"Obama will be tested".....Biden

I disagree - these folks were scared stiff when Reagan was elected. They knew that Carter had given away the Panama Canal and turn his back of Free China in favour of Red China so knew he was a patsy.

And what did Reagan do? Along with Mrs Thatcher they ended the Cold War and defeated European Communism.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

I don't think soooo...

 

From what I have read Iran did not want to do anything that would make Carter look good in any way and they held the hostages, on purpose, until the new president, in this case Reagan, was in office.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=cz


There are people who believe that Reagan and the Republicans secretly negotiated with Iran to delay the release of the hostages.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...er+release+agreement&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=cz


I doubt that any of us will live long enough for the records to be made public and we really know what happened.

 

Thanks CTB, remember a totally different hostage situation from these guys and it didn't include Reagan lifting a finger. As for the Iranians being scared of Reagan, how do you scare a guy who thinks dying for the cause is how he gets rewards in heaven? That's crazy to think they were scared.

 

This is this year's election in a nutshell. Regardless of how Bush is viewed in the years to come, his current disapproval is the fuel that has powered the Obama machine.

 

There is some who think that William Casey, who supported Reagan used the CIA to influence the Iranians to wait until after the election before releasing the hostages. Although unproven, this seems about right for Reagan and his tactics.

 

The hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn in, so I do not see that he gets a lot of credit. The Iranians were simply trying to punish or embarass Carter. But you are right, there it is not unreasonable to think that Reagan and Casey had a hand in this for:

1. for Reagan to have a better chance of winning the election.
2. to embarass Carter and the Democrats.

 

I believe that is definitely a part of the driving force of this election.

Also, I believe the totaly failure of the "family life values" Republicians to either live up to family values, or run the country well also plays a large part in what we see at this point in the campaigns around the country.

 

Obama would be smart to pull Biden immediately. Put him in states where you're ahead comfortably. Don't let him anywhere near a competitive state's media. He's too big of a liability

 

I couldn't disagree more. Obama should be winning by 20 points. The fact that many polls still have this in the margin of error and all but a couple have this as a single digit race says something about the trepidation Americans have about an Obama presidency. It surely can't be that McCain has marshalled forces with extraordinary persuasion :laugh:

 

Boy, the left hacks just refuse to give any credit to a Republican for anything. Sheesh. No wonder Independants roll their eyes at both parties.

 

That seems to be what they're doing with Palin and I don't think it's too effective. Where it does serve to energize your base and it draws huge numbers of enthusiastic crowds at rallies, it's deceptive. It's like fishing in your own pawn, you can show large number of fish caught but you won't see a net gain when you look at the tally board.

Even if Biden looses one in 3 with his gaff's, Obama will still see a 2 out of 3 increase in the bottom line. In my view, these last two weeks of the elections have left the Republican's defending their own territory because they didn't stir the waters in the enemies camp.

 

I couldn't disagree more, there has only been one democratic president in the last 30 years for obvious reasons. Most of the folks in the cities who would vote democratic aren't interested in politics and don't bother voting. This made the Republican machine which mostly contains rural "less government" conservatives dominant and able to win elections by primarily energizing their own base. They were also able to scare a few independents their way which doesn't seem as effective this election.

The reason Clinton, Carter and even Johnson got into office is because they were able to carry southern, rural red states because they were southern liberals. There is no way a Senator from IL can ever carry AR, TX or GA. This is why I thought Obama should have chosen Hillary. She would have stirred the southern waters and drawn the blue collar workers of the swing states. She was an all in one package.

The polls are close for several reasons. The biggest of which is the new interest Obama was able to drum up with liberal thinking people in the big cities. This is evident by the crowd of 100K in MO and is how he is leading in the polls. I don't recall an election like this where everyone is talking about it. You don't normally see it like this in the big cities.

I think the republican machine is as it normally is but the liberals have successfully gotten slightly ahead in the polls by bringing new voters to the booth. The conservatives know this is true which is why they are making such a big deal of normal activities like ACORN. They can't seem to increase their voter base so the key now is to reduce the liberals. What ACORN did has happened in every election but they've never worried about it because they know Michey Mouse doesn't turn out to vote.

However the ACORN scare tactic seems to be backfiring. Liberals are turning out for early voting in large numbers. They are making sure their vote is in, valid and will be counted come Nov 4th. The have scared them to the booths instead of away. I've never seen liberals involved in early voting like this election. The question is how many of these new voters will turn out and be able to vote? We know we can count on the republican faithfuls to show, the question is will these new voters actually vote?

If they vote Obama is in. If they don't McCain will win.

 

I will agree, Reagan gave to the defence budget and being in the military in those days was good. We got huge pay raises, lots of new toys and soviets knew we meant business.

No but we sang happy birthday to Jesus one Christmas while I was in basic training. I don't think you can do that today.

 

Just thought I would throw this in here...

Looks like Obama is beginning to penetrate solid red territories. This will leave McCain defending his own pond and without resources to fish the Obama pond. This past month with all these Palin rallies in Red territory is taking its toll.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49M5SF20081023

I hate to say it becaue I know you guys will attack me, but here is why...

Palin is a strong conservative but unfortunately she only appeals to conservatives. She is not drawing voters from the middle or other side. This is not the way to win an election.

 

Innuendo is more important to liberals than proof.

We already know that.

 

:thumbs:

I imagine the difference was startling.

What a difference a real leader makes to the military!

 

Can't argue that, but Reaganomics sure didn't do anything for the masses.

 

Boy, this sure seems naive. The masses first gained the opportunity to amass wealth during the 80s because of Reagan's policies.