News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

Maybe the Republicans should push for a return to the 2008 spending levels? President Obama might agree - if they can convince him he'll be able to run against Bush again.

 

[turbo]

So you haven't voted Republican in 30 years. I think it's fair to say that the GOP has written off your vote, and as such your opinion carries little weight.

I vote for the best candidate (IMO) regardless of party. That results in split tickets. I would probably have voted for McCain if he had chosen a serious VP candidate.

 

[WhoWee]

This 4/13/11 speech has been characterized as the President's first re-election speech. He made some very specific (and IMO harsh) charges against Republicans and twice drew a line in the sand - will the media hold him to these words thru the 2012 election?



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/

"One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t."

 

[WhoWee]

Label IMO - my wife received a recorded telemarketing message on her cell phone today from President Obama - talking about his mortgage refinance deal - Making Home Affordable. It was funded with $75 Billion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy
"Keeping Americans in Their Homes
Millions of hard-working, responsible families are at risk of losing their homes as home prices fall and jobs are threatened. The Making Home Affordable Refinancing program will expand access to refinancing for up to 4 to 5 million families who are current on their mortgages but otherwise unable to refinance because their homes have lost value. The Making Home Affordable Modification program has a $75 billion commitment to support loan modifications so that up to 3 to 4 million borrowers at risk of foreclosure can keep their homes. President Obama’s programs to prevent foreclosures will help bolster home prices and will provide direct support to up to 9 million homeowners to refinance for lower payments or have their mortgages modified to prevent foreclosure. President Obama also launched MakingHomeAffordable.gov, where borrowers can learn basic facts about mortgages, homeownership, and resources available."

I think this is the program that lowers the monthly payment to 31% of income? Why does a Government program designed to save homes from foreclosure need telemarketing support?

Has any President ever communicated/educated the public in such a manner?

Is this appropriate?

Please label post IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently S&P wasn't impressed with the 4/13/11 speech?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18

"Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s also said that it revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the U.S. sovereign to negative from stable".

 

[mugaliens]

Apparently S&P wasn't impressed with the 4/13/11 speech?

I think S&P wasn't impressed with U.S. financials. The billions that were supposedly saved during the recent budget deal comes to around $353 million after tallying all the financials rather than just the programs on the chopping block. It was a shell game that fooled half the American people and the media.

It didn't fool S&P.

I vote for the best candidate (IMO) regardless of party. That results in split tickets. I would probably have voted for McCain if he had chosen a serious VP candidate.

Wow! For a second I thought I was reading something I'd written. My sentiments exactly, turbo-1, except for the vote. I thought Palin was well-spoken during the campaign, but she became overly outspoken afterwards. Regardless, she wasn't running for President; just VP. True, there's always the question of who might become President in case of disaster, but that's not a statistical liklihood, so I focus 90% on the Presidential candidates themselves, not the VP candidates.

 

[turbo]

Wow! For a second I thought I was reading something I'd written. My sentiments exactly, turbo-1, except for the vote. I thought Palin was well-spoken during the campaign, but she became overly outspoken afterwards. Regardless, she wasn't running for President; just VP. True, there's always the question of who might become President in case of disaster, but that's not a statistical liklihood, so I focus 90% on the Presidential candidates themselves, not the VP candidates.

McCain is getting along in years and had survived several bouts of cancer. All he needed to do was choose a running mate that was intelligent and IMO capable of stepping into his shoes without a lot of hand-holding, and he would have gotten my vote. Palin was not that person by a long shot. She couldn't even give sensible answers to Couric's softball questions. That killed McCain's shot at my vote.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

All he needed to do was choose a running mate that was intelligent and IMO capable of stepping into his shoes without a lot of hand-holding, and he would have gotten my vote. [emphasis added]

http://www.rearrange-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/owl-orly.jpg

Now, we are almost certainly committed to voting a straight-Democratic ticket (with some exceptions) because of the blatant lies and hijacking of our government by Bush/Cheney and the unwavering support they have gotten from our (both women) senators...
I hope that there are lot of life-long conservatives who don't want to be tied to the neo-cons and their agendas, and will be willing to vote for Obama.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251195&page=2

You had very little nice to say about McCain during the campaign and were quite clear that he had no shot at your vote. Did you forget that everything you posted back then is still recorded here? Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[turbo]

You had very little nice to say about McCain during the campaign and were quite clear that he had no shot at your vote. Did you forget that everything you posted back then is still recorded here? Who do you think you are fooling?

My wife and I were certainly willing to vote for McCain, until he chose Palin. Then we had to wonder if we could vote for either Obama (a wild card) or Clinton (way too much baggage). The fact that our state's two GOP senators followed Bush-Cheney in lock-step did not endear them to us, so it had become an exercise in researching their opponents to make comparisons. Both senators seem OK on women's issues and on jobs (at least Maine jobs) but they gave the neo-cons everything that they asked for in national policy and foreign policy. Like I said, if McCain had chosen a moderate running mate with some experience, he would probably have gotten our votes. There have never been political bumper stickers on our vehicles, nor political signs on our lawn. We're issues voters, not ideologues.

If you choose not to believe that, that's your look-out, not mine.

 

[turbo]

Russ you conveniently left out a lot of context. I'm sure it was an oversight.

My wife and I both came from large and poor families, and when we started out, we had nothing but each other. We have worked very hard to get where we are, and we always voted split tickets to make sure that we got the best of the (sometimes poor choices of) candidates in office. Now, we are almost certainly committed to voting a straight-Democratic ticket (with some exceptions) because of the blatant lies and hijacking of our government by Bush/Cheney and the unwavering support they have gotten from our (both women) senators. Collins is history this time, if we can make it happen, and Snowe is gone next time, if possible, though they have both gotten our votes in the past. Enough is enough.

 

[russ_watters]

My wife and I were certainly willing to vote for McCain, until he chose Palin...

Like I said, if McCain had chosen a moderate running mate with some experience, he would probably have gotten our votes...

If you choose not to believe that, that's your look-out, not mine.

That is quite clearly false. Would you like to see more quotes where you said exactly the opposite? What's going on here? Do you just not remember your own position?

Russ you conveniently left out a lot of context. I'm sure it was an oversight.

None of that directly addresses the point: it just explains why you weren't going to vote for McCain.

 

[CAC1001]

We're issues voters, not ideologues.

You say that, yet you continually refer to conservatives that don't fit your ideal of conservatism as "neocons."

 

[turbo]

You say that, yet you continually refer to conservatives that don't fit your ideal of conservatism as "neocons."

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare, give tax-breaks to businesses and the wealthy, and chisel on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc for regular citizens are clearly not conservatives. They are hand-maids to the wealthy and have absolutely no interest in balancing our budget. Judge them by their deeds, not their rhetoric.

Margaret Chase Smith and Barry Goldwater would never understand what has happened to the Republican party over the last few decades. Kennedy and Johnson would never understand the present spineless nature of the Democratic party, either.

BTW, I got to get acquainted with Senator Smith after her retirement. She was a treasure. If we could clone her, the GOP would be a far different party.

 

[CAC1001]

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare, give tax-breaks to businesses and the wealthy, and chisel on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc for regular citizens are clearly not conservatives. They are hand-maids to the wealthy and have absolutely no interest in balancing our budget. Judge them by their deeds, not their rhetoric.

George W. Bush was about as textbook "neoconservative" as you can get, and he signed what was a pretty massive expansion of Medicare, which has been hugely popular. Conservative attempts to reform Medicare and SS have nothing to do with getting rid of them, just reforming them so that they can continue to function.

I'd say it is more your far-right fiscal conservatives who want to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS outright. Wanting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS is conservative, just conservatism taken to an extreme.

George W. Bush's tax cuts were for everyone. And giving tax breaks to businesses can help create jobs. It depends on the business.

The problem I see with the Republican party is you either have big government conservatives (such as Bush) or the far-right ultra-religious types who want to end all social safety nets (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, unemployment, etc...). I don't know why the Republican party cannot produce a decent limited-government conservative who can argue for proper reform of these programs to keep them sustainable, and otherwise be for limited government as opposed to being anti-government.

Even the late great Milton Friedman said that a society has to have a way to care for those who can not care for themselves, so things like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS do not really contradict the philosophy of limited government. At their core, they are safety nets, not an outright social welfare state. There's a huge difference between paying people not to work (welfare) and having a healthcare system for elderly who have worked many years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem I see with the Republican party is you either have big government conservatives (such as Bush) or the far-right ultra-religious types who want to end all social safety nets (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, unemployment, etc...).

Who are you talking about in the second category? I know of nobody holding major office (national or statewide) who is advocating ending all the safety nets you have mentioned. Asking that they be "ultra-religious" would only narrow the field further.

 

[russ_watters]

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare.

Ridiculous. It is the Democrats who benefit from the class warfare because they are able to paint it as an "us vs them" situation with the "us" being 99% of the voter base. Republicans have nothing to gain by trying to raise-up the 1% (or even 10%).

Republicans want fairness and in this context "fair" means that everyone who is not poor should pay taxes.

Case in point:

George W. Bush's tax cuts were for everyone.

That's correct. But from liberals, including from the media, we constantly see it being harped-on that Bush cut taxes for "the wealthy". Liberals ignore this fact because it enables them to create class warfare by implying he only cut taxes for the wealthy.

 

[CAC1001]

Who are you talking about in the second category? I know of nobody holding major office (national or statewide) who is advocating ending all the safety nets you have mentioned. Asking that they be "ultra-religious" would only narrow the field further.

They may not advocate it for fear of apearing too radical, but they exist. Just as you have some socialists among the Democrats who would never admit it pubicly. Sharon Angle who ran for Harry Reid's Senate seat wanted to privatize Social Security. Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller said unemployment benefits, Medicare, and SS are un-Constitutional.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They may not advocate it for fear of apearing too radical, but they exist. Just as you have some socialists among the Democrats who would never admit it pubicly.

Then that's a conspiracy theory. Sorry, not permitted on PF.

 

[CAC1001]

Case in point: That's correct. But from liberals, including from the media, we constantly see it being harped-on that Bush cut taxes for "the wealthy". Liberals ignore this fact because it enables them to create class warfare by implying he only cut taxes for the wealthy.

Yes, it really shows the whole ridiculousness of the entire notion of undoing the Bush tax cuts. If people truly thought, "We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts," then they'd be for undoing all of them. Instead though, they are just for undoing them for the highest earners, which means either:

1) They are clueless that the Bush tax cuts were actually for everyone

2) The are selfish, and while fine with having had their own taxes reduced, throw a rant over the higher-earners having had their taxes reduced.

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.

 

[CAC1001]

Then that's a conspiracy theory. Sorry, not permitted on PF.

It is...!? Hmm...well all I ever see are your country-club big-government Republicans (John McCain, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Bob Dole, etc...) or your extreme right Republicans (such as Ron Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, etc...). I have yet to see the sensible limited government Republican, although Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and a few others might be this (I would hope).

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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.