December 16, 2010 at 8:15am
Fortunately for the United States this selection of "person of the year", at this point, does not translate into "I'll vote for her" in a match up for the 2012 election. Palin's negatives of 50% pretty much preclude her from making a run---provided that negative stays at that level.
NBC/WSJ released this poll yesterday:
"Obama vs. Romney and Palin:
Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Obama leading prominent Republicans in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups.
Against Romney, the lead is seven points, 47 percent to 40 percent. Against Palin, it’s 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent. And against Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — another potential presidential candidate, though not as well known — it’s 20 points, 47 percent to 27 percent.
And in a generic match-up, with respondents asked to choose between voting to re-elect Obama or his Republican opponent, Obama leads by three points, 42 percent to 39 percent, with an additional 10 percent saying it depends who the GOP opponent is.
With Palin trailing Obama by 22 points — and with her negative rating now at 50 percent, her all-time high in the poll — McInturff says that this is “a sobering starting point” for her if she decides to run for president."
Bush certainly merits the "person of the decade" award---any president who orders our troops into war not needed to secure our liberties, deserves that ranking not only for the decade but for the century!
December 16, 2010 at 9:09am
Bush is Person of the Decade if for no other reason he let Americans keep more of their money rather than giving it to the crooks in Washington to waste it. When push came to shove, even Obama agreed that was a good idea.
December 16, 2010 at 9:56am
I think Kennedy / Johnson deserve the credit of the century for sending troops into a war not needed. How soon you forget about the Vietnam War that you participated in the protests against dailyreader.
I can think of 58,236 reasons why Kennedy / Johnson should get that award. They are all on a wall in Washington, D.C.
Or maybe we could give it to Harry Truman for the Korean War. There is 36,940 reasons why we should give it to him as well. They are also on a wall in Washington, D.C.
Age must cause you to have selective memory or you choose to forget about the wars under those Presidents.
And who cares about Sarah Palin. She has no shot at winning anything in any capacity in 2012 or the future.
And not sure where you are getting all of your numbers at, but here are a few you love to leave out.
Obama's approval rating has dropped three points in the last two weeks to an all time low of 39% with 63% believing him to be a very weak leader according to the Zogby poll.
According to the Boston Globe article: To hardcore liberals, Obama looks like George W. Bush, the not-so-great decider — minus Bush’s Texas swagger and misguided conviction.
Believe what you want to believe, say what you want to say and find all the numbers you want, but Obama has as much chance of winning the Presidency in 2012 as Sarah Palin does.
And that is just fine by me about both of them.
December 16, 2010 at 10:58am
numbers (facts) can be arranged and presented to support anything and only convincing to the naive and gullible. What about the commander and chief who sat in office while over 500000 American men died (more in 1 battle than entire vietnam war) ?
December 16, 2010 at 1:16pm
goober if you are referring to the Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln then you must remember who started the war. Southern Democrats who chose to dissolve the Union and form their own country. In addition, there were two Presidents at that time, so there was more than one commander in chief.
And there has never been a battle where America lost 500,000 (half a million) men at once. You had an extra zero in your number.
I really don't want to make this one of those arguments where it is a back and forth on who is the greatest between Democrats and Republicans like you and dailyreader love to do, I had much rather we all say that throughout history there have been good and bad on both sides and there still is today.
Let's just leave it at that if you will agree.
And you are correct that numbers can be arranged and presented in many different ways. That is why I chose to rebut dailyreader's numbers he gave in his comment above. You give numbers, and I give numbers and he gives numbers. What does it all really mean?
December 16, 2010 at 4:31pm
The award means that they had the biggest influence, not that they were admired. Adolf hitler was considered as a candidate for man of the decade one time.
December 16, 2010 at 8:04pm
read a little more careful then correct me.
500000 did died in that war under lincoln
more American men died in ONE BATTLE of Civil War than entire vietnam war
and that wasn't my point - maybe you just dont get it
December 17, 2010 at 8:17am
goober what library are you getting you books from?
The biggest battle in the entire civil war was Gettysburg and total casualties for BOTH sides were approximately 51,112 and those were not all deaths.
If you refer to the battle of Antietam which is considered to be the bloodiest battle of the civil war (but actually wasn't) then you must also know that 26,134 deaths are attributed to that day and again for both sides and not just one.
Not all of those men who died in the Civil War were "under lincoln" as you say. Again, if you knew history you would know that there were TWO Presidents'. One was Davis and one was Lincoln.
One group of men fought for the North and one fought for the South. Blue and Gray. Yankee and Rebel. Two countries. Two governments. You couldn't find a person in the South today who would buy your comment that 500,000 men died "under lincoln" because they all didn't fight for Lincoln, they fought for Davis and Lee and the South.
Total approximate deaths for the North was 360,000 for the entire war. Total approximate deaths for the South was 258,000 for the entire war. I guess if you add those up you would get your 500,000 number, but again not all were "under lincoln".
I would suggest reading a little more before you start spouting numbers that just don't add up. I have about 20 or 30 books in my own personal library I would be glad to lend you about battles, Lincoln, Davis, Lee, Grant, The Civil War, etc.
And maybe it is you who "just don't get it" like you think you do.
December 17, 2010 at 8:33am
wow and WOW-I cant believe you want this debate (off topic
of corse). If I need a history lesson I wont call on you.
In your first length condemnatory unnecessary rebuttal to
my SIMPLE comment you state "I really don't want to make
this one of those arguments where it is a back and forth on
who is the greatest between Democrats and Republicans like
you and dailyreader love to do"
YOU don't know me or where I stand but I do know you enough
to know you live to argue and go BACK AND FORTH AND ON AND
ON AND ON trying to convince the world you are right.
So take your petty points, your personal library and your
vast knowledge and see if you can find someone who cares.
December 17, 2010 at 3:03pm
Well, I wasn't talking about who was the greatest between Democrats and Republicans anywhere in my comments about the civil war (that you brought up by the way), I was just trying to "read a little more careful then correct me" as you asked me to do.
I don't need to convince anyone I am right, you are more than welcome to find another library and check the facts yourself.
And if you didn't care, don't ask me to correct you next time.
December 17, 2010 at 3:18pm
blab blab blab
December 17, 2010 at 4:12pm
figures, figures, figures
December 18, 2010 at 5:28am
Mr Halpern: The three tax cuts along with Part D, all unfunded, and adding two wars also unfunded would be some of the basis for that Person of the Decade selection--my guess.
December 18, 2010 at 7:48am
How are tax cuts "unfunded"?
December 18, 2010 at 9:03am
sorry--unfunded --Part D and two wars---
December 18, 2010 at 9:14am
Dailyreader, you should know that tax cuts create extra revenue because the stimulate the economy. Giving more money to the wealthy causes investments in the economy which creates jobs.