Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
I think overall his link with Bush has hurt him. I know many people who were for Bush last election, and are now for Obama this one simply for that fact alone. (Since Bush was extremely misleading, and acted a lot without the approval of the people, kowing good and well that most people were against his actions.) Though I don't think that it changes things NOW, it just initially hurt Mccain.
As far as the market droping off so bad, I can't see how that directly caused polls to change. I think Palin just caused some excitement and it wore off after she stopped being the headline.
|
I'm sorry, but this post ignores history.
1) The polls just don't support your opinion on the Bush association, and thats all we have to go on for evidence. I think the it makes those likely to vote for Obama more likely, but nothing has shown that it has affected this election as McCain had been creeping up on Obama for months while they ran ads assiciating McCain to Bush. Sorry, it just doesn't convince the undecided, IMO.
2) Most people were not against his actions. In fact, most people supported the war in Iraq on both sides of the political isle. As for acting without the approval of the people, he acted on the budget approval of the people's representatives and the President doesn't need approval to go to war. It's in the constitution.
As for Bush being misleading, well, that depends on what part of the timeline you speak of: Running up to the war, we acted on bad intelligence from across the globe. Thats not misleading people, thats simply being incorrect. Mying and misleading at that stage inplies that he knew they had no WMD's and told the world that they did. There is no evidence of that.
Switching our reason for being there after we didn't find WMD's? He misled when he should have just said "Well we were wrong about the WMD's, but now we have to finish this (we have no other choice, really), but there can benefit from this situation and in the end, the world is one less in the despot category."
3) The polls evened up to the DAY when the stock market dropped. Thats what happened. There is a direct correlation. I simply don't see how you can see it any other way. The argument that "Palin's effect wore off" when at the same time we tip-toe close to a depression-era crisis is nonsensical.
But what is you opinion of the information included in my above post? Does that sway any opinion on the candidate, not party, that has been on the right track when it came to this crisis?