Utopia Talk - Politics - Obama is a complete fucking hack

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jun 27 16:50:11 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / Obama is a complete fucking hack

licker
Sports Mod Wed Sep 23 13:36:58
In the first half of the George W. Bush administration, when the 43rd president was popular, Bush spent a great deal of time traveling around the United States giving speeches: sometimes advocating various causes, sometimes at fundraisers, sometimes simply appearing before some organization. That any president should use the public's time -- and the million-a-day cost of moving and protecting the president -- at partisan political fundraisers is offensive. All postwar presidents, Democratic and Republican, have appeared at partisan fundraisers at taxpayers' expense, and TMQ thinks this should be banned. Some Bush speaking appearances became controversial, when the Secret Service or Republican Party operatives tried to forbid anyone critical of Bush from entering the speech locations. But the key point was not that Bush was making speeches under questionable circumstances; the key point was that he was making way too many speeches, period. Ultimately, substituting speechifying for governing diminished Bush's presidency. Now Barack Obama has started down the same path.

Merely in the past two weeks, President Obama has given a major health care address to Congress, a major address on bank regulation on Wall Street, a speech to the nation's schoolchildren (who were considerably better behaved than Congress), a major address on the economy to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, a speech on health care in Minneapolis, a speech on health care at the University of Maryland, a speech marking the anniversary of 9/11, a speech to the UAW at an auto plant in Lordstown, Ohio, a speech in New York honoring Walter Cronkite, a speech at an Arlen Specter fundraiser in Philadelphia, a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (it's not a caucus, it's a Caucus Institute), a speech at a picnic in Cincinnati, a speech lauding a posthumous winner of the Medal of Honor, a speech about community colleges in Troy, N.Y., and a major speech on climate change at the United Nations. You can track presidential speechmaking here. This paragraph lists only his prepared speeches at public events: I exclude media appearances and informal presidential remarks during the greeting of world leaders, literary figures or sports teams. Obama is making way too many speeches.

The first reason he's making too many speeches is that speechifying is time-consuming. Writers prepare the texts, but Obama must think about what he wants to say; rehearse what the writers come up with; travel to the speech location; give the speech and travel back. A speechmaking appearance outside the nation's capital pretty much nails the day. Obama's trip to Los Angeles to give a speech and appear on "The Tonight Show" nailed two days, taking jet lag into account. Just because jets make travel convenient -- when FDR left on the battleship Iowa to attend the 1943 Tehran Conference of Allied leaders, his travel time each way was more than a week -- does not mean constant flying around is sensible. When does Obama have time to do the actual work of governing?

Redskins cheerleaders
AP Photo/Nick WassThe Redskins' cheerleaders brought their A-game Sunday, even if the Redskins' offense brought only its C-game.

The next concern is that too-frequent speechmaking devalues the presidential voice. When the president speaks occasionally, he commands attention; a president who speaks all the time becomes just another clanging cymbal in the background yammer. I bet Obama gives 10 speeches for every one given by John Kennedy. At the current rate, by 2010, an Obama speech will no longer be viewed as an important moment.

More than this is the concern that speeches are stage-managed to stroke the president's ego, which is the last thing any chief executive of either party needs. There's always an adoring crowd, waving banners, saluting soldiers, with thunderous applause. Surely all recent presidents come away from such stage-managed speeches thinking, "They love me!" Surely the younger George Bush gave so many speeches in his first term because it was flattering to his ego to be surrounded by cheering crowds who would clap loudly even for inutile banalities. But the office of the presidency isn't about fun for its holder. Bush wanted to give speeches to sympathetic crowds to make himself feel good. If Obama is speechifying for the same reason, this does not speak well of him.

Most important, too-frequent speeches turn the president into an actor reading lines. Barack Obama's job is not to get applause: his job is to improve the country. But improving the country is pretty challenging, whereas going out and getting applause is a snap. We don't yet know if Obama can reform health care or negotiate with hostile powers or reduce the national debt; we know for sure he can get applause. It's disturbing to see him spending so much time and energy chasing ovations, which have zero lasting value, while putting off the real work of reform. A president who gives speeches all the time becomes a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk but never gets around to accomplishing anything. For Bush, by his third year in office, his road speeches sounded like he was campaigning -- he would speak vaguely about an agenda while wagging his finger against Washington, skipping the complication that he was in charge of Washington. This is already creeping into Obama's speechmaking. Lately he has been wagging his finger about "folks in Washington" as though he's not one of them, to say nothing of Folk Number One.

One of the core realities of politics is that it is a thousand times easier to campaign than to govern. Sarah Palin quit being a governor because that's a lot of work, the work requires you to cooperate with opponents, and you're held accountable. In campaign speeches, by contrast, you can denounce opponents and promise the moon, but never take responsibility. Being president of the United States is a huge amount of work. Giving speeches and being love-bombed by adoring audiences sure sounds like a more pleasing way to spend the day. It's time Barack Obama stopped giving so many speeches and concentrated on leadership.

CrownRoyal
Member Wed Sep 23 13:42:16
link?

NeverWoods
Member Wed Sep 23 13:42:30
source link?

licker
Sports Mod Wed Sep 23 13:54:03
http://spo...asterbrook/090922&sportCat=nfl

About a 3rd of the way down, but I'm sure you won't care for this link.

It's an opinion piece about what presidents should do with their time, and I agree, presidents (note he lists Bush as well) spend too much time (and by extension money) running around pointlessly.

Whether you believe they do it to stroke their egos, or because they are incompetent at what they need to do I don't really care. Though if you believe that it is useful for them to behave like this I'd like to hear your reasons why.

Chen
Member Wed Sep 23 14:46:35
The article brought up some good points. But I think it missed a few of the reasons why he has to give so many speeches. I will agree that overexposure is idiotic if his sole job is to run the country, but we all know that isn't the case. So there are reasons why he must speak as often as possible.

First of all, it's only his first term and the goal of every first term president is to win a second term. If giving a speech at a gay orthodox jew rally will net him some votes down the road he will do the speech every time. 4 year terms for the leader of the country seems so short considering presidents have to spend 2 of those years campaigning for reelection and the other 2 preparing to campaign. I'd rather see 6-8 years with a 1 cycle term limit so they don't have to spend so much time on this crap.

Let's face it, the presidency isn't the same kind of respected position that it was in the past. Modern presidents need the extra exposure even if it dilutes their message. Not everyone is as politically active as a UPer. The average person might see a couple soundbites once a month. Take the example in the article about going on the Tonight Show. How many tonight show viewers are gonna give a crap about the president unless he's on it? If said viewers like what they see from the president they will be more likely to vote for him next election, which is really all that matters to politicians.

The author of the blog really needs to get past the fact that the president's job isn't to run the country - it's to get reelected and keep Democrats in power.

jergul
Member Wed Sep 23 14:46:51
Lets see...a billion dollars will finance 1000 days of travel. Or he could sign say a bill a day over those 1000 days instead.

What is the money saving variant?

:-)

Paramount
Member Wed Sep 23 14:51:12
"If giving a speech at a gay orthodox jew rally will net him some votes down the road he will do the speech every time."

Of course. It is important to please the gay Jews :)

Paramount
Member Wed Sep 23 14:56:20
I think there's a reason why the President is giving many speeches. The media, the citizens, and basically everyone, yes gay Jews too, wants to know what the President is gonna do about various things. So the President has to travel around and meet people, give speeches etc. Now there has also been a turbulent time with the financial crisis, the war in Afghanistan etc, so I think all this makes the President to give more speeches than usual.

If everyone (including the gay Jews) could just leave Mr Obama alone then he could go back to work.

licker
Sports Mod Wed Sep 23 16:50:56
"I have a strong feeling that if you asked Obama whether he'd like to travel less and give speeches he'd say after yet another 18 hour day that he'd love to. "

Then why doesn't he? Who is watching all these speeches anyway? It was the same for Bush, the observation that it's largely ego stroking is accurate, even if one assumes Obama is not as insulated as people want to believe Bush was.

"making him have to defend himself against insanity like he was trained at a Madras, he's a muslim, he's not american, he stole the identity of a dead child etcetcetcetcetcetc...I"

Hmmm....

I don't think Obama actually bothered with any of that, at least not once the election was over. The DNC and various other groups defended him well enough on their own.

"I bet he'd love not to have waste time defending himself against such moronic lies as well. Sadly, the neocons will never let up on him with their slanderous, time-wasting lying."

This isn't about your obsession with mostly unimportant and powerless neocons, this is about the office of the president being used by the president as nothing more than a shill for DNC (RNC in Bush's case) interestes and various reelection campaigns for various minor party politicians.

Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member Wed Sep 23 17:42:50
man didnt see you speaking out against bush when he was president

Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member Wed Sep 23 18:24:41
dude hes only posting it because he hates obama and obamas the main topic he didnt write any of the anti bush stuff himself

licker
Sports Mod Wed Sep 23 18:35:22
lol...

the obamaphiles are just pissed that the only 'change' they got was in the skin color of the president

Eikeys Ghost
Sports Mod Wed Sep 23 22:33:13
"but Ive never seen one where so much shit and ridiculous lies are flung at the president, wasting his time and making him have to defend himself against insanity"

If he would just shut his damn mouth for more than 15 seconds at a time, he wouldn't have to defend himself so much.

There's never been a president that likes to hear himself talk as much as the latest chimp in chief.

Isaksson
Member Thu Sep 24 05:33:57
America turns red- ROFL

Byron
Member Thu Sep 24 10:49:33
The issue that I see mainly is during the last administration one of the critiques was that Bush did not explain himself enough about issues and the lack of media attention (giving interviews, etc,etc) which virutally seem he was closed off from news agencies.

Now you have a president who is making himself more 'accessible' and now the complaint from some including the media that he is becoming too exposed or is feeding his ego. Thus far he has been giving speeches regarding matters that people have concerns and yet they still turn around to have the audacity to complain that they do not know what the full details of plan A, even after he has been giving explanations.

It has become ridiculous because we cannot be satisfied no matter what we have been critical of before and now we are getting what we were critical about and now we are critical of that.

I believed Jon Stewart summed it up nicely the other night regarding this foolishness....

Starting at 3:30 into the program;

http://www...ue-september-22-2009-vali-nasr

Chen
Member Thu Sep 24 11:57:26
"The issue that I see mainly is during the last administration one of the critiques was that Bush did not explain himself enough about issues and the lack of media attention (giving interviews, etc,etc) which virutally seem he was closed off from news agencies."

That's an idiotic critique. The president's job isn't to make friends with the media; it's to run the country. The only people that had that critique were liberal hacks that were mad that Bush didn't go on a hostile Olberman show enough. Obama is doing the exact same thing. He hasn't gone on a single hostile program that I know of.

"Thus far he has been giving speeches regarding matters that people have concerns and yet they still turn around to have the audacity to complain that they do not know what the full details of plan A, even after he has been giving explanations."

Since when do politicians tell the truth in their speeches? Why the fuck should I believe him now when he completely lied throughout the campaign? What ever happened to going "line by line" through the budget and cutting out all of the unnecessary spending?

He's a generic politician and there's no reason for me to believe him more than Bush or Clinton or any other retard in office. Unless you're just a naive idiot then there's no hope for you.

Byron
Member Thu Sep 24 12:05:13
Dear me, someone has gone off on the deep end. All I am doing is pointing out what I find rather amusing and hypocritical from some who are criticizing this president which is as you have pointed seemingly is doing what other presidents have done. Except in this case he is being more 'accessible'.

Also, with your incessant whining about when politicians tell the truth in their speeches, you have the choice to believe them or not. I believe we all know the answer to that. More or less my post was nothing more than an observation moreso than showing any bias.

Perhaps when you get over your vile contempt and be more openminded you would have seen that, but from your post tainted with such 'venom'. I guess that would be asking too much of you.

Thank you for your time though, it was informative.

licker
Sports Mod Thu Sep 24 12:33:37
"what I find rather amusing and hypocritical from some who are criticizing this president "

Am am criticizing every president who does this, as does the author in the OP. The hypocrisy is more from the tards who were so concerned about 'change' believing that anything has actually changed. Welcome to Bush's 3rd term, I hope it's what you wanted.

I don't care if he's telling the truth or not (because I'm not listening to his crap anyway), the facts are that he fucking won the election and does not need to spend his time campaigning anymore. If he wants to make weekly or daily or hourly addresses so be it, do it from the whitehouse and stop wasting time and money flying around to these absolutely pointless rallies.

Whether he's into having his ego stroked or not I do not know, but the way these trips and speeches are set up it certainly does nothing to dissuade anyone from keeping that opinion.

show deleted posts

licker Sports Mod	Wed Sep 23 13:36:58 In the first half of the George W. Bush administration, when the 43rd president was popular, Bush spent a great deal of time traveling around the United States giving speeches: sometimes advocating various causes, sometimes at fundraisers, sometimes simply appearing before some organization. That any president should use the public's time -- and the million-a-day cost of moving and protecting the president -- at partisan political fundraisers is offensive. All postwar presidents, Democratic and Republican, have appeared at partisan fundraisers at taxpayers' expense, and TMQ thinks this should be banned. Some Bush speaking appearances became controversial, when the Secret Service or Republican Party operatives tried to forbid anyone critical of Bush from entering the speech locations. But the key point was not that Bush was making speeches under questionable circumstances; the key point was that he was making way too many speeches, period. Ultimately, substituting speechifying for governing diminished Bush's presidency. Now Barack Obama has started down the same path. Merely in the past two weeks, President Obama has given a major health care address to Congress, a major address on bank regulation on Wall Street, a speech to the nation's schoolchildren (who were considerably better behaved than Congress), a major address on the economy to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, a speech on health care in Minneapolis, a speech on health care at the University of Maryland, a speech marking the anniversary of 9/11, a speech to the UAW at an auto plant in Lordstown, Ohio, a speech in New York honoring Walter Cronkite, a speech at an Arlen Specter fundraiser in Philadelphia, a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (it's not a caucus, it's a Caucus Institute), a speech at a picnic in Cincinnati, a speech lauding a posthumous winner of the Medal of Honor, a speech about community colleges in Troy, N.Y., and a major speech on climate change at the United Nations. You can track presidential speechmaking here. This paragraph lists only his prepared speeches at public events: I exclude media appearances and informal presidential remarks during the greeting of world leaders, literary figures or sports teams. Obama is making way too many speeches. The first reason he's making too many speeches is that speechifying is time-consuming. Writers prepare the texts, but Obama must think about what he wants to say; rehearse what the writers come up with; travel to the speech location; give the speech and travel back. A speechmaking appearance outside the nation's capital pretty much nails the day. Obama's trip to Los Angeles to give a speech and appear on "The Tonight Show" nailed two days, taking jet lag into account. Just because jets make travel convenient -- when FDR left on the battleship Iowa to attend the 1943 Tehran Conference of Allied leaders, his travel time each way was more than a week -- does not mean constant flying around is sensible. When does Obama have time to do the actual work of governing? Redskins cheerleaders AP Photo/Nick WassThe Redskins' cheerleaders brought their A-game Sunday, even if the Redskins' offense brought only its C-game. The next concern is that too-frequent speechmaking devalues the presidential voice. When the president speaks occasionally, he commands attention; a president who speaks all the time becomes just another clanging cymbal in the background yammer. I bet Obama gives 10 speeches for every one given by John Kennedy. At the current rate, by 2010, an Obama speech will no longer be viewed as an important moment. More than this is the concern that speeches are stage-managed to stroke the president's ego, which is the last thing any chief executive of either party needs. There's always an adoring crowd, waving banners, saluting soldiers, with thunderous applause. Surely all recent presidents come away from such stage-managed speeches thinking, "They love me!" Surely the younger George Bush gave so many speeches in his first term because it was flattering to his ego to be surrounded by cheering crowds who would clap loudly even for inutile banalities. But the office of the presidency isn't about fun for its holder. Bush wanted to give speeches to sympathetic crowds to make himself feel good. If Obama is speechifying for the same reason, this does not speak well of him. Most important, too-frequent speeches turn the president into an actor reading lines. Barack Obama's job is not to get applause: his job is to improve the country. But improving the country is pretty challenging, whereas going out and getting applause is a snap. We don't yet know if Obama can reform health care or negotiate with hostile powers or reduce the national debt; we know for sure he can get applause. It's disturbing to see him spending so much time and energy chasing ovations, which have zero lasting value, while putting off the real work of reform. A president who gives speeches all the time becomes a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk but never gets around to accomplishing anything. For Bush, by his third year in office, his road speeches sounded like he was campaigning -- he would speak vaguely about an agenda while wagging his finger against Washington, skipping the complication that he was in charge of Washington. This is already creeping into Obama's speechmaking. Lately he has been wagging his finger about "folks in Washington" as though he's not one of them, to say nothing of Folk Number One. One of the core realities of politics is that it is a thousand times easier to campaign than to govern. Sarah Palin quit being a governor because that's a lot of work, the work requires you to cooperate with opponents, and you're held accountable. In campaign speeches, by contrast, you can denounce opponents and promise the moon, but never take responsibility. Being president of the United States is a huge amount of work. Giving speeches and being love-bombed by adoring audiences sure sounds like a more pleasing way to spend the day. It's time Barack Obama stopped giving so many speeches and concentrated on leadership.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Sep 23 13:42:16 link?
NeverWoods Member	Wed Sep 23 13:42:30 source link?
licker Sports Mod	Wed Sep 23 13:54:03 http://spo...asterbrook/090922&sportCat=nfl About a 3rd of the way down, but I'm sure you won't care for this link. It's an opinion piece about what presidents should do with their time, and I agree, presidents (note he lists Bush as well) spend too much time (and by extension money) running around pointlessly. Whether you believe they do it to stroke their egos, or because they are incompetent at what they need to do I don't really care. Though if you believe that it is useful for them to behave like this I'd like to hear your reasons why.
Chen Member	Wed Sep 23 14:46:35 The article brought up some good points. But I think it missed a few of the reasons why he has to give so many speeches. I will agree that overexposure is idiotic if his sole job is to run the country, but we all know that isn't the case. So there are reasons why he must speak as often as possible. First of all, it's only his first term and the goal of every first term president is to win a second term. If giving a speech at a gay orthodox jew rally will net him some votes down the road he will do the speech every time. 4 year terms for the leader of the country seems so short considering presidents have to spend 2 of those years campaigning for reelection and the other 2 preparing to campaign. I'd rather see 6-8 years with a 1 cycle term limit so they don't have to spend so much time on this crap. Let's face it, the presidency isn't the same kind of respected position that it was in the past. Modern presidents need the extra exposure even if it dilutes their message. Not everyone is as politically active as a UPer. The average person might see a couple soundbites once a month. Take the example in the article about going on the Tonight Show. How many tonight show viewers are gonna give a crap about the president unless he's on it? If said viewers like what they see from the president they will be more likely to vote for him next election, which is really all that matters to politicians. The author of the blog really needs to get past the fact that the president's job isn't to run the country - it's to get reelected and keep Democrats in power.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 23 14:46:51 Lets see...a billion dollars will finance 1000 days of travel. Or he could sign say a bill a day over those 1000 days instead. What is the money saving variant? :-)
Paramount Member	Wed Sep 23 14:51:12 "If giving a speech at a gay orthodox jew rally will net him some votes down the road he will do the speech every time." Of course. It is important to please the gay Jews :)
Paramount Member	Wed Sep 23 14:56:20 I think there's a reason why the President is giving many speeches. The media, the citizens, and basically everyone, yes gay Jews too, wants to know what the President is gonna do about various things. So the President has to travel around and meet people, give speeches etc. Now there has also been a turbulent time with the financial crisis, the war in Afghanistan etc, so I think all this makes the President to give more speeches than usual. If everyone (including the gay Jews) could just leave Mr Obama alone then he could go back to work.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Sep 23 16:50:56 "I have a strong feeling that if you asked Obama whether he'd like to travel less and give speeches he'd say after yet another 18 hour day that he'd love to. " Then why doesn't he? Who is watching all these speeches anyway? It was the same for Bush, the observation that it's largely ego stroking is accurate, even if one assumes Obama is not as insulated as people want to believe Bush was. "making him have to defend himself against insanity like he was trained at a Madras, he's a muslim, he's not american, he stole the identity of a dead child etcetcetcetcetcetc...I" Hmmm.... I don't think Obama actually bothered with any of that, at least not once the election was over. The DNC and various other groups defended him well enough on their own. "I bet he'd love not to have waste time defending himself against such moronic lies as well. Sadly, the neocons will never let up on him with their slanderous, time-wasting lying." This isn't about your obsession with mostly unimportant and powerless neocons, this is about the office of the president being used by the president as nothing more than a shill for DNC (RNC in Bush's case) interestes and various reelection campaigns for various minor party politicians.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Wed Sep 23 17:42:50 man didnt see you speaking out against bush when he was president
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Wed Sep 23 18:24:41 dude hes only posting it because he hates obama and obamas the main topic he didnt write any of the anti bush stuff himself
licker Sports Mod	Wed Sep 23 18:35:22 lol... the obamaphiles are just pissed that the only 'change' they got was in the skin color of the president
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Wed Sep 23 22:33:13 "but Ive never seen one where so much shit and ridiculous lies are flung at the president, wasting his time and making him have to defend himself against insanity" If he would just shut his damn mouth for more than 15 seconds at a time, he wouldn't have to defend himself so much. There's never been a president that likes to hear himself talk as much as the latest chimp in chief.
Isaksson Member	Thu Sep 24 05:33:57 America turns red- ROFL
Byron Member	Thu Sep 24 10:49:33 The issue that I see mainly is during the last administration one of the critiques was that Bush did not explain himself enough about issues and the lack of media attention (giving interviews, etc,etc) which virutally seem he was closed off from news agencies. Now you have a president who is making himself more 'accessible' and now the complaint from some including the media that he is becoming too exposed or is feeding his ego. Thus far he has been giving speeches regarding matters that people have concerns and yet they still turn around to have the audacity to complain that they do not know what the full details of plan A, even after he has been giving explanations. It has become ridiculous because we cannot be satisfied no matter what we have been critical of before and now we are getting what we were critical about and now we are critical of that. I believed Jon Stewart summed it up nicely the other night regarding this foolishness.... Starting at 3:30 into the program; http://www...ue-september-22-2009-vali-nasr
Chen Member	Thu Sep 24 11:57:26 "The issue that I see mainly is during the last administration one of the critiques was that Bush did not explain himself enough about issues and the lack of media attention (giving interviews, etc,etc) which virutally seem he was closed off from news agencies." That's an idiotic critique. The president's job isn't to make friends with the media; it's to run the country. The only people that had that critique were liberal hacks that were mad that Bush didn't go on a hostile Olberman show enough. Obama is doing the exact same thing. He hasn't gone on a single hostile program that I know of. "Thus far he has been giving speeches regarding matters that people have concerns and yet they still turn around to have the audacity to complain that they do not know what the full details of plan A, even after he has been giving explanations." Since when do politicians tell the truth in their speeches? Why the fuck should I believe him now when he completely lied throughout the campaign? What ever happened to going "line by line" through the budget and cutting out all of the unnecessary spending? He's a generic politician and there's no reason for me to believe him more than Bush or Clinton or any other retard in office. Unless you're just a naive idiot then there's no hope for you.
Byron Member	Thu Sep 24 12:05:13 Dear me, someone has gone off on the deep end. All I am doing is pointing out what I find rather amusing and hypocritical from some who are criticizing this president which is as you have pointed seemingly is doing what other presidents have done. Except in this case he is being more 'accessible'. Also, with your incessant whining about when politicians tell the truth in their speeches, you have the choice to believe them or not. I believe we all know the answer to that. More or less my post was nothing more than an observation moreso than showing any bias. Perhaps when you get over your vile contempt and be more openminded you would have seen that, but from your post tainted with such 'venom'. I guess that would be asking too much of you. Thank you for your time though, it was informative.
licker Sports Mod	Thu Sep 24 12:33:37 "what I find rather amusing and hypocritical from some who are criticizing this president " Am am criticizing every president who does this, as does the author in the OP. The hypocrisy is more from the tards who were so concerned about 'change' believing that anything has actually changed. Welcome to Bush's 3rd term, I hope it's what you wanted. I don't care if he's telling the truth or not (because I'm not listening to his crap anyway), the facts are that he fucking won the election and does not need to spend his time campaigning anymore. If he wants to make weekly or daily or hourly addresses so be it, do it from the whitehouse and stop wasting time and money flying around to these absolutely pointless rallies. Whether he's into having his ego stroked or not I do not know, but the way these trips and speeches are set up it certainly does nothing to dissuade anyone from keeping that opinion.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: