying corporations are the problem, and we need less of them.  If the problem is doing things through government, then why they heck are you IN government?  You can say you want it done smarter, but not done less, and continue to campaign on such.  The problem is the moment you get into specifics, you end up ticking people off who like aspects of the government.  If you want to see this problem unfold, look at how Mitt Romney is campaigning.  You end up targeting small stuff like PBS, that actually does provide some value (probably better in the age of cable to let it go and do its own thing), but it won't systemically address anything.

But, the problems are very large now, and no one really has solutions.  You have the GOP keeping on channeling the spirit of Reagan, and the Democrats longing to have FDR and Keynes  manifest.