>> Cause you know, that's what was wrong with his first term. He was trying to please too many people.
Ten, I don't understand this. This would be akin to conservatives supporting Richard Nixon for re-election after Watergate. Except not only are we talking about corruption, Obama's administration is rife with incompetence, crony-ism, and most importantly -- devoid of leadership.
At some point, as an American a person has an obligation to put the party affiliation aside and vote for America. It is one thing to have a difference of opinion about a president's policy (A lot of people thought GWB was a lousy president, but a strong case can be made by his supporters that he was one of the best presidents in recent history. What he WASN'T is corrupt, incompetent, or a weak leader. You can rationally argue about the policy, but not about the basic skills.)
Sending Obama for a second term would be, by any reasonable measure, in insane action. Not because of the policy differences. But because of these other debilitating issues which make him unfit for the job.
I just don't get it. Even if you like the policy of Obama -- and a few do -- how can one escalate that to a level of importance higher than key characteristics like integrity, leadership, competence, and trustworthiness? Geez, people have to find some priorities somewhere, and to proclaim the goal of, e.g., more government involvement in healthcare to be more important than integrity just makes no sense to rational people. |
