Comments on: Op-Ed: Why Obama Is Likely To Lose In 2012

By: Peretz123

Peretz123 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:07:10 +0000

#6 — if the Republicans are heading to a trounce of Democrats how do you explain the sub 40% approval ratings in key states of wingnuts Walker, Corbett, and Snyder — #2 is right — no one on the right or the left is going to take Hoover’s campaign speeches fast forward 80 years seriously.

By: db83

db83 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:00:47 +0000

Charlie,

Where do you get your facts from? Percentages can’t be manipulated. What was the unemployment rate when FDR was re-elected. Please be specific when you allege something…

By: akuperma

akuperma — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:11:18 +0000

#6- Reagan always made a point of acting respectful towards opponents. That counts for a good deal. He was famous for his “shining city on the hill” speech and supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. He was an optimistic internationalist running against Democrats who were quasi-isolationists bemoaning American’s decline.

And it really helped that he had Jimmy Carter to run against (but then again, it looks like Obama is at least as pathetic).

By: MoshiachNow01

MoshiachNow01 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:50:02 +0000

I dont think we can wait until 2012.

By: kosherkid

kosherkid — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:29:27 +0000

Charliehall – Obama is no Roosevelt.

By: YITZCHOKY

YITZCHOKY — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:24:55 +0000

Lets hope he is a one time president; the country could not afford a second term

By: mark levin

mark levin — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:18:05 +0000

2. I dont know what that funny looking word was because you transliterated and it got messed up so I will say that IF you listened to Reagan’s speeches, he told it like it was without sugar coating. When he had to say that something was Jimmy The Peanut Farmer’s fault he did so very clearly.

We are not interested in a “mentch.” We want someone tough who will stand up to the spineless democrats and tell it like it is.

As for other comments, history shows that CONSERVATIVES can and do win the White House. Look at the last bunch of Republican winners: Reagan, Bush 1 (who lost when he wasnt conservative enough), and Bush 2. Conservative WINS. If anyone says no, they are a liberal and you shouldnt listen to them anyway because they are looking for their dog to win.

Stop listening to the liberal media or the uber left on this blog. They are not in it for your best interests.

Charlie, I will bet anything that unless Obama has his boys do some cheating like they did in Philly, he will be trounced!!

By: charliehall

charliehall — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:56:56 +0000

Rove is trying to fire up the base. But it won’t help. Obama is up by 3 in the Lichtman keys and the last time they failed was in 1856.

BTW FDR was re-elected in 1940 with higher unemployment than exists today.

By: Anonimity86

Anonimity86 — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:05:09 +0000

Agreed. The President is vulnerable. However, the challenger has to be acceptable to independents. This means that the challenger can not hold super strong anti-gay marriage positions, he’d have to either be pro-Civil unions or claim it’s a state issue not a federal one. The same goes for abortion, he’d have to at least approve of abortion when the mother’s life is at risk. He’d also have to have an immigration policy that didn’t involve deporting everyone’s nannies and house keepers.

By: yehudayona

yehudayona — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:32:33 +0000

While I’m no fan of Obama, the Republicans will have to nominate someone who can capture the independent vote in order to defeat him. There are so many of them jumping into the race that there may be such a candidate, but the GOP has often chosen an ideologue over a viable candidate.