Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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:



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.

This is one of my favorites:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-claims-america-one-largest-muslim-countries/

"Obama claims America is one of the largest Muslim countries"

Their explanation of the "Pants on Fire" rating:
"So Obama is trying to make a point that the United States is in touch with the Muslim world because it has a substantial Muslim population. But he dramatically overreaches by saying the United States would be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Ranking 58 out of the world's 60 most populous Muslim nations does not a large Muslim country make. Indeed, by even the most generous estimate we found of 8 million, the United States still ranks 29 out of 60. As a result, we give Obama a Pants on Fire."

 

[russ_watters]

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).

First, I'd like to speak in absolute terms, not in comparison to other candidates: there are just too many and it is too difficult to resonably lump them all together. With that out of the way...

I think the answer to all three of those (and they really are three, not two) depends on the issue and to me that says that he is primarily a politician and not a leader. But they are inter-related. You just saw examples of each of those in the last page, but to rehash a little:

Yes, he takes on difficult and controversial ones. He also punts on some. Yucca mountain is an example. During the campaign, I believed he was shutting it down because he is anti-nuclear and thus incompetent. Now it appears to me that he shut it down for the political capital and is thus dishonest. So that's an example of him failing on two of three counts.

Next example, unemployment. He displayed spectacular incompetence in gauging the trajectory of the economy as soon as he entered office, with his now infamous pledge to keep unemployment under 8%.

Third, 'Gitmo. I had assumed that this was a throw-away campaign promise that he'd discard as soon as he entered office, making him dishonest. Instead, he actually signed an executive order to close the prison, making him honest, but woefully naive and incompetent. Frankly, I was shocked during the campaign at how naive Obama supporters were on this issue. It was pretty obviously an impossible promise to keep...in addition to being undesirable.

Fourth, openness and not being political (cracking down on earmarks, making healthcare hearings public, not allowing lobbyists in his administration, etc. I don't know if he purposely broke this promise or not, so I don't know if that's incompetence or dishonesty.

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 mean like the national debt? He's basically said we're screwed and he's not even going to try to fix it (Bobg had a nice summary of that issue for those who missed it).

...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.

Not sure how you got that impression - this forum is pretty heavily liberal. It may just be that the liberals are staying out of this thread because there isn't much positive to be said in it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I'd like to speak in absolute terms, not in comparison to other candidates: there are just too many and it is too difficult to resonably lump them all together. With that out of the way...

So you spoke in absolute terms but never followed up with comparisons. So you didn't really intend to make any comparisons.

Yes, he takes on difficult and controversial ones. He also punts on some. Yucca mountain is an example. During the campaign, I believed he was shutting it down because he is anti-nuclear and thus incompetent. Now it appears to me that he shut it down for the political capital and is thus dishonest. So that's an example of him failing on two of three counts.

According to this:

Foremost is the challenge of winning public support. "Any way you look at it, this is a social confidence problem that needs to be addressed," says Charles Powers, a professor of environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University. Advanced technology, government funding, and political backing all will help, he says, but nothing is more important than fostering local support.

As Powers acknowledges, that's easier said than done. Take Yucca Mountain. When Congress picked Yucca in 1987, it did so without the blessing of the state, which quickly sued to stop the project. (It lost.) Ever since, Nevada officials, led by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have aggressively opposed storing waste at Yucca. Some argue the site is geologically inadequate. Others warn of falloffs in Las Vegas tourism. And in general, observers say, there's a mentality of victimhood—a sense that the federal government forced this upon the state.

http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/a...e-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-storage-debate

The survey of 600 likely Nevada voters conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57 percent say the issue will be important in making their choice for president

http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html

So it seems your view is that Obama is dishonest if he doesn't force this on a State that doesn't want it. So then I assume your position is that Fed should ignore the will of the people; that your definition of a leader is "one who ignores the democratic process".

Next example, unemployment. He displayed spectacular incompetence in gauging the trajectory of the economy as soon as he entered office, with his now infamous pledge to keep unemployment under 8%.

After eight years of Republican control, given that Republican policies caused the crash, and after McCain denied the economy was melting down while it was melting down, which probably cost him the election, you blame Obama for not accurately predicting the depth scope of the Republican disaster? That is laughable.

Third, 'Gitmo. I had assumed that this was a throw-away campaign promise that he'd discard as soon as he entered office, making him dishonest. Instead, he actually signed an executive order to close the prison, making him honest, but woefully naive and incompetent. Frankly, I was shocked during the campaign at how naive Obama supporters were on this issue. It was pretty obviously an impossible promise to keep...in addition to being undesirable.

It was obviously impossible when faced with Republican opposition at every turn.

Fourth, openness and not being political (cracking down on earmarks, making healthcare hearings public, not allowing lobbyists in his administration, etc. I don't know if he purposely broke this promise or not, so I don't know if that's incompetence or dishonesty.

He isn't done yet. Did he promise when it would get done?

You mean like the national debt? He's basically said we're screwed and he's not even going to try to fix it

He says no such thing. That is a blatent lie.

Not sure how you got that impression - this forum is pretty heavily liberal. It may just be that the liberals are staying out of this thread because there isn't much positive to be said in it.

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that! As for there not being much positive to say, that is only true if the facts are misrepresented, as you have done here.

Here are some positive comments about Obama. The only objection was made without any point at all.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=457172

 

[WhoWee]

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that!

Perhaps he should have said "Progressive"?

 

[turbo]

Perhaps he should have said "Progressive"?

There are people who are humanitarians, and who are fiscally conservative. You cannot determine who they are by crude idealogical guidelines.

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to be labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views. If that is the case, then are "liberals" infecting your world, or are you projecting a perverse world-view on your fellow forum-members?

 

[WhoWee]

There are people who are humanitarians, and who are fiscally conservative. You cannot determine who they are by crude idealogical guidelines.

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views.

When did I ever insist that anyone "suck up" to anyone? This thread is about President Obama's strategy for re-election in 2012. IMO - the President adheres to a liberal agenda and he has a great deal of support on the PF.

 

[turbo]

When did I ever insist that anyone "suck up" to anyone? This thread is about President Obama's strategy for re-election in 2012. IMO - the President adheres to a liberal agenda and he has a great deal of support on the PF.

He also has 60% support in the US public.

 

[russ_watters]

So you spoke in absolute terms but never followed up with comparisons. So you didn't really intend to make any comparisons.

Huh? Maybe you need to reread that...

So it seems your view is that Obama is dishonest if he doesn't force this on a State that doesn't want it. So then I assume your position is that Fed should ignore the will of the people;

No, it's dishonest if he misrepresents his reasons for doing it and dishonest if he commissions a study, then orders them not to consider Yucca.

Making that decision for political reasons just makes him more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing.

And by the way, Nevada is one state and it is undemocratic to favor them over the rest of the country just because they have a powerful Senator.

...that your definition of a leader is "one who ignores the democratic process".

You do understand that this is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, right? In a day and age when we could easily have a direct democracy if we wanted, the main reason to have a direct democracy is exactly that: to make tough decisions even if they are unpopular. Motivating people to accept something they need but don't want is the key trait of a leader:

A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.
~Rosalynn Carter

After eight years of Republican control, given that Republican policies caused the crash...

That's not a given. There is a shared responsibility, especiallly considering that Clinton signed some of the major enabling legislation without blinking.

...after McCain denied the economy was melting down while it was melting down, which probably cost him the election, you blame Obama for not accurately predicting the depth scope of the Republican disaster? That is laughable.

No, Ivan, it's realism. Neither Bush nor McCain are running for President next year, so Obama is going to have a difficult time running against them. He's going to have to run on his record and his record is that he badly underestimated the unemployment situation, tried to fix it and failed, and in so doing massively drove up the debt, and has since basically decided not to attempt to fix that. He's going to have trouble blaming McCain or Bush for all that.

It was obviously impossible when faced with Republican opposition at every turn.

Wow, still? Obama is CINC. He can move troops or prisoners with a word or a stroke of a pen (which is why he signed an executive order instead of writing a bill). The problem on this issue wasn't Republican opposition, it was conservation of mass. You can't just make prisoners disappear. I really thought even the die-hards would have realized by now that he was trying to do something that was physically impossible.

And by the way, I suppose you also forgot that Obama did at times have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

He isn't done yet. Did he promise when it would get done?

Huh? The healthcare hearings already happened and he declined to open them even after promising he would. This issue is over and done. Maybe you misread...

He says no such thing. That is a blatent lie.

Here's bobg's post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3271041&postcount=30 If you haven't read it, you should - it's a classic.

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that!

Read any poll we've ever had on the subject! And that's not even including the fact that some of our hardest liberals will claim up and down to be "independent"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to be labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views. If that is the case, then are "liberals" infecting your world, or are you projecting a perverse world-view on your fellow forum-members?

That would be my guess.

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye. I was collecting signatures to get Perot on the ticket when that same member was about ten. My wife and I almost split because she was strongly liberal and I was strongly conservative. That I have been labeled as a liberal over the years here shows just how screwed up the perspective from the extreme right has become.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions because the Republican platform has utterly failed. But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal. That distinction apparently exceeds the intellectual grasp of many people.

 

[russ_watters]

He also has 60% support in the US public.

It jumped 10%+ after the killing of Bin Laden. That'll pass.

 

[russ_watters]

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.

And was that also the last time you voted for a Republican for President? Yeah, Ivan, I get that you were conservative.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions...

We know.

But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal.

A temporary liberal is still a liberal. I'm curious about how long it takes for temporary to become permanent.

 

[turbo]

That would be my guess.

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye. I was collecting signatures to get Perot on the ticket when that same member was about ten. My wife and I almost split because she was strongly liberal and I was strongly conservative. That I have been labeled as a liberal over the years here shows just how screwed up the perspective from the extreme right has become.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions because the Republican platform has utterly failed. But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal. That distinction apparently exceeds the intellectual grasp of many people.

I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper. That will be good for the country in the long term, like aids-infected guys should always be able to have unprotected sex with their partners.

 

[WhoWee]

I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper. That will be good for the country in the long term, like aids-infected guys should always be able to have unprotected sex with their partners.

How does one respond to such a post?

 

[turbo]

How does one respond to such a post?

With some realistic response, possibly?

 

[WhoWee]

With some realistic response, possibly?

You're talking about aids-infected guys having sex and I need to have a realistic response?

Let's get back on topic - President Obama's failing policies and his re-election campaign responses (60% approval noted).