Reelecting Obama

[Whovian]

good read.

Reelecting Obama

We are beginning to see the contours of the upcoming 2012 reelection campaign of Barack Obama. Whether always officially sanctioned or not, Obama’s campaign will focus on three general themes: a) the 2008 meltdown of the economy on Bush’s watch; b) conservative heartlessness in gutting cherished entitlement programs; and c) racial bias behind any criticism of Barack Obama.

Deficits, joblessness, fuel prices, average GDP growth, and housing are far worse than the average during the eight years of Bush’s presidency. Unemployment during almost all of President Obama’s tenure has exceeded 9 percent, despite promises that, because of the stimulus, it would not exceed 8 percent. Gas still averages almost $4 a gallon nationwide, amid a landscape of continual administration resistance to new domestic exploration and leasing. Record numbers of Americans now draw food stamps and unemployment insurance...

“Bush did it” is now too ironic a charge to evoke any more in matters of foreign policy, given that President Obama has now accepted all the Bush anti-terrorism protocols and wars — and gone well beyond them by joining a third conflict in Libya...

Already, supportive commercials are airing with a Paul Ryan look-alike shoving a grandmother out of her wheelchair over a cliff. Other hit ads portray the elderly with walkers forced to mow lawns to raise money for their benefits. Ads like that will appear soft in comparison to what’s coming in the next 18 months.

House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D., S.C.) summarized the racialist strategy best, when he explicitly charged that opposition to Obama’s reelection hinges on racism: “The fact of the matter is, the president’s problems are in large measure because of his skin color.”

So will this tripartite strategy work? Only if the president’s opponents allow themselves to be caricatured as greedy Wall Street profiteers who want to punish the elderly and are prejudiced against blacks.

 

[Geo Patric]

well, THAT won't be a difficult argument to make.

geo.

 

[tessaesque]

So sick of the "you don't like him 'cause he's black" BS. I don't care if the man is purple, he's an arrogant jerk-off who spends more time obsessing over his polls and chances at reelection that he spends working on the issues that need attention.

 

[jambalaya]

Obama is going to be tough to beat. As long as he stays close to the middle politically and nothing devestating like another ecomonic meltdown happens I think he will probably win. The Republicans still don't have a candidate that inspires all conservatives.

 

[Renae]

Blame Bush, cause if you focus on Obama's Record... that would be a bad thing.

Remind Voters that to get free gold from the Treasury, vote Democrat.

Oh yeah, if you say anything negative about Obama's tenure as President, it's obvious you are a Racist.


What a platform to run on... it's pathetic, though not surprising.

 

[Renae]

Obama is going to be tough to beat. As long as he stays close to the middle politically and nothing devestating like another ecomonic meltdown happens I think he will probably win. The Republicans still don't have a candidate that inspires all conservatives.

He'd be easy to beat, all you have to do is focus on the utter failure he's been as a leader, his "accomplishments" such as Obamacare and present a strong, solid case for Conservative Ideals and Obama is toast.

That's why the GOP will pick Romney, snatching defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

 

[Geo Patric]

He'd be easy to beat, all you have to do is focus on the utter failure he's been as a leader, his "accomplishments" such as Obamacare and present a strong, solid case for Conservative Ideals and Obama is toast.

That's why the GOP will pick Romney, snatching defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

because Obamacare and Romneycare are polar opposites... what a joke.

as mentioned elsewhere... the Democrats HC plan was modeled on a republican plan floated circa 1991.

that.. and other obvious and explained hatreds are going to BE part of the next campaign.

bet on it.

geo.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

present a strong, solid case for Conservative Ideals and Obama is toast.

I was under the impression the stronger you presented those ideals the more likely a liberal was to get elected...

 

[Renae]

I was under the impression the stronger you presented those ideals the more likely a liberal was to get elected...

This is the error of your ways.

Reagan, 1980, 1984. Need I say more?

 

[Geo Patric]

This is the error of your ways.

Reagan, 1980, 1984. Need I say more?

silly... reagan left a legacy of coprorate greed and diminishing revenue streams which eventually resulted in the election of Bill "do you like cigars, little girl" Clinton who put BOTH the economy and the people dependent upon it back in sync only to have Geo Bush screw it up again.

geo.

 

[roughdraft274]

good read.

Reelecting Obama

Any time I hear a liberal say something along the lines of "conservatives are racist" I tend to start ignoring them because it's easy to tell that what ever they are about to say it will involve nothing substantially intelligent. I've found the same to be true of anyone saying "Democrats always play the race card! Every criticism of Barack Obama they are trying to turn into racism!"

There are racist conservatives and there are liberals who overplay the race card. Neither group represents anything other than a small minority. Once all of us learn to ignore those that cry racism on both sides we'll be much better off.

 

[Geo Patric]

" Every criticism of Barack Obama they are trying to turn into racism!" .

no, that is ridiculous. not EVERY criticism.

geo.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

He not only sucks as a President, but he is the most pathetic entity ever to occupy the Oval Office. Hopefully that's enough such that he will lose, and lose big.

 

[Geo Patric]

He not only sucks as a President, but he is the most pathetic entity ever to occupy the Oval Office. Hopefully that's enough such that he will lose, and lose big.

well, now THERE is a nice rational, well documented argument.

i am convinced.

geo.

 

[Objective Voice]

I normally don't condemn the information source, but considering that National Review was started in 1955 by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr, as a purely Republican magazine and has remained as such ever since, I would not expect National Review Online to ever have a positive review of a Democratic president let alone this one.

Moreover, the article rehashes many of the same arguments we've had throughout this forum, i.e., a depressed housing market, unemployment, racism, the deficit/debt, domestic fuel costs. I find nothing new or compelling about what's been written. Comparing GWBush's 8-yrs in office to Obama's 2 yrs, 4 mos is really not a fair comparison as has also been argued several times in this forum. Frankly speaking, if you compare where the country was two years into the Great Depression to where the country is now coming out of the Great Recession, I'd say we're in good shape.

No, it's not a matter of "drinking the Liberal kool-aid". It's about putting things in perspective.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

well, now THERE is a nice rational, well documented argument.

i am convinced.

geo.

Glad that you liked it. I'm not here to persuade to Kool-Ade drinkers. That takes a big sugar fix, and there is nothing sweet about me.

Speaking of a lack of substance, see what is quoted in my post

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I normally don't condemn the information source, but considering that National Review was started in 1955 by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr, as a purely Republican magazine and has remained as such ever since, I would not expect National Review Online to ever have a positive review of a Democratic president let alone this one.

Moreover, the article rehashes many of the same arguments we've had throughout this forum, i.e., a depressed housing market, unemployment, racism, the deficit/debt, domestic fuel costs. I find nothing new or compelling about what's been written. Comparing GWBush's 8-yrs in office to Obama's 2 yrs, 4 mos is really not a fair comparison as has also been argued several times in this forum. Frankly speaking, if you compare where the country was two years into the Great Depression to where the country is now coming out of the Great Recession, I'd say we're in good shape.

No, it's not a matter of "drinking the Liberal kool-aid". It's about putting things in perspective.

FDR turned the first Great Recession into the Great Depression. Obama is repeating. Following essentially the same failed template. We are not yet coming out of anything. Not at all.

 

[Renae]

FDR turned the first Great Recession into the Great Depression. Obama is repeating. Following essentially the same failed template. We are not yet coming out of anything. Not at all.

Expert predict any time now, the economy will roar back, all set backs are a surprise.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Expert predict any time now, the economy will roar back, all set backs are a surprise.

I don't know if I am laughing with you, or crying with you, or both. :roll:

You probably have expected this like so many of the rest of us. Obama's only economic plan rolls on. Printing money.

Prepare for More Money Printing: Analyst

Investors should prepare themselves for a third round of quantitative easing, Simon Maughn, co-head of European equities at MF Global, told CNBC Wednesday.

“The bond market is going in one direction which is up-falling yields which is telling you quite clearly the direction of economic travel is downwards. Downgrades. QE3 (a third round of quantitative easing) is coming,” said Maughn. “The bond markets are all smarter than us, and that’s exactly what the bond markets are telling me.”

More here. CNBC folks: News Headlines

Government is essentially everyone's employer, and then we buy our own debt to finance it. Its Heir Leader's economic policy. Do liberals know what is wrong with that picture ?

 

[RadicalModerate]

So sick of the "you don't like him 'cause he's black" BS. I don't care if the man is purple, he's an arrogant jerk-off who spends more time obsessing over his polls and chances at reelection that he spends working on the issues that need attention.

Uh, welcome to the wonderful of national American politics.

I'd like to see one national politician who isn't going to focus most of her or his time and energy on polls and being reelected.

 

[Geo Patric]

that National Review was started in 1955 by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr, as a purely Republican magazine and has remained as such ever since, I would not expect National Review Online to ever have a positive review of a Democratic president let alone this one...

personally, The National Review is a pub I have the greatest respect for, and William F. was a great man... pain in the ass and conservative as he was. I do not think a source need be wholly impartial to be worth listening to. i do not think that is possible, really, in anyone of any degree of conviction. they have to be honest and Buckley was honest.

conservatism has never been the same. I do not think thay have such a rational and passionate individual among their ranks today. when your public political voice has degraded to such simpletoms as Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg, you know you are in trouble.

geo.