Commentary: Game Over For Republicans in 2012?
Written by David Greenwald Sunday, 19 February 2012 07:44
It is a provocative headline, but there is some truth behind it as well. There are political scientists who believe that political campaigns do not matter. What matters is the state of the economy prior to the election.
The article appearing in CNET argues, "In reviewing the last ten presidential cycles, the researchers say that their model correctly predicted the eventual winners in 88% of the 500 state elections that took place. Between now and mid-June, they they assume that personal income growth remains average for a reelection year and that the president's approval rating remains at or above its current 48% range."
"One of the interesting findings of the research is, quite frankly, that you can predict outcomes of elections with pretty amazing accuracy pretty far away," Rothschild said.
The article reports, "The researchers found that an increase or decrease in unemployment trend lines was a much more powerful predictor of election results than the unemployment rate itself. In particular, a key data point was the state-by-state growth in income in the first quarter of the election year. With the main economic indicators trending up, albeit at historically depressed levels, they say that's an encouraging harbinger for an Obama victory."
"The net effect of campaigns are meaningful but not massive," Mr. Rothschild said. He said that the economy's first and second quarters (in an election year) "more strongly correlate with a president's reelection chances."
A few months ago, most prognisticators believed that the sluggish economy would make it difficult for President Barack Obama to win re-election.
However, the growth in the jobs market has changed a lot of that prognosis.
It is one reason that you will see an increased debate over whether or not the economy has improved.
That debate already emerged on the Vanguard this week.
One poster noted the discrepancy between the continued low tax revenue of local and state government and an improving economy.
They argued, "Don't you find it suspiciously convenient that the economy has suddenly/miraculously 'turned around' in a few short weeks?"
This leads them to suspect malfeasance: "Anyone who knows about gov't statistics, knows to what huge extent those statistics can be manipulated."
Rich Rifkin, part-time columnist for the Davis Enterprise, made the comment on the Vanguard, "I expect left-wingers to be stupid and partisan when it comes to not understanding or accepting macroeconomics. As a centrist with degrees in economics, I am more surprised--perhaps I should start watching Fox News--that right-wingers would be so dumb and partisan."
He pointed toward the Dow: "It has moved up to almost 13,000 points in recent days. On July 1, 2010 it closed at around 9,732. That 3,300-point move up in the Dow did not occur because of Obama's words. It has moved up as our economy has improved--notably because over the last 2 years inventories have reduced dramatically."
"What I expect in the next 12-18 months is this: a big increase in the tax revenues paid to the state governments and to the federal government," he said.
Mr. Rifkin is likely correct, as government revenue is actually a lagging indicator, in part because taxes are collected primarily from previous quarter's earnings.
In response to the notion that this change is sudden, as though timed by the election, Don Shor noted, "The economy is not 'suddenly' on the upswing. I follow retail sales numbers; they have been steadily, slowly improving for about two years now. Unemployment numbers have been steadily, slowly improving for 3 - 4 consecutive quarters. What baffles me is why you think this is sudden."
This week, President Obama's approval rating, also a lagging indicator, pushed to the break-even mark in at least one poll.
The economy is clearly recovering, but I am hesitant to put the November election in the bag for President Obama just yet. This week, the GOP has turned to the gas price issue, and gas prices are likely to push toward $5 a gallon by Memorial Day.
The economy remains fragile, and crises loom potentially in the Middle East and Europe. Such factors have disrupted this weak recovery in the past.
Still, all seems more robust.
Unlike some of my former Political Science colleagues however, I believe that more than just the economy matters. I believe that campaigns also matter.
For some time, I have believed that 2012 would prove to be 2004 all over again. Democrats in 2004 thought they had it won. The economy was growing, but not strongly. The war was unpopular and President Bush was listless.
However, what emerged was a weak field of candidates and the strongest candidate emerging from that field, despite twists and turns, was the guy who appeared strongest at the start, John Kerry.
Senator Kerry would prove to be a poor candidate, quickly allowing his greatest strengths - his war record - to be used against him. It is remarkably similar for Mitt Romney, and not just because they ironically share the same state.
The electoral map worked against John Kerry from the start, and he needed to win the big state of Florida, which Al Gore believed he had won in 2000, or the state of Ohio, in order to win the election. When he could win neither, he was toast.
Nate Silver, who parlayed his FiveThirtyEight blog into a gig with the New York Times, argues that the forecast models suggest "that Mitt Romney is likely to fare better than Rick Santorum in the popular vote against Barack Obama."
The problem is that it is not that good, and his advantage is not what you would think. "Specifically, the model would give Mr. Romney a 40 percent chance of winning the popular vote against Mr. Obama given G.D.P. growth of 2.5 percent this year," but only a 23 percent chance for former Senator Rick Santorum.
Writes Mr. Silver: "Mr. Romney's comparative advantage in the model is based on a set of four objective indicators of candidate ideology, which suggest that Mr. Santorum is further from the center of the electorate on balance - an unfavorable factor historically."
Mr. Silver argues that, once you look at the states, you realize that the electability gap is not all that great.
He argues: "Specifically, it estimates that Mr. Romney's more moderate ideology is worth a net of about 3 points in the popular vote - so an election that Mr. Santorum would win by 4 points, Mr. Romney would win by 7. The reason it looks bigger in terms of their respective odds against Mr. Obama is because the election is still projected to be fairly close over all, in which case any small advantage or disadvantage can be meaningful."
The problem that Mitt Romney now faces is the map, and he is running poorly in the Midwest.
"In the recent Pew poll, Mr. Romney trailed Mr. Obama by 11 points in the Midwest - worse than his overall 8-point deficit. And he got just 42 percent of the vote among whites whose families make less than $30,000 per year, worse than the 46 percent that John McCain got in 2008," Mr. Silver reports.
If President Obama wins all of the Midwest states other than Indiana, and all of the Democrat base states that his party won in 2000 and 2004, President Obama would have 266 electoral votes or four shy of what he needs. Then he would just need one of the states that Democrats won just once in 2000, 2004 or 2008, and that includes Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia or North Carolina.
Democrats will breathe a sigh of relief at these analyses, while Republicans will note the tenuous nature of the assumptions and perhaps question the concept altogether.
I agree with the Republicans here, by the way, there is too much that can happen between now and November to change the dynamics. Just look how much they have changed in only three months.
But Republicans should be scared - Mitt Romney is about the least compelling Republican candidate since Bob Dole. He is awkward about his $21 million in annual wealth. He is big money at a time when big money is looked at with distrust.
I know the Republicans thought they had this race won already, but look no further than 2004, this is the same scenario in reverse.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
The majority of Americans don't agree with Rick Santorum on social issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ...d_public_
life
What about Rick Santorum doesn't cause me, and independent and moderate voters, to recoil? At the moment he's managed to repel women everywhere who use birth control, which is to say -- nearly all women. There is not the slightest chance I could ever vote for him. I find it hard to believe anybody can look at his public statements and voting record and not find him far, far, far, far, far to the right.
I have no idea exactly what Mitt Romney actually believes.
I've been to all the western states, the mid-Atlantic, New England, Chicago, briefly in the South, and Hawai'i. I read a lot. I'm not ignorant, Jeff, nor am I insular. Nomination of Santorum (or Gingrich) would almost surely lead to a crushing defeat. Seriously: find me one poll or pundit who believes Santorum has a chance.
far, far, far, far, far to the right.
Don, how would Reagan stack up to your claims a social conservative like Santorum is unelectable? It was only five years ago that most Americans would have never thought a socialist could be elected. It was the economy that caused them to vote for something different. You have listed some reliable lefty states, but you seem to ignore much of the rest of the country. I will admit that the South looks different at this point, but a couple of points on that... the reliable black vote for Obama (don't get be going there) and it isn't the general election yet.
So, are you better off than four years ago? Many people are going to give this a resounding "no".
One of the reasons that the media gets to paint the GOP field as unelectable, is that none of them have rocketed to the front as the clear choice. By, unlike lefties, conservatives do not fall in love with their politicians.
Conservatives find something to like about each one of the remaining four candidates. What we really want is one that takes the best of each. Paul's small government Tea-Party Libertarian views, Gingrich's historical knowledge and debate skills, Romney's business/economic background and executive experience and Santorum’s social values credentials. Individually, these four attributes owned by these four men are all stronger than what Obama has to offer. Where Obama has them is his Hollywood likeability and coolness factor. Don't think that will be enough this time around.
What conservatives are doing is testing and pushing all the GOP candidates to demonstrate which one is the strongest having all four attributes plus at least some personal likeability (Romney is the only one that comes close here). However, don't mistake this primary testing process with the general election campaign. They are two completely different races.
Remember that Bush senior was taken down because of concerns about the deficit and the economy while he was polling ahead during the primaries. Like Bush Sr., Obama will have a tremendous number of campaign targets on his back this election.
Ronald Reagan was much more tolerant personally and politically than Rick Santorum.
It was only five years ago that most Americans would have never thought a socialist could be elected.
Obama is not a socialist.
are you better off than four years ago?
I assume you mean three years ago. Yes.
Santorum’s social values credentials
Yeah, those are the problem. Unfortunately, Gingrich is no better on these, and I have no idea what Mitt Romney actually believes. And I don't take Ron Paul seriously.
So, how "out of step" are the coasts?
Fun with red and blue: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Here's my favorite: 
ROFL
From the outset, people who have been unblinded by "Messianic Delusions," Barry Sotero [aka: Barack Hussein Obama] revealed himself as: aloof, narcissistic, dictatorial, divisive, and as a self- agrandizing "believer" that HE is a "gift" to the USA, rather than the opposite -- he's the recipient of said gift...
When another regurgitates the tired/worn posture re: how unelectable some possible Rep. candidate purportedly is; think on how un-reelectable "The One" is.
* He owns a disastrous record;
* His messianic image is gone;
* And liberal(s) e.g., Maureen Dowd ["The man who came to Washington on a wave of euphoria has had the presidency with all the joy of a root canal."] et al, have admitted - 36 months after the fact - that ObLAMEr is rather contemptuous of the American people.
ROFL...
David, look at the polls in 6 months after the spotlight is put on Obama. It will be a whole different picture. I've heard many liberal pundits say that they're afraid that the little upswing in the economy happened too soon and if there's another downdraft before November it's curtains for Obama the Great Divider.
David, the spotlight has been pretty much off of Obama as the Republicans battle between each other. That will change soon then it all turns against Obama. His numbers will come down. I remember reading that a president has never been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%. Will it be under 8% come Nov.?
DMG erroneously wrote:
"...I think you are blinded by your own hatred of him...."
Sorry Charlie no hate here...
Remember this? Without any fanfare whatsoever from the White House, February 17 marks the three-year anniversary of the day President Obama signed the much ballyhooed stimulus into law.
At the time, Obama claimed that it would "create or save" up to 3.5 million jobs, and that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America." The stimulus, would, he promised""ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and bring "real and lasting change for generations to come."
http://news.investors.com/article/601526/201202171525/obama-economic-stimulus-turns-three.htm
And don't forget this beauty of a quote:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
– Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Speaking of charts...Mark Steyn wrote:
"Have you seen the official White House version of what the New York Times headline writers call "A Responsible Budget"? My favorite bit is Chart 5-1 on Page 58 of their 500-page appendix on "Analytical Perspectives." This is entitled "Publicly Held Debt Under 2013 Budget Policy Projections."
"Testifying before Congress, Timmy Geithner referred only to "demographic challenges" — an oblique allusion to the fact that the U.S. economy is about to be terminally clobbered by 100 trillion dollars of entitlement obligations it can never meet."
100 trillion dollars of entitlement obligations it can never meet."
http://news.investors.com/Arti...2&ibdbot=1
"Memories, like the corners of my mind, misty watered-colored memories of the way we were..."
During a White House fiscal responsibility summit [2/23/09] President Obama made a "Promise" to Americans:
"I’m pledging...to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office."
Yet, in his recently submitted spending plan [disguised as a 'budget']...
-- the president admitted he won’t keep his promise.
-- He won’t even come close.
-- Due to the president’s failure to control spending the Fed. Gov't is projected to implement trillion-dollar DEFICITS for each yr.
The Broken promises made by the healer e.g., "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," are
leaving our country broke!
hmmm...
Most of the righty comments above are entirely beside the point. It doesn't matter you think of Obama and the Republican candidates. Just like it didn't matter that I thought Bush was a complete goofball in 2004. What matters is which ticket voters are likely to punch come November. My prediction is the Republican candidate is toast. I have been maintaining this prediction throughout 2011 and into 2012. The Republican Party really lost its way under Bush, hasn't come up with a compelling message since, and has whittled down its candidates to several gentlemen who are extremely unlikely to garner sufficient general election votes. We'll see come November who's prediction is correct.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
"What exactly about Rick Santorum causes you to recoil so much"
First what I admire. He would appear to live in consistency with his own beliefs.
What makes me recoil is that he wants to force everyone else to live in accordance with his beliefs, not their own.
His positions:
1) With regard to Obama and the environment " It's about some phony ideal. Some phony ideology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible--
A different theology." I read this especially in view of the word "phony" to imply that Obamas religious beliefs are inferior to his own.
He is entitled to his view, I don't want him forcing me to accept it as the only true faith. His attempt to back away from this assertion by saying
it was Obamas world view he was attacking. Is he now going to claim that one's religion does not affect one's world view?
2)) Opposes not only gay marriage, but also civil unions, and favors discrimination against gays in the military,
3) Opposes not only abortion regardless of the health of the baby or the mother but has also come out against diagnostic tests that have been
available for decades because he hypothesizes that this may lead to an increase in abortion.
4) Opposes birth control because we all should be in agreement and bound by his dictum that the only purpose of sex is reproduction.
5) Has said he would bomb Iran if that country developed nuclear weapons and that Obama's efforts to negotiate with Iran sends a signal of
weakness. Can it be we have forgotten how well that worked out with regard to Iraq's non existent weapons of mass destruction? Or can it
that we still prefer being told unsubstantiated stories about the practical realities of disabling Iran's nuclear capacity despite the well
documented real world challenges of such a strike.
Ok, I have ranted long enough, but this is about his positions and his willingness to impose them on others because of his conviction that his is the one true faith. I humbly disagree with this position which he clearly feels represents the unquestionable truth.
"The majority of Americans still consider themselves social conservatives."
And yet the majority of Americans believe that birth control is perfectly fine, and have moved on from the medieval notion that sexual activity is wicked unless not done soley for proceation.
The majority of Americans have also been OK with the use of amnioscentesis tests, and the idea that a child who is the victim of incest might just benefit from an abortion, instead of putting her through another yet another horrible ordeal.
Santorum's stances are predominantly guided by (as medwoman points out) The One True Faith, and he makes no bones about his willingness to force these beliefs on those who are of different faiths (or who do not subscribe to religion at all).
These types should keep their religion out of our government. Full stop. The idea that a theocrat of this stripe is electable seems to me ludicrous.
WHat meds says Santorum beleives
Opposes birth control because we all should be in agreement and bound by his dictum that the only purpose of sex is reproduction.
What Santorum actually says:
"My position is birth control can and should be available,"
See CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...ol-stance/
We can expect a continual stream of such distortions in the months to come.
Rusty49, apparently I wasn't clear enough when I said I wasn't a Democrat; I was also implying I'm not a lefty. And as David pointed out, the 2010 election had very little to do with the Republicans. This go around, the Republican message, or lack there of, together with the flawed Republican nominees, are front and center. Hence my prediction that they're toast.
"We are the party of "NO"" is not a compelling message. "We are not Obama" is not a compelling message. "We are for massive government spending and intervention unless we are not in power" is not a compelling message. "We don't care about healthcare other than to be staunchly opposed to Obamacare, unless it's in Massachussettes" is not a complelling message. "We are for divisive social politics" is not a compelling message. Some voters no doubt are energized by these messages, but not enough to win this election.
It's too bad the Republicans can't craft a coherent message, practice it, instead of preach it, nominate a true leader, then we'd have a contest. I'm not suggesting the Dems are any more capable of the foregoing than the Republicans, it's just that the dynamics are such that the Dems don't have to this go around.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
JR
Ok, How about a direct quote with no interpretation from me whatsoever.
""Remember, the greatest generation for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness," Santorum said, going on to explain why Americans delayed entering the war. "We're a hopeful people. We think, 'Well, you know, it'll get better. Yeah, he's a nice guy. I mean, it won't be near as bad as what we think. This will be okay. I mean, yeah, maybe he's not the best guy after a while, after a while you find out some things about this guy over in Europe who's not so good of a guy after all ... '" Now it could be that he was not drawing a comparison between the president and anyone else, or it could be that he was drawing a comparison to Churchill....but somehow I doubt it.
JR
And, in Santorum's own words from 2006 " birth control is “harmful to women” and “harmful to society”—positions that are not medically supported. Still, he says today that while he opposes contraception as a Catholic, he would do nothing to restrict its use. I would argue not being supportive of the groups that provide much needed health care to the most vulnerable in our society, he would certainly, be supporting barriers to its use.
And more recently Gingrich and Santorum used the Komen Foundation decision to depict Planned Parenthood clinics as abortion mills, although abortions account for only 3 % of the clinics services.
How is that for distortion ?
medwoman:
First of all, you haven't retracted your previous assertion which I showed was demonstrably false.
Will you do so?
Second, Planned Parenthood certainly does perform abortions. I'm not sure what you object to there.
But more fundamentally, I have no particular interest in defending Santorum. He is a very flawed candidate for president and it is too bad that there is not a more perfect candidate running. Still, he seems to me to be leagues above Obama on the issues that matter most - the economy and foreign policy. In both areas, the charitable interpretation is that Obama has no idea what he is doing. (The less charitable is that he is deliberately undermining the nation, which I do not believe)
JR
No, I will not retract my position that Santorum opposes birth control. A single throw away line in a whole host of negative statements over the course of years does not make him a supporter of birth control.
Planned Parenthood does indeed perform abortions. This does not mean that I feel that cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, treatment of STDs and contraception should be denied to those who have no other access to health care because 3% of health care provided is abortions. This would be the outcome of taking away the Komen funding, but you certainly do not hear Santorum or Gingrich discussing the increased rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer that their actions would impose on those who utilize Planned Parenthood.
Does that clarify my objection ?
IMO Santorum's foreign policy positions are among the worst of the Republicans running. Obama's foreign policy is a major area of success, which I expect the Republicans will largely avoid as an issue during the campaign. Santorum's comments on Iran, Islam, and Israel, for starters, should be of major concern to voters.
If you want the US to go to war with Iran, Santorum is your man.
Medwoman: I'll leave it to others to decide if you are being fair.
You said Santorum
Opposes birth control because we all should be in agreement and bound by his dictum that the only purpose of sex is reproduction
Santorum actually said
My position is birth control can and should be available
You stand by your statement. I see no point in arguing that issue any further.
Santorum on birth control:
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be...If it’s not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women" (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)
Look, it's really not that complicated.
His statements are consistent.
He has personal moral opinions. These seem to come out of the fact that he is a religious Catholic.
He also does not believe on imposing his religious views on others.
He is not prevaricating or misleading. In fact, though I am not in agreement with his views on these issues, I do find it refreshing that he is consistently honest.
If you want the US to go to war with Iran, Santorum is your man.
I'd prefer not to go to war with Iran--that would be a disaster.
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be...If it’s not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women" (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)
Yes contraception is the looming threat...this guy is totally out to lunch.
Santorum Interviewer Question: So would birth control be covered by that notion of freedom without responsibilities?
I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life but I am not a believer in birth control. -artificial birth control- Again I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. …
This is from a personal point of view, from a governmental point of view I support ahh, title 10 I guess it is, and have voted for contraception and although I don’t think it works, I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or or or tolerated particularly among the young.
I think it has… we’ve seen very, very harmful long term consequences to our society. Birth control enables that and I don’t think it is a healthy thing for our country.
This reasonable for a devote Catholic
although I don’t think it works, I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged.
I do not think this is reasonable for anyone. Until these posts, I honestly believed that he was consistent in his beliefs. But let's look at this. He doesn't believe that it works, but he does believe it should be available ? If it doesn't work then the manufacturers are lying to the public and and the medication should be pulled from the market. But for one moment, let's get back to reality. The statistics on contraception :
Sterilization/ IUDs/ Implanon/ DepoProvera are all associated with a less than ! % chance of conception annually.
The patch, the Nuvaring, BCPs, are all associated with a less than 3-5% chance of conception annually. Condoms, the diaphragm and withdrawal are associated with a 15-20% chance of pregnancy annually. Using no means of contraception is associated with an 80% chance of conception in the younger age groups and lowers with increasing age. So clearly, it does work, and clearly Mr. Santorum is speaking from a position of ignorance. What else will he proclaim without the slightest knowledge of the facts ?
A few thoughts:
I love how people can refer to santorum and others as extremists, as if Obama himself is some sort of moderate....
lets be clear - Obama was against Hillary and Edwards in the primaries - Hillary Hung herself with her rabid attack dog personality - Edwards hung himself with his deceitful behavior, so Obama was the alternative without that baggage...... but that hardly made him a great candidate for office. He was the only one left.
second, someone mentioned Iraq, Bravo to Obama there - we were having serious successes in Iraq, and obama completely undid that. Now Iraq has beome Obamas Bay of Pigs - Abandon our allies - leave them to the slaughter, and give yourself a pat on the back the whole time and call it "change we can believe in"
I also love how gas prices suddenly do not count in terms of the economy. So what's it gonna be don? Gas prices can go up how much? $5, $6? before it has an impact? hmmm?
we were having serious successes in Iraq, and obama completely undid that
The troop withdrawal that Obama carried out was negotiated by the Bush administration before they left office. Is it your preference that we renege on that agreement, and leave troops there against the wishes of the Iraqi government?
You have misconstrued my comments about gas prices. And Obama is governing as a moderate. Just ask any liberal.
Medwoman: You mean where we had absolutely no business being in the first place.
Wrong. Our business there was part of a cease-fire agreement in the wake of the Persian Gulf.
Medwoman: And what success would you be referencing years after Bush declared " mission accomplished" ?
ooohhh gee I don't know, maybe having killed or captured most of the deck of 52 terrorists?
Is it your preference that we renege on that agreement, and leave troops there against the wishes of the Iraqi government?
wow, what a way to try to pin obama's decisions on Bush! Don, the ultimate decision for withdrawal was Obama's. He's president. And I'm not convinced the Iraqi govt wanted any such thing. Story after story showed Iraqi officials expressing nervousness about violence flooding the country in the wake of America's departure.
"I would describe our troops as having succeeded in the mission of giving to the Iraqis their country in a way that gives them a chance for a successful future," Obama said.
yet he continues to call the operaton in Iraq a failure! which is it Mr. President?
As far as the "Obama governing as a moderate goes..." lol, just ask any liberal? And that somehow is supposed to prove your point?
So, just to clarify: you think we should still have troops in Iraq?
the ultimate decision for withdrawal was Obama's.
We had a troop deployment agreement with the government of Iraq. That agreement called for all US troops to be out of there by December 2011. We abided by the terms of our agreement. The agreement was negotiated by the Bush administration, and adhered to by the Obama administration. I don't really know what you wanted us to do. There is ZERO evidence that the current elected government of Iraq wanted a single US troop to stay.
lol, just ask any liberal? And that somehow is supposed to prove your point?
On any number of issues, Obama has taken a more centrist position than liberals would prefer.
On any number of issues, Obama has taken a more centrist position than liberals would prefer.
in otherwords, Obama has taken both positions simultaneously. "centrist" is a euphemism for "doublespeak"
Don: So, just to clarify: you think we should still have troops in Iraq?
me and senator John McCain - a political moderate and vietnam vet.
Don: We abided by the terms of our agreement. The agreement was negotiated by the Bush administration, and adhered to by the Obama administration. I don't really know what you wanted us to do.
wow, talk about spin. First, to my knowledge bush was against any timetable for withdrawal - allowing us to stay until the job was finished, that is the critical difference between him and obama. And it makes sense: NEVER TELL YOUR ENEMIES WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING TO DO.... but that retard we have in office now didn't seem to get that.....
as far as what I "wanted us to do goes..."
how about win? how about letting our troops leave when they can do so with honor? John McCain, a true veteran, agrees.
Don: There is ZERO evidence that the current elected government of Iraq wanted a single US troop to stay.
then maybe you need to consult more sources.
"centrist" is a euphemism for "doublespeak"
Centrist means being pragmatic rather than ideological. Obama compared to, say, Dennis Kucinich.
then maybe you need to consult more sources.
The Obama administration continued to negotiate with Al-Maliki's government about the terms of any troops remaining. Negotiations were not successful. To be blunt: you don't know what you're talking about.
For example:
wow, talk about spin. First, to my knowledge bush was against any timetable for withdrawal - allowing us to stay until the job was finished, that is the critical difference between him and obama. And it makes sense: NEVER TELL YOUR ENEMIES WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING TO DO.... but that retard we have in office now didn't seem to get that.....
The Bush administration negotiated the timetable for withdrawal. Got it? "Stay until the job was finished"? We would never leave, because the "job" would never be fully defined -- as it wasn't when we entered Iraq in the first place.
Actually, Octane, I think you exemplify Republican party positions on foreign policy, as enunciated during the debates by various of the sequential frontrunners. The current candidates would:
--have troops in Iraq forever, with no plan for leaving.
--have troops in Afghanistan forever, with no plan for leaving.
--initiate military action against Iran, and/or encourage Israel to do so (want to see the price of gas go up?!)
--support Israel in any policy whatsoever, including expansion of settlements.
--apparently, some would have supported propping up the dictatorships in various Arab countries.
In other words, an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. Meanwhile, the current president has basically wiped out the al-Qaeda leadership, gave the generals what they wanted in Afghanistan (with a timetable), and carefully extricated us from the mess of Iraq.
I think, given the choice between those foreign policy options, I know how the voters will choose. But my guess is that foreign policy will not be a major issue in the campaign.
The latest polls show that Obama has a 25% strong approve rating and a 40% strong disapprove.
Moreover they show him roughly equal with Romney or Santorum.
Looks like he's in trouble for reelection, wishful thinking aside.
The opinion that Obama is a moderate comes only from those on the far left. He is the most leftist president this country has ever had.
I think FDR was clearly more "leftist" than Obama.
I"m not sure which polls you're looking at:
Approval ratings:
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup
Obama v Romney:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...-1171.html
Obama v Santorum:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...-2912.html
"He is not a political moderate in your eyes because you are a rabid left winger"
And could it not equally be the case that Obama appears to be a liberal to you because you are philosophically far to the right?
It is true that Obama appears to be a moderate ( or centrist ) to me because I am philosophically further towards the left. I am willing to admit that my assessment is based on my perception and world view and not some God given mandate. I have not had a problem with the religions of any of our presidents going back to Kennedy ( the first that I am old enough to have meaningful memories). I do have a problem with Santorum precisely because of his conviction that his beliefs based on his interpretation of the Bible trump demonstrable facts. Further more, he does not appear to be either rational or consistent in his application of his beliefs as I demonstrated by providing the statistics on contraceptive efficacy compared with his statements that he does not believe it works, he believes it is harmful, and believes it should be available.
I am completely unable to follow his logic here and am concerned that this is the kind of reasoning ( or lack thereof ) that he would bring to all decision making.
As far as your reference to John McCain as "a moderate and a Vietnam Nam vet". I am not sure how you feel this strengthens his point of view.
I have known Vietnam Nam vets who are at both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Would having served in Vietnam Nam give more credibility in your eyes if the individual favored withdrawal from Iraq, or would favor a non military approach to Iran? Does it make my admittedly leftist ( in this country, centrist in Europe) point of view more credible to you that I am a vet ( not Vietnam Nam era, no overseas service) ?
"--have troops in Iraq forever, with no plan for leaving.
--have troops in Afghanistan forever, with no plan for leaving.
Like we have done with Germany and Japan? That seems to have worked out well enough.
"In other words, an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy."
Hear about the Democrat that was thrown off the Empire State Building? All the way down he kept reassuring himself he was fine.
Neville Chamberlain had it wrong, and so do the US pacifists and isolationists.
It is a funny vision that some of my friends with more left-leaning views seem to have. They opine for more open borders and a “global community”; yet reject us policing and protecting the safe and free flow of people and markets. They also reject proactive removal of hostile regimes with clear intent to harm us and others.
For me, this seems to boil down to the belief of “American Exceptionalism” and national responsibility. I think some people are more apt to recoil to the concept of American Exceptionalism. Frankly, I think many of them dislike the American system as designed – maybe due to their own unresolved childhood issues for being selected last for playground kickball – and this plays into their unwillingness to accept the clear fact that America IS exceptional and MUST shoulder a greater level of responsibility for protecting what is good from the evil that seeks to destroy it.
The Obama administration is making grave errors with our policy toward Iran and Israel. Their failure to act decisively on the situation with Iran developing Nuclear weapons is a BIG reason why Obama must be defeated.
This situation presents another Obama campaign risk… what if Israel ignores the Obama administration and takes out targets in Iran and the conflict escalates with many dead Israelis? How will Obama be perceived in this case? My guess is that he will appear to be a politically risk-averse pansy and Muslim-sympathizer leaving our great historical friend Israel to suffer the pain alone.
Don't look now. Airline stocks are down big today because of the increase in oil prices. This will filter through the economy and hurt any recovery in the making. Germany has begun to unravel its high hopes on green energy as the billions they have already poured into it has produced much less than expected and is beginning to look like a huge waste of money. Does that sound like someone else we all know? Obama will definitely take the blame for higher gas prices due to his obstructionist policies and push for renewable energy that hasn't panned out. I love seeing democrats feeling so smug right now but the election is still a long way away and much is going to happen between now and then.
“I think some people are more apt to recoil to the concept of American Exceptionalism.”
Apparently this is now a code phrase for militaristic jingoism. Yeah, I recoil from that. Last two wars have cost us thousands of American dead and trillions of dollars.
“The Obama administration is making grave errors with our policy toward Iran and Israel. Their failure to act decisively on the situation with Iran developing Nuclear weapons is a BIG reason why Obama must be defeated.”
I absolutely, totally, completely disagree with you on this. The sanctions are working, and the Obama administration has put together a strong international response to Iran. We should always go to a diplomatic option first, second, and third.
“…what if Israel ignores the Obama administration and takes out targets in Iran and the conflict escalates with many dead Israelis? How will Obama be perceived in this case?”
Then Israel will be, and should be, on its own. If Israel wants to start a war in the Middle East, it should not count on American support.
“maybe due to their own unresolved childhood issues for being selected last for playground kickball”
Where do you come up with this stuff? Utter bilge.
