Is Obama already planning his re-election ?

[Francis2004]

I believe Obama is already working on his re-election by focusing on Osama. Should he have a hard time with the Economy he will need a war to get himself re-elected.

By leaving Iraq, Obama is making sure the body count drops in a war that is unpopular makes the people at home happy but still requires a war in Afghanistan he can make up points with at the Pentagon, Wall Street and the people.

Let's all face the fact that Obama must find the best way to get re-elected NOW. An impossible target to prove alive or dead in Osama should you actually capture him is the ultimate prize in your back pocket.

So looking at it from the Republican perspective I would throw out a sacrificial lamb for 2012 and hope for 2016 when Obama must leave.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir Francis, of course Obama is working for his reelection, I assume the work started as soon as he was declared the winner by the networks.

Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if he is already raising money for 2012. At present he is popular, so it will be easy to raise money. Come 2012, if he has become unpopular it will be more difficult to raise money. So I assume he is raising as much as he is legally permitted.

It is all part of being a politician.

 

[normbc9]

If Obama does finish out this term he will no doubt seek a second term also. By the end of his first erm he will have the US all topsy turvy and completely off balance. Just the task of authoring the economic recovery is a huge undertaking and he sure is capturing some attention world wide. How many US Presidents ever sacked the CEO of GM? More are coming too I hope. Like B of A, Wells Fargo, AIG and others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Normbc9, Obama has a huge, Herculean task in front of him. Will he succeed? I don’t know. But rightly or wrongly, people have given him the job of sorting out the huge, gigantic mess left by the Republicans. I think he should be permitted to try out his remedy for two years before we make up our minds. At least I intend to hold off judgment until then.

 

[YukonJack]

Of course Obama will succeed. He can say or do absolutely anything he wants, because any criticism of him by anyone would be considered RACIST.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course Obama will succeed. He can say or do absolutely anything he wants, because any criticism of him by anyone would be considered RACIST.

But that doesn't stop the far right from criticizing him continuously, non stop, 24/7, does it?

 

[EagleSmack]

Normbc9, Obama has a huge, Herculean task in front of him. Will he succeed? I don’t know. But rightly or wrongly, people have given him the job of sorting out the huge, gigantic mess left by the Republicans. I think he should be permitted to try out his remedy for two years before we make up our minds. At least I intend to hold off judgment until then.

Joe... it IS a big mess left over by Republicans AND Democrats alike. Pelosi, Barney Frank and their crew of Democrats left a big mess as well in the two years leading up to Obama taking office.

Obama got elected on the premise that he can fix the economy... not that he might fix the economy. He wanted the job and he's got it. The Dems own both houses and the executive office. They said they can fix it. No excuses.

 

[EagleSmack]

I believe Obama is already working on his re-election by focusing on Osama. Should he have a hard time with the Economy he will need a war to get himself re-elected.

By leaving Iraq, Obama is making sure the body count drops in a war that is unpopular makes the people at home happy but still requires a war in Afghanistan he can make up points with at the Pentagon, Wall Street and the people.

Let's all face the fact that Obama must find the best way to get re-elected NOW. An impossible target to prove alive or dead in Osama should you actually capture him is the ultimate prize in your back pocket.

So looking at it from the Republican perspective I would throw out a sacrificial lamb for 2012 and hope for 2016 when Obama must leave.

Two wars aren't enough?

Who says we are leaving Iraq anytime soon?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obama got elected on the premise that he can fix the economy... not that he might fix the economy. He wanted the job and he's got it. The Dems own both houses and the executive office. They said they can fix it. No excuses.

Indeed. And what I said was that it is premature to judge them, give them at least two years.

 

[EagleSmack]

Well they have at least two years as far as Congress goes. Obama has four.

However you do not expect the opposition to remain silent do you? They were on GW's case since the day he got elected. The liberals never let up on him from day 1. They were on him before he took the oath for the first time.

No Sir... he best get on the ball because all we have seen is more bail outs and all we hear is more bad news.

Folks here talk about GOP President's and how they increased the debt each time. This guy is blowing it out of the atmosphere to the point where some say it is unrecoverable. Gosh I hope they are wrong.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

However you do not expect the opposition to remain silent do you? They were on GW's case since the day he got elected. The liberals never let up on him from day 1.

There is one big difference, EagleSmack. When Bush came to power the economy was going full steam, it was roaring ahead like never before. So when Democrats hoped that Bush fails, that would have resulted in a recession at worst.

However, now we are in a recession, perhaps about to plunge into a depression. Now to hope that Obama fails is nothing short of death wish. If Obama fails, we are looking at something similar to Great Depression. So while many partisans in 2001 wished Bush would fail, no right thinking person would want Obama to fail. Yet that is exactly what the opposition is hoping for. They hope Obama fails, we plunge into a great depression, so that they can again win power. They ignore the untold amount of misery and suffering that will result if Obama fails.

It was one thing to hope that Bush would fail and criticize him ceaselessly when the country was prospering. It is totally different when we may be about to plunge in to a depression.

 

[EagleSmack]

There is one big difference, EagleSmack. When Bush came to power the economy was going full steam, it was roaring ahead like never before. So when Democrats hoped that Bush fails, that would have resulted in a recession at worst.

Isn't that just great! At least you agree that the Democrats hope for failure and a recession as opposed for the country to be successful. As you point out... it isn't for what is best for America... it is having their guys and gals in office and the heck with the people.

However, now we are in a recession, perhaps about to plunge into a depression. Now to hope that Obama fails is nothing short of death wish. If Obama fails, we are looking at something similar to Great Depression.

I agree. Conservatives for the most part want what is best for America. That is why Clinton was elected twice. It wasn't because of there was a massive flux of liberals voting... it was middle America in...

A. Wanting change from Bush Sr. and thinking he was out of touch.
B. Thinking that he is doing a great job for term two and the GOP with little to offer as a replacement.

So while many partisans in 2001 wished Bush would fail, no right thinking person would want Obama to fail. Yet that is exactly what the opposition is hoping for.

Says who? You? With all respect what makes you an expert on how Conservatives and middle America thinks?

We want out of this mess too and we want Obama to get us out.

They hope Obama fails, we plunge into a great depression, so that they can again win power. They ignore the untold amount of misery and suffering that will result if Obama fails.

Again... I am unsure of how you base your assumption that anyone who voted for McCain now wants to plunge into a depression. Why would ANYONE in their right mind want that? I am no millionare or oil typhoon. I am no AIG exec or politician.

It was one thing to hope that Bush would fail and criticize him ceaselessly when the country was prospering. It is totally different when we may be about to plunge in to a depression.

I am sure it is to you and those that supported Obama. However you can't have it both ways. It was all fun and games to be out of power or in your case to have your prefered party out of power and critisize Bush. He could be and was blamed for everything. Now it is Obama's turn and it is the right of the people to keep the pressure on and critisize when he screws up.

I hope he is able to right this ship but he doesn't get a free pass when he stumbles.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now it is Obama's turn and it is the right of the people to keep the pressure on and criticize when he screws up.

EageSmack, I never said other wise. It is the right of people to criticize him even when he doesn’t screw up. The right to criticize is absolute and doesn’t need any justification (such as he screwed up).

But the point is, it does seem unseemly to hope that the President fails (as Limbaugh said and as many Republicans have said after Limbaugh, following his lead), when the consequences of failure are so dire.

As to Democrats wishing Bush to fail, that is normal politics. When a President comes to power, the other party always hopes that he fails and they get back in power. There is nothing wrong with that. Same thing here, normally Obama opponents hoping that he fails will be no big deal, will be normal.

However, to hope that Obama fails in such dire economic straits does seem odious and unseemly. People won’t take kindly to that, especially if Obama doesn’t fail. Normally, the party not in power makes gains in a midterm election. However, because of their antics, Republicans have brought that in question.

If economy is in a mess, of course Republicans will pick up seats in 2010. But if things worked out, I think it is unlikely Republicans will pick up any seats in 2010, people will remember the loud and often proclaimed Republican wish ‘I hope Obama fails’.

Reminds me of the time Republicans lost all the goodwill of the people for the highly partisan, totally disgusting, politically motivated attempt at impeaching Clinton. Republicans paid for that. During Clinton second midterm Republicans did not make any gains. Normally the party not in power makes huge gains during the second midterm, look at 2006 (or 1986). Republicans were denied their due, because of their disgusting behavior.

Same thing may happen here. If things do work out, Republicans may be cheated of their due, a victory in 2012 (which is what we would normally expect). If that happens, that will be because of their unseemly behavior in wishing, hoping that Obama fails. That clip will be played again and again by the democrats during the campaign.

 

[EagleSmack]

Now it is Obama's turn and it is the right of the people to keep the pressure on and criticize when he screws up.

EageSmack, I never said other wise. It is the right of people to criticize him even when he doesn’t screw up. The right to criticize is absolute and doesn’t need any justification (such as he screwed up).

But the point is, it does seem unseemly to hope that the President fails (as Limbaugh said and as many Republicans have said after Limbaugh, following his lead), when the consequences of failure are so dire.

Well there are some. like Rush that are saying his policies will fail. They aren't just hoping they fail... they firmly believe that they will fail. That is what they are saying.

They could be right too. The US is printing A LOT of money for this stimulus and it is a gamble. Biden, his own VP says there is a 1 in 3 chance of failure. Those aren't good odds as all.

As to Democrats wishing Bush to fail, that is normal politics.

Perfected by Democrats for sure. They can be nasty. Right down to blaming Bush for Katrina. Nasty I say.

When a President comes to power, the other party always hopes that he fails and they get back in power. There is nothing wrong with that. Same thing here, normally Obama opponents hoping that he fails will be no big deal, will be normal.

However, to hope that Obama fails in such dire economic straits does seem odious and unseemly. People won’t take kindly to that, especially if Obama doesn’t fail.

The people will not punish the GOP for him not failing. He is doing what he said he would do. You don't know the people.

Normally, the party not in power makes gains in a midterm election. However, because of their antics, Republicans have brought that in question.

Not true. It happened once with Clinton and once with Bush but the Dems held Congress for years. All through the Carter, Reagan, Bush era it was a Dem controlled house.

If economy is in a mess, of course Republicans will pick up seats in 2010. But if things worked out, I think it is unlikely Republicans will pick up any seats in 2010, people will remember the loud and often proclaimed Republican wish ‘I hope Obama fails’.

Agreed. If he gets things straightened out seats will stay Democratic. If they don't the seats MAY go GOP.

There is no astounding chorus of people hoping he will fail. If there is they ARE the people. There will be no back lash at people who hope for Obama to fail.

Often proclaimed Republican wish? Where?

Reminds me of the time Republicans lost all the goodwill of the people for the highly partisan, totally disgusting, politically motivated attempt at impeaching Clinton. Republicans paid for that.

Really? How? Congress remained Republican. The people spoke loud and clear that they didn't like the behavoir of the President and for that the Dems remained the minority in Congress.

During Clinton second midterm Republicans did not make any gains. Normally the party not in power makes huge gains during the second midterm, look at 2006 (or 1986). Republicans were denied their due, because of their disgusting behavior.

Their disgusting behavoir? Are you serious. Clinton was getting orally pleasured by an intern and lied about it to Congress. But the reaction by the GOP was disgusting by calling him on it and impeaching him?!?! You think Clinton's behavoir was anything but disgusting?

Republicans were denied their due? By winning all their seats back and keeping Congress firmly in GOP control they were denied. They KEPT Congress. The people spoke loud and clear. They spoke even louder when Clinton's lackey lost.

Same thing may happen here. If things do work out, Republicans may be cheated of their due, a victory in 2012 (which is what we would normally expect). If that happens, that will be because of their unseemly behavior in wishing, hoping that Obama fails. That clip will be played again and again by the democrats during the campaign.

Which clip is that?

Republicans are saying that Obama's economic policies will fail. Not that they hope it will fail but that it will. If the policy succeeds Obama and Congress will remain as is only for the fact that the policies are succeeding... not to punish the GOP.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Republicans were denied their due? By winning all their seats back and keeping Congress firmly in GOP control they were denied. They KEPT Congress. The people spoke loud and clear. They spoke even louder when Clinton's lackey lost.

Sure they were denied their due, go back and check the election results of 1998, Clinton’s second midterm. Republicans did not pick up any seats (I think they may have lost 3 or 4 seats in the House).

Republicans kept control of Congress because they were already in control of the Congress. But normally during second mid term, they would be expected to pick up 5 to 10 Senate seats, and perhaps 25 to 30 House seats. That did not happen. That did happen in 2006 and in 1986. Republicans dearly paid for their obsession with sex, their disgusting effort to impeach Clinton.

In fact, as I recall, that contributed to Gingrich leaving the office. He was blamed for Republicans not picking up any seats in 1998 (as I said ,they may have lost a few). Gingrich resigned as the Speaker shortly after that.

As I said, go back and check the results, that was a miserable year for the Republicans.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Which clip is that?

Clip of Limbaugh saying ‘I hope he fails’. It has already been played several times, it will be given prominence in the election campaign (assuming Obama doesn’t fail). Democrats have already crowned Limbaugh as the de facto leader of Republican Party (a title he cherishes).

If Obama does not fail and economy recovers by 2010 (or is at least on the road to recovery), Democrats will stress during the campaign, that Limbaugh is the real leader of the party, and then tie Republican party to the Limbaugh clip saying ‘I hope he fails’.

Normally, even when times are good, party not in power makes gains in the midterm election. This time I don’t see that happening. Republicans will make gain only if Obama fails, if he doesn’t, they won’t. That is a poke in the eye for Republicans. If Republicans manage not to make any gains in 2010 (or make negligible gains), that will be an unheard of feat.

And it all will be due to their visceral hatred of Obama.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Their disgusting behavoir? Are you serious. Clinton was getting orally pleasured by an intern and lied about it to Congress. But the reaction by the GOP was disgusting by calling him on it and impeaching him?!?! You think Clinton's behavoir was anything but disgusting?

Clinton’s behavior, though disgusting, was private. Republican behavior, while disgusting, was public. Republican Party is obsessed with sex. They essentially tried to remove Clinton from office for having sex with his intern (incidentally, Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing with his intern while he was shedding crocodile tears over Clinton’s behavior).

Impeachment attempt was purely political. It was evident from the fact that they did not get the support of a single Democrat. Contrast this with impeachment of Nixon. It was a bipartisan effort, Democrats brought Republicans along with them. That was an example of how to do the impeachment, Clinton impeachment was an example of how not to do it. It was a clear abuse of impeachment process for political purposes.

At no time did the impeachment process have a majority support of the public. Clinton continued to enjoy high approval ratings throughout the impeachment process.

And as I said, Republicans paid for it. Their 1998 midterm result was abysmal. While normally they would be expected to gain 5 to 10 Senate seats and 25 to 30 House seats, they didn’t gain any seats. And Clinton left office with popularity rating of high 60s.

While people were disgusted with his private, sexual behavior, they regarded him highly as a president. People were more disgusted by the rank display of political partisanship by Republicans and their abuse of the impeachment process to try to make political gains.

 

[EagleSmack]

.

Sure they were denied their due, go back and check the election results of 1998, Clinton’s second midterm. Republicans did not pick up any seats (I think they may have lost 3 or 4 seats in the House).

Republicans kept control of Congress because they were already in control of the Congress. But normally during second mid term, they would be expected to pick up 5 to 10 Senate seats, and perhaps 25 to 30 House seats. That did not happen. That did happen in 2006 and in 1986. Republicans dearly paid for their obsession with sex, their disgusting effort to impeach Clinton.

In fact, as I recall, that contributed to Gingrich leaving the office. He was blamed for Republicans not picking up any seats in 1998 (as I said ,they may have lost a few). Gingrich resigned as the Speaker shortly after that.

As I said, go back and check the results, that was a miserable year for the Republicans.

They kept control of Congress so they weren't denied their due. They paid dearly in 2006 but not before then. You want to make it seem they lost because you do not like Republicans.

Sorry Charlie.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

They kept control of Congress so they weren't denied their due. They paid dearly in 2006 but not before then. You want to make it seem they lost because you do not like Republicans.

Sorry Charlie.

Really? Well, I would argue that you are denying that Republicans did poorly in 1998 because you do not like the Democrats. When a party normally expects to make huge gains, but instead suffers a small loss, that is not considered doing well, that is considered doing poorly.

Historically, party out of power makes huge gains during the second mid term election of the president. Republicans did not do that in 1998, and the phony impeachment trial was solely responsible for that (the election results was part of the reason why Gingrich quit as the speaker of the House).

What was the reason for Gingrich to quit, if not the poor election results?

 

[EagleSmack]

Which clip is that?

Clip of Limbaugh saying ‘I hope he fails’. It has already been played several times, it will be given prominence in the election campaign (assuming Obama doesn’t fail). Democrats have already crowned Limbaugh as the de facto leader of Republican Party (a title he cherishes).

Do you think most of the American people care about what Rush says? Do you think most Conservatives care?

I assure you... they will not be playing that clip over and over.

If Obama does not fail and economy recovers by 2010 (or is at least on the road to recovery), Democrats will stress during the campaign, that Limbaugh is the real leader of the party, and then tie Republican party to the Limbaugh clip saying ‘I hope he fails’.

If they do then it is a desparate attempt by the Democrats. Limbaugh is a talk radio host that Obama has given notoriety. Limbaugh is no real leader of the GOP. He is a squawk box on from 12PM-3PM on AM radio.

Normally, even when times are good, party not in power makes gains in the midterm election. This time I don’t see that happening. Republicans will make gain only if Obama fails, if he doesn’t, they won’t. That is a poke in the eye for Republicans. If Republicans manage not to make any gains in 2010 (or make negligible gains), that will be an unheard of feat.

And it all will be due to their visceral hatred of Obama.

Again... you are creating history as you see it. Revising if you will. The Democrats OWNED the houses all through the Reagan years and Bush years. You sequence of events is quite skewed.

Let me enlighten you...

Newt Gingrich became Speaker in 1994. The last time the Republicans owned the house before 1994 was 1954!

The Democrats owned Congress for 40 years. From the days of Truman right until Clinton lost it.

So you saying there are typical swings on second term or first terms are based on what?

So please... don't give me this "normally this happens" or "that happens" when it doesn't.

Clinton's behavoir lost the house for 12 years.