Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... nst-bush/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bottom line: Regardless of who the Republicans nominate, the White House is likely to run against the previous GOP president, George W. Bush.

"You're going to get an opportunity to think about whether we're going to go back to what we came from or that we're going to go forward," Gibbs said. "And that's a debate I think the President and many here are anxious to have."

WHy not? The Republicans keep advocating to returning to how "good" it was back when they were in control. Keep reminding the voting public how badly the Republicans screwed up America.

dbackjon wrote:WHy not? The Republicans keep advocating to returning to how "good" it was back when they were in control. Keep reminding the voting public how badly the Republicans screwed up America.

Valid point.

Obama has failed the country and can't hang his hat on any accomplishments of his own, so why not?

Jon, are you advocating that it's better now with a Dem president and Dem supermajority?

Bush got us into a war, but I don't think he forged Obama's signature on TARP, stimulus, healthcare, handling of the economy, pulling out of the middle east, shutting down Gitmo, and gulf spill response. Obama will have to answer for his response to things on his plate during his presidency as every other president does. Bush inherited some Clinton issues that he was and is still being held accountable for - I just dislike the evasiveness that Obama demonstrates - he has taken no responsibility for things that have occurred during the last year and seven months. Your resume shouldn't be showing that you aren't as bad as the other guy, but should read of accomplishments. We'll see what '12 brings, but I think his strategy will fail.

"It's the Economy Stupid"

If the economy's still in the shitter in Fall 2012, Obama's going to have a hard time debating a ghost from the past - if Palin can successfully string together multiple sentences that come anywhere near to making sense then she'll win that debate, because Obama will actually have a record he'll have to defend (and ironically she won't)...

I fear the republicans may give him a candidate that will allow him to do that.

That's an interesting question that Republicans have to begin considering now. Obama will be very vulnerable in 2012, but a piss-poor GOP candidate could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now, I think Romney must be in the driver's seat. He has campaign experience, has put together a good organization and has the ability to raise a lot of money. Who else is out there? Jindal is a joke. Palin is a bad joke.

OL FU wrote:I fear the republicans may give him a candidate that will allow him to do that.

If Palin is that candidate she'll get destroyed in the election - I don't know of anyone currently active or emerging that would make a compelling competitor (maybe Jindal? I'll have to read up on him, and maybe Ron Paul).

ASUG8 wrote:Jon, are you advocating that it's better now with a Dem president and Dem supermajority?

Bush got us into a war, but I don't think he forged Obama's signature on TARP, stimulus, healthcare, handling of the economy, pulling out of the middle east, shutting down Gitmo, and gulf spill response. Obama will have to answer for his response to things on his plate during his presidency as every other president does. Bush inherited some Clinton issues that he was and is still being held accountable for - I just dislike the evasiveness that Obama demonstrates - he has taken no responsibility for things that have occurred during the last year and seven months. Your resume shouldn't be showing that you aren't as bad as the other guy, but should read of accomplishments. We'll see what '12 brings, but I think his strategy will fail.

TARP, stimulus, Middle East, Gitmo and to a great extent, the gulf (due to gutting of over sight by Bush) were all started by Bush - Obama is trying to cleam up the mess.

I am by no means an Obama fan - really hoping for a Dem primary challenger in 2012.

A good portion will ride on what the Republicans portray. America overwhelmingly rejected the Republican approach to most things in 2008. Running on a platform that advocates a return to those failures is worse than any Obama screw up.

ASUG8 wrote:

OL FU wrote:I fear the republicans may give him a candidate that will allow him to do that.

If Palin is that candidate she'll get destroyed in the election - I don't know of anyone currently active or emerging that would make a compelling competitor (maybe Jindal? I'll have to read up on him, and maybe Ron Paul).

Jindal is Obama-lite. Paul will be what, 77 in 2012? Too old.

Obama should just step aside and let Hillary and Palin bitch slap and cunt kick the shit out of each other.

Now who wouldn't pay to see that??

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Jon, are you advocating that it's better now with a Dem president and Dem supermajority?

Bush got us into a war, but I don't think he forged Obama's signature on TARP, stimulus, healthcare, handling of the economy, pulling out of the middle east, shutting down Gitmo, and gulf spill response. Obama will have to answer for his response to things on his plate during his presidency as every other president does. Bush inherited some Clinton issues that he was and is still being held accountable for - I just dislike the evasiveness that Obama demonstrates - he has taken no responsibility for things that have occurred during the last year and seven months. Your resume shouldn't be showing that you aren't as bad as the other guy, but should read of accomplishments. We'll see what '12 brings, but I think his strategy will fail.

TARP, stimulus, Middle East, Gitmo and to a great extent, the gulf (due to gutting of over sight by Bush) were all started by Bush - Obama is trying to cleam up the mess.

I am by no means an Obama fan - really hoping for a Dem primary challenger in 2012.

A good portion will ride on what the Republicans portray. America overwhelmingly rejected the Republican approach to most things in 2008. Running on a platform that advocates a return to those failures is worse than any Obama screw up.

There won't be a Dem primary in 2012, no matter how grumpy the left is - they might, might, be tempted to run a 3rd party candidate, but after the 2000 Gore/Nader fiasco they won't repeat that mistake...

Look, you make valid arguments about how these problems started, but the fact of the matter is that Obama owns them all now - if the Dems fail to get traction this November running against Bush then how the heck will Obama be able to in 2 years?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Jon, are you advocating that it's better now with a Dem president and Dem supermajority?

Bush got us into a war, but I don't think he forged Obama's signature on TARP, stimulus, healthcare, handling of the economy, pulling out of the middle east, shutting down Gitmo, and gulf spill response. Obama will have to answer for his response to things on his plate during his presidency as every other president does. Bush inherited some Clinton issues that he was and is still being held accountable for - I just dislike the evasiveness that Obama demonstrates - he has taken no responsibility for things that have occurred during the last year and seven months. Your resume shouldn't be showing that you aren't as bad as the other guy, but should read of accomplishments. We'll see what '12 brings, but I think his strategy will fail.

TARP, stimulus, Middle East, Gitmo and to a great extent, the gulf (due to gutting of over sight by Bush) were all started by Bush - Obama is trying to cleam up the mess.

I am by no means an Obama fan - really hoping for a Dem primary challenger in 2012.

A good portion will ride on what the Republicans portray. America overwhelmingly rejected the Republican approach to most things in 2008. Running on a platform that advocates a return to those failures is worse than any Obama screw up.

My point on the Middle East and Gitmo were primarily in response to Obama's promises (and subsequent timetables)to withdraw from both, which haven't happened. Those would both be rather major feathers in his cap come '12. Obama waited too long IMO on the gulf response and his ability to salvage some positives may not happen. If oversight was gutted by Bush, it could have been reinstated by Obama - we have a new czar for everything else.

ASUG8 wrote:

OL FU wrote:I fear the republicans may give him a candidate that will allow him to do that.

If Palin is that candidate she'll get destroyed in the election - I don't know of anyone currently active or emerging that would make a compelling competitor (maybe Jindal? I'll have to read up on him, and maybe Ron Paul).

It all depends on how the Tea Party candidates do this Fall - if they do well and if the economy's still piss-poor in 2012 and if Palin doesn't self-destruct then there's no chance that Jindal/Romney/Pawlenty/Paul beat her if she throws her hat in the ring. The real dark-horse is Gingrich, who can point to Contract with America and the "success" of that majority Conk Congress in making his case for 2012...

Besides, notwithstanding the current rough patch Obama's experiencing he's still a damn good campaigner with an ancient Veep - so why wouldn't Jindal/Romney/Pawlenty wait until 2016 when the Dem field potentially would be a lot weaker, especially if there's Obama-fatigue?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Jon, are you advocating that it's better now with a Dem president and Dem supermajority?

Bush got us into a war, but I don't think he forged Obama's signature on TARP, stimulus, healthcare, handling of the economy, pulling out of the middle east, shutting down Gitmo, and gulf spill response. Obama will have to answer for his response to things on his plate during his presidency as every other president does. Bush inherited some Clinton issues that he was and is still being held accountable for - I just dislike the evasiveness that Obama demonstrates - he has taken no responsibility for things that have occurred during the last year and seven months. Your resume shouldn't be showing that you aren't as bad as the other guy, but should read of accomplishments. We'll see what '12 brings, but I think his strategy will fail.

TARP, stimulus, Middle East, Gitmo and to a great extent, the gulf (due to gutting of over sight by Bush) were all started by Bush - Obama is trying to cleam up the mess.

I am by no means an Obama fan - really hoping for a Dem primary challenger in 2012.

A good portion will ride on what the Republicans portray. America overwhelmingly rejected the Republican approach to most things in 2008. Running on a platform that advocates a return to those failures is worse than any Obama screw up.

For accuracy's sake, it was Obama's Director of MMS who gave Deepwater Horizon a free pass, sorry.

ASUG8 wrote:

OL FU wrote:I fear the republicans may give him a candidate that will allow him to do that.

If Palin is that candidate she'll get destroyed in the election - I don't know of anyone currently active or emerging that would make a compelling competitor (maybe Jindal? I'll have to read up on him, and maybe Ron Paul).

The cupboard isn't completely bare, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are just a couple off the top of my head.

Something has to happen, this country wouldn't survive a 2nd Obama term.

Wedgebuster wrote:Obama should just step aside and let Hillary and Palin bitch slap and cunt kick the shit out of each other.

Now who wouldn't pay to see that??

CitadelGrad wrote:That's an interesting question that Republicans have to begin considering now. Obama will be very vulnerable in 2012, but a piss-poor GOP candidate could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now, I think Romney must be in the driver's seat. He has campaign experience, has put together a good organization and has the ability to raise a lot of money. Who else is out there? Jindal is a joke. Palin is a bad joke.

I think there are lots of people who generally vote republican that will defect if Romney is the candidate if the mood of the country stays the same. Romney has proven that he will say what it takes to get elected. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights (and I don't think those two things are bad things) and pro-universal health care in Mass and opposed to all of them when he runs for president. I personally think he will have much explaining to do in order to maintain the now unruly and disobediant base.

I'll be changing my voter registration so I can make sure to vote for Palin in the Republican primary.

OL FU wrote:

I think there are lots of people who generally vote republican that will defect if Romney is the candidate if the mood of the country stays the same. Romney has proven that he will say what it takes to get elected. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights (and I don't think those two things are bad things) and pro-universal health care in Mass and opposed to all of them when he runs for president. I personally think he will have much explaining to do in order to maintain the now unruly and disobediant base.

You're right. But, like CitadelGrad said... I can't think of a better Republican alternative.

....Which, in all honesty, makes me pretty happy.

Wedgebuster wrote:Obama should just step aside and let Hillary and Palin bitch slap and kitty kick the **** out of each other.

Now who wouldn't pay to see that??

The problem with that scenario is that it would take place in the 2012 General Election, thereby making Obama the lame duck we already know him to be.

dbackjon wrote:WHy not? The Republicans keep advocating to returning to how "good" it was back when they were in control. Keep reminding the voting public how badly the Republicans screwed up America.

The Republicans have NOT screwed up America. Barney Frank did that by forcing the mortgage crisis.

SuperHornet wrote:The Republicans have NOT screwed up America. Barney Frank did that by forcing the mortgage crisis.

BF did more bad than any one person in a long time. He'll keep getting reelected too.

89Hen wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The Republicans have NOT screwed up America. Barney Frank did that by forcing the mortgage crisis.

BF did more bad than any one person in a long time. He'll keep getting reelected too.

Roger that, and the new financial reform bill that will surely be signed into law in the next two weeks has his bloody fingerprints all over it.

Baldy wrote:
Something has to happen, this country wouldn't survive a 2nd Obama term.

Wow... what a drama queen

Jim Demint and Chris Christie...........