He still has time...

Followed by Palin 2016 and 2020 of course.

and then eight years of rubio/jindal if we're lucky.

fluff Cheney has less time, fluff 2012 then McCain 2016.

cheney is a great american, we should all be so lucky

That post isn't going to go over well with Watertowers.

watertowers must dislike conservatives with the ability to beat the filthy socialist liberals he should be focusing his distaste on.

some of us hope for the best, not point out the worst :(

(says the man waiting for wwiii any day now, the fluffing russo-chinese..)

lol

I think that McCain would make an excellent president. He has the right attitude for the job.

Cheney, would be the worst president ever, he's too greedy by a factor of 1000 or better. He'd merely complete the pilferage of the US Treasury that GWB and he started during GWB's administration.

The greatest heist in history.

McCain is a Joke, as is Romney,Ron Paul and Newt...

Santorum FTW!

it took W eight years, whereas it's taken barry less than four to beat him.

I'd say second greatest heist in history (third, actually, we stole france back from the nazi's all while they thought we were going pas de calais. THIEVERY IN ITS FINEST)

(and then we gave it back to the french.. mistake..? :P)

Try having Ronald McDonald in charge like we do in Australia lol

Even as a pretty dependable vote for the Democratic Party, I'd have agreed on McCain before he started trying to position himself as Mr. Super Conservative as he did during 2008. He always seemed like he was conservative but pragmatic and willing to listen to ideas from the other side from his Senate voting record and who he worked with on certain bills as co-sponsors, but I felt he pandered too much to the right and lost touch with the center in 2008. At this point, given his age, I think there'd be a lot of people in the center who'd be worried about voting for him simply because it's hard to say whether he could make it through 4 years as President, and when you're concerned about the health of the guy running for President, it hurts more than it helps to have someone like Sarah Palin as VP, who might appeal to a large part of the conservative base, but who is also completely frightening to the liberal base and a good portion of the center.

You lefties have no idea wtf you're talking about, LOL!

4 years ago they were saying McCain was too old to last 4 years, so theres one group not worth listening too.

he was pandering to the Conservatives too much that he lost liberal votes , I doubt he was ever going to get a liberal vote no matter how he pandered to anyone. Lets face it the liberals had the ultra Liberal running, and spend , spend, spend and spend some more, what he just send this week a 3.8 Billion dollar budget, hope it includes one way airfare to chicago.

he could have tried black face, to win the liberal vote, but i think that might have hurt him in the long run.

Appeasement is sign of weakness, Obama tried it with the Iranians, look where it got us! McCain used it during his campaign to win the Lib vote, look where it got him.

Santorum FTW!

bAm

I'm afraid we've passed a tipping point. Obama would not have been a bad president if most of the members of congress were genuinely interested in helping the American people. Most of the Republicans are politically maneuvered by the interests of multinational corporations. Some are outright bought. The Democrats are not as far gone, but they no longer have the power to swing the balance back.

I'm afraid most of you conservatives are going to have to learn the hard way that only a small fraction of you will prosper if the trends set by GWB but stagnated by Obama become even more entrenched if a Republican wins. I know my standard of living has dropped steadily through both Bush's and Obama's administrations. I'm blaming Bush because Obama wanted things I wanted, but simply couldn't get congress to pass the laws that would have helped someone like me.

I'm almost tempted to vote Republican--almost, for the simple notion that a frog in slowly heating water cooks while one that gets burned quickly jumps out of the pot.

Obama is more sinister, of course, than any Republican. However the other choice, Romney is a lizard with one and only one purpose: Get elected.

I used to like Santorum, but he too is now pandering for votes and turned an about-face to his supporter who said that Obama is Muslim. For the record, literally the entire press is willing to accept what Obama says. He only self-declared as non-Muslim, and everyone believes what he says at face value.. because guess what? He's black and the press is afraid to say anything against a black person. Obama could certainly well be a muslim.

Santorum also did the same with his supporter who told the joke about contraceptives. Once again, he was trying to get more votes by appearing more moderate. For the record, lack of abstainence benefits liberals, since children born out of wedlock usually become supporters of the policies that got them born: welfare and "free love".

Watertowers: That's just completely idiotic. You're making the argument that Obama's a Muslim because the only evidence we have that he's not is that he says he's not.

First off, whether you have a problem with the rhetoric of his church or not, he attended a Christian church while living in Chicago.

Secondly, your logic is just messed up too. By your logic, I could accuse Santorum of being gay or Romney of being a Muslim and since there's no hard evidence that they're not (I could claim Santorum's marriage and Romney's past religious experiences as hoaxes), then I could supposedly run with it. But that's bullfluff. There's no evidence whatsoever that either of those is true just like there's no evidence that Obama's a Muslim, and perpetuating stupid lies just shows that you care more about holding onto a narrative that suits your biases or prejudices than actually looking at the truth.

Oceana: I wasn't claiming McCain would have turned hardcore liberals into McCain voters, but Obama won by turning red states blue by grabbing independent voters. I think McCain's pandering to the right cost him some of those votes.

Just like I think Romney, but positioning himself very far right in order to beat Santorum/Gingrich/Paul might position himself too far right and people who might have been willing to bail on Obama for a moderate might end up sticking with Obama.

Obama undeniably has Muslim roots which make it much more possible he is muslim and holds muslim sympathies. I'm not saying he is. I'm only saying that what he says is much more likely to be accepted at face value because he is black.

So then indep. are willing to vote for those that have always been far-left but not a moderate right that will pander some to the far-right?, Sounds like they are not indep at all and are actually far-lefties that just don't call themselves that.

Oceana: Call it what you want, but Obama got 53% of the vote in 2008. Kerry got 48% in 2004 got Gore got 48.5% in 2000.

Obama won several states that Kerry was unable to win, including Indiana, Iowa and Ohio in the Midwest, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico in the West and Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in the South.

Some of this is probably bringing in new voters, but Obama wouldn't have won the election on bringing in new voters alone. He won by courting independents due to the unrest with the previous 8 years under Pres. Bush.

My point is that I think many of those independents would probably flock to the Mitt Romney that was governor of Massachusetts, a moderate Republican. If he has to position himself as a far-right Republican in order to win the primary, then he'll either look like he's moved to the far-right and/or he'll end up looking like he's a hypocrite. If he simply ran on his record and said "I have business experience that most of these other guys and Pres. Obama doesn't and I'm open-minded to working with the Democrats as you can see by the way I governed Massachusetts, a very liberal state" he'd be in great shape.

The polls seem to reflect this as well. Last August before Romney was getting bashed by the other Republicans in these primaries, Romney actually polled AHEAD of Obama, even though only slightly (basically 46 to 45) whereas since the primaries have really kicked into gear, Romney's numbers have plummeted and Obama's have gone up, to where now it's a 49-43 edge for Pres. Obama (Romney's still the best chance according to polls, as Obama spanks Gingrich and has about an 8 point lead over either Santorum or Paul).

At least for now, I'm not going to debate whether Obama is "far left" as you say he is (I'd contend he's not, but we'll save that for later). For now, let's just look at the numbers. Obama won a lot of states that are swing states that have gone red in other recent elections and his lead over Romney has climbed since Romney's had to position himself further right. He might rebound if he wins the nomination and close the gap, but for now it looks like Obama's going to be tough to beat, and you've heard my theory behind it.



Watertowers: Your argument is still invalid for this. Unless there's something beyond my knowledge, any Muslim roots would come from his biological father, correct? The same man who he didn't know most of his life while being raised by his Christian mother and grandparents. Unless you believe he's converted as an adult to Islam and kept it secret, all the while attending a Christian church to hide his secret Islamic beliefs, then he clearly isn't a Muslim. And again, to say because we can't verify his beliefs outside what he says is crap for the same reasons I stated earlier. If you want to have a real conversation about American politics, that's fantastic, but for the most part, your comments show that you're trying to fit everything in the racist little viewpoint you hold of the world.

How exactly has Obama "appeased" the Iranians? He's publicly said he wouldn't take ANY option off the table for dealing with them and has put much harsher sanctions on them than previously, which has seriously hurt the Iranian economy. If you have problems with his domestic policy, that's one thing, but as far as foreign policy, Obama's handled Libya well, put serious pressure on Iran and ordered the strike that killed Osama bin Laden.

If you're opposed to things like the health care law and other stuff of that nature, that's a reasonable debate, but if McCain had won in 2008 and had the exact same foreign policy resume through the first 3 years of his presidency, you'd be touting how McCain's been a tough leader that's made the world safer.

Brilliant! +10

Presidents gain their real power in their second term when they know they can't get reelected anyway. I'm not really happy with anyone right now, but it will be an interesting year.

Obama won as he was an unknown and too many people believed his change BS, He is a very good campaigner, just a too bad he can't lead, his first 2 years he had monoplistic gov't and even with the FU senate rules he only needed to have his own party support and to comprimise enough to gain 1 pub support to pass any issue they wanted, and accomplished almost nothing his change was non existantant as he conformed to the same old same fluff everyone else had done, Instead of Bush light I guess we can call him Bush dark to be more accurate.

Ya, how's "hope n change" working out for you??

he was a bit too idealistic; if he'd not tried to get bipartisan support for everything he may have accomplished some change...

let me know when there's a decent rack to vote for. if they're going to run around being boobs, they might as well look decent doing it.

is breast augmentation covered under obamacare?

any reason why they wouldn't cover that, when they're making everyone pay for all the other things they don't need.

LOL +10

Under President Obama:

Troops have been brought home from Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is has been killed.
Libyan rebels were aided in ousting Gaddafi.
Health care reform has been passed.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been repealed.
The Auto Industry has been revitalized.

I'm not going to say things are completely rosy under Pres. Obama. His main bailout was way too bloated and while it may have had some effect, it wasn't enough. He hasn't lived up to many of his campaign promises (like closing Gitmo), and clearly his optimism concerning his ability to change Washington has so far been unfounded in dealing with an obstructionist Republican Party and two years of a Pelosi/Reid led Congress that wanted to make far more radical changes than Obama was willing to commit to.

Pres. Obama's certainly had failings in his 3 years as president so far, but ultimately, any references to him being a socialist are silly (if he was really a socialist, think of all the programs he could've pushed through while Pelosi and Reid had majorities in both chambers of Congress, meanwhile he was trying to work in a bipartisan fashion as qz brought up), references to him being a Muslim are just a straight up lie, and references to Obama being a terrible President who hasn't accomplished anything are Republican rhetoric and not reality.

LMFAO ^

healthcare reform? you mean that wealthcare stuff where i have to buy health insurance so that the people who can't afford healthcare won't have to pay for it? gimme back my alcohol and tobacco taxes.

I love it when liberals try for years to prove that bin Laden was a conspiracy or had died a long time ago, but since Obama "killed" him, he is now the person that Republicans have all claimed.

Obama, along with Bush have been the worst presidents ever. Although for the liberal West that we live in now, Obama is touted as a sign of progress because he is black, and it's always great in their minds to surrender more rights and continue to pamper the blacks and other minorities.

Watertowers: It's easy to just claim he's bad. Let's hear why. What has he done that is so damaging to our country?

And on your other point, I've never claimed, nor have I seen any mainstream liberals/Democrats claim (feel free to disprove me on this) that bin Laden died years ago and that it's all a big Republican conspiracy.

If you have to point to some second-tier or personal blog to get that, then it doesn't really say much, but if you can find some multiple major figures that are saying things like this, I'll read them and admit I'm wrong.

I keep thinking of other things to post as soon as I hit "Submit."

At least it means I'll build up my post count. ;)

Anyway, I also love it when conservatives say things like "Obama is a socialist" or "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is the worst president ever" without actually giving any evidence.

Obama is a Socialist? What socialist policies has he pushed through? The health care reform? Then Romney and Gingrich are also socialists, since Gingrich pushed for an individual mandate in the 90s and "Obamacare" is based on "Romneycare" in Massachusetts.

Obama is a Muslim? Well, we've already discussed that one, and you had no better evidence than "I can't trust him because no one else can vouch for whether he's Christian other than himself."

Obama is the worst president ever? I've pointed out several of his accomplishments. None of the conservative posters on this thread have given any actual reason why he's so bad.

You can hold whatever opinions you want about Obama, but if you can't back them up, then they're pretty empty.

HE GOT ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for proving my point KoH.

Him getting elected was harmful since it sent a message to all white people across the US that it pays being black.

I'ts POINTLESS, you Libs are arrogant and ignore a fact even if it was standing right in front of you, I'm not wasting my time with that kind of logic!, but i will throw one, CHANGE, uhm... where is it?, Obama in 3 years spent double what Bush spent in 8!

Oh, the irony.

Thanks for saying that I'm close-minded because you have absolutely no real arguments to show how evil Obama's been. I've actually argued real points, giving actual evidence of why I believe he's been a good president.

Because I don't buy into the name-calling of the right-wing media who calls him an apologizing Muslim Socialist, I'm clearly close-minded. Meanwhile, your contributions to this thread include laughing at my posts, blindly agreeing with Watertower's statement about Obama being sinister (with no explanation or context to prove anything of course), and lastly calling me arrogant and close-minded, despite the fact that you're displaying the same arrogance and close-mindedness you claim I have.

Oh, and saying "Hope and Change" like it's some big insult to him.

And total spending means very little. It's like comparing my first house's price to my parents' first house's price. Even though it's only been 8 years difference between Bush's first budget and Obama's, the budget constantly grows. As long as the GDP grows with it, it's really not a big deal. Look at the numbers as Spending as a % of GDP and you'll find that Obama has upped the spending moderately compared to Bush, but I would argue that this is a good thing considering we were in recession (for comparison sake, FDR upped the Spending relative to GDP from about 10% pre WW2 to a high of 41.5%.

Other recessions - Reagan taking over in the early 1980s raised spending from about 18% to 22-24% of GDP (hard to tell exact numbers, since I'm reading this off a chart).

Obama raised spending from about 17% to slightly over 25%.

Other times there have been big jumps include the big wars (Civil War, WW1) and the 1950s when apparently Eisenhower took it from 12 to 22% (again, approximates).

Citation: http://www.ritholtz.com/...as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/

Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for spending so much of our money during his 8 years, Its HILARIOUS how now that Obama doubled that amount in less than HALF that time and all of a sudden it's an "investment" into our future, LMFAO!!!!! sorry, but its just too fkn FUNNY!

Context, KoH. Context.

It's nearly impossible to cut the deficit during a recession. Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush governed mostly over periods of prosperity, and Pres. Clinton handed off a budget surplus to Pres. Bush.

If Pres. Obama was handed a similar situation, then I'd fully agree with you that the statements are ridiculous and entirely hypocritical. But they're not.

Pres. Obama has been handed a lousy economy and has followed a plan that was started by Pres. Bush and basically was somewhat of a blueprint of what Pres. Roosevelt did 70 years ago.

Feel free to tell me how this doesn't matter though and throw in some "LMAO"s to go with it.

well then lets also be accurate.

Clinton handed Bush an economy that was in a recession.

Roosevelt policies never did have a good economy, untill well into the war, even during the early part with lend-lease times of building war materials we still had very high unemployment.

Thanks for arguing with actual facts, Oceana. :)

However, I would say that there's still a major difference between the state of the economy when Clinton left office (which I believe was moreso a product of the dot-com bust, a relatively minor problem in hindsight) and the economy when Bush left office.

And you're certainly right about Roosevelt, although there were mild improvements in the economy before the war, just not the full recovery that was found when a huge portion of the working population went to fight Germany and Japan.

But I do acknowledge I oversimplified in my previous post. I just was starting to lose interest in arguing politics if the only responses I was going to get is KoH "L(His)AO" and calling me arrogant and close-minded.

Really, the problem with the economy ultimately stems from Clinton. His free spending philosophy later caused both recessions since he left office and Bush did nothing to rein in spending.

Barack, however, is probably the worst president ever, and in fact I do not consider him a leader. He is nothing more than another sad product of white guilt.