Mr. Bush's State of the Union

[90Xjay]

So, you're saying it's bad to govern by how people vote.

Boy, this is getting difficult here.:-|

When the people vote the incumbents out of office the government does change. When congressmen are given their marching orders and sent packing the people who won the seat have an obligation to vote how their constituents want them to or they risk getting beat in the next election.
That is the power of the vote.
What you are referring to, (or at least, I think) is when a president like Clinton just for example, while dealing with a crisis lets some slanted CNN poll, guide his decision making process instead of his moral obligations and virtues that supposedly got him elected in the first place. If we need to have leaders that have to read a opinion poll every time they get dressed in the morning, what good is that? You elect a man or woman based on their moral and decision making ability and have faith that they have the discernment required to steer the country through a crisis.

I just don't know how I could be any clearer on my thoughts on this.

 

[OutOfStep]

my point exactly

 

[OutOfStep]

And the Iran-contra I think gets more blown out of proportion now, its all his detractors can talk about. I'm all for funneling resources to any cause that wants to combat commies in our own backyard. Infact if you'd like to support some of the brave men who fought the good fight you should check our their coffee http://www.contracafe.com/

 

[90Xjay]

man thats cool.8)

 

[TwistedCU]

man thats cool.8)

I second that, and I love good coffee too.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Boy, this is getting difficult here.:-|

When the people vote the incumbents out of office the government does change. When congressmen are given their marching orders and sent packing the people who won the seat have an obligation to vote how their constituents want them to or they risk getting beat in the next election.
That is the power of the vote.
What you are referring to, (or at least, I think) is when a president like Clinton just for example, while dealing with a crisis lets some slanted CNN poll, guide his decision making process instead of his moral obligations and virtues that supposedly got him elected in the first place. If we need to have leaders that have to read a opinion poll every time they get dressed in the morning, what good is that? You elect a man or woman based on their moral and decision making ability and have faith that they have the discernment required to steer the country through a crisis.

I just don't know how I could be any clearer on my thoughts on this.

Ahhh....Ok. Now that does make sense. Sorry, but as you know, I can be a bit dense sometimes.:redface:

 

[90Xjay]

Ahhh....Ok. Now that does make sense. Sorry, but as you know, I can be a bit dense sometimes.:redface:

Don't worry I suffer the same affliction almost on a daily basis...just ask my wifeurple:

 

[mingez]

Bush was not less qualified than Obama. He was a Governor. But that's not important, you're not exactly making a stong case for the guy using Bush as a barometer :lol:

Like the old phrase says:

Know your history or you're destined to repeat it

Well, I can't argue with the fact that Bush isn't the best measuring stick, but that wasn't my point.

Everyone who bides for the presidency (save the very few exceptions) are in "lesser" political positions be they Mayor, Congressmen, Governor or otherwise. In that respect I think it's unfair to use the "they aren't capable of running the country because they have no experience" arguement. One could make that claim for any and all non-incumbent candidates.

But I don't know that being Governor makes you any more/less qualified than Senator.

I'm not suggesting that I'm like him or not, but I still haven't heard a responsible, and reasonable argument to suggest that he doesn't deserve a chance at being looked at. Trust me, I'm skeptical of all the candidates, and there's no anointing oil in my hand.