Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Townhall.com::Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think::By John Hawkins

John McCain is having a very tough time uniting conservatives and the political winds seem to be at the Democrats' backs; so many people seem to think that Barack Obama will win in a walk in November. However, that's probably not going to be the case.
In a normal year, where the public was more closely divided between the Dems and the GOP, McCain would be capable of wiping out a candidate as weak as Obama in a landslide of Dukakis-esque proportions. With that in mind, even in a year like this, where Obama has a huge advantage, chances are that if he wins, he'll have to pull it off by coming in on the right side of a 2000/2004 style squeaker of an election.
Here's a short but sweet primer that will help explain why that's the case:
Howard Dean 2.0
Although the mainstream media is working hard to cover for him, Obama is the most gaffe prone candidate to run for the Presidency on the Democratic side since Howard Dean. Some of his greatest hits include:

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."​

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a (flag) pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest..."
"Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
Remember all the flack poor Dan Quayle caught for his "potato" snafu? Well, Barack Obama makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein.
Obama's Entourage
Whether you're talking about slum lord Tony Rezko, unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Barack's anti-white "sounding board" and pastor Jeremiah Wright, or his chief strategist, lobbyist David Axelrod, Obama has an offputting cast of characters around him -- and that's not even counting his wife, "Teresa Heinz" Obama, who's almost as gaffe prone as her husband.
He's Not Qualified To Be President
In a post-911 world, where the next President is going to be handling the war on terrorism, trying to prevent another 9/11, and dealing with a whole host of critical domestic issues, there is absolutely nothing in Barack Obama's background that indicates he's up to the job.
Given the situation, are the American people going to choose a young, mistake-prone, extremely inexperienced senator with a history of hard drug use and a knack for making basic geography errors -- over a 72 year old POW with more than 20 years worth of experience in Congress? Whatever you may think of McCain, even a lot of liberals would probably be willing to admit in private that they'd rather have him taking that 3 AM phone call after a major terrorist attack than Obama.
The Demographics Disaster
Hillary Clinton has beaten Barack Obama in key swing states like Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The latest polling numbers from Gallup seem to be indicating that voters in those states still haven't warmed up to Barry,

In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.​
This is largely because Obama is being carried to victory in the Democratic primary by black voters, young voters, and upscale liberal voters, all of which are groups that the Democratic candidate will carry in November anyway. Meanwhile, Hillary is looking considerably stronger with white women, older Americans, and Hispanic votes -- exactly the sort of swing voters that will decide the election.

Yes, Obama is probably going to beat Hillary for the nomination, but if that turns out to be the case, the better woman, at least as far as electability goes, will have lost.
From The Post-Racial Candidate To Al Sharpton 2.0
Perhaps the most appealing aspect of Barack Obama's candidacy was his post-racial rhetoric. Here was a candidate who rejected the whole race baiting meme that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have turned into careers. That was incredibly appealing to white Americans, many of whom would like nothing better than to prove that America is not a racist country by electing a black President.
However, in the last few months, the mask has slipped and people have started to realize that Obama is the same tired package wrapped in a shiny new bow. He befriended Jeremiah Wright and spent two decades attending his virulently anti-white church. Why else would he do that if he didn't share his views? Then there's the fact that Obama couldn't be the Democratic Party's nominee if black voters were not supporting him in such great numbers because of his skin color. It's also impossible not to note that although Obama doesn't personally call people racists for not supporting him, his supporters do it constantly on his behalf without being rebuked. So Obama may pretend to eschew race baiting, but he's certainly content to reap the rewards of it.
Obama may be a lot of things, but it has become pretty obvious at this point that he really doesn't intend to be the President who helps America put the race issue in the rear view mirror.
Northern Liberals Lose
National Journal ranked Barack Obama as the single most liberal member of the Senate in 2007. Keep in mind that means Ted Kennedy? Not as liberal as Barack Obama. What about Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist? Not as liberal as Barack Obama.
The reality is that the GOP has been beating liberals, particularly Northern liberals like Barack Obama, for a long, long time. Look back at George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. What's the difference between those guys and Barack Obama? Only color and the fact that Obama is even further to the left than those other candidates that the American people thought were too liberal to be President.
Alien Vs. Predator: The Democratic Edition
The long, brutal Democratic primary fight has been extremely costly for Obama. Not only has the fight drained Obama's coffers, it has had his pals in the MSM focusing on Hillary instead of McCain. Most importantly, Hillary's supporters have started becoming very, dare I say it, "bitter" about the unfair way that their candidate has been treated.
According to Gallup, 28% of Hillary's supporters would vote for McCain over Obama -- and that was back in March! Although there hasn't been much recent polling on this subject, you have to think that those numbers have only grown as the infighting between the candidates and their supporters has gotten ever more nasty and personal in the last few weeks. Now, will that many Democrats actually defect? No, but a significant chunk of those disaffected Hillary loyalists will either vote for McCain or stay home. If McCain wins the election, this factor alone could end up being decisive.
Conclusion: It's impossible to say at this early date who would win a McCain vs. Obama match-up in November, but what we can say with certainty is that even though this is shaping up to be a bad year for the GOP, Obama is very beatable.
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

The same could be said for McCain. IMHO, McCain is not qualified to be President, Obama isn't qualified, and Hillary isn't qualified.
 

Rxx

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

what makes a person qualified. Lincoln was said to be unqualified by many and turned out pretty good. One can argue that Nixon was highly qualified- what a disaster that was.
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

what makes a person qualified. Lincoln was said to be unqualified by many and turned out pretty good. One can argue that Nixon was highly qualified- what a disaster that was.

Are There Limits to Lincoln Idolatry?
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The answer to the question posed in the title of this article is: No. There are no limits to the lies and misrepresentations about Lincoln?s political legacy ? and about those who question the Official Version of it ? that are spread by what I call the Lincoln cult. It almost seems congenital. As soon as The Real Lincoln was published in 2002, the Lincoln cult swung into action with outlandish and outrageous misrepresentations of what I say in the book in an obvious attempt to keep people from reading it. I was surprised to learn from various hatchet men associated with the Claremont Institute, for example, that I am a Marxist; that there is not a single Lincoln quote in my book (a blatant lie, of course); that there is a defense of slavery in the book (another blatant lie); that there is sympathy for Nazi Germany in the book (the biggest lie of all); and on and on.

Various "Lincoln scholars" have stood up during debates with me to declare to audiences of laypersons such blatant falsehoods as: the Union Army never caused the death of a single Southern civilian; no private property was stolen during Sherman?s march; Lincoln never did a single thing that was unconstitutional or illegal; I supposedly wrote that it would have been fine had slavery lasted into the 20th century (this was actually Lincoln?s opinion, not mine); Virginia did not reserve the right to take back the powers it delegated to the central government at some future date as a condition of ratifying the Constitution; the king of England did not sign a peace treaty that named all the individual states; and myriad other lies that are easily researched by simply consulting the plain facts of history.

The latest example of such shenanigans is an article entitled " The Limits of Lincoln Bashing" by one Grant Havers, a Canadian philosophy professor, in the April 23 online edition of Taki?s Magazine. Havers apparently believes that pointing out how the actual facts of historical reality conflict with Harry Jaffa?s stylized interpretations of Lincoln?s rhetoric constitutes "bashing" as opposed to scholarship. He devotes only a paragraph to myself and my writings, and every single thing he says about me in the paragraph is false.

Havers identifies me as a "paleoconservative historian" despite the fact that I have never described myself in this way to anyone, either verbally or in writing. In fact, I don?t even know what a paleoconservative is. I know of several people who label themselves as such, but they seem to have differing views on many issues, which leads me to believe that there is not even one single definition of the term. Nor am I a historian (thank goodness) but an economist with an interest in history, especially economic history.

So much for the first half of Havers? first sentence. The second half of his first sentence discussing me and my work contains the preposterous falsehood that I "have eagerly accepted Jaffa?s terms of discourse while disputing its moral implications." In reality, I think Harry Jaffa is a crackpot. I utterly reject his strange notion that Lincoln was a champion equality, a myth that is at the heart of everything Jaffa has ever written on the subject. While it is true that Lincoln quoted Jefferson?s "all men are created equal" words from the Declaration on Independence on a few occasions, his entire adult life is a demonstration that he was in fact as opposed to equality as any white man in 19th century America was, North or South. "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races," he said in his September 18, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas. He repeated this on many other occasions.

More importantly, his lifelong actions prove that this was indeed his true belief. He voted against black suffrage in Illinois; opposed allowing blacks to testify in court in Illinois; voted against abolishing the slave trade in Washington, D.C. during his one term in Congress; supported the Illinois "Black Codes" that deprived the small number of free blacks who resided in the state of any semblance of citizenship; supported the "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have formally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution; and spent his entire adult life advocating "colonization" or the deportation of black people from the U.S. He was one of the "managers" of the Illinois Colonization Society which sought to use state tax dollars to deport free blacks out of the state.

Lincoln was a masterful politician who could use tongue-twisting rhetoric to deceive the public better than any American politician in history. In this regard he was Bill Clinton times ten thousand. For example, referring to the part of Declaration of Independence that mentions equality (while ignoring the fact that the entire document was a declaration of the right of secession), he said: "The African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind" (emphasis added). The italicized words are the key to understanding Lincoln on this point. He considered black people to be some kind of alien beings, which is why he called them "the Africans." More importantly, he believed that they could never be equal here in America, but only "upon their own soil" or "in their native clime," i.e., Africa, Haiti, Central America, etc., as he often stated. Moreover, he also clearly believed that it was undesirable to attempt to enforce racial equality in the U.S., as he stated in the above quotation from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Harry Jaffa has spent his entire career spreading the Big Lie of Lincoln as a champion of "equality" in order to justify the Republican Party?s foreign policy agenda of military aggression and imperialism in the name of spreading equality around the globe. (Spreading "equality" around the globe at gunpoint sounds a lot like the professed goals of 20th-century communism, doesn?t it?).

Jaffa?s second Big Lie, one that was invented by Alexander Hamilton, repeated by Webster, Joseph Story, John Marshall and others, including Lincoln, was that there was never any such thing as state sovereignty in America. The Constitution was supposedly ratified by some kind of national election involving "the whole people." This lie was invented by Hamilton in his propaganda war for a centralized, monopolistic state. Of course, "the whole people" never had anything whatsoever to do with the founding or the ratification of the Constitution (women didn?t even have the right to vote until 1920). That was the job of the sovereign states, as is clearly stated in Article 7 of the Constitution.

The next falsehood about me and my work that Havers jams into one short paragraph in Taki?s Magazine is that I allegedly put "the responsibility for all American empire building on Abe?s shoulders alone"; I am supposedly unaware that "pre-Lincoln America" had certain "tendencies towards centralized power"; and that Lincoln was not "the first architect of Leviathan in America."

Havers has obviously not read my books. If there is one over-arching theme, it is that Lincoln, as I have written, was the "political son of Alexander Hamilton, the champion of a centralized governmental monarchy, or something like it, coupled with British-style mercantilistic economic policies (protectionist tariffs, central banking, corporate welfare) and an aggressive foreign policy. After the death of Hamilton and his nemesis Jefferson, this political mantle was carried on by the heirs of Hamilton?s Federalists, the Whigs, including Clay, Webster, and Lincoln. I tell this story of the struggle between the American advocates of Leviathan government (Hamilton-Clay- Lincoln) and their Jeffersonian opponents in my books, but as I said, Havers obviously did not bother to read them before posing as a legitimate critic of them.


http://www.lewrockw ell.com/dilorenz o/dilorenzo141. html
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Go look at the site ....

at the top look at the Talks Show being promoted
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Could your source be any farther to the RIGHT??? One more inch over and it will be on the LEFT coming full-circle. It has credibility only with the loons watching FAUX-NEWS and listening to the lard-ass drug addict-the Comedian Rush Limpballs!!!
 
Last edited:

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Look at their columnists:

Townhall.com::Columnists


DAVID LIMBAUGH
BRENT BOZELL
MICHAEL REAGAN
ANNE COULTER
MICHELLE MALKIN
DENNIS PRAGER
TOM DELAY
BILL O'REILLY
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
FRED THOMPSON


Enough said about the "credibility" of this site?
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Hey Road Dawg--who IS qualified------Pastor Hagee????
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

i never posted anything about credibility....just posted an article....thats all

:)
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Hey Road Dawg--who IS qualified------Pastor Hagee????

In my opinion, the only candidate, out of this bunch that is qualified is Dr. Ron Paul. He's the only one, IMHO, that actually has read and understands the Constitution and the concept of a LIMITED federal government.
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Anyone that has Rush Limbaugh in their avatar ...

Most likely has never seen the Inside of a Library
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Glad you have the time to post this swill under your name-then admit you don't vouch for its cred when ANTIGWB exposes you for the waste-of -time racist asshole that you are!! Typical Repuke-Credibility does NOT matter----but anything to smear a DEM is OK?? Blow me-tar-turd!!!! Get outta here!!!!
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Road Dawg---so I guess you're not of the Christian persuasion-as Jesus would help the sick and infirmed--but Ron Paul-the ONE candidate you see as qualified for Pres-would do none of that-his limited government would NOT fund helping his /your fellow man! Are you an atheist-which is ok with me-just asking???
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Hotshot:

Tar Baby probably has a SEAN HANNITY blow up doll that "sees a lot
of manly combat action .."
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

This is not important.........<!-- google_ad_section_end --> <table class="post-message" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="10" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="1%">
</td> <td width="99%"> No offense intended.


</td></tr></tbody></table>
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

tar baby,

who is the songbird?
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan released the following statement...

The McCain campaign still can?t explain why John McCain could be so clearly and factually wrong in stating that our troops are at ?pre-surge? levels. They are not, and anyone who wants to be Commander-in-Chief should know better before launching divisive political attacks. Once again, Senator McCain has shown that he is far more interested in stubbornly making the case for continuing a failed policy in Iraq than in getting the facts right


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Siegelman, McClellan book, the Iraq war, high oil prices .....


Is there any reason to vote McCain?
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

<!-- google_ad_section_start -->WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza

The Line: Ranking the McCain vs. Obama Battlegrounds

....(T)he current conventional wisdom that the race will come down to a handful of states in the Rust Belt and the West is correct....What our Line doesn't yet reflect is the belief among some Democrats that Obama can make states like North Carolina, Georgia, North Dakota and Montana legitimately competitive in the fall. It's possible that Obama could fundamentally alter the electoral map, but there isn't enough evidence to merit any of these states being included in the Line....

10. Pennsylvania (Sen. John Kerry won with 51 percent in 2004): Too many people look at Obama's primary loss to Clinton here back in April and assume he will have major problems carrying the state against McCain in the fall. That overlooks the fact that the Democratic nominee has won the state in the last four elections -- albeit narrowly. Pennsylvania is still a state that leans Democratic, but the very Reagan Democrats that pushed the Gipper to wins in 1980 and 1984 in the state are up for grabs, and McCain will make a hard push for their support. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. Florida (Bush 52 percent): It's hard for even the most ardent Obama backers to dispute the idea that Clinton would have made the tougher match for McCain in the Sunshine State. Two of Clinton's major pillars of support -- voters 55 and older, and the Jewish community -- play a huge role in Florida politics, and Obama will need to woo both to have a chance at pulling off an upset. Make no mistake: An Obama win in Florida would be rightly seen as an upset, as Republicans have consolidated their hold in the state over the last few elections. (Previous ranking: 10)

8. Virginia (Bush 54 percent)....

7. Ohio (Bush 51 percent): Democrats whitewashed Republicans in 2006 -- retaking the governor's mansion and unseating Sen. Mike DeWine (R). The losses proved devastating for a Republican Party already hobbled by the problems of outgoing Gov. Bob Taft. McCain's candidacy is a godsend for the Ohio GOP, as his reform credentials should allow him to stand distinct from the scandals that have engulfed the party's most high profile officials in recent years. But Democratic gains of late should embolden Obama backers too. This one is going to be close -- again. (Previous ranking: 5)

6. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent)....

5. Michigan (Kerry 51 percent): Polling shows the race between McCain and Obama in the Wolverine State as competitive, yet there is no swing state where Republicans feel more confident about their chances. While GOP strategists grant that Obama will run extremely strong in Detroit and the surrounding areas, Republicans believe that in the Upper Peninsula (U-P in Michigander-speak) and in southwestern Michigan -- both more culturally conservative areas -- McCain will dominate. (Previous ranking: 8)

4. Nevada (Bush 50 percent)....

3. Colorado (Bush 52 percent)....

2. New Mexico (Bush 50 percent)....

1. Iowa (Bush 50 percent)....(T)here's little debate about Iowa as the state most likely to switch sides in the coming general election. (Previous ranking: 1)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_frida...
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Hey-ANTI---would like to see YOU helping Obama and The Dems this year-I can't -I curse too much! Your info is incredible---almost has as much street cred as TarBaby and Nick the Greek Towel boy!(just kidding, of course)
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

LOL !!!

I cant believe I could contribute more than Neal Cavuto's and John Gibson's boyfriends !!!
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

We shall see //// I know Obama picked up more SDs today ....

Pelosi says it's over after Tuesday
by xzeitgeist

Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM PDT

Although House Speaker Pelosi has remained officially neutral for the primary season, she's also made it clear that she would step in once the voting was over to ensure we have enough time to campaign against John McCain. Today, she made that particularly clear in remarks at a San Francisco food bank.

This is consistent with various reports that Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, and Howard Dean are urging superdelegates to make their preferences known.

But what is more significant about Pelosi's comments is that she bluntly stated that pursuing the delegate fight past next Tuesday's primaries would be " 'a scorched earth philosophy' that would seriously damage the chances of electing a Democratic president in November." Her remarks seem to be aimed at boxing Sen. Clinton in and increasing the pressure on her to gracefully drop out after the Tuesday votes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/0...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/30/161955/623/...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/democrati... /
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
 

Doc Mercer

EOG Master
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Obams will wipe the floor with Grampa MCSAME !!!

Obama?s Remarks at Great Falls, Montana Town Hall

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

?There are honest differences about how to move forward in Iraq, just like there were honest differences about whether or not we should go to war. John McCain was for the invasion of Iraq; I opposed it. John McCain wants to continue George Bush?s war in Iraq indefinitely; I want to end it. So there?s going to be a clear choice for the American people this November.

?But that?s not what John McCain?s been talking about the last few days. He?s been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that?s nothing more than a political stunt. He?s even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Senator McCain?s a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday ? in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy ? he stood up in Wisconsin and said, ?We have drawn down to pre-surge levels? in Iraq.

?That?s not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you?re entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We?ve got around 150,000 troops in Iraq ? 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer ? that?s still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to ?nitpicking.?

?Well I don?t think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should?ve never been authorized and never been waged.

?It?s time for a debate that?s based on the truth, and I can?t think of anything more important than how many Americans are in harm?s way. It?s time for a debate that?s based on how we?re going to end this war ? not a debate that?s based on raising a few dollars for John McCain?s campaign.

?The American people have had enough spin. Just this week, we were reminded by President Bush?s own former spokesman of how it was deception ? not straight talk ? that misled the American people into war. It?s time to cut through the tough talk so that we can be straight with the American people about a war that?s cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer. It?s time to end the political game-playing so that we can finally end this war. That?s what I?ll do in this campaign. And that?s what I?ll do when I?m President of the United States.?
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Road Dawg---so I guess you're not of the Christian persuasion-as Jesus would help the sick and infirmed--but Ron Paul-the ONE candidate you see as qualified for Pres-would do none of that-his limited government would NOT fund helping his /your fellow man! Are you an atheist-which is ok with me-just asking???

Harvey,

If you must know my religious persuasion, I consider myself to be a recovering baptist.

With that said, I will not allow any "religious" views into my political views. Religion, to me, is far too emotional.

As far as the government "funding" anything, you could not be further from the truth. The government doesn't FUND anything. The government CONFISCATES money from a source (taxpayers) and the redistributes said money into some sort of program.

Healthcare or health insurance is not a RIGHT. It should be an individual responsibility, not a government program.
 

DimeDR

Banned
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

tar baby,

whos the songbird?
 
Re: Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think

Obama will always be called ... "The EMPTY suit"

McCain has a far better understanding of the world. His foreign policy credentials are superb !!!! Obama has no fuckin' clue.
 
Top