Topic: The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Thoughts? How credible is this? I forget if it was Samprany of Orincolo but one of them pretty much states that the opposite is what's happening, that the republicans are the ones in the death spiral.
quote:The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I met the Samprany of Orincolo once. He had an enormous hat.
With little red tassles all around the rim, quietly giving away the fact that its all just a ruse by the Mexicans to take over a land that never belonged to them, but no one believes the truth and calls it a conspiracy. But I know better.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an article from the Telegraph (AKA the Torygraph - a newspaper which is about as Right-leaning as you can get and still be able to stand up) written by a commentator for Fox News.
Were you expecting raindrops and kittens? Obama is clearly not going to be one of this guy's favourite things.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole. You'd think free market democratic principles would work here. Supply and demand. Few are demanding Democrats or Republicans, so shouldn't a new centrist party step in to fill the need?
I'd absolutely love someone else to vote for right now.
I don't count the Tea Party. They're about as centrist on the political spectrum as gamma rays are on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without going point by point over this amusingly slanted diatribe (which, as all good diatribes should, contains just enough truth to be arguable), I would like to point out the ridiculousness of the negative polls. A 51% negative poll does not mean that half the country disagrees with the direction he's going, as every right-wing commentator has implied as fact. That number also includes the sizable percentage of people who feel he's not liberal enough, and I don't think FOX News gets to count those as being on their side against Obama.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Republicrats, both of them, were to crash and burn?
... no? Lisa I think the thing you don't understand about Noam Chomsky is that even he realizes that if he were actually in charge, the corrupting influences of power and conflicting interests would lead him to make a lot of the same mistakes he crows about as a non-elected official.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Without going point by point over this amusingly slanted diatribe (which, as all good diatribes should, contains just enough truth to be arguable), I would like to point out the ridiculousness of the negative polls. A 51% negative poll does not mean that half the country disagrees with the direction he's going, as every right-wing commentator has implied as fact. That number also includes the sizable percentage of people who feel he's not liberal enough, and I don't think FOX News gets to count those as being on their side against Obama.
Did it also bother you that like 7 out of those "10 Reasons" were essentially the same reason? Call it: "fails to inspire," "politically weak," "failing on message," "seems not to be a jingoist," and you're ranting on and on about the same thing, which is *you* don't like him.
The thing that really gets my goat about these little lists is how disingenuous that always feels, and it's as if the writer of the column has no notion that his screed is not actually going to read as what it actually is. That and the column is so poorly supported by the facts- and what I mean by that is, what is assumed here is not in evidence, and needs to be demonstrated clearly and rationally, and needs to consider opposing viewpoints in order to effectively demonstrate their weaknesses. This does *none* of that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole."
The process is controlled by the parties. I don't find it amazing that a serious attempt at getting off the ground hasn't happened: The game is rigged to prevent exactly that.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Republicrats, both of them, were to crash and burn?
... no? Lisa I think the thing you don't understand about Noam Chomsky is that even he realizes that if he were actually in charge, the corrupting influences of power and conflicting interests would lead him to make a lot of the same mistakes he crows about as a non-elected official.
posted
You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article is a mess of junk, but even if it were not and it managed to make a persuasive case, it wouldn't affect the viability of the republican death spiral as a theory very much.
Obama, even if he was doing very poorly as a president, wouldn't be stopping the intergenerational decline of the G.O.P. and conservatism as an ideology.
Conservatism is floated electorally by people over the age of 65.
Younger people increasingly dislike conservatism and embrace liberal policy.
The younger you go, the more liberal you get, to the extent that the under-35 demographic is overwhelmingly, amazingly liberal.
These patterns don't alter much as people age. The whole 'people turn more conservative as they age' thing is a myth.
Even the conservatives are listening: they have tried to instill fear over 'terror babies' to give them a convoluted opportunity to attack the 14th amendment in the vain hope that it can blunt the effect of hispanic demographics swelling and also being remarkably liberal.
As for the libertarians: they don't get to have a 'death spiral,' because they've never been viable as a political group in the first place. Their proposals have no popular viability or judicial favor, and the LP is run by exactly the kind of crazies that the libertarians will, naturally, have crawling to the top of their molehill.
Reasonable people who would otherwise vote LP are mostly kept from doing so because the party's so full of crazy fail and they keep getting headed by completely inviable dolts. Oh well. Even if they did get to be something of a powerful bloc, they would only aid the liberals more by splitting the vote between old-school and new-school conservatives. So I would support them the same way I support the tea party. Woo hoo! Go libertarianism! Taxation is theft lol!
the GOP will probably get a typical midterm surge, maybe even hit a majority (they better).
I sure hope they enjoy it!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Wow, that was wildly unnecessary, Orincoro. This from someone who - pardon me for saying so, Lisa - thinks her sort of politics would be ineffective, disastrous, dangerous, and callous if actually implemented.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Wow, that was wildly unnecessary, Orincoro. This from someone who - pardon me for saying so, Lisa - thinks her sort of politics would be ineffective, disastrous, dangerous, and callous if actually implemented.
I agree. I was going to comment on the exact same thing.
I don't care if you agree with her or not, your language here went way over disagreement and into personal attack.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole."
The process is controlled by the parties. I don't find it amazing that a serious attempt at getting off the ground hasn't happened: The game is rigged to prevent exactly that.
There's a disadvantage, sure. But modern technology has lowered the barriers to what I'd call the lowest point they've ever been. Between that and the level of dissatisfaction with the established parties, there's a door thrown pretty wide open.
The system is slanted, but it's nowhere near impossible. Third parties have made serious bids in climates just like this, they usually just need a single unifying issue, and/or a popular central figure. The internet makes for icing on the cake.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
That would work if politics were about policy. As a matter of fact, however, there is an overwhelming consensus in the US in favour of, basically, socialism, except for the word 'socialism'. That is, if you ask people whether they favour smaller government, they'll say yes. And if you ask them whether this or that government program is important and should be funded by taxes... they'll say yes. In other words, they're in favour of socialism (or statism, if you prefer) as long as it's not referred to by that name.
The real issue, then, is not policy but status, in classic primate fashion: What groups shall be accorded high status and get all the bananas and sex? Viewed this way, the last half-century of politics merely reflects the struggle between the older East Coast WASP elites and the pushy nouveau-riche ones; the voter groups that support each elite are practically arbitrary. It could just as well have been the case that Midwestern farmers supported the Democrats and urban blacks supported Republicans; just switch cheers and change which party throws the occasional policy bone to what group.
Of course, when this gets too blatant, it's occasionally possible to have a reformist group come along and point out that, hey, this is supposed to be about policy. But having politics actually be about differing philosophies of government is a state of low entropy; it can't be maintained without continuous pushing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Chomsky is scum. Worse than scum. I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
It sort of works if you let the hardcore libertarians define 'individualists,' because then the whole one to three percent of the population that fits that definition can all get together and have a ball and feel happy that they are not a pejorative definition that they alone apply ('statists') and continue to be mostly irrelevant.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Please do prove yourself capable of abiding by the TOA, TIA.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
To be fair, I wouldn't pee on Noam Chomsky if he were on fire. I mean, it wouldn't be my first impulse, at least.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Whether this was written by a FOX news anchor or not really doesn't have anything to do with the actual validity of the data shown or the research done on the attitudes of the people towards Obama's Presidency. Obama’s sharp decline in popularity is actually quite significant because of how fast it has happened. Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
I wouldn’t say that all of his 10 you could probably throw out 5, 8 and 10 immediately and lump 1, 2 and 3 in the same category as each other and can view those as either causes or effects of 6 and 7. It is pretty telling that when both the events mentioned in 6 and 7 happened is when the president saw the sharpest decline in his approval ratings. Number 4 is not really something that can be tied to any particular president seeing as they all face this problem and despite all attempting to address the problem the debt still remains, and it is also unlikely that the projected trends of both the country’s poor GDP and debt rate will be what transpires over the next few dozen years. reasons are valid perceptions held by the American people but some certainly have impacted Obama’s presidency in a very powerful and very negative way.
All that being said Obama having low approval doesn’t necessarily mean that the republican party is increasing in popularity. In fact the republicans are still a few percentage points behind (44% compared to 46%) in approval polls even though the dems are the lowest they have been since 2006. Two years ago near all the elite intellectual and financial capital of the republican party either switched sides or picked up other party tags (Libertarian mostly).
I highly doubt the republican party is truly doomed but conservativeism in its current form certainly is. It is likely that in the next ten years or so you will see major changes in the republican party platform in an attempt to centralize itself and to re-absorb the libertarians and the right-leaning independents that they have lost over the years.
It still would not surprise me if the republicans grabbed one of the houses of congress but I think the republican resurgence under the tea-party movement will be short lived. In order to keep their jobs and their power the party needs to get younger (and smarter) and clinging onto their ideals of inaction and intolerance of different minded people (politically, religiously, race and sexual orientation) is definitely killing their party growth.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
Approvals at this level in the first term are entirely normal. It has happened to, in recent history, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Ford.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you disapprove of a president for " not being jingoist"
You WANT a jingoist??
Health reform, it is a scandal that the supposed greatest democracy in the world has no valid health care system for its poorest citizens.
The Gulf, yeah, but he is not alone. There are TWO big US oil companies who were partners with BP on that rig. I have heard no-one attacking them, yet both have refused to help BP with either stopping the leak, or cleaning up. If you hire a car and it explodes due to poor repairs and maintenance, who is at fault? The person driving it, or the company hiring it out that didnt keep it up to the required safety standards? BP didnt own that rig, they HIRED it.
I could go on, but I have to go to work and pay the extra taxes required to cover the US mortgage meltdown that caused the global credit crunch.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
Approvals at this level in the first term are entirely normal. It has happened to, in recent history, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Ford.
Yea, i suppose i kinda left a half-thought idea on the table there. I suppose the important thing about the low approval isnt that it hits a low mark as much as how long it stays there. Clinton and Reagan were below 50 in their frist term for a very short period of time. Ford and Carter hit those low numbers early and stayed there, which is why they did not get a second term.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Approval ratings have very little to do with the performance of presidents, and a lot to do with the performance of the economy. (Which, by the by, presidents are almost powerless to affect; don't believe the official propaganda. Economies of 14 trillion dollars, aggregating the activities of 300 million people, are just not very amenable to correction by one man, no matter what the prestige of his office.) Both Reagan and Clinton had recessions early in their first term, then sharp recoveries of GDP going back to trend - and thus their approval ratings dipped and then surged. Carter, however, was in a similar position to Obama: He inherited a recession, did his best to end it according to then-prevailing economic theory, and (either despite that or because of that) the economy didn't recover in time for his re-election. I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had more time and the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics, I would read the post mentioned above about similarities to the Ancien Regime and have some fun with it. But alas, I do not.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
Like Sarah Palin.. I may be conservative but I hope there are enough smart conservatives out there that see she would be a disaster for both the party and the country.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
I'd pee on it, then beat it with a fiery stick laden with marshmallows.
quote:Originally posted by Jake: That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
I'd pee on it, then beat it with a fiery stick laden with marshmallows.
Ah, good times.
But then you'd ruin the marshmallows! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
You need three factors.
1. A bad economy.
2. A ratings slump which survives past the transitional midterm period. What Obama's going through now is essentially similar to what happened to Reagan and Clinton, so to call it a 'stunning decline and political fall' is desperate use of hyperbole. Enjoyable, to say the least.
3. The G.O.P. has to advance a candidate who can beat him.
Any and all probability of toppling Obama in the next presidential election hinges on #3. All 'at present' analyses is 'the GOP has not yet shown a candidate in good standing with their primary system who would win against Obama in a presidential election.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is also a little ridiculous that there is so much outrage whenever President Obama takes a vacation, especially by the right.
Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr. took more vacation days than Obama in their first two years. The outrage that Obama is took vacation time during the oil spill is stupid. Bush stayed on his vacation after Katrina.
I agree that Michelle Obama could have stayed here in the US for vacation. Clinton made the choice to go camping and hiking instead of taking expensive vacations, which I respect him for. But it one trip! It isn't like she is going on vacation to another country once a month.
I'm pretty much fed up with both parties.
I think the republicans will pick up some seats in November, but I really don't think that they will have a good candidate that can run against Obama in 2012. You never know though. Obama wasn't well known in 2006, though I had heard of him and had seen his speech at the DNC in 2004.
Again though, I am still praying it won't be Palin...Anyone but her. I'd take Gingrich over her, and I don't really like him either.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans.
Oh come on, Blayne. Anyone who begins their "arguments" like this is utterly biased and was biased from the beginning.
People think Obama is out of touch with "ordinary" Americans because the "ordinary" American-- is apparently a truck driving, fast-food white guy with a high school education who makes jokes about Mexicans and Europeans 'cause they're different. Since when was ANY President representative of this? You don't want that; you want someone who is well educated.
This is just some guy's opinion, not a well-cited political consideration of Obama's career so far. It is all angling for the November elections. Because apparently Obama matters even when you're voting for Congress.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People think Obama is out of touch with "ordinary" Americans because the "ordinary" American-- is apparently a truck driving, fast-food white guy with a high school education who makes jokes about Mexicans and Europeans 'cause they're different. Since when was ANY President representative of this? You don't want that; you want someone who is well educated."
posted
Obama is one and done. The economy will only get worse. Both it and the Obama Presidency will be in shambles by 2012.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
