Who is the worst President ever?

[Ted King]

Dakota wrote:
There are precious few policies on fighting terrorism that Obama will reverse.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: I suspect even Gitmo will stay open for business.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: What is amusing is that all his supporters will roll over and actually praise his judgment and courage. Excuses and rationalizations are being worked on as we speak.

For those who listened to Obama, he has said that he is a pragmatist. I'm sure that some supporters will hear many decisions from him they will not like (and all of us will hear at least some), but they shouldn't be surprised when his choices are more pragmatic than they would prefer.

Dakota wrote: After 2 years and a billion dollars McCain could have easily picked the same cabinet.

Wrong again.

[Mac1337]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
There are precious few policies on fighting terrorism that Obama will reverse.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: I suspect even Gitmo will stay open for business.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: What is amusing is that all his supporters will roll over and actually praise his judgment and courage. Excuses and rationalizations are being worked on as we speak.

For those who listened to Obama, he has said that he is a pragmatist. I'm sure that some supporters will hear many decisions from him they will not like (and all of us will hear at least some), but they shouldn't be surprised when his choices are more pragmatic than they would prefer.

Dakota wrote: After 2 years and a billion dollars McCain could have easily picked the same cabinet.

Wrong again.
You can say wrong two dozen more times and they won't make my points any less valid. After 2 years of change here, turn the page there, you got a McCain cabinet. I am glad you like it. All I am saying is we could have saved a billion dollars. One more thing, Gitmo lives.

[Dennis S]

"All I am saying is we could have saved a billion dollars."

It was worth a billion dollars to keep that whack-job, Sarah Palin, out of the line-of-succession.

[Gutenberg]

It is possible that a liberal-to-moderate Republican president would pick Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, and of course Obama kept Robert Gates at Defense, at least for a while. I can also see a liberal-to-moderate Republican president picking Ken Salazar for Interior, Ray LaHood for Transportation and Arne Duncan for Education.

But McCain is not liberal-to-moderate, he is moderate-to-conservative. And there is no freaking way in the universe that a Republican would pick Hillary Clinton for State, Hilda Solis for Labor, Stephen Chu for Energy, or Tom Vilsack for Agriculture. Not a chance, ever, not if the world depended on it, would a Republican choose a pro-labor Secretary of Labor, or an Energy Secretary who believes in finding alternative energy sources. Nuh-uh, not ever.

[$tevie]

How would we have saved a billion dollars? Please explain.

[Dennis S]

$tevie wrote:
How would we have saved a billion dollars? Please explain.

I think Dakota was referring to McCain and Obama being six-of-one and half-dozen of another and that we could have just flipped a coin, being that their cabinets would be similar.

[$tevie]

But "we" did not spend that money. The total cost for all the candidates might have been a billion but the taxpayers did not pay that.

[Dennis S]

Think of it as a "stimulus package".

[Mac1337]

Gutenberg wrote:
It is possible that a liberal-to-moderate Republican president would pick Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, and of course Obama kept Robert Gates at Defense, at least for a while. I can also see a liberal-to-moderate Republican president picking Ken Salazar for Interior, Ray LaHood for Transportation and Arne Duncan for Education.

But McCain is not liberal-to-moderate, he is moderate-to-conservative. And there is no freaking way in the universe that a Republican would pick Hillary Clinton for State, Hilda Solis for Labor, Stephen Chu for Energy, or Tom Vilsack for Agriculture. Not a chance, ever, not if the world depended on it, would a Republican choose a pro-labor Secretary of Labor, or an Energy Secretary who believes in finding alternative energy sources. Nuh-uh, not ever.

Picking Hillary for some cabinet post is so up McCain's alley. Former colleague, Democrat in the cabinet, reaching across the aisle, you get the point. It is so McCain. As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks. They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them. Exxon finds the oil, refines it and delivers to the corner gas station and employs millions in the process. They are the department of energy.

[Ted King]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Dakota]
There are precious few policies on fighting terrorism that Obama will reverse.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: I suspect even Gitmo will stay open for business.

Wrong.

Dakota wrote: What is amusing is that all his supporters will roll over and actually praise his judgment and courage. Excuses and rationalizations are being worked on as we speak.

For those who listened to Obama, he has said that he is a pragmatist. I'm sure that some supporters will hear many decisions from him they will not like (and all of us will hear at least some), but they shouldn't be surprised when his choices are more pragmatic than they would prefer.

Dakota wrote: After 2 years and a billion dollars McCain could have easily picked the same cabinet.

Wrong again.
You can say wrong two dozen more times and they won't make my points any less valid. After 2 years of change here, turn the page there, you got a McCain cabinet. I am glad you like it. All I am saying is we could have saved a billion dollars. One more thing, Gitmo lives.
I guess you can call a simple expression of an opinion a "valid point" if you want; but, if so, then my simple expressions of "wrong"'s were just as much valid points as your simple expressions of your opinions.