This is a very serious question so, I hope we can get a very serious answer.

What, if anything, could President Obama do or fail to do that would cause you to lose confidence in him enough to not support him or not vote for his re-election.

This is not a trick question so how about skipping the wise-azz answers.

Yoda

This is not a wise-ass answer. It is how I truly feel. I will be disappointed if there is not a public option in the Health Care bill, but I'm not sure that's completely out as of yet. However, that would not make me lose confidence in him.

I think he is the finest President I've seen in my lifetime. I believe with all of my heart, that he wants the very best for each and every American. With all the hatred and stupidity, I find him a man of character and dignity. He is highly intelligent and is not looking for the "quick fix." He's a visionary and I believe in his term or terms, he will set the foundation of a better future, even though many don't see that now.

I'm curious about your question though. Do you want him to fail? Many do and that's sad. Why would you ask your President's supporters what he could do to lose our confidence? It seems very odd to me.

Plain and simple for me. There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence. I don't knit pick a slip of the tongue and certainly no one is infallible, and I certainly do not listen to all the vitriolic propaganda put out there... it's just silly and stupid. I am extremely proud of President Obama.

So, let's turn the tables... what can he do to win your support? After all, he is your president too. I'm just asking...

For one thing to win support, he needs to get the countries priorities in order instead of trying to get support for his priorities, The economy , unemployment and the two wars and possibly soon to be three all should take priority over healthcare. Whether it is one day promoting the Olympics or one day making his rounds on talk shows, it is time that could be spent on more important things

Since I am not very good with the written word, I will borrow from a professional this morning to respond to this thread...

"The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town ..." -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else"

This is why I held back in a thread recently to use the word "liar"......I dont like the word and dont use it and I believe at the moment the President believes what he is saying, but,,,,,well, I dont know why or pretend to know why he is like this.....this was also in the article and I think very much in play...

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ent_98489.html

Perhaps if he actually became our President, we can have something more than......"There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence"
and some substance to grasp !

And then or course there is this which is VERY VERY DISTRUBING...

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...775482322.html

More and more it appears to be "all about him" !!!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

And then or course there is this which is VERY VERY DISTRUBING...

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...775482322.html

More and more it appears to be "all about him" !!!!!

Bucco, do you think it's possible to answer a simple question without links and links and someone else's words...links! I respect Schotzby's answer because it comes from the heart.

I said this before and I'll say it again... a link war is not beneficial. I can find as many as you can. I won't engage in this. You're always saying I don't answer a question. Well, let me put to you that you cannot answer a question or put forth a debate without loading it with slanted links. Non-productive.

Just one comment on schotzby's response mentioning a possible "third" war. If you're even imagining this, put it out of your mind. We don't have enough troups. Our young men and woman are exhausted from 5 and 6 tours. That won't happen on Obama's watch. Believe it!

be another war or not. He may elect to not start one, but he has little to do or say about being brought into one.
If the US troops were so woefully prepared or rested or not or what ever....could be a very appealing time to our adversaries around the world to drag us into a conflict.
Just Like I do not believe one can pause a war while deciding how to fight it...I also believe the military of this country is better prepared and capable on an ongoing basis than the media would have most believe....at least today. If we fail to invest in our military might time will take it's toll.

While all wars we are involved in are ours to fight....they may not be ours to start!!!
Hence they CAN occur on any POTUS' watch.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

be another war or not. He may elect to not start one, but he has little to do or say about being brought into one.
If the US troops were so woefully prepared or rested or not or what ever....could be a very appealing time to our adversaries around the world to drag us into a conflict.
Just Like I do not believe one can pause a war while deciding how to fight it...I also believe the military of this country is better prepared and capable on an ongoing basis than the media would have most believe....at least today. If we fail to invest in our military might time will take it's toll.

While all wars we are involved in are ours to fight....they may not be ours to start!!!
Hence they CAN occur on any POTUS' watch.

btk

If you think the media has overblown the accounts of our tired and dwindling military, you're sadly mistaken. I'd be very, very careful of encouraging or supporting another war. The relics of fallen empires are strewn all over the globe. Ya, they thought they were the biggest, brightest and best too. History does repeat itself. That's not speculation... that's a fact.

At no time did I even have a thought about advocating or supporting another war. I was merely pointing out the fact that one may not be in control of the circumstances that determine whether one is to be involved or not......NOTHING MORE.
Your restating of my intent is totally and completely incorrect.
While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to represent that opinion as another's intent.

btk

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgement and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

Originally Posted by REH7380

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgement and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

Excuuuuuuse me... and you don't call yourself a fanatic??? I don't believe my question was answered. What can President Obama ever do to win your support. (And don't say become a Republican!)

Originally Posted by REH7380

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgment and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

I found this post to be intriguing....many of the posters here are conservative and yet voted for Bush twice even though he clearly was NOT the conservative they thought they voted for. As evidence he ran up the deficients did nothing about abortion for starters.

So I will answer clearly in much the same way....I was a Hillary girl she was my candidate but could I vote for John McCain. Absolutely not. I supported him when he ran against Bush but the John McCain that ran last year was not the John McCain would ran against Bush. My vote will depend on the candidate who runs for the Republicans. Several in the running now I cannot support under almost any circumstance.

So I ask the opposite question...what would have caused you to vote against Bush?

OMG! Bush is history... let it go!!!!!

Originally Posted by Ooper

OMG! Bush is history... let it go!!!!!

I really don't get it.....we suffered for 8 years under that administration, he started 2 wars, ran up the deficit, illegally spied on the American public and tortured prisoners of war.

And we are just supposed to forget it all?

Hardly.

Originally Posted by cologal

I really don't get it.....we suffered for 8 years under that administration, he started 2 wars, ran up the deficit, illegally spied on the American public and tortured prisoners of war.

And we are just supposed to forget it all?

Hardly.

What good does it do to bring it up over and over again? The past is the past, you cannot change it. There are bigger issues to worry about than things you cannot change.