What you are obviously blind to is the fact that the economy during the 2004 election was pretty good, unemployment was about 5.5%, etc. It is not "moronic" to vote to reelect a president when things are going fairly well by that key measure, certainly unless you can make a clear case why his challenger would be significantly better (which you didn't). Now, we have the opposite situation: the economy sucks and there is no plan being offered to make it better. There are plenty of other bad things Obama is doing that could be noted, but the point is that when you have someone at the helm who is presiding over a terrible economic situation and is clueless how to fix it it's time to make a change...unless Romney, in this case, is just a total incompetent which he is clearly not.
I didn't say you were making a case for Obama, just that unless you are then you agree with me that Obama is a disaster. So, what we disagree on is why voting to reelect Bush was moronic given the awful John Kerry he was running against.[/quote]
[quote=robertknyc]Nice try, but hardly. Obama is orders of magnitude worse than Bush, anyone who's not a Kool-Aid drinker or communist knows that. Any opposing candidate that runs in the tradition of the America we have known is vastly preferable. But, feel free to make the case for Obama over Romney.
robertknyc wrote:
