15 thoughts on “Quote of the day

  1. Matt Weber

    Echoes my thoughts. Obama is a lousy president, but his lousiness is mostly tempered by being rather lazy and unambitious. The ambitious Bush gave us Iraq, the lazy Obama gives us Libya. Both fiascoes, but one a huge fiasco and the other a small fiasco. What many liberals seem to interpret as Obama’s “conservativeness” looks to me like this same lack of ambition. He’s a committed leftist, he just doesn’t want to work very hard at it.

    If this holds through O’s second term, and the Republicans don’t lose control of Congress, then O would probably leave in 2016 a disgrace.

    Then again, he could just issue another executive order ala the amnesty and ignore congress entirely. So, it’s a gamble. I recommend vote third party for president and Republican for House/Senate.

  2. Weaver

    Were something big to happen though, Big O could turn it into a disaster.

    Dubya likely allowed his advisers talk him into the Iraq War. He was weak too.

  3. Bruce

    Vox’s counsel makes sense if you think the most important thing is keeping us out of wars or, at least, big wars. For me, the national question is the most important issue. Obama’s most likely worse on the national question. Romney will say anything on this issue to get elected but is less likely to act on leftist impulses after elected.

  4. Bruce

    HB2,
    Right, but it might not be to Willard’s advantage to shape-shift into a national-question-leftist. Obongo, no matter the circumstances, will be a national-question-leftist.

  5. Kirt Higdon

    The biggest danger of Romney winning is that he’ll have a Republican House and maybe the Senate too. All he needs is a tie to get the latter. Government gridlock caused by petty partisan bickering would be a gift. But I can’t stand either of them. I already early voted, writing in Ron Paul. It doesn’t matter; Romney will carry Texas by a bigger margin than McCain did.

  6. CorkyAgain

    Obama might be lazy, but the team around and behind him doesn’t seem to be.

    If you think his administration depends on him being something more than a figurehead, you’ve got the wrong organizational model.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>