For me it is between Snowstalker and President Napoleon. I would say I have a 50-50 split right now. The President's leadership in articulating the benefits of the Equal Rights Amendment and defending a woman's right to choose has swayed my opinion to a pure tie. This is going to be a though choice for me.
The president's argument consisted of outlining a series of semantics and publicly disrespecting anyone who disagreed with him. Those are the artful skills that bumped him into 50/50 contention?
Results Over Rhetoric, bro, where have you been?
In any case, it isn't my fault your side has failed to make even remotely compelling arguments for your position. Your Senators resorted to discussing toilets instead of the merits of the ERA!
You being an ass to people doesn't achieve better results than if you were cordial.
And I'm not buying into your definition of compelling. Lately, your fallback commentary for
any socially conservative standpoint seems to involve smearing the person you disagree with for their lack of "compelling argument."
Excuse me, but to many people on this board, a liberally-interpreted ERA could create hellish scenarios that would fly in the face of sensibility. I'm sorry if that doesn't move you the same way it moves us. Either way, it would still be nice to have a president who could put himself in the shoes of the opposition and try to understand that we might just have some valid concerns. Or even that those concerns are coming from a good place. I guess that concept just goes over your head.
"Results over Rhetoric" is all well and good... until your lack of positive rhetoric actually inhibits your ability to yield future results. A one term president can't accomplish much.
Poll
