Re: Palin Taps Out some more fun stuff: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footshooting-season-opens-in-alaska-1732193.html
Maybe she wasnt making enough money as a governor, she could make a lot more money in other areas due to her recent fame. It seems ridiculous that all that all of the headlines and VP stuff has happened to a women who spent only 2 years as a governor. And Obama only had around 2-3 years of experience in the US senate before he went hardcore campaigning for the presidency.
the question is about competency: obama has it and palin does not. her time on the national stage has been reduced to a series of embarrassments so much so that even staunch, loyal republicans have repudiated her
Obama campaigned for the Presidency longer than he was a Senator if I remember correctly. While I don't agree with Palin as a politician, she was essentially destroyed by the media. If her plan is to be done with politics, then I say good for her, however if this some sort of retarded strategy to run in 2012 I'll be pretty pissed off/disappointed. Obama competent? Obama is an inexperienced jackass and has proven it thus far with his comical attempt at "fixing" America. He has done nothing positive, and has only hurt the U.S. in pretty much every facet he has become involved with. Keep drinking the Kool-aid chief.
he inherited two wars and the worst financial crisis since the depression; he's not a miracle worker just a guy with an unenviable job. however, in terms of competency between him and mccain- he's certainly got it and mccain doesnt. he's good the intellect, the political savvy to get things done in washington and the support of most americans. i dont know what your particular grievance with him is but let me address a few things: the stimulus was a necessary evil, in fact, most economists overwhelmingly supported the stimulus; gitmo was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court so he had no choice there; the public option if done might be the seminal moment in his presidency and u guys would join the rest of the industrialized world who already enjoy a robust public one. he's right more times than he's wrong and that qualifies him as competent. btw, this idea that us liberals lionize obama is egregious, its no more true than conservatives doing the same with reagan.
Reagan inherited a far worse economy. Clinton inherited a recession and a collapse of the S&L system and things got better. There's no doubt Obama's made the recession he inherited much worse.
thats just false. and fyi- many leading economists and multilateral bodies predict the recession will end in 2009 at the earliest and 2010 at the latest.
btw, not acting would have been cataclysmic, in fact, i firmly believe the stimulus saved the financial sector and that means he saved your pensions, your investments and everything else we value in our lives
He pushed for a stimulus bill that had no stimulus in it. His constant talking down the economy, hostility toward business, and predilection to raise taxes to pay for ill considered big govt. programs are clearly harmful. The money spent on the financial institutions was approved before Obama was elected and half or more spent before he took office. And many economists think the recession might have turned the corner months ago if not for govt. interference.
he's anti business? categorically wrong as demonstrated by geitner's plan to fuckin buy up all the banks toxic assets. big government has become a conservative euphemism for socialism but these bailouts are totally in line with what the US govt has done during the great depression and how they rebuilt europe with the marshall plan. btw, to reiterate most economists, conservative and liberal alike peddled the stimulus. arguing against the stimulus (interference) would be counter intuitive dont u think? one criticism that i would launch- he should replace the antiquated regulations on the financial sector with new modern ones that account for the creativity of the financial products offered.
Not true on most counts. I don't see govt. acquiring corporations as socialist. National Socialist maybe. Fascist, certainly. At the very least it injects politics into the hiring and firing decisions of the board of directors and management of those companies (already has as the CEO of GM was fired). Packard was one of the big 4 automakers in Detroit. Where are they now? That's how capitalism works - companies either profit or fail. On the other hand, we bailed out Chrysler in the 1970s/1980s and it worked; we lent them the money they needed, they rebuilt and thrived and paid it back. The govt. didn't buy stock or own the company. I don't know anyone but democrats in congress and the president and his employees who peddled the stimulus package. It had near 10,000 earmarks in it. A giant piece of pork barrel legislation to fund the "liberal" programs that they felt were neglected for so many years. I don't see any stimulus in a bill where the bulk of the spending is in 2010.
so fdr was a fascist? ever heard of the concept of "too big to fail"- it rings true when u have an economy whose very linchpin is credit. the bailouts were "selective" with the financial sector being favoured over the auto industry and the tarps were ephemeral as demonstrated by the countless banks who have passed the stress tests and have begun paying back their debts with interest. going back to the "too big to fail" concept- banks were simply not lending to small and large lenders which had a tsunami effect on everything else like companies making their payroll obligations. and economists from left to right peddled the stimulus, no arguing with that. the pork is an unfortunate technique used to get populist support but i doubt that occurs again with the new filibuster proof majority the democrats enjoy
Wow..This is going to take a minute. 1. Obama is nowhere near as competent as McCain, Obama however is a significantly better speaker and that is all. Just because McCain can't vocalize as well as Obama doesn't mean he's less competent. 2. As for the "political savvy to get things done"...He can do whatever he wants at this point with little opposition, he can get anything done he wants. 3. Your totally missing the point on the stimulus bill. There was nothing stimulating about it. As Denny said it had over 10,000 earmarks and was the biggest piece of pork barrel garbage spending ever. It was rashly written and not really thought out at all. Republicans wanted a stimulus package however they weren't about to rush something that will have an affect for so long. 4. The closing of Gitmo was a public relations stunt. All he did was announce he was going to close it in a year. If it was that simple the Bush administration would have done it. Now he's having the same problem and that is finding countries to take these people. Simply put no one wants them and only a handful have found a host country willing to accept them. The bulk of them were transferred to a prison in Afghanistan at Bragram IIRC. Essentially it's the same thing, just a different name. 5. Your comparison with Ronald Regan is a joke. Obama is nowhere near the same level as Regan. Obama didn't win by a landslide remember, and the country is as divided if not more than it was under Bush. Regan united us, something Obama will never accomplish simply because he is too far left.
FDR had a lot of fascist tendencies, and outright admired Hitler (early on) for getting Germany out of the world wide Depression far sooner than anyone else. But no, he wasn't exactly a fascist. Big difference between what he did (just grew govt., spent big, tried to get us into War) and what Obama's doing (owning companies). And, FWIW, I greatly prefer gridlock over either party getting their agenda done. Things are bad enough. Reagan won with 56%, but an electoral landslide (lost one or two states). Obama won with 53%, which I think was considerable. Careful. Not sure Obama had any mandate but "anyone but a republican."
1) mccain is not only incompetent, he's senile. suspending his campaign, bringing palin on without an exhaustive background search, etc. americans should thank their lucky stars everyday that u have obama. 2) he's the reason why all those senators got elected- so americans handed him a mandate to get things done. 3) the pork is unacceptable but i think he wants to appease certain elements whether they be conservative or liberal, some may call it consensus building. 4) it wasnt a public relations stunt, it wouldnt have made sense as a public relations stunt either because americans are divided on the issue. however, the supreme court with a 5-4 conservative majority deemed gitmo to be unconstitutional so if u want to blame someone- blame the conservative dominated supreme court. he had no other option to close it. 5) i never compared obama to reagan; i compared the lunacy of venerating each by conservative and liberal ideologues alike. plus, reagan was a hugely unpopular after he left office. in terms of his leadership he was the antithesis of an uniter- ask the air traffic controllers, ask the people on social assistance who he targeted and ask black americans who felt completely ignored by his administration. ever heard of reaganomics- its reverse robin hood where u steal from the poor and give to the rich. and he was a bold face liar- he publicly took the hardline stance that he would never negotiate with terrorists than he went ahead and negotiated with terrorists (i.e. iran contra affair) moreover, reagan was an intellectual lightweight, he was a freakin movie star who i think had already developed alzheimer's by the end of his tenure
There's a reason why Republicans have mostly dominated the government since 1980. Guys like Carter (and now Obama) got elected with Democrat majorities.
mr crane, u're omitting one undeniable fact- the demographics are rapidly changing in america. republicans have never made any considerable traction amongst minority voters with the exception of the 2004 elections where bush used his latino nephew (i,e, jeb bush's son) to campaign for him. although, latino's abandoned the republicans after the immigration reform debate and the perceived or imagined backlash against latino communities. and the polarizing politics of palin (e.g. pals around with terrorists, "The Real Virgina) will only alienate the republicans from a country which is rapidly changing
