Is Obama in for 2012?

[CPA]

Even as a Republican, I am certain of two things:

1) Americans have short memories
2) If Palin is the candidate, the GOP doesn't have a chance in Hell of winning

 

[KentState]

It's too early to tell and honestly I'd rather not have another spend happy Republican in office any time soon if that's the only other alternative.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I would personally like to see him leave today. Why wait for 2012.

He has already screwed the US in a little over a year more than all the other presidents combined.

I thought Carter was stupid! God I'd love to have him back over Obama.



Messiah my @ss!

Its not wise to speak true words in this forum

 

[xj0hnx]

Yup, that sure equals or even compares to the criticisms of Obama now, doesn't it?

That's only three lines from of 8 pages of results, not my fault you are fail at the search feature.

Actually, no, I didn't say that.

It's copied directly from your post. Maybe it isn't what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Not nearly as vocal about Bush's spending as they've been about Obama's.

yes, they were, if not more so because he was elected on his platform of smaller government, and less spending.

Yeah, I would. Whether one president tries to fix the economy one way and fails, or if another president tries to fix the economy another way and fails, the failure remains.

Glad to hear it.

 

[MotF Bane]

http://www.breitbart.tv/gibbs-obama-willing-to-be-one-term-president-to-pass-his-agenda/

Only a Messiah would sacrifice himself for country that way. :thumbsup:

Thanks, now Obama being considered a Messiah is no longer a strawman. :awe:

 

[Red Dawn]

Thanks, now Obama being considered a Messiah is no longer a strawman. :awe:

Yeah if anybody is stupid enough to take McGowned seriously.

 

[zsdersw]

That's only three lines from of 8 pages of results, not my fault you are fail at the search feature.

A search for obama spending, from yesterday and older, yields 20 pages of results. Some of those 8 pages worth of posts aren't exactly criticisms of Bush, and some of the 20 pages worth of posts aren't exactly criticisms of Obama.. so that's a wash. Still it's a more than 2-to-1 margin.

It's copied directly from your post. Maybe it isn't what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

I never said the following line: "But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?". You said I said it. Siddhartha did, in post #30

yes, they were, if not more so because he was elected on his platform of smaller government, and less spending.

In which venue(s)? I don't recall anything like what's being directed at Obama.

 

[Lemon law]

Its way too early to tell and why waste time on useless speculation?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in?

Why would anyone think the TEA Party types would be upset about about cutting taxes to spur the economy? The tax cuts were a campaign promise of Bush and were promoted to encourage economic growth after the .com bubble burst under Clinton and the negative economic effects of 9/11.

IIRC, polling has shown TEA Party people support tax cuts to get an ecomony moving.

Edit: As to the OP's original question - I think it's way too early to tell. However, I do not think it's out of the question that Obama could be a one -term President.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Finally, what specifically was different in the HC reform compared to what was promissed. A few minor things have not passed, and the only major things that didn't pass were imported drugs and a public health care option. Is there anything in particular that you thing was "not even close to what was promissed"?

Although not addressed to me I'd like to respond.

Much of Obama's remarks promoting HCR concerned the increasing costs of HC and the need to bend that "cost curve" etc. It was remarked time and again how much of our GDP went to HC costs. I.e., a big promise was cutting costs.

This HCR bill delivers exaclty zip, and, moreover, if fully implemented in it's current state I predict even more GDP will end up going to HC costs.

Fern

 

[xj0hnx]

A search for obama spending, from yesterday and older, yields 20 pages of results. Some of those 8 pages worth of posts aren't exactly criticisms of Bush, and some of the 20 pages worth of posts aren't exactly criticisms of Obama.. so that's a wash. Still it's a more than 2-to-1 margin.

The posting history of Anandtech is not the measure of people criticism of Bush's spending spree. The fact is that people were very critical of Bush, and his abusive spending.

I never said the following line: "But where were the Tea Partiers when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? Where were they when the GWB wars were funded with deficits?". You said I said it. Siddhartha did, in post #30

Whatever ...

I'm not talking about or justifying Obama's spending, I'm pointing out how muted or non-existent criticism of Bush's spending was (and remains).

It had (and has) nothing to do with war spending.

Where were they when the Iraq war began?

Where were they when the Medicare prescription drug benefit was passed?

There's your quotes, and they are from before you specifying ATP&N. Are you finished with the petty BS, and ready to accept the fact that people were quite critical of Bush?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1335567&m=1335568

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/conservatives-against-bush/

http://www.republicansforhumility.com/divgov.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-campaign2002/1062297/posts

 

[llee]

How else does one expect to win besides over-promising?

The American people looks up to a leader that can promise fortune over the horizon.

The sad truth is that our own society is nourishing this trend of campaign tactics.

We should be striving for realistic goals and bipartisan efforts instead of alienating the other side and bearing over-optimistic aims.

Stay thirsty my friends.

 

[Genx87]

My ideal setup would be Obama + Republican congress.

 

[dullard]

Although not addressed to me I'd like to respond.

Much of Obama's remarks promoting HCR concerned the increasing costs of HC and the need to bend that "cost curve" etc. It was remarked time and again how much of our GDP went to HC costs. I.e., a big promise was cutting costs.

This HCR bill delivers exaclty zip, and, moreover, if fully implemented in it's current state I predict even more GDP will end up going to HC costs.

Thanks for responding, I thought no one read it.

Obama's HC cost campaign promisses were written here. There were four cost promise categories in that document.
(1) Improve technology for health information. Section 3002 of HR3590 (the original senate version that is signed into law) establishes that the Secretary must release a plan by Jan 1, 2012 for that very goal.
(2) Improve disease prevention and management. These issues are scattered throughout the HC bill (see Title IV of HR3590 for example).
(3) Reduce anticompetitive actions. On this part, Obama mostly failed. But, he does have a couple more years to try.
(4) Reimburse employers for catastrophic health care expenses. I do believe that Obama failed here too, but I may have missed it. The plan does provide financial incentives for small businesses though.

Other non-promissed cost cutting measures did make the bill. Most of these are in the form of dates by which a committee must have a plan for reducing costs. Those plans may or may not be passed into law. Since it is pending legislation that hasn't been written yet, it is impossible to tell the result.

I think the real problem is that people THOUGHT Obama was promissing more cost savings. Sadly, he never did. Real cost savings would come from building more hospitals, more medical schools, having more residencies, and thus drastically reducing the salaries of health care personnel. That, unfortunately, is the only real solution and it was never promissed or delivered (because the AMA would kill any chance of that happening).

 

[heyheybooboo]

...

(3) Reduce anticompetitive actions. On this part, Obama mostly failed. But, he does have a couple more years to try.

The HC Bill prevents doctors from referring patients to facilities in which they have a financial interest. I would imagine the self-dealing mofos find that reprehensible - LOL




--

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think the real problem is that people THOUGHT Obama was promissing more cost savings. Sadly, he never did.

I heard it him say it on numerous occasions. I heard other Dem leaders echo it.

For the longest time this whole 'cost issue' was raised at the most urgent need for HCR.

One of President Barack Obama's primary goals in calling for health-care reform when he took office a year ago was to "bend the cost curve" -- in other words, flatten skyrocketing medical expenses.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-bill-needs-help-to-bend-cost-curve-2010-01-22

Obama quote:

"Now, I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here. You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...said-health-care-reform-will-reduce-cost-hea/

There are tons of examples of these type remarks.

Fern

 

[Balt]

It's too early to tell. I wouldn't be too surprised if the economy turns sour again before Nov 2012.

 

[ProfJohn]

My ideal setup would be Obama + Republican congress.

Will never work.

They are too opposite of each other.

Clinton and Newt worked because Clinton was a conservative southern Democrat and a damn good politician who was willing to work with the other side.


There is NOTHING in Obama's history to suggest that he would or could work with a Republican congress. We'd probably see total grid lock, not a bad thing IMO, but we would certainly not see a rerun of the 1990s.

 

[nageov3t]

there was a great analysis of Newt on Meet the Press this week... he's got a million ideas and a dozen of them are good ones.

I'm pretty confident that Palin isn't planning a 2012 run and even if she does run, I don't think she'd win a single primary other than maybe Alaska's.

the Tea Party is not a sustainable grassroots movement and the GOP 2012 candidate will probably be a governor that's got his nose to the grindstone right now that most people have never heard of on the national stage. or, gag me with a spoon, it'll be Mitt Romney.

my guess would that it would be someone like Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty... depending on how the next 3-4 years go, I could even see Chris Christie's name gets tossed around.

Christine Todd Whitman will always be my dream candidate, but I don't think that's ever going to happen either.

 

[Cattlegod]

while i didn't vote for obama in 2008, at the current rate I will in 2012 if he runs. He is the only president that I can remember ever getting anything done.

 

[nageov3t]

while i didn't vote for obama in 2008, at the current rate I will in 2012 if he runs. He is the only president that I can remember ever getting anything done.

were you born in 2008?

Bush got a shitload done; congress was basically his bitch.

(not saying any of it was good, but it got done)

 

[Siddhartha]

Why would anyone think the TEA Party types would be upset about about cutting taxes to spur the economy? The tax cuts were a campaign promise of Bush and were promoted to encourage economic growth after the .com bubble burst under Clinton and the negative economic effects of 9/11.

IIRC, polling has shown TEA Party people support tax cuts to get an ecomony moving.

Edit: As to the OP's original question - I think it's way too early to tell. However, I do not think it's out of the question that Obama could be a one -term President.

Fern

From what I understand, Federal government spending and deficits are a big issue with the Tea Partiers.

 

[Siddhartha]

My points were:
1. Almost all the anti-Obama stuff I am hearing from his opponents is FUD, fake outrage, and politically motivated hypocrisy.
2. What the GOP has offered so far is fake libertarism and Ronald Reagan redux.

A good example of this is when the US lost more than 700,000 jobs in Jan 2009. A GOP Congressman pushed to reduce Federal government spending. Even Herbert Hoover realized at the beginning of the Great Depression that trying to balance the budget during an economic crisis made things worse.

The GOP has to offer a lot more than that to get my vote.

 

[zsdersw]

The posting history of Anandtech is not the measure of people criticism of Bush's spending spree. The fact is that people were very critical of Bush, and his abusive spending.

Of course it isn't, but that's not really the point, is it? Very critical of Bush and his spending? Nothing you've shown indicates that anything close to the same level of criticism of Obama's spending was directed at Bush's spending.

There's your quotes, and they are from before you specifying ATP&N. Are you finished with the petty BS, and ready to accept the fact that people were quite critical of Bush?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1335567&m=1335568

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/conservatives-against-bush/

http://www.republicansforhumility.com/divgov.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-campaign2002/1062297/posts

Again, nothing here comes even remotely close to the amount of criticism toward Obama's spending, which was the point I was making in the posts of mine you quoted.

Articles on conservative websites are just preaching to the choir. They're no more significant to the rest of the American people than a stinging article about Bush/Republicans/Conservatives on Daily Kos or Huffington Post.

 

[Siddhartha]

The GOP is hooking up with this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia

By SEAN MURPHY and TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writers Sean Murphy And Tim Talley, Associated Press Writers – Mon Apr 12, 9:30 pm ET
OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.

In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.

Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.

Some conservative legislators in Oklahoma say talk of a militia, which would be privately recruited, armed and trained, goes too far.

"If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."

Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.

Federal authorities say that radical militia groups have not emerged in Oklahoma, unlike many other states, in part because of the legacy of the Oklahoma City bombing. On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Tim McVeigh exploded a truckbomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Last month, FBI agents conducted a raid on the Hutaree militia group in southern Michigan and accused members of plotting to kill law enforcement officers.