1. She seems too green when it comes to taking interviews *thus, why she is on fox news*. I'm not to sure that she can debate as well as the Bush's. However, Obama isn't too keen on the debating stage as well. She does seem goofy at times. That's one thing I would admit.
Now 3A, what issue have we seen her take and, in her own words, explain and expound upon it so that we can see that she has real reasoning ability ???
2. The one thing that many on the left *not saying that you are, indeed, on the left* make their mistake is to try to analyze the right's mental skill.
3A, I don't care which political team one plays for. My comments were addressed at individuals: Palin and George Bush.
That's how the left gets beat. Never underestimate a simple politician. A simple politician will often make his policies very simple, and straight forward. Something the public loves. The average American wants to understand his/her purpose in this country, and wants a simple approach to opportunities. It's not that Americans are stupid. In fact, its far from it. We, as an Americans, just want things as simple as it can be. Basically, low taxes, good schools, less crime, and overall safety from foreign threats. If you can get that, it doesn't matter about someone's "mental skill".
LOL. I'm not talking about whether a person has a slow or country or whatever kind of "delivery." Whether one makes his point simplistically or whether its out of academia, what I'm looking for is show me the thought process and I can judge for myself whether its based on good, faulty or no reasoning at all.
Plain and ignant, LOL, is no better to be than slick sounding and ignant.
If slow & country is based on sound logic and a grasp of the issue, there you go.
I agree that no matter the intellectual ability, a politician has to make sure he's reaching those he/she is trying to reach. Hence, if he has to break it down for the particular audience, then he had better break it down.
With respect to whether Americans are stupid: I don't know that I would use that term, but uneducated wouldn't be in error. I don't mean to be condescendent, but I don't think wanting a simple explanation of, for example, of a complex issue -- is the same thing as saying one desires low taxes, good schools, etc. Those things are desired, but the road to achieving the same can be complex. Of course, many things are simple and need not be made to sound complex, but, I just don't see mental midgets solving many of our problems or, for example, resolving many foreign policy issues. Again, I might be wrong, but I think that has a lot to do with how we wound up in Iraq.
On another note, once you find someone with the better "mental skill" he/she will think they know more than everyone. Do you really want someone running this country with that type of arrogance? *oh shit we do have someone in office like that!!*
Ummmmmm. Lemme see how to say this . . .
It could also be that the perception is in the eyes of the beholder; and that which he/she perceives isn't true, though it may be a defense mechanism or way that the person deals with things he/she doesn't understand.
3. Now Que, you know I've been the one saying that Obama best chance for winning another term is to have opposition in Congress. To be honest, I don't want Obama to be a bad president. I do want Obama to either move closer to the center. If he can't do that, then I'll vote his ass out in the instant.
I know what you've been saying; I just don't necessarily agree with it. LOL
I think you're being dis-ingenious, however, when you say you don't want his failure. Its okay, but I think that you do. But, thats not important. You didn't vote for him in the beginning and even if the guy is wildly successful, if that success is not consistent with your view of the world, he will still be, unsuccessful.
4. Dude, I hope you really don't believe that analogy. In reality, Obama has been moving faster than any president in MY generation.
Thats because he's been moving contrary to the way you think he should be moving.
5. I wouldn't put my money on anyone to be honest. Right now, it depends on how Obama reacts if he gets a new congress. If Obama was smart, he would do the Clinton approach. The worst thing that can happen is a dug up scandal.
I think the democrats blew a damn good opportunity to use their majority. I know they are a diverse bunch, but they failed to unify behind some common-ness. That was a serious fuck up for them.
If the coming Congress is significantly more Republican, and if that Congress is as much "NO" as the present Republican group; the President and the democrats, if they intend to accomplish something positive, will have to be extremely shrewd to maneuver the "NO's" into a proverbial "Corner."
Example: keep your eyes on the current financial regulation-reform. Republicans are cockblocking again, just to be spiteful. LOL. Lets see who gets fucked!
I'm going to say this again, que, do not underestimate Palin. Bush got elected because the left underestimated him. The thing Palin has on her side is her opposition.
As I've told you before, I'm not into this strict Left-Right analysis. Palin, like Bush, will get in because enough people buy into her brand of fear, prejudice, etc. Part of that will depend on whether the opposition comes out to the polls; what alliances (Hispanic) that will hold or be re-formed; whether the economy really strengthens; where un-employment might be; how much of the white supremacy ideals does the right get the white population buy into; <enough, there a lot of variables that will go into this equation>.
???
