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

[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