Is Obama already planning his re-election ?

[EagleSmack]

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.

Well as explained... parties do not automatically make huge gains based on Presidential performance and there is no pattern.

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).

Failed.

As explained 1954-1994 Democrats ran both sides of the house. When are you going to stop saying "normally"?

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

Because he was polarizing that is why.

 

[EagleSmack]

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).

Oh it wasn't phony. Clinton was really impeached. One thing the Democrats could never do to Bush.

 

[EagleSmack]

?

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

The White House is not a private residence and it was an abuse of power. They did not try to remove him... they impeached him

(incidentally, Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing with his intern while he was shedding crocodile tears over Clinton’s behavior).

Do tell?

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.

The mere fact that you are saying the attempted to impeach Clinton shows you really do not know what you are talking about.

Bill Clinton WAS IMPEACHED.

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.

If they had lost the house you could say they paid for it. As it stands they held the house up until 2006.

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.

So much so disgusted that the GOP held the house until 2006 and elected Bush for two terms?!

Roger that!

 

[Kreskin]

I like his executive ass-kickin style.

 

[Cannuck]

They essentially tried to remove Clinton from office for having sex with his intern

Nope. They tried to remove him for lying to congress.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

EagfleSmack, it is clear to me that you are a committed, loyal Republican. So I don’t think I will be able to convince you that Republicans did terribly in 1998. However, let us look at some references.

Shortly after the 1998 elections, where Republicans lost 5 seats in the House, Gingrich announced his resignation from his House seat and as Speaker. – Wikipedia. It continues,

During this period, Gingrich focused on the perjury charges against Clinton as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. While Republicans believed this theme would ensure gains in the 1998 midterm elections, they instead lost five seats in the House — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency.

Now, I know you seem to have a kind of religious faith in your (Republican) party, and I don’t want to offend your religious beliefs, but that is the generally held view. Republicans had a terrible election in 1998, and party as a result of that (and partly as a result of his sexual affairs), your hero, Gingrich was forced to resign.

To understand the deep bewilderment that Election Day '98 visited on the Republicans, you had only to look at Senators Al D'Amato and Lauch Faircloth, two of Bill Clinton's sweatiest pursuers, making their baffled concessions.

This from

Now hear this - November 16, 1998

It continues:



To put it another way, one day it was Clinton whose job was on the line. The next it was Gingrich. But the surprising election of 1998 did more than take a load off one man's shoulders and put it on another's till he dropped. It brought home that all year the governing majority in Congress has done just about anything but govern. From the moment in January that Monica Lewinsky became as famous as Michael Jordan, official Washington and its media auxiliary have been transfixed by the President's sex drive.

The impeachment was about sex, sex and nothing but sex. For that Republicans paid a political price in 1998. But as you seem to have a religious faith in your party, I don’t want to offend your religious beliefs.

If you want to continue thinking that Republicans had a glorious election in 1998, the best election result ever, that is your right. But the rest of the world does not think that. Show me even one weblink which says that Republicans had a good election in 1998.



But then, I assume you ‘know’ that Republicans had a great election year, you don’t need no stinking website to tell you that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh it wasn't phony. Clinton was really impeached. One thing the Democrats could never do to Bush.

Sure he was impeached. It was purely partisan, political impeachment, the vote being along partisan lines. It was a clear abuse of the impeachment process for political gains. Just as well that it didn’t work. Republicans got thrashed in 1998 election.

As to Democrats, they didn’t even try, they had more sense than Republicans. They knew that impeachment process is like a nuclear device, to be used only when absolutely necessary, and not to be abused as a political tool, to try to make political gains.

Incidentally, my guess is that if Democrats had tried to impeach Bush, his popularity probably would have gone up, same thing would have happened to him that happened to Clinton.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The White House is not a private residence and it was an abuse of power. They did not try to remove him... they impeached him

It was not abuse of power, it was a sexual peccadillo. Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing while he was trying to impeach Clinton.

And of course they tried to remove him, just that they didn’t succeed. They could not even get all the Republican Senators to vote for conviction in the Senate, quite a few of them broke ranks and voted for Clinton. But then what do you expect in a partisan political process, a rank, disgusting abuse of political power?

 

[Francis2004]

Two wars aren't enough?

Who says we are leaving Iraq anytime soon?

Obama outlines Iraq pullout plan




President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of most US troops in Iraq by the end of August 2010.

In a speech at a Marine Corps base, he said the US "combat mission" in Iraq would officially end by that time.


But up to 50,000 of 142,000 troops now there will stay into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests, leaving by the end of 2011, he said.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama outlines Iraq pullout plan

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.

President Obama talks about his Iraq War withdrawal plan at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on Friday.

Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.


"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.


"By any measure, this has already been a long war," Obama said. It is time to "bring our troops home with the honor they have earned." Watch Obama announce drawdown »


Obama's trip to Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base, was his first trip to a military base since being sworn in.

Obama: U.S. to withdraw most Iraq troops by August 2010 - CNN.com

 

[Johnnny]

I believe he is working towards being re elected, he does spend alot of time on TV compared to past presidents, in my opinion

 

[gopher]

Hopefully, the Republicans are doing the same by starting their Palin-McCain campaign. This will lead to another victory for the good guys!

 

[EagleSmack]

EagfleSmack, it is clear to me that you are a committed, loyal Republican. So I don’t think I will be able to convince you that Republicans did terribly in 1998. However, let us look at some references.

I am no Republican... I am unenrolled.

Shortly after the 1998 elections, where Republicans lost 5 seats in the House, Gingrich announced his resignation from his House seat and as Speaker. – Wikipedia. It continues,

But kept the majority in Congress and kept the majority until 2006.

During this period, Gingrich focused on the perjury charges against Clinton as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. While Republicans believed this theme would ensure gains in the 1998 midterm elections, they instead lost five seats in the House — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency.

Well considering the Democrats held power to both houses until Bill Clinton was in office the mere loss of 5 seats and retaining the house was still a victory. At the end of the day the GOP was in charge of the house and that is that.

Now, I know you seem to have a kind of religious faith in your (Republican) party, and I don’t want to offend your religious beliefs, but that is the generally held view. Republicans had a terrible election in 1998, and party as a result of that (and partly as a result of his sexual affairs), your hero, Gingrich was forced to resign.

Again... I am not a memeber of the GOP, never was and never will be. A terrible election was in 2006 for the GOP.

The impeachment was about sex, sex and nothing but sex. For that Republicans paid a political price in 1998. But as you seem to have a religious faith in your party, I don’t want to offend your religious beliefs.

WRONG Again. The Impeachment was about lying to congress. Your revisionism falls flat. The Liberals tried to make it about sex but failed. However some still hold to the beliefs that is was about sex as they were so embarrassed by Clinton and his behavoir.

If you want to continue thinking that Republicans had a glorious election in 1998, the best election result ever, that is your right. But the rest of the world does not think that. Show me even one weblink which says that Republicans had a good election in 1998.

So because you are failing and completely unable to defend your earlier claims that "historically this happens" etc. you put words in my mouth saying that I said the 1998 election was the greatest ever. Very poor but understandable seeing that you have a love affair with a party that isn't even of your own nation.

And now you speak for the rest of the world! Guess what... the rest of the world I would bet cannot even remember who won the US midterm elections in 1998. They most likely could care less.




But then, I assume you ‘know’ that Republicans had a great election year, you don’t need no stinking website to tell you that.[/quote]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And now you speak for the rest of the world! Guess what... the rest of the world I would bet cannot even remember who won the US midterm elections in 1998. They most likely could care less.

Sure the rest of the world remembers, EagleSmack, it is remembered in archives of magazines, newspapers, books etc. Notice how quickly I was able to pull out references which say that Republicans had a terrible election in 1998.

And I notice you didn’t take my challenge of producing even one website which said that Republicans had a great election. That is because one doesn’t’ exist. Even the most partisan of Republicans did not claim that Republicans had a great election in 1998 (present company excluded, of course). Almost everybody agrees that Republican got their head handed to them in 1998, largely because of the partisan political impeachment. 1998 was a disaster for Repulbicans.

So I stand by my contention that Republicans had a disastrous election in 1998, there is ample evidence in the literature for my assertion. On the other hand, there is no evidence what ever in the literature for your assertion that they had a great election (except your personal opinion, but I know you don’t need any stinking website to tell you that they had a great election).

 

[EagleSmack]

It was not abuse of power, it was a sexual peccadillo. Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing while he was trying to impeach Clinton.

The President of the US having a 20 something year old White House intern provide oral favors is not an abuse of power?

OOOOkaaaay

Gingrich was not doing the same exact thing as he was not lying to Congress denying it which is what the impeachment was all about.

And of course they tried to remove him, just that they didn’t succeed. They could not even get all the Republican Senators to vote for conviction in the Senate, quite a few of them broke ranks and voted for Clinton. But then what do you expect in a partisan political process, a rank, disgusting abuse of political power?

He lied to Congress and therefore he was impeached. Fact. Liberals did a great job spinning it into an impeachment about sex which was an act of desparation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

WRONG Again. The Impeachment was about lying to congress. Your revisionism falls flat. The Liberals tried to make it about sex but failed. However some still hold to the beliefs that is was about sex as they were so embarrassed by Clinton and his behavior.

It was about sex and nothing else. And how do I know that? Because it was a purely partisan, political effort, to get some political mileage out of it. No Democrats joined in the impeachment. If it was indeed about breaking the law, I would expect at least some Democrats to join in. In 1973 plenty of Republicans joined the Democrats, because that indeed was about breaking the law (I was living in USA at that time and watched the impeachment proceedings on TV).

But here no Democrats joined the effort. Not only that, but several Republican senators bolted and voted for Clinton in the senate. Are you saying that the Republican senators didn’t care about the law?

The impeachment effort was never popular with the people, it never had majority support. The impeachment was a disastrous failure, Republicans paid dearly for it in the election. Normally they would be expected to make huge gains in the second midterm, instead, they lost seats.

So only the Republicans wanted to impeach and convict the President. Nobody else, Democrats, people at large etc. was on board. So I conclude that it had to be about sex. Or are you saying that only the Republicans (the right wing of Republican party, of course) is interested in upholding the law, that Democrats, several Republicans and people at large don’t care about upholding the law (but maybe you are saying that, who knows).

It was purely about sex.

 

[EagleSmack]

Sure the rest of the world remembers, EagleSmack, it is remembered in archives of magazines, newspapers, books etc. Notice how quickly I was able to pull out references which say that Republicans had a terrible election in 1998.

And I notice you didn’t take my challenge of producing even one website which said that Republicans had a great election. That is because one doesn’t’ exist. Even the most partisan of Republicans did not claim that Republicans had a great election in 1998 (present company excluded, of course). Almost everybody agrees that Republican got their head handed to them in 1998, largely because of the partisan political impeachment. 1998 was a disaster for Repulbicans.

So I stand by my contention that Republicans had a disastrous election in 1998, there is ample evidence in the literature for my assertion. On the other hand, there is no evidence what ever in the literature for your assertion that they had a great election (except your personal opinion, but I know you don’t need any stinking website to tell you that they had a great election).

Joey me buckoo... 2006 was a GOP disaster not 1998. It was all the Dems had as they failed miserably to win back the house they lost 4 years earlier. If they had lost the house in 1998 I would agree with you but alas the Democrat push to win back the house fell flat and would continually fall flat until 2006. But the Dems were desparate to cry victory in the face of a loss.

Heck they were so used to losing that they cried victory when they lost blaming the GOP for stealing the elections. Funny how the voting machines worked perfectly in 2006 and 2008. :lol:

You are a typical left winger and that is for certain. YOU Sir are the type that would HOPE for a failure if McCain had been elected.

 

[EagleSmack]

It was about sex and nothing else.

Failed. Check what the impeachment articles said.

And how do I know that? Because it was a purely partisan, political effort, to get some political mileage out of it. No Democrats joined in the impeachment.

Get out! Really... the Democrats didn't back an impeachment of a Democrat President!

How did I miss that!

Who would have thought!

If it was indeed about breaking the law, I would expect at least some Democrats to join in.

Which just goes to show you know very little of US Politics.

In 1973 plenty of Republicans joined the Democrats, because that indeed was about breaking the law (I was living in USA at that time and watched the impeachment proceedings on TV).

Really... that is funny because Nixon wasn't IMPEACHED!

Only TWO Presidents were Impeached... Johnson and Clinton

CAAAASE CLOOOOSED.

 

[JLM]

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.

I believe he has four years, Sir Joe, and any smart president who wants to do a second term starts unofficially campaigning on Jan.20 of the year he starts, by doing productive things to please the people.AFter all there's nothing better than a good record to run on.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am no Republican... I am unenrolled.

Again... I am not a memeber of the GOP, never was and never will be.

You could have fooled me, EagleSmack. Only the most partisan of Republicans (and not even all of them) would claim that Republicans did not have a disastrous election in 1998

Also, the most partisan of Republicans will claim that the impeachment was about some high minded laws, a matter of principle. The generally held view is that it was purely about sex, a failed attempt by Republicans to get some political mileage out of it (refer to the websites I provided). But I know, that was a spinning job by the liberals. Even if out of power, they spun the poor Republican Senate and House out of there just due, the election victory in 1998.

When Republicans cannot get even all the Republicans to vote against Clinton, the thing has to be about sex. Or are you saying that ten Republican Senators (that is right, count them, ten) did not care about upholding the law? They probably were disgusted by the attempt by the Republican party to hijack the impeachment process, to use it for political ends.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Really... that is funny because Nixon wasn't IMPEACHED!

Sure he wasn’t. I don’t know how old you are EagleSmack, but I was in USA when the impeachment proceedings were under way.

Nixon was not impeached because he resigned, he saw the writing on the wall. When it was revealed that there were tapes of the White House conversation and that Nixon was implicated, the floor fell from under Nixon. Many Republicans were ready to vote for impeachment.

When asked how long it will take to vote for impeachment, one Republican House member, Anderson remarked ‘why would we need more than a day?’

Nixon was looking at certain impeachment in House and a certain conviction in the senate. If he had been removed, he would lose his presidential pension and all the other privileges associated with the job. So he took the only way out and resigned.

That indeed was the perfect example of how to do the impeachment. Democrats controlled both Senate and House, but they brought Republicans along all the way. They consulted Republicans, they kept them in the loop. Then when republicans became aware to the wrong doings by Nixon himself, the bottom fell out and Nixon had to resign.