On 17/11/2011 3:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...


Two different cases entirely. Obama was in over his head from the
perspective of maturity and having the years of hand to hand combat in
Washington. Herman Cain has management maturity but no depth of
knowledge. I agree his answer was good but what the **** was going on
in that head for a minute and a half? Obama would have reeled that
off in seconds flat.

I saw him at the Australian press announcement yesterday (joint
military excercises, closer ties) and he was incredible. He knew
everything about the plan, the strategy, relationships within the
region, etc. He made me proud that we have a president with a brain
and I'm looking forward to him using his balls a little more during
his next term.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Still trying to keep an open mind but for me it's coming down to this:

With the possible exception of Romney and Huntsman, there are no
viable GOP candidates worth considering. Cain is unqualified as are
Bachman, Perry, Paul and Santorum.

Romney is a decent man but his flip-flops indicate someone more
focused on his desire to be called "President Romney" than someone
truly qualified. His recent statement about not allowing Iran to
acquire nukes was just plain dumb and simply indicates someone
trying to appeal to ultra right-wingers.

Huntsman is just too damn bashful and timid to be POTUS.

Newt is probably qualified in terms of experience and brainpower
but I could never vote for him. Too sleazy and arrogant for me.

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's plans to spend ourselves
out of recession. I am too fiscally conservative to understand
that, let alone support it. However, I think that in terms of leadership
qualities, he has had a crash course over the past couple of years
and is much better qualified today that he was when he took office. The
fact that he has backed off on some "changes" promised in his
first campaign means maybe he has learned something during the
execution of his responsibilities. There's nothing wrong with changing
course when it proves to be either undoable or when new facts are factored
into the equation.

In his first campaign Obama developed strong support among hard core
liberals or "progressives" as they now like to be called. His stump
speeches
were full of promises that emotionally connected to many ... and basically
got him elected. Since then he has moved away from the hard core liberal
rail
as he has learned first hand how Washington works, has been briefed on the
reality of global political issues and now seems to have more realistic and
practical positions.

If the GOP can shed some of the TeaParty influences and start acting
like responsible
conservatives, the check and balance system of Congress and the
Executive branch
of our government would work just fine.

I can live with that.

Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples, then the choice is
dog **** corruption, and more dog **** corruption unless someone runs
independently.

Problem is people will not give up voting for corrupt professional
politicians. Best presidents USA ever had were not professional
politicians. A professional politician like 0bama, Romney, Perry are
all bottom feeding pond scum, abet better choices than 0bama, Reid and
Pelosi.

Looks like no savior for the USA in 2012....just more corruption.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is
the problem.

On 11/17/11 4:02 PM, Canuck57 wrote:


Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples...


None of the candidates you favor have scruples...

On 17/11/2011 2:09 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/17/11 4:02 PM, Canuck57 wrote:


Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples...


None of the candidates you favor have scruples...

None of yours do.

--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is
the problem.