BF2S Forums Obama could comfortably expect two terms in office as Republicans....

BN wrote:

Tactics by repubs.

Barring a massive f*ckup. Nobody is going to win against Obama in 2012 so why not put up a lamb to the slaughter. U dont run Seinfeld in the same timeslot against Friends.

Let her have her 15 minutes, appease certain parts of the party, then put a real contender in for 2016.

Thats what i would do.

Too bad Ron Paul may not run in 2016.

FEOS wrote:

So let's see...two more years as a state chief executive, followed by two years as a senator.

Beats the hell out of the experience Obama had prior to running for President, don't it?

But Obama is less retarded than Palin. Palin can't manage to answer simple, yet unexpected, questions properly and she talks like an imbecile.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

She's too right wing to win anything and also seems to be quite ignorant, also corruption/power abuse allegations (that were proved) won't help. Like I read in some article, she beats Bush at being Bush. I'd say W is miles better than this woman.

If McCain had chosen someone else then I'm guessing things would be much closer.

So the chart follows as...

Obama/Bidin > McCain > Bush > Palin

Can we all agree or most of it?

Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-24 13:27:22)

Turquoise wrote:

Paul would be a bit too old by then.  Unfortunately, there aren't many like him in the GOP right now.  I have a feeling that's going to change soon though.

Oddly, I got an email from his Campaign for Liberty today, urging me to support Michelle Bachmann (MN) in her race to win reelection in the House.  Though I'm not too familiar with her Republican creds (I don't live in her district) I never got the vibe that she was a Ron Paul Republican.

A good substitute for Paul would be someone like Chuck Hagel or Mark Sanford.

I hear Jeff Flake (AZ) mentioned in the same breath as Ron Paul more often than I hear anyone else, so he may be next in line for the throne of "Good Republican."  However, he's not made much of a name for himself outside his state/district so he'd likely suffer the same recognition deficit Paul experienced when he started his bid.  Obviously that could change over the course of eight years, but unless Flake picks himself up and runs for either a Senate seat or the Governor's office, I don't see it happening.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Paul would be a bit too old by then.  Unfortunately, there aren't many like him in the GOP right now.  I have a feeling that's going to change soon though.

Oddly, I got an email from his Campaign for Liberty today, urging me to support Michelle Bachmann (MN) in her race to win reelection in the House.  Though I'm not too familiar with her Republican creds (I don't live in her district) I never got the vibe that she was a Ron Paul Republican.

Uh...  yeah...  Well, if they're actually supporting her....  um...  It sounds like either Ron or his campaign managers have gone senile.  Bachmann recently made a really asinine remark about "anti-Americanism."

I wouldn't support her even if I was hardcore conservative.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

A good substitute for Paul would be someone like Chuck Hagel or Mark Sanford.

I hear Jeff Flake (AZ) mentioned in the same breath as Ron Paul more often than I hear anyone else, so he may be next in line for the throne of "Good Republican."  However, he's not made much of a name for himself outside his state/district so he'd likely suffer the same recognition deficit Paul experienced when he started his bid.  Obviously that could change over the course of eight years, but unless Flake picks himself up and runs for either a Senate seat or the Governor's office, I don't see it happening.

Flake is good, although his name itself might hurt him a little bit...  lol

ghettoperson wrote:

I'd rather have Bush as President than her. She's the new Hillary.

Hillary isn't nearly as bad as people make her out to be.  Most of her policies aren't so bad, but her main flaw is her power-hungry nature.

Turquoise wrote:

Can we agree that Bobby Jindal would have been a far better choice for VP?

I doubt it, since he actually supports the teaching of intelligent design in school science classes.  Palin doesn't.

That's a dealbreaker right there.

Turquoise wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I'd rather have Bush as President than her. She's the new Hillary.

Hillary isn't nearly as bad as people make her out to be.  Most of her policies aren't so bad, but her main flaw is her power-hungry nature.

I meant that in the way that she's an evil, power-hungry bitch. Nothing to do with policies, as I am aware Hillary does actually have some fairly good ones.

Turquoise wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

The republicans are pushing me farther left every day...

and i don't like it

No, I think you mean YOU are staying put while Republicans are drifting all over the place.

At any rate, Palin isn't as stupid as people portray her to be, I think.  However, as with Bush, I think the "stupid" label will stick, like it does with most Republicans, for reasons I'm not confident enough to state publicly.

Can we agree that Bobby Jindal would have been a far better choice for VP?

Tom Ridge says he would've been apparentely. Dunno about that though, seeing as how I believe he's pro-choice.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu … 95030.html

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-10-25 10:29:25)

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Can we agree that Bobby Jindal would have been a far better choice for VP?

Tom Ridge says he would've been apparentely. Dunno about that though, seeing as how I believe he's pro-choice.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu … 95030.html

The main thing Ridge is lacking is charisma, which sadly, means more to the average voter than credentials.

Oh, I think that's blatantly obvious...particularly if you believe the polls.