Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[russ_watters]

You rant if the rich guy's taxes are cut and yours aren't. If the poor guy's and the middle-income guy's taxes are cut however, even eliminated, you don't also rant that the wealthier guy also got a tax cut.

I'm not sure if you meant to say it that way, but when Bush cut the taxes, he was criticized for cutting them more for the rich...which is almost impossible not to do since the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes (and the poor pay nothing in income taxes).

 

[BobG]

Had he chosen a well-known moderate Republican as VP, I believe he would be President today. For example, he could have picked someone like William Cohen: former Congressman, former Senator, former Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of experience and a verifiable track record. Choosing Cohen wouldn't have made the hard-right of the GOP happy, but they would have voted for McCain anyway instead of flipping to Obama. McCain blew it, IMO.

No, economic crisis doomed any chance McCain had of being elected regardless of who his VP was, even more surely than a milder, but equally ill-timed recession doomed Bush I's chances of reelection in spite of an overall successful Presidency.

Picking someone that couldn't express a coherent thought under pressure sure didn't help his chances, though. Maybe Palin would have cost him the election even without a financial crisis, but that's something that's impossible to know.

It's just a fact of political life that elections often turn on things that are beyond a candidate's control. That's a fact that Obama may have to live with, just as surely as Bush I and McCain had to live with.

 

[WhoWee]

As everyone knows, President Obama went on a speaking tour this week. With the (national average) price of gasoline approaching $4.00 per gallon - the topic of fuel prices was discussed. The President indicated there is no "silver bullet" and that subsidies to proven energy sources doesn't make sense.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/23/obama-pumps-plan-to-develop-renewable-energy/

""Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's," Obama said."

Does anyone know how much "oil subsidies" to companies like Shell and BP have actually gone into solar R&D?

Secondly, the President has directed the Attorney General to look for oil fraud and manipulation.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11112/1141078-84.stm
"President Barack Obama announced Thursday that his administration will investigate to see if fraud or manipulation in oil markets is behind the sharp increase in gasoline prices.

"We are going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain," Mr. Obama said at a town hall meeting in Reno, Nev.

He said a government task force under Attorney General Eric Holder would "root out any cases of fraud or manipulation" in gasoline prices, "and that includes the role of traders and speculators."

Financial speculation is widely considered a possible reason for higher oil prices. Despite turmoil in the Middle East, there has been no significant interruption of oil production, and supplies remain abundant. Meanwhile, financial institutions have been purchasing contracts for future oil delivery as an investment strategy, driving up prices. "

My bold: I have to wonder what will happen if this statement is correct? - (from same link)

"Speculation has been on regulators' minds as oil prices climbed from about $80 a barrel late last year to more than $112 Thursday. A regulator whose agency will participate said the task force wasn't for public relations purposes alone. This task force is looking at financial markets, and seeking much bigger targets.

Large-scale investment by big institutional investors, such as pension funds, is also thought to be pushing up oil prices. "

My bold: What will AG Holder do if he finds out PENSION FUNDS have benefited from oil speculation?:rofl:

 

[BobG]

He has no credible opponent to run against this time. Pawlenty? Palin? Trump? Romney? Bachman? None of them has any chance. Does the GOP have anybody willing and able to run? I don't see a contender.

He can run against Paul Ryan, whether Ryan is a Presidential candidate or not.

In 2006, people over 65 were split between Dems-Reps by 49% to 49% in Congressional races.
In 2008, people over 65 were split between Dems-Reps by 49% to 48% in Congressional races.
In 2010, people over 65 broke 38% for Dems and 59% for Reps in Congressional races.

Presumably, proposed Medicare reforms had some effect on that change.

Ryan's proposed budget could at least neutralize any affect Medicare reforms have on the 2012 election and may make it a liability issue for Republicans (you don't want to be the most recent person to take aim at Medicare benefits).

Of course, what happens in Congressional elections aren't guaranteed to help Obama. In 2008, Dems-Reps may have split the senior vote in Congressional elections, but McCain won the senior vote in the Presidential election 53% to 45%.

Not to mention that it will be hard for Obama to attack a Republican candidate on Medicare unless he can clearly explain why his reforms have less effect on seniors than Ryan's reforms (and vice versa - an argument over Medicare runs the risk of becoming so confused it becomes a general liability for any candidate that even mentions the word "Medicare").

 

[Physics-Learner]

most of our electorate is STUPID. they ridiculously go to one side or the other, and stay there. neither side has the best interest of the populace. until the majority realizes that govt is for govt, then we will always have way more govt than we need, and all the problems that come from it.

if we look backwards in american history and examine the results, i doubt that people will wise up in my lifetime.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I have to wonder what will happen if this statement is correct? (speculation driving up oil prices)

The simplest thing to do would be to enforce the position limits already on the books. The CFTC has been quietly handing out exemptions for years (part of a drive to stop regulating everything). Rescinding those exemptions would hurt liquidity a bit, but would put in end to these speculative bubbles.

 

[CAC1001]

No, economic crisis doomed any chance McCain had of being elected regardless of who his VP was, even more surely than a milder, but equally ill-timed recession doomed Bush I's chances of reelection in spite of an overall successful Presidency.

Did the recession really doom Bush I's chances for re-election? I had heard that Bush I was leading Clinton in the polls up until the last week before the election, when some scandal relating to Bush broke out that then caused the polls to shift and cost him the election.

 

[russ_watters]

Did the recession really doom Bush I's chances for re-election? I had heard that Bush I was leading Clinton in the polls up until the last week before the election, when some scandal relating to Bush broke out that then caused the polls to shift and cost him the election.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of. The only scandals during the election were Clinton's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992#General_election

 

[WhoWee]

Did the recession really doom Bush I's chances for re-election? I had heard that Bush I was leading Clinton in the polls up until the last week before the election, when some scandal relating to Bush broke out that then caused the polls to shift and cost him the election.

Bush I made a mistake when he said "read my lips" - then broke his promise not to raise taxes. Does anyone think President Obama hasn't broken any (major) promises?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Bush I made a mistake when he said "read my lips" - then broke his promise not to raise taxes. Does anyone think President Obama hasn't broken any (major) promises?

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

There's a list of promises broken.

 

[WhoWee]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

There's a list of promises broken.

The list is longer than I thought.

 

[Al68]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

There's a list of promises broken.

An incomplete list, though. Not using signing statements comes immediately to mind. Perhaps the list is out of date?

 

[WhoWee]

An incomplete list, though. Not using signing statements comes immediately to mind. Perhaps the list is out of date?

My favorite was no more ear marks - 1st Bill had quite a few (was it 6,000 or 8,000 - can't recall)? Gitmo is also a foot-in-mouth problem - IMO.

 

[Ryumast3r]

The list is longer than I thought.

Taken into the context of how many promises everyone else breaks, kinda short really.

An incomplete list, though. Not using signing statements comes immediately to mind. Perhaps the list is out of date?

It's only incomplete in the sense that it only includes promises made during his campaign, and only ones that Politifact themselves verified he made.

My favorite was no more ear marks - 1st Bill had quite a few (was it 6,000 or 8,000 - can't recall)? Gitmo is also a foot-in-mouth problem - IMO.

Gitmo is not really a foot-in-mouth problem, but more of a figuring out the ins and outs of it all problem. He did stop the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were being put on there though.

 

[WhoWee]

Taken into the context of how many promises everyone else breaks, kinda short really.



It's only incomplete in the sense that it only includes promises made during his campaign, and only ones that Politifact themselves verified he made.



Gitmo is not really a foot-in-mouth problem, but more of a figuring out the ins and outs of it all problem. He did stop the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were being put on there though.

Well, you could be right, he does have about 18 months to spin it - doesn't he?:rofl:

 

[Amp1]

Whowee,

Check the same criteria for your favs (favorite presidents or the last decade) is what I think Ryumast3r is implying.

 

[WhoWee]

Whowee,

Check the same criteria for your favs (favorite presidents or the last decade) is what I think Ryumast3r is implying.

I'm not sure what Ryumast3r is implying. I do recall that Obama made a lot of promises. He also said he would have the most transparent Presidency and unite the country. I'm not certain he's met either of those standards yet (again - he has 18 months)?

 

[Ryumast3r]

I'm not sure what Ryumast3r is implying. I do recall that Obama made a lot of promises. He also said he would have the most transparent Presidency and unite the country. I'm not certain he's met either of those standards yet (again - he has 18 months)?

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

He actually did make a lot of changes to transparency (including a list of people who are visiting the whitehouse - not all, but that's with good reason - and showing, on occasion his daily schedule), and kept a lot of promises.

Not saying that this covers up the ones he broke, not at all, I'm just saying that people say "he broke a lot of promises" without knowing how many he even broke or whether or not he even broke the one they think he did. People also say "he never broke a promise" without knowing that he has, in fact, broken at least 42 - whether because he didn't finish it, or because congress didn't let him doesn't matter, it's broken.

Politifact isn't the end-all be-all for me, but it's generally a good place to start, especially when you're looking for a good way to see one-line answer to the question "what happened to ___ proposal?"

 

[Ryumast3r]

Also, not really implying anything, just trying to put a number to a suspicion. :)

 

[WhoWee]

It seems the President received a bump in the polls (I've heard a range of 9% to 11% - no link yet) for his handling of the Bin Laden mission - deservedly so (IMO). I also think he deserves some credit for inviting former President Bush to the Ground Zero event as well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54250.html

 

[jjoyce]

The strategy will basically consist of talking about the future, and the past, to stay off the present, also scaremongering, and partisan attacks on the opposition to stay off the topics of his failed policies, failing economy, and horrible business climate.

Just like 2008 he became the anti-Bush, because he had no record, or experience, he played on Bush's unpopularity. Now he has a record, but it's abysmal, so he will have focus on his demonizing his opposition, and hope the white liberals, and college students show up in droves to vote for him, to prove they are not racists, hope the eight million new welfare recipients he has signed up show up to vote for him, and the Hispanics buy into his immigration rhetoric before the election , it just might work too.

We get pretty much what we deserve.

 

[Zarqon]

Seriously, he promised to do a LOT, including fixing some very hard problems that presidents before him didn't even want to touch with a 10-foot pole. To "fix" a country is an insanely hard task by any standards, but to require him to do so in only 2 years...

I think 2 years is far too little time to turn something around (2 years for making ugly decisions then 2 years for tidying up and running again), and so as I see it, one of the best reasons to vote for Obama the second time, even if you don't like all of his results so far, is simple to give him a proper amount of time to actually do it.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a separate category in addition to broken promises and failures.

 

[WhoWee]

Seriously, he promised to do a LOT, including fixing some very hard problems that presidents before him didn't even want to touch with a 10-foot pole. To "fix" a country is an insanely hard task by any standards, but to require him to do so in only 2 years...

I think 2 years is far too little time to turn something around (2 years for making ugly decisions then 2 years for tidying up and running again), and so as I see it, one of the best reasons to vote for Obama the second time, even if you don't like all of his results so far, is simple to give him a proper amount of time to actually do it.

He was very inexperienced and made promises he couldn't keep - now he deserves a second chance? I'm not sure that strategy will sell at a time of significant crisis.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Seriously, he promised to do a LOT, including fixing some very hard problems that presidents before him didn't even want to touch with a 10-foot pole. To "fix" a country is an insanely hard task by any standards, but to require him to do so in only 2 years...

True, but he also promised - and reneged on- things that were not difficult. For example, the five (or sometimes three) day public comment period on bills and the now infamous "health care negotiation on CSPAN".

I think people who are willing to cut the President some slack on the planet healing are less willing to do so in some of the areas where the President has more direct control.

 

[WhoWee]

If this Huffington poll is accurate - the President is well on his way to re-election?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/obama-approval-rating-_n_860409.html

"Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths – 73 percent – also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats."

 

[russ_watters]

True, but he also promised - and reneged on- things that were not difficult. For example, the five (or sometimes three) day public comment period on bills and the now infamous "health care negotiation on CSPAN".

I think people who are willing to cut the President some slack on the planet healing are less willing to do so in some of the areas where the President has more direct control.

Yes, it is the easy ones that bother me most...and the naive or politically motivated ones ('Gitmo, Yucca) a close second.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, it is the easy ones that bother me most...and the naive or politically motivated ones ('Gitmo, Yucca) a close second.

Let's not forget earmarks - were there 6,000 or 8,000 in the first Bill he signed?:uhh:

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, it is the easy ones that bother me most...

I'm sure when then-Speaker Pelosi waved off the CSPAN issue with "people say lots of things during campaigns" the President could have sympathized with Warren G. Harding:

"I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my g-------d friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!"

 

[WhoWee]

Well, it looks like Newt has made it official.

 

[Zarqon]

He was very inexperienced and made promises he couldn't keep - now he deserves a second chance? I'm not sure that strategy will sell at a time of significant crisis.

but on the other hand, I'm sure these years have granted him a lot of experience. So running the second time he won't be inexperienced anymore, which should be on the plus list.

When I think of Obama (but please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a US citizen), I think of someone that

1) has a desire to, and is not afraid of, taking on difficult and potentially controversial issues.

2) is competent and honest (compared to other candidates).

These two things together are already very hard to find in todays politicians in many countries, since they seem to become more populistic every year and thus super afraid of dealing with difficult long term issues. You are right that he may have been inexperienced the first time, but what now, when such a person also has experience? Don't you think he would make a pretty good deal?

From a non-US perspective (and I know very many at least european people agree with me), Obama is one of the most promising presidents you had in some time, but from what I can tell from these forums this view does not seem to be shared in the US, so I'm interested in knowing what exactly you perceive the main issue to be.

 

[WhoWee]

but on the other hand, I'm sure these years have granted him a lot of experience. So running the second time he won't be inexperienced anymore, which should be on the plus list.

When I think of Obama (but please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a US citizen), I think of someone that

1) has a desire to, and is not afraid of, taking on difficult and potentially controversial issues.

2) is competent and honest (compared to other candidates).

These two things together are already very hard to find in todays politicians in many countries, since they seem to become more populistic every year and thus super afraid of dealing with difficult long term issues. You are right that he may have been inexperienced the first time, but what now, when such a person also has experience? Don't you think he would make a pretty good deal?

From a non-US perspective (and I know very many at least european people agree with me), Obama is one of the most promising presidents you had in some time, but from what I can tell from these forums this view does not seem to be shared in the US, so I'm interested in knowing what exactly you perceive the main issue to be.

Why do you think he is competent and honest?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Why do you think he is competent and honest?

Honesty: I've looked at sites like Politifact where they have a "truth-o-meter" and he hardly ever rates as "pants on fire" and, compared to other big-name politicians, has far less "false" ratings (those are the two most false, the next one being barely true then the truthfulness goes up from there).

And false statements for Obama are anywhere from getting the week wrong to what they are for every politician which is getting mostly everything wrong, so, take that into context.

As for competence? Depends on who you ask but he passed a lot of legislation that would be seen as tough to get through and good for the country (healthcare, like I said, debatable but he stuck to his guns and stayed on target, regardless of whether or not you agree with him). Many foreign countries have started to see the United States in a lot better light since he came to office and have become more willing to become/stay our allies in the years to come because of him. He has passed a lot of legislation regarding our future, our future investments, clean energy, etc. Not just short-term goals either, but long-term ones that many presidents just don't have the "balls" to do.

Whether you agree or disagree with President Obama, he has done a lot of things that he believes will lead this country in a better direction, and has been willing to take the flack - and credit - for most, if not all of it.

 

[WhoWee]

Honesty: I've looked at sites like Politifact where they have a "truth-o-meter" and he hardly ever rates as "pants on fire" and, compared to other big-name politicians, has far less "false" ratings (those are the two most false, the next one being barely true then the truthfulness goes up from there).

And false statements for Obama are anywhere from getting the week wrong to what they are for every politician which is getting mostly everything wrong, so, take that into context.

As for competence? Depends on who you ask but he passed a lot of legislation that would be seen as tough to get through and good for the country (healthcare, like I said, debatable but he stuck to his guns and stayed on target, regardless of whether or not you agree with him). Many foreign countries have started to see the United States in a lot better light since he came to office and have become more willing to become/stay our allies in the years to come because of him. He has passed a lot of legislation regarding our future, our future investments, clean energy, etc. Not just short-term goals either, but long-term ones that many presidents just don't have the "balls" to do.

Whether you agree or disagree with President Obama, he has done a lot of things that he believes will lead this country in a better direction, and has been willing to take the flack - and credit - for most, if not all of it.

There seem to be quite a few opinions out there:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

IMO - if your statements constantly need clarification and you tend to "mis-speak" - you might not be 100% truthful and accurate...again IMO.

 

[Ryumast3r]

There seem to be quite a few opinions out there:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

How many statements do you make per day? How many of them are, in any way, a lie?

So then, are you untrustworthy?

One thing I noticed on the snopes article is that if you read on further a lot of those things that rate as "LIAR" in the e-mail, later rate as "True" or "Not False."

Not sure what you were saying by picking up this article, maybe you need to clarify, which brings me to my next point:

IMO - if your statements constantly need clarification and you tend to "mis-speak" - you might not be 100% truthful and accurate...again IMO.

I haven't heard all that many statements from him that really need all that much clarification, but then again, when you are talking to 300+ million people, not every single person is going to understand the same exact phrase the same exact way every single time you say it.

To say that if a person's words need clarification he is not trustworthy or not truthful is really just saying that nobody can be trusted because nobody is perfect or can perfectly convey everything they say.

I'm sure you have been misunderstood more than once in your life (and you weren't even talking to 300 million people), so, should we all then say that you are untrustworthy? I don't think so.