• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The NYT declares the Republicans a lost cause.

Harshaw said:
He (Carter) had similar excuses to what you posted. He didn't blame Ford or Nixon, though.
Click to expand...

Huh, interesting.

carter%20blames%20nixon%20ford.JPG
 
Harshaw said:
OK, then congrats. That's an area where I was mistakenly giving credit to Carter, and he indeed sank as low as Obama on that score. So, you win. I guess.
Click to expand...

No, I don't win. I'm just pointing out that every president inherits good and bad things from their predecessors and they are rarely hesitant to point that out -- especially the bad things.
 
And no, it's not just the Democrats....

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

-- Ronald Reagan (1983 State of the Union address)
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...
The best way to lose, is to think you have it won beforehand. This election will be a fight down the wire.
 
AdamT said:
And no, it's not just the Democrats....
Click to expand...

No one here claimed it was. Point is moot now that you've knocked Carter off that pedestal, down to Obama's level.
 
pbrauer said:
The best way to lose, is to think you have it won beforehand. This election will be a fight down the wire.
Click to expand...

Of course it will.
 
Harshaw said:
No one here claimed it was. Point is moot now that you've knocked Carter off that pedestal, down to Obama's level.
Click to expand...

Or down to Reagan's level, eh? But the point is hardly moot. Americans are going to be judging Obama's record over the next eight months and there's no way you can do that without considering what he had to work with. There's just no way around that. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable that Bush handed over a craptastic economy. :shrug:
 
AdamT said:
Or down to Reagan's level, eh? But the point is hardly moot. Americans are going to be judging Obama's record over the next eight months and there's no way you can do that without considering what he had to work with. There's just no way around that. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable that Bush handed over a craptastic economy. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to steal bases, but I never said anything of the kind. Of course the point (that it's not only Democrats who blame their predecessors), even on your own terms here, because it has nothing to do with the topic.

As for Obama vs. Carter, their records of dealing with the hands they were dealt are both abysmal. Keep in mind that most predictions of Obama's victory come not from his merit but from the weakness of Republican challengers, and many of them even go so far to say that Obama should be beaten easily, but may not be because the GOP is lame. That's kind of what this thread is about.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama is a shoo-in (it really depends on what happens in the economy and what happens in Iran). But Romney is no Reagan. Whether you agreed with him or not, Reagan was an affable, charismatic superstar...in that respect he had a lot more in common with Obama than he did with Romney.

So far this election cycle, the Republican attitude toward their eventual nominee has oscillated between grudging acceptance and outright hostility...and even that might be OK if he could compensate for it by inspiring moderates and independents. But he doesn't do that either. That's not to say that he can't win...just that he's a very weak candidate. If Romney wins in November, it will be because of circumstances beyond his control (e.g. another recession or a foreign policy fiasco).
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

The difference is that even if Romney could make a deal with Iran like Reagan did he would still lose. He might even get Israel to bomb Iran and he would still lose. He didn't do that well in Mass., he's much better suited to buying up companies and laying off the workers. He likes to fire people. We need a President who lkes to hire.
 
iguanaman said:
We need a President who lkes to hire.
Click to expand...

You mean a president who likes to only hire unions and failing green energy companies that he panders to. Obama could care less about the non union average joe.
 
Sparky said:
You mean a president who likes to only hire unions and failing green energy companies that he panders to. Obama could care less about the non union average joe.
Click to expand...
Any numbers to back those claims up? Or are you simply venting?
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you include a link?

Something you don't want us to see.

The New York times is not a person sitting at typewriter...

Give us the link.
 
Tigger said:
The Republican Party IS a lost cause. It was in 1980 and continues to be today. The fact that Reagan, Romney, and Santorum are even considered viable candidates by the party shows that. NONE of those three are Conservatives, and until the Republican Party returns to its Conservative roots it will not win another Presidential election.
Click to expand...

Your continued appeal to Jackson really won't work.
 
The article was reproduced in full later in the thread. So?

If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, sniping from the peanut gallery is exceptionally lame.
 
Well just using some common sense here, polling and data is far more accurate now than it was back in 1980. Also unlike Romney, Regan didn't represent a lot of what Americans hated. I am glad though that Republicans are finding new and innovative ways to compare Obama to Jimmy Carter. All you guys have is time for another 4+ years so might as well make the best of it...
 
In other news, conservatives declared the NY Times a lost cause in 2004.
 
nota bene said:
In other news, conservatives declared the NY Times a lost cause in 2004.
Click to expand...

Judging by the lessening influence, subscription rates, and profits of the NY Times, perhaps it is their cause that is lost.
 
Feb '04: Kerry leads Bush 53-46.

Kerry leads Bush in new poll - CNN

(And let's not forget the Howard Dean flame-out.)

In fact, here's a whole set of poll summaries from throughout 2004:

Democrats.com Archive: Bush polls

To reiterate the point: the only poll which matters will take place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that's 8 months away.

So, poll-clingers on both sides: this is a long, long way from over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom