Reagan was another character who could get independents and liberals.

The one mistake Republicans make these days is to act as if religion is more important to them than the country and the people in it.

Well, I don't want a candidate who appeals to Liberal ideals just to get Liberals on our side. I want someone who can convince Liberals that their ideas are not what this country needs right now or at all. I want them to vote for someone we all agree with, not one who shoots for both sides of the political spectrum as if he/she has the ability to change party affiliation at will.

I say yes only because Trump put a lot of pressure whether he believed he was or not that Obama was a citizen. But I think he would have done it had there been this much pressure even without Trump. This is a political move, nothing more, nothing less.

A debatable issue?

Let me make this easy: No. Just no. 

To a subset of the conservatives, it is the most important issue of the day (you duel with some here on JU periodically).  However, to the vast majority it is not.  What you are seeing that gives you that perception is the MSM trying to cut down all conservatives with the same DNC propaganda.

case in point.  I am against abortion.  However since it is the law of the land, the only time that comes into play is when you have a eugenicist running (not often).  But check the MSM and you will find me pigeon holed with those that bomb abortion clinics.

They HAVE to do that in order to justify their own sins.  While misery loves company - criminals require it, and if nothing else, that is what the state of journalism today has become.

So it is not a mistake republicans make, it is the false accusations of an MSM that has changed to make their only purpose the defeat of republicans (more specifically conservatives).

Well, good luck with that. I can tell you, coming from the left, that neither Sarah Palin nor Donald Trump ar very convincing. Once somebody has the reputation of a moron, nobody believes them any more. And it doesn't help that neither are that clever to begin with.

Well, I am against abortion too (and if I weren't, my mother would have a good talk with me). But somehow I never feel like I belong to the bomb abortion clinic crowd or that anybody feels that I do. No reason to be defensive.

There are conservative positions that appeal to liberals. Find a candidate who talks about them. That's why I think Colonel West can do it. He makes his point about Muslim fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists stand for everything liberals hate and except for the loud-mouthed morons among them (admittedly a large percentage), liberals know that.

Maybe that someone will surface at the first GOP debate...this coming Thursday, May 5th, at 9PM.

Let's hope that holds true the next election and Obama is out. 

Obama doesn't have the reputation of a moron. And he certainly is smarter than Sarah Palin. To survive Chicago politics, he has to be.

However, any attempt to point out Obama's stupidity (and he has enough of that too) will be treated as racism. Black people are not allowed to be stupid. There is no way they can get him that way.

The way to get Obama is to address his elitism. His weapon against that attack is his poor Kenyan family.

Obama's weak points are his elitism, his weak foreign policy, his weak economic policy and the fact that he achieved more for himself than for his country. He got a Nobel Peace Price (he himself was embarrassed), not the US. He became President; that's also counted as an achievement because he is black. A good argument could be made that other candidates have actually achieved something before they became candidates.

Donald Trump is extremely weak on all these counts. He doesn't have a foreign policy. His economic policies likely reflect his own business sense (his company went bankrupt twice).

As for achievement, Donald Trump got started in his father's business. His father was a multi-millionaire. He took over his father's company and within 20 years managed to run it into bankruptcy. He himself would have been bankrupt too if it hadn't been for laws that protect people from the risks they take by allowing them to take the risks in the name of another "person", a corporation. This bodes extremely badly for his achievement scale but also shows that he himself does not take responsibility for his actions but hides behind the law when he can. (There are people who actually do pay the debt of their companies with their own money, but they have become rare.) Then a few years ago his company went bankrupt again. "The Donald" is great in spending his father's money. But anyone can become a property tycoon that way, if he has the right parents.

Obama has his elitism, Trump has his money and lack of good taste. Both are arrogant twits, but Trump somehow manages to talk down to people who have at least worked their way up on their own.

If Republicans want to win and/or convince liberals and independents that conservative positions are right, Republicans have to run a smart, down-to-earth self-made man. Someone who personifies what Republicans claim everybody can become if they work hard in the US. The career can be in business, science or the military but not in show business or liberal arts. And he must be a church-going family man (but not a fundamentalist). Plus his wife must be smarter than he, if you want the ideal candidate. He cannot be a woman. Americans don't vote for women.

Mitt Romney and Allen West fit the bill. Donald Trump and Sarah Palin do not.

try voicing that in public in the US.  Your perception will change.

On an academic note, you are correct.  However, academics and politics rarely are the same,  in other words, if a conservative voices it - it must be bad to liberals.  And vice versa.  They love the fundamentalists because conservatives hate them. 

In america, Liberals are all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", even when that enemy of the enemy is trying to kill you.

What proof do you have of this?  I've lived in Alaska, know the seasonal calamity they face every single year in a large portion of the state.  Honestly, I don't think BO could run Alaska.  He'd be in over his head. 

You don't have to be "intelligent" to be a Chicago politician.  Just corrupt.  By that reasoning, Rod Blagojevich would "intelligent."

I keep hearing about how smart Obama is, but have yet to see anything that actually PROVES it.

You even list all the ways he isn't intellitgent here.

"Obama's weak points are his elitism, his weak foreign policy, his weak economic policy and the fact that he achieved more for himself than for his country. He got a Nobel Peace Price (he himself was embarrassed), not the US. He became President; that's also counted as an achievement because he is black. A good argument could be made that other candidates have actually achieved something before they became candidates."

Sarah Palin has no elitism, a foreign policy (that puts the US first), an economic policy (see Alaska), and has achieved an education (like Obama) but with REAL EXPERIENCE as an executive.

So let's not fool ourselves.

This is not about "intelligence."

Do I think Sarah Palin can win?

No.

But not because of her intelligence, more because of OURS.  (People believing media spin about her.)

I have seen Obama outsmart Sarah Palin and many on the right on the birth certificate issue. Sarah Palin is not as dumb as the media likes to portray her and Obama is not as smart. But he is smarter than she is. People can feel that. Sarah Palin is unpopular among the centre.

Obama could run Alaska. He probably even wouldn't resign in the middle of the job. He is simply not as dumb as the right thinks he is. He can play people, better than Sarah Palin can. And he is not as transparently making money with that ability.

I listed where Obama was wrong, not where he shows lack of intelligence. I have never heard him say anything particularly smart, but all the issues I disagree with him about are simply not issues of intelligence, but issues of him being badly informed and too arrogant to learn or simple mistakes of his.

Obama is intelligent enough to listen to his advisers but not informed enough to hire good advisers. With Sarah Palin it appears to be the other way around.

I'm sorry, but I think it takes more than just being smart to be my next choice for President of the US. Let's be realistic here, neither Obama nor Palin could have reached the positions they did had they been anything other than intelligent. Is one smarter than the other? that's a matter of opinion and no amount of information could possibly prove one is actually smarter than the other.

Sara has become the Left's punching bag and since the average American is too stupid to see beyond all the BS the Media puts out there, as far as they are concerned Palin is not good enough to run for president but to be honest, she has never really been given a chance to prove herself. Every time she shows her face all she gets is insults, name callings and disapproval even before she makes a statement. The woman has to deal with having a D as her grade and having to work to raise it to something better. When ever Obama shows his face he starts off with an A and it's not because he is an A person but because, plain and simple, he is Black and thanks to affirmative action he is given a good grade for starters. All he has to do is maintain it as oppose to work  hard to make it better, like an A+. The way I see it, Obama has been a failure because his only accomplishment of everything he said he would do has been the healthcare bill and even this is being put on trial. Almost everything else he promised has either been put on the back burner or he has done a 180 on and in fact has done nothing to make it happen. Like some have said here, he had no experience when he started and it shows clearly as he sits back and allows everyone else to do the work only for him to step in once the work is done and then take all the credit for it.

Obama is smart, but his intelligence does not make him a worthy president. If anything he is average and status quo. He is not jope and change, he is more of the same, plain and simple. If anything this proves to everyone, even racist, that regardless of skin color, we are all humans and even Black people can be corrupt, lying, selfish politicians.

#1 - Palin is not a birther. 

#2 - Who outsmarted whom?  The take on some sides is that Trump outsmarted Obama - and no one claims Obama won that debacle.

#3 - I would love to see the polls of hte center - but since they have yet to be done, your last assertion is pure sophistry.

Obama has yet to prove he can run anything.  So again, how do you come to that conclusion?  As for the quitting, I dare say that he probably would not. But then I do not consider Custer to be a noble man because he would not quit persecuting the Indians either.

he can use a teleprompter better.

And despite his claims to the contrary, his regime is the most non-transparent in American history.  So you are right - he is not transparent about anything he does.

That is kind of life saying he is smart enough to know that he is stupid, but not smart enough to know that he is not smart.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Really?  I disagree.  I guess it's how you define "intelligent."  Obama is an orator.  A good orator can fool people into thinking they possess more "knowledge" than they actually do....but that isn't intelligence. 

I won't say Sarah is smarter, or dumber, but she seems to have more common sense, and frankly, if I had to pick one of them to fight beside, it'd be HER. 



Obama couldn't run Alaska.  He'd have to make his own decisions and wouldn't be able to blame congress.  He wouldn't last one term.  Probably get eaten by a bear.  lol



Definitely would not be a shark - professional courtesy after all.

Both Palin and Obama are college educated.  Maybe Trump can get Obama to release his college records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard and then we can compare the two.

As to Obama's intelligence when it comes to understanding the economy, here is an email that was has been circulated......