*Sigh* Why do I bother trying to unravel your contortions ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Do you even realize the hypocrisy of what you just wrote?
You acknowledge that Reagan had no national security credentials (i.e., no gravitas, no credibility).
|
Wrong. I said Reagan came with no national security credentials (that I remember, anyway). I said
Obama had no gravitas or credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
And yet, you find he was a sensational leader in foreign affairs.
|
He was, but that's not really relevant. We're talking about during the campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
You note that he wasn't criticized on his lack of foreign affairs (I don't know why that is relevant, unless you are saying he should have been), but was able to criticize the policies of the previous president (Carter) because they were so bad. Then you conclude there is no comparison.
|
It's relevant because though Reagan was neither a military man (though I think he did enlist; don't think he saw combat) nor a foreign affairs expert, he came across as knowledgeable and confident in his views. People trusted him on national security. The fact that Carter was such miserable failure at it only helped him further.
In other words, Reagan succeeded on the issue despite his credentials. Obama has none to begin with, his opinions shared thus far have been immature (to put it politely), and he's up against a candidate who is very strong on the issue.
I can't see how there's any similarity at all. It's like saying Obama and Reagan both liked to eat at McDonald's. Yeah, so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Odd, because that sounds like the exact same situation to me- just replace Obama's name with Reagan and Bush's name with Carter.
|
Obama isn't running against Bush, a fact many libs have yet to figure out. He'll be (presumably) running against McCain.
He's weak, and his "100-year war" attack reflects that.