>>"I want a President capable of leading, preferably one with a record of accomplishment commensurate with the demands of the job."
>Being mayor of a city isn't that.
Neither is being Governor of California or Texas, but it worked for Reagan & Bush. Oh, and once again I'm at risk of being viewed as NY-centric, but I think it's worth mentioning that this particular city is, uh, well, let's just say populated, and contains the financial capital of the entire country.
>You are backing up this attitude with evidence.... I find that amusing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636922/replies?c=722
>>"Clearly your understanding of exactly what was involved is sorely lacking. "
>I don't live in NYC. So sue me.
No lawsuit necessary, thank you very much. How about, is it too unreasonable to ask that you don't dismiss the accomplishment of turning this city around if you don't actually know much about what it actually involved? Especially if it's to the point of having to delve to the level of hyperbole necessary for the suggestion that it was a piddling achievement. I don't like the idea that the case would be overstated, either, but for those of us who lived here when Dinkins was mayor, not to mention the later Koch years, it's difficult to do that.
>>"You folks are so consumed with hatred for the guy's positions, that you denigrate accomplishments you are proving you know nothing of."
>Considering his positions are liberal ones, that would stand to reason, now wouldn't it?
Not if the record serves as a formidable balance to the positions that conservatives are opposed to. And this is not Clinton, 'effective politician,' that we're discussing, so I reject that comparison. Look, this doesn't have to be so difficult. What I say is, you don't make your case well with the continual insults, not when you're not taking accomplishments into consideration, nor offering any alternatives. Vote for Lyndon LaRouche, for all I care. But if you're going to get involved in this debate, a request for a tad of decorum & a pinch of reason & a grain of truth, rather than distortions, isn't too much to ask, is it?