He has no idea. Empty suit.

Then comparing Obama to MLK.. then Colmes asks him if America has “Progressed” since then the caller said “NOT AT ALL.., NOT AT ALL..”

OMG, as if you don’t vote for Obama you are a racist!

nevermind that he’s a dolt, only speaks in platitudes and has no business being in a position of executive power at a time of war.. >_

In 1980 the Democrats thought Reagan was their dream candidate, an aging, pro-military ex-actor who only flaky Californians would elect. Once the wounded Carter got into the general election he calculated that Reagan’s image as a hair-trigger proponent of American military intervention would be enough to make cautious Americans unwilling to take a chance. He figured wrong.

Reagan used his skills to tell the voters that the portrait of him Carter was drawing, that of a weapons-prone right-winger, equally heedless of the threat of nuclear war and the aspirations of women and minorities, was a political caricature.

And once the voters decided that he didn’t fit that portrait, enough of them turned away from the ineffectual Carter to give Reagan a 50-41 victory.

Flip side of the coin, deja vu all over again?

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

The Obama comparisons to Reagan are not going to hold up. First, Reagan had spent 8 years as chief executive of this nation’s largest state — a state larger than many countries. He was an experienced leader. Second, Reagan was able to convince the country that the “Evil Empire” was a very serious threat. I think convincing the country that Islamic extremism is a very real threat will be an easier sell. And third, Reagan was a PATRIOT. He loved his country and had genuine faith in the goodness, generosity, and work ethic of his fellow citizens. He loved America and he really respected the American people. Whatever you think of McCain, he, too, is a candidate who wants to be president of a nation he loves. Obama and, increasingly, his wife have a very different message. They scold us, criticize our desire to be prosperous, and stand above us dripping with hypocritical moral vanity. It is already growing tedious and will only grow more so.

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Never said he didn’t. But his ties to terror were neither the primary reason to go to war with him, nor were they the strongest.

Saddam used terrorists as communists use American liberals. Same agenda; different ideologies.

So when the phone rings in an Obama White House it will be to alert him to the news that a Caliphate has been succesfully installed in Iraq, according to plan?

I didn’t mean to imply that it was Obama’s plan. Just that it was Bin Laden’s plan and it’s all been out there for all of us to see since his 1996 and 1998 Fatwas, so if he succeeded it would be according to plan.

Obama joins Lugar?

Meaning: He’s a follower, not a leader.

How is this a positive?

Enjoy!

Ringgggg.

“Yes?”

“President Obama! We’re under attack! Swarm attack by enemy ICBM’s!

We need your authority Mr. President. We need the codes!

We are under attack!”

“General, do nothing. Let’s hope they change their minds.”

or

“I hope I have a clean pair to change in to…”

He cannot be trusted.

Will add I dont think McCain can win just by bashing Obama either. He has to have something to offer the American people as well as just experience.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

You are starting to come around. There may be hope for you after all.

Not too much for Juan McCain though.

It could be argued that Bush has weak leadership but in times of war America rarely selects a democrat. Its always when america is doing really well we take a chance on elected democrats.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

America is not at war. A relative handful of Americans are at war, while the rest of America is out shopping or watching TV or “blogging”.

America was not doing so well when Carter was elected.

The economy is going downhill. Guess who is going to take the wrap for that. Semi-incumbent Juan McCain who has been in the Senate for the last hundred years +/- or the neebie Obama.

It could be argued that Bush has weak leadership but in times of war America rarely selects a democrat. Its always when america is doing really well we take a chance on elected democrats.

I can just see him coaching a professional sports team. “Hey, we’re behind in the fourth quarter, but we still have a chance to win. What should we do Coach Obama?”

“Well, we wouldn’t be in this fix if we hadn’t punted in the first quarter. I was against it then and it looks like I may be right.”

“Yes coach, but we are about to take the lead. We just need some guidance from you”

“I’ve said my piece. May hope be with you.”

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

In 1980 the Democrats thought Reagan was their dream candidate, an aging, pro-military ex-actor who only flaky Californians would elect. Once the wounded Carter got into the general election he calculated that Reagan’s image as a hair-trigger proponent of American military intervention would be enough to make cautious Americans unwilling to take a chance. He figured wrong.

Reagan used his skills to tell the voters that the portrait of him Carter was drawing, that of a weapons-prone right-winger, equally heedless of the threat of nuclear war and the aspirations of women and minorities, was a political caricature.

And once the voters decided that he didn’t fit that portrait, enough of them turned away from the ineffectual Carter to give Reagan a 50-41 victory.

Flip side of the coin, deja vu all over again?

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Bravo!

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

DITTOs!!

On the other hand if Al Qaeda would go into Iraq *after* we leave, he would send troops back. Didn’t he just say that the problem is Al Qaeda in Afg and not Al Qaeda in Iraq?

I just can’t understand how can he get away with all these clueless lies.

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Bravo!