Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the sore losers just need to make themselves feel better.
again, bush was heartily disliked and the left did their share of complaining and conspiracy theorizing when he was president but i don't think anyone thought he wasn't going to be nominated in 2004. i try to be fair about the two sides but the sore loserism coming from the right over obama is just staggering.
I think it depends on who's running opposite. Repubs can't run a plain ham sammich "wrapped up in Neiman Marcus" next to filet mignon "wrapped up in yes we can again" in 2012.
Generally, incumbent Presidents don't get much serious opposition within their own party. Why do you think the Democrats would turn on Obama?
1968 when they turned on Johnson comes to mind.
We were made explicit promises where unemployment would not go above 8% and there were not going to be tax increases on the middle class. Democrats will be made to pay for these lies and the "it's all Bush's fault and we didn't know how bad it was" won't fly.
We were made explicit promises where unemployment would not go above 8% and there were not going to be tax increases on the middle class. Democrats will be made to pay for these lies and the "it's all Bush's fault and we didn't know how bad it was" won't fly.
There will be hell to pay come November 2010.
Link to the explicit promise unemployment wouldnt go above 8%, and link to tax increases on the middle class?
why on earth does Johnson in 1968 come to mind?! An entirely different situation!
We were made explicit promises where unemployment would not go above 8% and there were not going to be tax increases on the middle class. Democrats will be made to pay for these lies and the "it's all Bush's fault and we didn't know how bad it was" won't fly.
There will be hell to pay come November 2010.
I don't recall those explicit promises. No President can "promise" that unemployment won't go above certain levels. The economy was in freefall at the end of 2008, and while I might not agree with all the measures Obama's taken to circumvent that freefall, I agree that measures had to be taken. And I think that most people think that measures had to be taken. Right now the economy seems to be stabilizing, and that will give Obama and his team a chance to evaluate how various policies are working, and how some policies are not working. There is a level of complexity here that makes clear-cut solutions elusive. It's more a trial-and-error kind of problem-solving, and I think most people appreciate that. November 2010 is more than a year away. A lot can happen in a year. So we'll have to wait and see. I choose to wait and hope for the best, rather than hope for the worst. It seems to me to be the patriotic thing, hoping that our country will recover economically, hoping that our country will restore some its international reputation, hoping that we can start making plans to bring our soldiers home. It doesn't seem like people who claim to love America would be hoping for the country to worsen economically, or to lose international standing, or to lose more lives in wars around the world. But then we hear people hoping for such all the time, and still claiming to be the ones who love America. Strange world, huh?
I think it depends on who's running opposite. Repubs can't run a plain ham sammich "wrapped up in Neiman Marcus" next to filet mignon "wrapped up in yes we can again" in 2012.
You are funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.