A Question for Obama

[houndawg]

This is all true but somehow it doesn't really translate into goodwill; lots of people voting Republican could be more correctly said to be voting against Democrats, particularly Obama. Obama has the same problem with the Bubba vote; lots of Bubbas would agree that they have a lot more in common with most Democrats positions than with most Republicans positions if they were hearing it from somebody white.

What do you mean by goodwill, I don't follow where you're going with that.

As for Obama, he can win by large margins in '08 and '12, but then you're saying the same voters are changing their minds and voting against him in '10 and '14? It's the opposite and you're proving my point. Who people pick for President has very little to do with the party they are running with, it basically comes down to which person people like. People saw Bush and Gore on stage next to each other and Gore came off as standoffish and weird while Bush was likeable. Same thing in '04 with Kerry, and Bush didn't even have that great of a record in either election. Same could be said in '08 and '12. People were saying "let's vote for Barack, we need the Democrats in office" - they were saying "Geez, McCain looks old and kooky and Palin is a trainwreck" and then they were saying "Romney looks like a robot and he's Mormon too". Obama was more likeable. Same thing will happen in 2016 - people will look at Hillary and look at whoever comes out from the GOP (right now Walker or Bush would be early favorites, but the pool is deeper on the GOP side so we'll see) and they'll pick who they like. Being Democrat or Republican really doesn't matter.

What I mean is that in spite of some big victories for the republicans, their "brand" isn't selling. The independents voting conk are voting against Obama more than for republicans. The republican party is in complete disarray, has zero ideas, and now Boehner and McConnell are fighting. Unfortunately not with knives but you can't have everything, I guess...

[JohnStOnge]

Neither does anybody with a functional brain stem but lots of those will still claim to be Christians.

I think there are some very intelligent people who do believe it. But I don't think Obama is one of them. I seriously doubt he does. And if you don't believe Jesus Christ literally died...I mean really died...then stayed dead for three days and rose back to life you are not a Christian. You're just not. If you don't believe that you don't believe something that is absolutely central to Christianity.

[houndawg]

Neither does anybody with a functional brain stem but lots of those will still claim to be Christians.

I think there are some very intelligent people who do believe it. But I don't think Obama is one of them. I seriously doubt he does. And if you don't believe Jesus Christ literally died...I mean really died...then stayed dead for three days and rose back to life you are not a Christian. You're just not. If you don't believe that you don't believe something that is absolutely central to Christianity.

Which leaves planet Earth with about 12 Christians world wide....

None of which are you.

[houndawg]

Neither does anybody with a functional brain stem but lots of those will still claim to be Christians.

I think there are some very intelligent people who do believe it. But I don't think Obama is one of them. I seriously doubt he does. And if you don't believe Jesus Christ literally died...I mean really died...then stayed dead for three days and rose back to life you are not a Christian. You're just not. If you don't believe that you don't believe something that is absolutely central to Christianity.

The two are mutually exclusive.

[kalm]

BTW, I dont think Obama is a Christian. I think it's like anything else with Obama. He does what he has to do and says what he has to say at any given time in order to put himself in the best position as he sees it to do what he wants to do. If he thinks that means saying he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, for example, he says that. If he thinks that means he should say his outlook on that issue has "evolved," he does that. And if he thinks going to Church and presenting himself as a Christian is best, he'll do that.

I don't think he's a Muslim either, BTW. I think he is basically a humanist. I very seriously doubt if he believes Jesus Christ literally died, stayed dead for three days, then rose from the dead. I also doubt that he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that one day he's going to come back and we're going to have all the stuff that goes along with that. Also, I doubt he believes what Mohammed wrote.

I think he does have an ethos. But it's a humanist ethos.

To me, people shouldn't be afraid to say, if asked, that they don't THINK he's a Christian because that's not an unreasonable thing to say. It's really not. In his actual behavior he clearly comes across as a humanist.

Which politicians to you, come across as christians?

[GannonFan]

What do you mean by goodwill, I don't follow where you're going with that.

As for Obama, he can win by large margins in '08 and '12, but then you're saying the same voters are changing their minds and voting against him in '10 and '14? It's the opposite and you're proving my point. Who people pick for President has very little to do with the party they are running with, it basically comes down to which person people like. People saw Bush and Gore on stage next to each other and Gore came off as standoffish and weird while Bush was likeable. Same thing in '04 with Kerry, and Bush didn't even have that great of a record in either election. Same could be said in '08 and '12. People were saying "let's vote for Barack, we need the Democrats in office" - they were saying "Geez, McCain looks old and kooky and Palin is a trainwreck" and then they were saying "Romney looks like a robot and he's Mormon too". Obama was more likeable. Same thing will happen in 2016 - people will look at Hillary and look at whoever comes out from the GOP (right now Walker or Bush would be early favorites, but the pool is deeper on the GOP side so we'll see) and they'll pick who they like. Being Democrat or Republican really doesn't matter.

What I mean is that in spite of some big victories for the republicans, their "brand" isn't selling. The independents voting conk are voting against Obama more than for republicans. The republican party is in complete disarray, has zero ideas, and now Boehner and McConnell are fighting. Unfortunately not with knives but you can't have everything, I guess...

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

[AZGrizFan]

What I mean is that in spite of some big victories for the republicans, their "brand" isn't selling. The independents voting conk are voting against Obama more than for republicans. The republican party is in complete disarray, has zero ideas, and now Boehner and McConnell are fighting. Unfortunately not with knives but you can't have everything, I guess...

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

And more importantly....what earthshattering ideas does the Democratic Party have?

[kalm]

What I mean is that in spite of some big victories for the republicans, their "brand" isn't selling. The independents voting conk are voting against Obama more than for republicans. The republican party is in complete disarray, has zero ideas, and now Boehner and McConnell are fighting. Unfortunately not with knives but you can't have everything, I guess...

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

They're too similar.

[Chizzang]

I think there are some very intelligent people who do believe it. But I don't think Obama is one of them. I seriously doubt he does. And if you don't believe Jesus Christ literally died...I mean really died...then stayed dead for three days and rose back to life you are not a Christian. You're just not. If you don't believe that you don't believe something that is absolutely central to Christianity.

I've been trying to make this ^ point on here for years...
America is spilling over with folks who:
1) because they walk into a church 4 times a year
2) Or there parents were
3) or it just feels comfortable
4) They love the holidays - its nice - etc. etc.

Comfortable nostalgic feelings get wrapped up into "Christianity" for a huge bulk of Americans
God Bless 'em - but they don't know a thing about the Bible (as tests reveal)
and they don't really care - life is good - and its a sweet nostalgic feeling



Asked if they are Christian they shrug and say: Sure...

[GannonFan]

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

They're too similar.

I don't care that they're similar, I care that there are no ideas on how to move forward and improve. We're stuck in status quo and that's just not very productive.

[dbackjon]

The Evolution question came up because of education standards, and other GOP candidates stating that evolution is not real.

The Christian question came up because other GOP leaders were questioning whether or not Obama is a Christian. If your party is questioning the religion of the President, and you are trying to run for President yourself, then expect questions like that. The GOP could stop this nonsense, but they would rather have a whisper campaign that Obama is a muslin. You reap what you sow.

You can't make religion a focal point, then run away from the consequences of that idiocy.

You have no legitimacy covering for these questions, Jon.

The mainstream is not questioning sh!t, and if you think that it justifies goofball gotcha questions, then I wonder what your response was back when Obama's ties to a certain preacher of liberation theology was being brought up? Or his ties to certain domestic terrorists? Or while we are on education, I wonder what your response was to requests for Obama's academic record (since he didn't make his public while Walker did). (BTW- I think those questions were immaterial, too- except that Obama put himself out there as a constitutional scholar)

You're a trademark stamped robot liberal, Jon. I could try to caricature you by writing your posts for you and I'd be 100% accurate.

You could probably do that for most of the board


Obama's not running for Re-election, and those questions WERE asked of him. Although if Obama could run again, he'd win. Again

[kalm]

They're too similar.

I don't care that they're similar, I care that there are no ideas on how to move forward and improve. We're stuck in status quo and that's just not very productive.

The best ideas and will to implement them typically come from outside the bubble. They challenge the status quo.

[houndawg]

What I mean is that in spite of some big victories for the republicans, their "brand" isn't selling. The independents voting conk are voting against Obama more than for republicans. The republican party is in complete disarray, has zero ideas, and now Boehner and McConnell are fighting. Unfortunately not with knives but you can't have everything, I guess...

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

Absolutely. Although in Obama's case he had an unbelievable run of political good luck early in his career, about as smooth a walk to the top as probably can be had, but you can't be serious about Obama only beating McCain because he was more likeable than a punch-drunk opponent.

[houndawg]

But what ideas and "brand" did the Democrats have in 2006 when they gained control of Congress? Weren't those votes then just votes against the Republicans and essentially votes against Bush? Heck, Obama himself rode a lot of that sentiment into office in '08, although I still contend he was just the more likeable candidate when compared with McCain. But you can certainly argue that the votes for Democrats for Congress in '08 were not votes for Democrats but votes against Republicans, votes against Bush, and maybe even more accurately, votes against Washington incumbents.

It's that latter sentiment that has continued to carry through, probably since '06, as Democrats now, outside of the White House, have been consistently beaten in elections despite, as you contend, them having a good "brand" and the approval of voters. The Republican "brand" isn't any more damaged that the Democratic "brand". If it was, you wouldn't seen Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress right now. Neither party has any ideas right now that go any bit beyond how to win the next cycle of elections.

And more importantly....what earthshattering ideas does the Democratic Party have?

None. Which is why except for Willie Nelson I'll be voting Green.

[JohnStOnge]

Which politicians to you, come across as christians?

I think Mike Huckabee is. Maybe Scott Walker.

[CID1990]

You have no legitimacy covering for these questions, Jon.

The mainstream is not questioning sh!t, and if you think that it justifies goofball gotcha questions, then I wonder what your response was back when Obama's ties to a certain preacher of liberation theology was being brought up? Or his ties to certain domestic terrorists? Or while we are on education, I wonder what your response was to requests for Obama's academic record (since he didn't make his public while Walker did). (BTW- I think those questions were immaterial, too- except that Obama put himself out there as a constitutional scholar)

You're a trademark stamped robot liberal, Jon. I could try to caricature you by writing your posts for you and I'd be 100% accurate.

You could probably do that for most of the board


Obama's not running for Re-election, and those questions WERE asked of him. Although if Obama could run again, he'd win. Again

Nice dodge, but I didn't say those questions weren't asked.

I wondered what YOUR reaction to them was- you don't have to answer.. we already know.

And you may well be right about Obama being capable of winning another election, but I doubt it. After the 2012 election he lost a lot of people- both my parents for starters. When you lose my moon bat mother's support you might as well hang it up