[Harry Rex Vonner]

Why are so many possible canbdidates avoiding entering the 2012 presidential race? I believe the answer is obvious. They don't want to be branded daily as "racists".

If you watch the liberal news/commentary channels, read the leftist newspapers, and/or listen to comments by Democrat officeholders and their operatives, it is already crystal clear that no one is or will be allowed to oppose Obama without being savagely labeled. To oppose Obama or his policies (or to suggest that we need to cut some of the giveaway programs that are saturated with fraud and waste) is branded as overt or covert racist. Opposition is often called "coded racism" or "racially motivated", or "racially insensitive" or "racial stereotyping" or some other such popular phrase.

Whatever poor fool runs against Obama will face these charges daily. It is already being predicted openly that this will be the dirtiest campaign ever run by an incumbent. Does anyone doubt it?

Obama is our most under-qualified president and has "risen" to his expected level of incompetence. Still, he will be reelected and he will be reelected with ease. All serious competitors are, or should be, aware of this and are sitting out the process until 2016.

None will openly admit that they are in a "can't win" situation but all should know it.

Does anyone seriously believe that Obama can lose in this present atmosphere?

[TheRealThing]

^ I see your point. As mentioned before on here what we see happening is the same thing that always happens whenever a liberal lawyer/politician wants to win an argument or an election. He will without any shred of decency,( which is odd considering their collective title," The Honorable " whoever ), launch headlong into a personal attack against his foe, which would be anybody from the other side. In this senario it will always be a conservative republican. RINO's enjoy a certain immunity. This attack will be merciless, debase, and unbridled. Even if said attack destroys the person who is the object of the attack. Or even though the entire argument may be baseless in fact, and a complete fabrication concocted by him just to gain an unfair and dishonest advantage so that he may win his argument/case. I mention this because the majority of heavy hitters in the present admin are lawyers and decidedly liberal. This tactic learned in the court room works well in the political arena when it comes to smearing a potential opponent. And, was on full display during the Clinton years. Let me be first to say that all lawyers do not fit this liberal catagory!

We see this tactic absolutely ever darn day in the news, no matter what channel. It is a never ending brainwash intended to get elected or stay elected as the case may be. There are precious few that are not guilty. A constant and ever abiding torrent of misinformation by the main stream media intended to tear down anything that is not liberal in scope. Example. In a blatant effort to influence a presidential election in favor of the democratic candidate, CBS News anchor Dan Rather was forced out of his anchor chair in disgrace after he tried to disparage George W's service record using unvetted documents, a mere two months prior to election day. In other words, he was so agog to get his man in office he risked everything to break this story. Why? Because he wanted it to be true so badly it twisted his judgement. IMO

I believe that a republican can win none the less as long as he/she doesn't get drawn into the name calling and sticks to the truth. Keep repeating what is wrong with unfettered entitlements, health care, defense, personally invasive govenmental pactices of all kinds, the I'll lecture you attitude, from the oval office regarding everything from foriegn policy, or lack there of, to the rediculous green theology/technology rhetoric. Drill baby drill. And I believe Obama can be beat.

[TidesHoss32]

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

[Truth]

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

No, I am not better off than I was four years ago or even two years ago. If most are honest, they must answer your question in much the same manner. Still, I don't see that question deciding the election.

Those promoting Obama don't make any effort to defend his policies or the outcome of those policies. They proceed on the tenet that all he does is good and right and no reasonable person can say otherwise. To say otherwise invaribly results in the whipping out of the race card and branding the opposition as obviously racist.

[Hoot Gibson]

Why are so many possible canbdidates avoiding entering the 2012 presidential race? I believe the answer is obvious. They don't want to be branded daily as "racists".

If you watch the liberal news/commentary channels, read the leftist newspapers, and/or listen to comments by Democrat officeholders and their operatives, it is already crystal clear that no one is or will be allowed to oppose Obama without being savagely labeled. To oppose Obama or his policies (or to suggest that we need to cut some of the giveaway programs that are saturated with fraud and waste) is branded as overt or covert racist. Opposition is often called "coded racism" or "racially motivated", or "racially insensitive" or "racial stereotyping" or some other such popular phrase.

Whatever poor fool runs against Obama will face these charges daily. It is already being predicted openly that this will be the dirtiest campaign ever run by an incumbent. Does anyone doubt it?

Obama is our most under-qualified president and has "risen" to his expected level of incompetence. Still, he will be reelected and he will be reelected with ease. All serious competitors are, or should be, aware of this and are sitting out the process until 2016.

None will openly admit that they are in a "can't win" situation but all should know it.

Does anyone seriously believe that Obama can lose in this present atmosphere?

Not only do I believe that Obama can lose, I am pretty sure that he will lose. An unemployment rate of 9 percent is a high hurdle for any incumbent to overcome. His promise that the rate would not rise above 8 percent if only Congress would pass his $800 billion stimulus package will, or should, be mentioned in every single Republican stump speech during the 2012 campaign.

If the GOP pulls no punches and hits Obama with the exploding budget deficit and persistently high unemployment rate, I don't think Obama can win. No matter how much money he raises for his campaign, he will not convince Americans that the current economy is the "new normal."

[Old School]

I hate to admit it, but I think Obama has a good chance of winning another term especially if there is a large turnout. The reason I believe this is because, I think he will get 98% of the black vote, and he will get the majority of the votes from people receiving government assistance.

Then there are those on the far left and the hardline democrats that are not pleased with Obama, but they would never vote for the GOP.

[Truth]

I hate to admit it, but I think Obama has a good chance of winning another term especially if there is a large turnout. The reason I believe this is because, I think he will get 98% of the black vote, and he will get the majority of the votes from people receiving government assistance.

Then there are those on the far left and the hardline democrats that are not pleased with Obama, but they would never vote for the GOP.

I think you are right on target. Obama will get nearly all the black vote, most of the Hispanic vote, nearly all of the public assistance vote, nearly all of the non-taxpayer vote, and virtually all of the illegal and repetitious vote. That makes up the majority of those who will vote.

Photo identification rquuirements to vote would cut down considerably on the illegal and repetitious vote. Of course, the Democrats use their stock argument that such a requirement is "racist". They know they cannot win in a straight, one vote per properly registered voter, all votes legally cast type of election.

[BillyB]

I think you are right on target. Obama will get nearly all the black vote, most of the Hispanic vote, nearly all of the public assistance vote, nearly all of the non-taxpayer vote, and virtually all of the illegal and repetitious vote. That makes up the majority of those who will vote.

Photo identification rquuirements to vote would cut down considerably on the illegal and repetitious vote. Of course, the Democrats use their stock argument that such a requirement is "racist". They know they cannot win in a straight, one vote per properly registered voter, all votes legally cast type of election.

If they could pull this off then why not do it when Bush was ruining the country?

[nky]

I get a tingly feeling running down my leg when ever I hear Chris MAtthews speak

[Truth]

If they could pull this off then why not do it when Bush was ruining the country?

This is not a federal issue. It is a states rights issue. Therefore, each state decides for itself. Of course, until Roe v Wade, abortion was strictly a states rights issue so we know that the federal government, with the help of the courts, can take over matters not intended by the framers for its juisdiction.

I would like to hear a valid argument against photo identification- other than the usual ridiculous ones like racism and profiling. In truth, there are none other than the many illegally cast votes that would be lost by one of our political parties.

[TheRealThing]

Right on cue. The contempt of the left for everything and everybody on the right goes on display. MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz lets his hatred get the best of him as he defames Laura Ingraham. He has been 'suspended' following a rant aimed at the right during which he refers to Mrs Ingraham as a "Right-Wing Slut"

There is something that, for lack of a better word or my own limited thought processes if you like, seems demonic about the left's inability to control their anger with the right. Demonstrating again my point in post #2 of this thread when I mentioned Dan Rather's career busting blunder.