Wondering who to support for president? Maybe its time to revisit a little history.

[Thump553]

What am I doing?

No more Bushes, that's what I'm doing. Tea Party is the effort to remove the Bush policy from the GOP. To rid ourselves of the taint of Neocons who grow government and meet the Democrats half way to achieving their goals.

No more compassionate conservatives who sell us down the river.

If you loved Bush and want more, you'd continue to do everything you can to attack the Tea Party. You'd continue to do what you're already doing. Romney is your man.

I'd love to see a survey or study done showing what percentage of Tea Party supporters voted for GWB. I suspect the percentage would be well over 90%. Despite the Tea Party's disavowal of Bush, they talk the same talk, and support the same socially repressive doctrines, that he did. Same old whine in a new bottle.

 

[werepossum]

I'd love to see a survey or study done showing what percentage of Tea Party supporters voted for GWB. I suspect the percentage would be well over 90%. Despite the Tea Party's disavowal of Bush, they talk the same talk, and support the same socially repressive doctrines, that he did. Same old whine in a new bottle.

Because Lord knows there were SO many other fiscally conservative candidates to choose from . . .

 

[rchiu]

ha, yeah it could be lot worse, just like how we all thought GW was bad and Obama came along and brought both deficit and the unemployment to new height.

Seriously that's a lame excuse to ask people not to support one party/candidate. Any new policy will have a chance to make the country better or worse. The beauty of American system is we give a president 4 year to make his/her word a reality, then we revisit and decide.

Obama got his 4 year.

 

[soundforbjt]

Because Lord knows there were SO many other fiscally conservative candidates to choose from . . .

Didn't Ron Paul run back then as well?

 

[soundforbjt]

ha, yeah it could be lot worse, just like how we all thought GW was bad and Obama came along and brought both deficit and the unemployment to new height.

Seriously that's a lame excuse to ask people not to support one party/candidate. Any new policy will have a chance to make the country better or worse. The beauty of American system is we give a president 4 year to make his/her word a reality, then we revisit and decide.

Obama got his 4 year.

Actually it's been 2 & 3/4 years so far.

 

[werepossum]

Didn't Ron Paul run back then as well?

No, neither time. Also, the Tea Party is a minority (mostly) within the Republican Party. I doubt many who later became Tea Party members voted for Bush in the 2000 primary. I know I didn't. (Not that I'm a member of a Tea Party, chanting and waving signs is not something to which I aspire.) The 2000 Pubby hopefuls were Bush, McCain, Keyes (my second dark horse), Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, Elizabeth Dole, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Lamar Alexander, Robert C. Smith, John Kasich (my first dark horse), Andy Martin, and Jack Fellure. I don't remember Smith, Martin and Fellure at all, and of the others, only Kasich qualifies as a fiscal conservative. (And maybe Buchanan, in a cranky get-off-my-damn-lawn old man kinda way.)

And in 2004 there was no real Republican alternative, any more than there will be a real Democrat alternative to Obama in 2012. Both parties value their chance to win much more than any particular principle or set of principles, and the best way to win is to not have an expensive and bloody primary campaign.

This also illustrates that until Bush, deficits and debt were somewhat important, but not critical to a significant number of people.

 

[woolfe9999]

Good point. Although I hate to think anyone could be persuaded by Michael Moore.

Personally I don't understand why liberals and progressives are unhappy with Obama. He led the most massive transfer of power from states to the federal government since FDR, and it will eventually (assuming it isn't neutered by the Pubbies) wipe out the private health insurance they hate. He also led the abolishing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, neutered the Defense of Marriage Act, and recently de facto legalized most illegal aliens. Seems to me the left is guilty of assuming that the only impediment to a socialist utopia was picking the right President. In reality a majority of the nation is significantly farther right than is Obama, and most Democrat politicians, especially Representatives who have to run every two years, recognize this fact. I can't imagine another leftist, even one with Reagan's or Clinton's charisma, accomplishing much more, especially given the shitty economy he inherited and its attendant hit to his political capital for not immediately (or, well, even partially) fixing it. So you guys didn't get everything you wanted, or even most of it. Welcome to reality, no one ever does. Hell, I'd like to see him do more on environmental/conservation issues and solar/alternative energy, but I recognize that he can't, in this economy. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, even if you really, really hate your face.

Put on your big girl panties, grow some ovaries, and realize that Obama actually is on your side, he just has constraints just like everyone else. Your battle isn't with Obama, it's with reality.

Well then, let me give you the liberal perspective, which I only partially agree with.

1. The healthcare bill - mandates that everyone buy insurance from private corporations, with no government insurance option to compete against the corporations. This is considered corporate welfare, a flat outrage by many liberals, particularly since they believe he didn't fight for the public option.

2. Financial regulation bill is only marginally better than the status quo; liberals think we need a return to the regulatory scheme that was dismantled in the 1990's by Clinton and the pubbies;

3. Foreign policy - most liberals believe he is nearly indistinguishable from George Bush on foreign affairs (to be fair, many liberals apparently weren't listening when Obama said during the campaign that he intended a surge in Afghanistan - he didn't campaign as far to the left on foreign policy as they think);

4. Immigration - no reform bill to provide a path to amnesty; his decision not to enforce against illegals who do not commit crimes once here is an ephemeral change that will go away as soon as he's out of office;

5. Clean Energy - stated as his #1 priority in the campaign; no cap and trade, no energy bill with long term investment in renewable energy; no EPA heightened emissions standards (caved); some stimulus money is basically it;

6. No closing of Guantanemo;

7. Caved to maintain the Bush tax cuts; caved on tax increases in the debt ceiling talks;

8. Hasn't prosecuted wall street criminals vigorously, particularly Goldman Sachs, an Obama campaign contributor.

Frankly, DADT is about the only thing many liberals think he's accomplished. I think he's accomplished more than that for liberals, but he's not even remotely close to the progressive (i.e. left) wing of the party.

- wolf

 

[soundforbjt]

No, neither time.


This also illustrates that until Bush, deficits and debt were somewhat important, but not critical to a significant number of people.

Wasn't sure about Paul in 2000.

Reagan tripled the debt and no one cared much then, either.

 

[Lithium381]

lol liberals

 

[Craig234]

I'd love to see a survey or study done showing what percentage of Tea Party supporters voted for GWB. I suspect the percentage would be well over 90%. Despite the Tea Party's disavowal of Bush, they talk the same talk, and support the same socially repressive doctrines, that he did. Same old whine in a new bottle.

The second highest predictor trait of Tea Party members is previous party (Repub).

 

[Craig234]

ha, yeah it could be lot worse, just like how we all thought GW was bad and Obama came along and brought both deficit and the unemployment to new height.

Seriously that's a lame excuse to ask people not to support one party/candidate. Any new policy will have a chance to make the country better or worse. The beauty of American system is we give a president 4 year to make his/her word a reality, then we revisit and decide.

Obama got his 4 year.

Republicans: obstruct so Democratic policies DON'T get tried, then criticize.

 

[werepossum]

Well then, let me give you the liberal perspective, which I only partially agree with.

1. The healthcare bill - mandates that everyone buy insurance from private corporations, with no government insurance option to compete against the corporations. This is considered corporate welfare, a flat outrage by many liberals, particularly since they believe he didn't fight for the public option.

2. Financial regulation bill is only marginally better than the status quo; liberals think we need a return to the regulatory scheme that was dismantled in the 1990's by Clinton and the pubbies;

3. Foreign policy - most liberals believe he is nearly indistinguishable from George Bush on foreign affairs (to be fair, many liberals apparently weren't listening when Obama said during the campaign that he intended a surge in Afghanistan - he didn't campaign as far to the left on foreign policy as they think);

4. Immigration - no reform bill to provide a path to amnesty; his decision not to enforce against illegals who do not commit crimes once here is an ephemeral change that will go away as soon as he's out of office;

5. Clean Energy - stated as his #1 priority in the campaign; no cap and trade, no energy bill with long term investment in renewable energy; no EPA heightened emissions standards (caved); some stimulus money is basically it;

6. No closing of Guantanemo;

7. Caved to maintain the Bush tax cuts; caved on tax increases in the debt ceiling talks;

8. Hasn't prosecuted wall street criminals vigorously, particularly Goldman Sachs, an Obama campaign contributor.

Frankly, DADT is about the only thing many liberals think he's accomplished. I think he's accomplished more than that for liberals, but he's not even remotely close to the progressive (i.e. left) wing of the party.

- wolf

Yeah, I understand those concerns and even agree (to some extent) with some of them. But push too far to the left and the people push back. He got what he could get on health care, he had to bribe and threaten to get even that, and that lost him the ability to do much more. He wanted an extension of the Bush tax cuts (whether for political gain or for ideological reasons is debatable) for 97% - he had to take the other 3% to get that passed. He tried to close Guantanemo, but his attempt at civilian trials was a failure and thereafter even his own party opposed him. I'd say that only #3 & #8 are really fair, and those only partially. Certainly he has near-complete control of foreign policy, but if he goes too far left he pays a political price and Congress (for fear of paying the same price) will snap a leash on him and reel him back in. And Wall Street criminals certainly need to be punished vigorously, but with the economy coming down around his ears, would that have been a wise thing? I don't think it's ALL about maintaining big donations; even a President has to deal with many constraints. Hell, even a king has constraints these days.

Look, it makes no difference to me if those on the left abandon Obama. I'll probably prefer whomever the Republicans put up, and I'll most likely vote Libertarian anyway. But in basic fairness, a man ought to not only get credit for what he accomplishes, but get it with an understanding of why he has to compromise. The world is what it is, not what one might wish it to be. Expecting a candidate to follow through on his campaign issues is right and proper, but people should also understand that just because a candidate SAYS he will do something doesn't mean he CAN do it. Hell, it doesn't even mean he wants to do it, but by the same token, his failure to do something doesn't necessarily mean he didn't want to do it. If Obama had never taken a day off, never played a round of golf, his accomplishments would almost certainly be exactly the same. If he had never compromised, his accomplishments would be nil.

Wasn't sure about Paul in 2000.

Reagan tripled the debt and no one cared much then, either.

The debt was much, much smaller and Reagan offered things (renewed military spending for peace through strength) for which people were willing to go into debt.

 

[werepossum]

The second highest predictor trait of Tea Party members is previous party (Repub).

The SECOND highest? What on Earth would the best predictor be?

 

[woolfe9999]

Look, it makes no difference to me if those on the left abandon Obama. I'll probably prefer whomever the Republicans put up, and I'll most likely vote Libertarian anyway. But in basic fairness, a man ought to not only get credit for what he accomplishes, but get it with an understanding of why he has to compromise. The world is what it is, not what one might wish it to be. Expecting a candidate to follow through on his campaign issues is right and proper, but people should also understand that just because a candidate SAYS he will do something doesn't mean he CAN do it. Hell, it doesn't even mean he wants to do it, but by the same token, his failure to do something doesn't necessarily mean he didn't want to do it. If Obama had never taken a day off, never played a round of golf, his accomplishments would almost certainly be exactly the same. If he had never compromised, his accomplishments would be nil.

LOL what you wrote above could have been lifted verbatim from things I've been saying to liberal critics of Obama for the last 3 years. Still, I will admit that I have become more disenchanted with him lately and have lost heart in defending him from these criticisms, though these points remain largely valid.

One thing I believe this POTUS should get extreme props for, from both political parties, is the dismantling of AQ leadership over the last 18 months. He is using the Bush drone attack idea, but made his own decision to dramatically ramp up those attacks in spite of the political pitfalls and risks. We've eliminated 20 of the top 30 AQ leaders in just 18 months and the organization is on the brink of operational death right now (2 weeks ago we got the #2 guy who moved up from #3 after OBL died). I would think he would highlight this in his campaign next year. OBL was a high profile thing but most people don't know about how successful it has been overall.

 

[werepossum]

LOL what you wrote above could have been lifted verbatim from things I've been saying to liberal critics of Obama for the last 3 years. Still, I will admit that I have become more disenchanted with him lately and have lost heart in defending him from these criticisms, though these points remain largely valid.

Maybe it's easier to see from the right. He's been not as bad as we on the right had feared, just as he's been not as good as you on the left had hoped. To the extent we perceive shared values with a President (or Senator, Representative, etc.) we want him to FIGHT for those values, and he should, but he's not gonna win 'em all. (Which from my perspective of course is a good thing. LOL) Assuming he gets a second term I expect him to be more activist since he won't have to seek reelection, but he's still be bound by Congress - maybe even more so with respect to his own party as a lame duck - and of course by reality.

 

[BladeVenom]

Then remember the Clinton years…
Despite his own personal moral failures, people were doing very well during those years. When Clinton left we were free from war, and people basically were happy as a whole. The economy was healthy. People were employed. Democrats ruled. Newt had lost his battle with the Clinton white house.

The Republicans were the ones in control of congress during most of the Clinton years. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans are the ones who got things done. Gingrich managed to keep most of his campaign promises. That's why the liberal media demonized him every chance they got.

 

[randomrogue]

There really isn't much to discuss regarding Obama. He will lose re-election due to the financial crisis. He hasn't done anything positive. He hasn't even held anyone accountable. He needs a miracle in the economy to win and that is highly unlikely. He is going to get destroyed in the debates.

The problem with this is that just about any moron can beat him. They know it too. Therefore we're gonna get some crappy wacko republican in office and the cycle will continue.

I wish people would realize Congress's part in all this and get rid of them. No President can do a decent job with those idiots in office.

 

[soundforbjt]

^^^Well seeing what the latest Congress 2010 elections brought us, I wouldn't pin my hopes on that improving much either.

 

[Nemesis 1]

A wise people would never elect someone who wants the job . All you will get is his agenda . A wise people put into office a person who doesn't want the job but understands the job and respects We the People who he or they represent. Someone that can manage there Home family and Bills is all thats is required to become a great leader.

 

[Nemesis 1]

There really isn't much to discuss regarding Obama. He will lose re-election due to the financial crisis. He hasn't done anything positive. He hasn't even held anyone accountable. He needs a miracle in the economy to win and that is highly unlikely. He is going to get destroyed in the debates.

The problem with this is that just about any moron can beat him. They know it too. Therefore we're gonna get some crappy wacko republican in office and the cycle will continue.

I wish people would realize Congress's part in all this and get rid of them. No President can do a decent job with those idiots in office.

He may not get a mircle from economy. But I am 1 who thinks he may get reelected because of other reasons . Marshall law is most likely.

 

[Todd33]

Obama has almost nothing to do with America's pessimism or complaints, he is just getting blame. He inherited the wars, he inherited the global recession and now he has unreasonable people to work with in Congress. The whole thin just smacks of how ignorant the average voter is, blame Obama, lol.

 

[KlokWyze]

All of them are failures.

 

[Darwin333]

President Obama is dangerously close to GWB 2.0 in my book.

dangerously close???? Lol, hate to tell ya but he crossed that line a while back.

 

[Darwin333]

Obama has almost nothing to do with America's pessimism or complaints, he is just getting blame. He inherited the wars, he inherited the global recession and now he has unreasonable people to work with in Congress. The whole thin just smacks of how ignorant the average voter is, blame Obama, lol.

You did a great job proving your point.

 

[Craig234]

dangerously close???? Lol, hate to tell ya but he crossed that line a while back.

The funny thing is how many righties say, 'ya, ya!' to that as an attack, as if they're enemies of George Bush, forgetting how hard they attacked liberals against Bush.

Bush was in power largely because he had something like 93% Republican support, IIRC. Of course, every Republican you talk to day was one of the 7%.