secondly, the American public has elected a president with one of the worst approval ratings in recent memory. Not once, but twice.
His approval ratings when he was re-elected were at or slightly above 50%. They weren't perfect, but they weren't nearly as bad as the lower-30% approval ratings he's been stuck at since late-2006.
Bush is scorned in the media, and ridiculed as one of the worst presidents the US has elected. Even the American people that voted him in hate Bush.
Truman was also scorned by the media. He also had the lowest approval ratings of any U.S. president-- but history regards him as one of the ten-best Presidents we've ever had.
Now you have the chance, after 8 years of a downward economic spiral and 4,000+ casualties in a war that did not need to be fought, to move in a different direction, whether it be Hillary or Obama. To move in a direction that would involve repairing your economy and ending a war that has cost so many lives and heartache for people all across the globe.
But where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will lead us in the
right direction? What if they screw up just as badly as Bush has?
You do realize that both of them have said that the majority of our troops will be unable to come home until 2013, correct? So if that promise sticks out, what's to say they'll be in a good position to come home in 2012? What if the war escalates to a new extreme? Wouldn't that give prospective Presidents Romney or Jindal fuel for the fire?
ROMNEY: Obama promised to get our troops out, and in the process, he's made them more vulnerable to attacks.
JINDAL: Hillary has spent four years trying to get our troops out when she should have focused on the mission. Now we've got an even bigger disaster on our hands than we did four years ago.
Don't you think the American people would be slightly turned off?
If the Democrat promises to get our troops out of Iraq, but fails, don't you think Americans will say "enough's enough" and kick their asses out? Following two years of failed promises to do the exact same thing by the Democratic controlled Congress, and four years with Obama or Hillary in the same boat, Americans will say "**** it" and vote for the Republican out of spite.
Then say McCain becomes President and is faced with the exact same situation. He keeps us in there for four years, and things escalate out of control. Don't you think that would reflect negatively on him? Don't you think that would give Democrats an edge in 2012?
Now you guys have the chance, and I cant vote because I am not a US citizen, but YOU guys have the chance to make a difference, but I fear that if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, we will see more of the same. The war will not end, and more and more lives will be senselessly lost.
Again, show me evidence that Hillary or Barack will end this war, because neither one of them have a record which proves they are against this war. Hillary voted to authorize it, while Obama has consistently voted to keep funding it. Meanwhile, they both said at a debate this past fall that they'd have to keep troops in Iraq until 2013. That doesn't indicate that they're going to end the war. The only indication you have that they'll end the war is what they say in their speeches. And in 2000, George W. Bush said he would scale back the U.S.'s role in the international community... we see how far that went, don't we?
We've had two presidents who have served eight years in a row. It's often rare to see that happen, but in our nation's history, we have had few, if any, cases where three presidents have served consecutive eight year terms. If history is any indication, whoever wins this election will lose in 2012. I'd rather McCain be on that end then Hillary or Obama. I'd rather avoid Presidents Romney and Jindal, under any means necessary.