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
I was waiting for a pro-Obama spin piece by the vanguard. I knew it was coming…. it was just a matter of time.
ANd hell yes, it was all of a sudden turn around. And I’m not going to argue it to death, but watch the economy suddenly deteriorate after the election.
I trust Don Shor & even Rifkin over either the Democrat or Republican zealots.
If Obama wins, and the economy is still weak after the elections, Republicans will say “we told you so”… Democrats will say that it’s just because the Bush years fouled it up so bad… if it strengthens the Republicans will find a way to attribute it to anything other than Obama (divine intervention?)…. Democrats will say, “I told you so”.
The majority of us want to see the economy improve, if for no other reason than to avoid “bake sales” to fund education.
The Republican party is fractured –between tea partiers, social conservatives and the traditional pro-business coalition. These folks actually have little in common in many ways and the alliance that goes back to Nixon could be breaking up.
Both Romney and Santorum have had severe cases of foot in mouth disease with Santorum giving lectures on birth control, which the vast majority of americans accept and Romney lecturing Detroit on bailouts (lforget about whether you think it was a good idea–its bad politics in Michigan). Romney could lose Michigan, one of his “home” states and the state his father governed.
But I think the more interesting question is whether Obama (or whoever gets elected) will do something about our structural budget deficit. Govt spends ~25% of GDP but only takes in ~15% in revenues. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. But we aren’t doing it. Many tea party types are against govt handouts but readily accept Medicare or other govt payments. many people on the left and right are in denial.
[quote]But I think the more interesting question is whether Obama (or whoever gets elected) will do something about our structural budget deficit. Govt spends ~25% of GDP but only takes in ~15% in revenues. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. But we aren’t doing it. Many tea party types are against govt handouts but readily accept Medicare or other govt payments. many people on the left and right are in denial. [/quote]Spot on… many Tea Party types don’t believe that Social Security, Medicare and/or Unemployment Benefits count as handouts/bailouts… Social Security has shakier funding than PERS by many accounts… yet both sides of Congress maintain the benefits, including payments to Medicare doctors, AND decrease (or maintain a previous tax holiday) employee contributions… yet the tea party types would increase public sector employee contributions to retirement and medical and, simulataneously, decrease the benefits. Ironic.
From where I sit, the sudden economic recovery looks just a bit too convenient. The numbers are “cooked” by both sides. (The unemployment rate does not count those who can no longer collect unemployment but are out of work; those having to take part-time jobs far below their capabilities but who need to pay bills; those who have stopped looking for work after several years of no work, etc.) CA is in a huge fiscal mess w very little hope in sight of a comeback to where they were, as are many other states. When the Xmas numbers for hiring disappear and the state budgets require laying off more people to make ends meet, watch the fidoogling games begin. Frankly I would have to hold my nose to vote for any of the GOP candidates or Obama. All they seem to be about is getting re-elected, not about doing what is good for the country. The U.S. Congress is just as bad if not worse… just my personal view…
Elaine, as I said before the recovery numbers aren’t sudden. There are any number of specific data points that people in the business world follow. I happen to watch retail sales numbers, because that is my industry and they have an impact on some of my buying decisions. Investors watch unemployment numbers and other data points. To “cook” the numbers, a large number of lower level bureaucrats in a number of different aqencies would have to collude with a lot of private economic analysts in a broad-based conspiracy that would be impossible to sustain.
The recovery has been ongoing for several quarters. It is slower than the administration would like it to be. Some Republicans seem to prefer that the economy not recover at the moment. Their more salient argument might be that it is a weak recovery, because trying to deny the statistics isn’t going to work.
The retail sales numbers are very good news because that is what will drive the continuing recovery and ease the fiscal crisis at state and local levels. Inventories are clearing out and ordering is increasing. Jobs are a lagging indicator, but at the moment jobs are gaining in the private sector and declining in the public sector. Others here know more about other parts of the puzzle, but there are distinct weaknesses such as housing which will continue to make this recovery slower than typical.
When one party pivots to social issues, you know their political strategists have decided they are losing the other arguments. You won’t find Republicans getting much traction on foreign policy, and they will be less and less believable on economic issues. So they’ll go back to their traditional social policy positions and emphasize those. That might help in the primaries, but not IMO in the general election.
DS, an not a word about the 95% increase in petrol prices…
Sure. Issues of concern: energy prices, another round of foreclosures, problems in commercial real estate, European crisis. I don’t consider the price of gas to be a statistic relevant to much of anything, and could show you graphs showing the wide fluctuations over different administrations. Republicans are welcome to try and run on energy policy, but I think they won’t make much headway on it.
I generally find your piece on target, David. However, it seems to me–insofar as you say, campaigns do matter–that until the Republican nomination process uncovers the GOP candidate–it’s hard to say much more than the improving naitonal economy tends to favor President Obama’s hopes at reelection.
[i]”He is awkward about his $21 million in annual [b]wealth.[/b]
You intended to say Mitt Romney’s annual income?
[i]”He is big money at a time when big money is looked at with distrust.[/i]
I think “the rich” as a generalization have always been unpopular during electoral campaigns. In other words, it has always been fashionable to attack a wealthy candidate for being out of touch or unable to relate to the common man. What distinguishes some wealthy individuals as candidates is they are better or worse at being able to deflect that kind of an attack. The best of them in this respect come across as “someone you’d like to have a beer with.”
In all of American history, no one owned that more than Teddy Roosevelt. TR was at once a child of enormous privilege, growing up in luxury in New York City; a Harvard dandy; a big game hunter and frontiersman; a Rough Rider and war hero; a self-made multimillionaire (as an enormously popular writer); and a man who the ordinary Americans of his day felt was “one of us.”
Franklin Roosevelt, with his upper-crust accent and speaking style, was always viewed as something of a rich, effete dandy, even when he was in the Wilson Administration. When FDR stood for VP in 1920, his being rich was a point of attack by the Harding partisans. However, due to the HUGE economic problems of 1932, no one was too worried about electing a rich guy to beat Hoover. And once FDR was in office, his radio broadcasts won him over as “one of us” to the American electorate for the rest of his life.
John Kennedy, who never made much money (outside of books sales) was very rich due to his inheritance. But he had so much personal grace–frankly, all the Kennedys had that–that he could be seen by commoners at once as one of us and a plutocrat. The attacks on JFK about money tended to focus on the questionable way his father made the family’s money.
Ronald Reagan was another rich guy–albeit one who made his money by his own labor–who had a lot of personal charm and grace which helped him gain a pass. He was in that sense the conservative version of JFK.
But not all rich candidates can overcome this “handicap.” John Kerry, for example, who has far more money than Romney, always seemed rich and aloof, even though almost all of his money came from his wife’s ex-husband. Kerry has an elitist air about him, dating back to his Harvard days, in spite of his wartime heroics.
Michael Dukakis, who I don’t think had a lot of money, also gave off that air that he was looking down on others. He had trouble trying to portray himself as the common guy.
Don, would you please fix my italics problem in my post above? Sorry.
To Don Shor: I predict the economy will take several “nose dives” and will also make some “miraculous recoveries” between now and the Nov election – call me a cynic! How well the economy is doing IMO is more a fiction of the news media than an honest evaluation of how the economy is really doing. Even you concede various sectors of the economy are not recovering; gas prices are inflating by leaps and bounds…
The Republican nominee, whoever wins the nomination, is toast.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DS: [i]”The retail sales numbers are very good news because that is what will drive the continuing recovery and ease the fiscal crisis at state and local levels. [b]Inventories are clearing out[/b] and ordering is increasing.”[/i]
If you study macroeconomics, the first thing you ought to learn is the role inventory plays in the business cycle. The very reason we have recessions is because inventories grow too large. And when they do, producers cut back on production, which disemploys workers, which begins a cycle of negative growth. And that negative cycle has to play itself out until inventories are used up or back to sustainable levels.
Very often–though not always–a U.S. recession will begin because housing inventories get too large. That is what happened in 2008. There were, of course, many other factors in our financial sector which helped make this recession so severe, so much worse than most. But, nevertheless, the one key sector which was most overbuilt–that is, had too much inventory–was housing.*
That is why this news story ([url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/2012-starts-with-increased-sales-and-stable-prices-2012-02-16[/url]) is so encouraging: [quote] January was the 19th consecutive month that inventory levels dropped. The number of homes for sale last month was 24.1% lower than the number seen in January 2011. In the 53 metro areas, home prices were down only 0.8% from one year ago, building a trend of much anticipated price stabilization. … “If sales continue ahead of last year’s pace and inventory does not increase significantly, we could start to see increasing home prices this year.” …
For the month of January, the average inventory of homes for sale in the 53 surveyed metro areas dropped 4.2% from December and also dropped 24.1% from January 2011. Month-to month inventories have now fallen for 19 consecutive months. Given the current rate of sales, and the size of the active inventory, the resulting Months Supply is 7.3 months, half a month lower than the 7.8 month supply seen in December, but significantly lower than the 10.1 month supply reported in January 2011. Months Supply is the number of months it would take to clear a market’s active inventory at the current rate of sales. [/quote] *Not focusing on our core problem, housing inventory, is why Obama’s stimulus package failed. The president should have concentrated on ways to absorb and recapitalize the housing sector. That would have done our economy far more good than anything his spending program addressed.
Also, the Democrats seem to have a mistaken ideology that tells them the best way to get more cash into a recessed economy–that is something the government should do in a recession–is for Congress to increase deficit spending. The Republicans tend to have a mistaken ideology that tells them we need to be cutting tax rates in a recession in order to stimulate growth. I think they are both wrong in the main. It’s likely that some types of deficit spending make sense. It’s likely some tax cuts would help**. However, it is more efficient to allow the Federal Reserve to manage the money supply. If we have a recession and core prices are falling and M3 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_(economics)#Empirical_measures[/url]) is too low, the Fed knows how to inject cash in the economy. It can also reverse course immediately if inflation picks up too fast.
**For example with the current recession: I think it would have made sense for the federal government to have offered tax cuts (incentives) to those who were willing to buy foreclosed properties and in so doing inject new capital into them. I also think it makes especially good sense when unemployment is high for the government to use some deficit spending to subsidize the wages of people who lost their jobs and had to take new jobs which pay them much less. In other words, it’s better to give someone an incentive to work in a low-paying field than have him staying on unemployment.
By their obstructionist tactics and overblown “moral” outrage, republicans have made themselves unelectable among urban, educated voters .
This electoral college map ([url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html[/url]) by Real Clear Politics has Obama ahead 217-181 with 140 votes as a toss-up.
These are the 10 states RCP calls toss-ups: Colorado (9); Florida (29); Iowa (6); Missouri (10); Nevada (6); New Hampshire (4); North Carolina (15); Ohio (18); Pennsylvania (20); Virginia (13); and Wisconsin (10).
Despite how close the race appears per RCP, I think the point David Greenwald makes is that the direction seems to be moving in Obama’s favor. He was seemingly in a tie with Romney a month ago in the popular vote. Today, he will +6% over Romney and +8% over Santorum, and if the economy keeps getting better, those percentage leads will not go down.
I agree with Don that we are seeing tangible signs of recovery beyond the official data which can be misleading. (For example if you remove the seasonal adjustment the most recent employment figures are not nearly as rosy.)
The consensus among economists (for what that is worth!) is for a tepid recovery, largely due to the buildup in debt. In that respect, Rogoff and Reinhart and others argue that this is not a typical post-war recovery since consumers are starting out in much greater debt than has been typical. the housing bust was also vicious and housing is a large chunk of the US economy. However one should never underestimate Americans propensity to spend even when they are indebted.
Anecdotally I see signs of recovery in the Sacramento real estate market and know many people looking for housing in Davis who tell me there is little inventory.
But all this also has a backdrop–the gap between rich and poor is growing and the middle class is shrinking. Some people have dropped out of the labor force and hence no longer counted as unemployed. This phenomena is particularly striking among middle aged white males (who are also more likely than most to be tea party members).
Whoever is our next President has their work cut out for them. Most political scientists will tell you that second term presidents are typically weak.
[i]”The Republican nominee, whoever wins the nomination, is toast.”[/i]
[i]”By their obstructionist tactics and overblown “moral” outrage, republicans have made themselves unelectable among urban, educated voters”[/i]
A little fatalistic or self-serving, feel-good analysis, eh?
[i]”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.”[/i]
I agree.
Once the GOP candidate emerges, the whole game changes. Obama is a fertile battlefield of campaign targets. The left will undoubtedly pull the race card and blame George Bush defense again to try to protect him, but it won’t do enough this time. This is going to be a brutal race and a close race.
One more thing, Democrats use the “economy is improving” message at their own peril. Many people do not feel it. Many segments of the economy are still a mess. We are still sitting on a house of cards.
Obama is now ahead in key swing states.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/fox-news-swing-state-poll-is-landscape-shifting/[/url]
He is actually polling better in the south than other parts of the country at this point.
“[i]That translates into more support for the president at the ballot box. Obama currently holds a 14-point lead over Romney in the Dixie states, and an 18-point edge over Santorum.”[/i]
If Republicans can’t do a clean sweep of the south, they don’t have a chance.
Jeff, I’m not a Democrat and my prediction is in no way self-serving. The Republican candidates are incredibly flawed and the Republican party has been incapable of making a compelling case these past 2 years. If the Republican Party is hardly enamored with its candidates, how can you expect the independents to vote Republican?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I love how Don Shor simply brushes aside the increase in gasoline prices, as if that won’t have a significant effect on the economy???
Second, I’m hardly one to say the republican candidates are great but Obama is hardly great either who’s kidding who… hasn’t done much of anything since getting into office….. except look pretty and speak well….
I’m not that happy with the GOP candidates either, but I’ll take anyone but Obama. Obama is getting a pass right now as the GOP fights among themselves but once the Republican candidate is secured and they turn the spotlight back on Obama his favorability numbers are going to go down.
91 Octane, $5/gal. gas is going to hurt the economy and everyone knows who’s going to take the blame for that.
You’re right that I don’t think that a temporary increase in gas prices will have a significant effect on the economy.
Here’s part of the reason:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/oilprices.png[/img]
[url]http://zfacts.com/p/196.html[/url]
[i]”Jeff, I’m not a Democrat and my prediction is in no way self-serving.”[/i]
Sorry Michael. I wasn’t clear that I was referring to Bidilin of being the self-serving Dem. I was accusing you of being fatalistic.
I think it is easy to get caught up in the media attacks and go negative on the GOP candidates. However, any of the remaining four are much better than Obama. Once the primaries are over and the clear winner is selected, the GOP campaign engine will start blasting Obama on every broken promise, every lie, every mistake, and every gaffe. They will wipe much of the cool Teflon shine off of him by slinging the same type of media mud his socialist and media pals are heaping on the GOP candidates.
Obama will be the more personably likeable candidate because he is a talented actor that transcends his Chicago thug politics underpinning. My guess is that the GOP candidate will be Romney and he will present much better in the general election. Conservatives will vote for him, and unlike last election, the independents and center will vote for him.
I don’t pay any attention to the polls right now. Three months from now they will start to matter.
Don, what is your point with the graph? My view is that gas prices have remained consistently higher under Obama. He has a track record of blocking and denying domestic oil exploration, production and transport. I gas goes to $450 a gallon, which is highly likely, Obama will take substantial campaign hits.
The point was to show the drop in imports and the correlation between imports and prices. Prices lag behind the trend in imports. Imports are down. Notice, by the way, the trend during the eight years of the Bush presidency. Was Bush responsible for the ups as well as the low point you like to cite in comparing gas prices?
Private production in the US is way up, to the point that oil production in the US is at a decade high. Gas has been at $4.50 before. There is short-term political impact. But if all Republicans have to run on is a promise of low gas prices, that isn’t much.
[i]”… any of the remaining four are much better than Obama.”
[/i]There’s not a single one of them that will appeal to moderates and independents. The Republican party is losing this election with every utterance of these candidates. They are so far outside the realm of mainstream public thinking on social issues at this point, that they probably can’t recover. A party that would seriously consider Rick Santorum as a serious, viable candidate has completely lost its way.
From Politifact.com:
[i]”Domestic crude oil production, the agency says, is projected to decline by 110,000 barrels a day in 2011 and by an additional 130,000 barrels per day in 2012. The agency makes that projection based on expected production declines in Alaska due to maturing oil fields. Production in the Gulf of Mexico is also projected to decline. Both are partially offset by projected increases in the Lower 48 states, but on balance, EIA sees the numbers falling.
So Obama is right that American oil production is at its highest level since 2003, but we’re taking the statement down a notch on our rating scale because the amount is projected to fall during each of the next two years, making it somewhat problematic to use the number as evidence that domestic oil production is on a healthy trendline. On balance, we rate the statement Mostly True.”[/i]
Here is the thing… Oil production has increased, but much less than would have without Obama and the Dems refusing to grant so many permits; blocking offshore drilling and preventing other drilling leases in Federal land. In 2003 oil was going for $27.69 per barrel. Today it is $105 per barrel… a new record. The demand for new drilling permits was on the rise from 2007 to 2008 before Bush left office. They fell off dramatically when Obama took office.
Number of drilling permits in Alaska:
Obama and the Dems have taken a “starve the beast” approach in a goofy attempt to force-wean the US off fossil fuels. Instead of a Keystone Pipeline, we have a Solyndra. We have smaller, less-reliable, hybrid cars that cost $5000 more. We have $4-gallon gas, and $5-gallon heating oil. We have energy-cost-inflated food and other products. We have people unable to drive to work and school. We have many poor people unable to afford food and unable to heat their homes.
Shale-oil drilling is saving Obama’s ass on this. He should thank free-market capitalism for bailing him out. It has little to do with his energy policy. In fact, he and Congressional Dems are just itching for more dubious “science” they can use to restrict it too.
My mistake
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/oilpermits.jpg[/img]
“The Obama administration announced today it is putting up nearly 38 million acres in the central Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas lease sales.”
[url]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-team-offers-oil-and-gas-lease-sale/1[/url]
A good overview of the variables of oil pricing: [url]http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm[/url]
[i]”Oil production has increased, but much less than would have…”
[/i]
That should make a catchy campaign slogan.
[i]”There’s not a single one of them that will appeal to moderates and independents. The Republican party is losing this election with every utterance of these candidates. They are so far outside the realm of mainstream public thinking on social issues at this point, that they probably can’t recover. A party that would seriously consider Rick Santorum as a serious, viable candidate has completely lost its way.”[/i]
Don, with all due respect, base on this comment, I think you need to get out more and travel the US. I think you might be stuck in a left-coast bubble and need to broaden your reading, listening and viewing repertoire.
The majority of Americans still consider themselves social conservatives. They think California is about as far from mainstream as it gets, until you travel to Europe. Yes, the population centers tend to less concerned about traditional family values, but this is a representative government with plenty of red states.
What exactly about Rick Santorum causes you to recoil so much? He and Mitt walk the talk, don’t they?
The majority of Americans don’t agree with Rick Santorum on social issues.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Separation_of_religious_views_and_public_life[/url]
What about Rick Santorum [i]doesn’t[/i] 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, [i]far[/i] 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.
[i]far, far, far, far, far to the right.[/i]
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.
[i]It was only five years ago that most Americans would have never thought a socialist could be elected.[/i]
Obama is not a socialist.
[i]are you better off than four years ago?[/i]
I assume you mean three years ago. Yes.
[i]Santorum’s social values credentials[/i]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: [url]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/[/url]
Here’s my favorite: [img]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartpurple1024.png[/img]
Don: “I’ve been to all the western states, the mid-Atlantic, New England, Chicago, briefly in the South, and Hawai’i.”
Jeff: “You have listed some reliable lefty states, but you seem to ignore much of the rest of the country.”
You’re funny.
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…
Ad: I think you are blinded by your own hatred of him. I don’t particularly care for the guy myself. However, if you look at the polls and look at the economy, you realize that he’s probably going to win reelection.
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.
There are several problems with that theory Rusty:
1. historically you can model presidential performance pretty well based on the economy
2. the spotlight has been on Obama for several years
3. if the economy continues to improve between now and election day, none of what you say will matter. There are a number of pitfalls for the economy and that is really where I think there needs to be more uncertainty in the models right now. Most of the models will tap in the assumption of a 2.5% growth rate (which is not huge but solid enough). If it does not grow at that rate, all bets are off.
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.?
Except for the fact that Republican candidates have taken unresponded to shots at Obama. Look no further than this ([url]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/18/santorum-obamas-agenda-amounts-to-some-phony-theology/[/url]).
But if you believe the economic model theory it does not matter anyway.
What matters is the economy at a certain point in time (and btw, it is probably not the economy on election day that matters most).
I don’t know if 8% is a magic number. 8% looks awfully good compared to what it has been. It may be that everything is relative.
But you do raise a valid point which the point I made in this piece which is that there is a lot of uncertainty and there are things looming that could change the calculations.
That said, I believe this is essentially 2004, Republicans believe they will defeat Obama and will continue to do so until the day after Obama wins reelection and some perhaps even beyond that.
DMG erroneously wrote: [quote]”…I think you are blinded by your own hatred of him….”[/quote]
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
[url]http://news.investors.com/article/601660/201202171842/obama-jobless-rate-threatens-re-election.htm[/url]
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
“By, unlike lefties, conservatives do not fall in love with their politicians.
I have a two word response to this: Ronald Reagan.
“Sorry Charlie no hate here… “
I think you are in denial. You go on to make some sort of point, not sure what, that has nothing to do with arguments put forth in this article.
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.”
[quote]100 trillion dollars of entitlement obligations it can [b] never[/b] meet.”[/quote]
[url]http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=601602&ibdbot=1[/url]
Jeff Boone: “In 2003 oil was going for $27.69 per barrel. Today it is $105 per barrel… a new record.”
No oil peaked under Bush around $150 dollars a barrel in 2007.
“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 [b] DEFICITS [/b] 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…
AdRemmer, the man just has a treasure chest full of quotes that the GOP will use to slam him down the closer we get to the election.
And it won’t matter. Because he’ll be able to pull out his best stuff too and all that will really matter is how the economy is doing.
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 Republican Party really lost its way under Bush, hasn’t come up with a compelling message since”
Have you “lefties” forgot about the 2010 elections already? That was about as close to a GOP landslide as you can get.
No one has forgotten 2010. 2010 was the combination of a poor economy with trends in midterm elections working against the incumbent party.
However, just as 1994 saw GOP landslides in the congress, 1996 saw Clinton winning reelection relatively easily against an opponent who was both weak during an improved economy.
“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
[quote] Opposes birth control because we all should be in agreement and bound by his dictum that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. [/quote]
What Santorum actually says:
[quote]”My position is birth control can and should be available,”[/quote]
See CNN:
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/17/santorum-clarifies-birth-control-stance/[/url]
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 ?
Santorum has publicly opposed Griswold v Connecticut, and states that he believes that states have the right to ban contraception (and specific sexual practices). In other words, states have the right to control the reproductive freedom of individual women.
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 [quote]
Opposes birth control because we all should be in agreement and bound by his dictum that the only purpose of sex is reproduction
[/quote]
Santorum actually said
[quote]My position is birth control can and should be available[/quote]
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)
“[i]My position is birth control can and should be available” [/i]is a statement Rick Santorum made on February 17. Every other thing he’s said on the topic suggests otherwise. He is prevaricating on the topic. See K.Smith’s quote above.
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.
[quote]If you want the US to go to war with Iran, Santorum is your man.[/quote]
I’d prefer not to go to war with Iran–that would be a disaster.
[quote]”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) [/quote]
Yes contraception is the looming threat…this guy is totally out to lunch.
[quote]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.[/quote]
This reasonable for a devote Catholic
Correction: This seems reasonable for a devote Catholic.
Sorry. Correction #2: Devout
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 Irraq”. You mean where we had absolutely no business being in the first place. And what success would you be referencing years after Bush declared ” mission accomplished” ?
[i] we were having serious successes in Iraq, and obama completely undid that[/i]
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?
[i]the ultimate decision for withdrawal was Obama’s.[/i]
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.
[i]lol, just ask any liberal? And that somehow is supposed to prove your point?
[/i]
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.
“me and senator John McCain – a political moderate and vietnam vet.”
McCain is not a political moderate. He has crossed party lines on a few higher profile issues, but overall he has a solid conservative voting record, near or above 90% on most measures.
Nice try,
he has broken ranks with republicans on a number of issues- the big one being campaign finance reform. He is not a political moderate in your eyes because you are a rabid left winger – and yor judicial watch articles are proof positive of that.
fyi: the gas prices just jumped again this morning.
[i]”centrist” is a euphemism for “doublespeak” [/i]
Centrist means being pragmatic rather than ideological. Obama compared to, say, Dennis Kucinich.
[i]then maybe you need to consult more sources.
[/i]
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:
[i]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….. [/i]
The Bush administration [b]negotiated[/b] 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: [url]http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup[/url]
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html[/url]
“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) ?
[i]”–have troops in Iraq forever, with no plan for leaving.
–have troops in Afghanistan forever, with no plan for leaving.[/i]
Like we have done with Germany and Japan? That seems to have worked out well enough.
[i]”In other words, an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy.”[/i]
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]“I think some people are more apt to recoil to the concept of American Exceptionalism.”[/i]
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.
[i]“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]
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.
[i]“…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?”[/i]
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.
[i]“maybe due to their own unresolved childhood issues for being selected last for playground kickball”[/i]
Where do you come up with this stuff? Utter bilge.
[i]”The sanctions are working”[/i]
Only if you want Iran to develop the bomb.
How do you measure “working”? On what are you basing this opinion? I hope not just becaseu the Obama administration says so is this election year.
Wikipedia has a good overview, but I’ve seen this confirmed at other sources.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#Effects[/url]
Sanctions are interesting in that they tend to more drastically harm poor people residing in the target country. This is especially true in non-democracies where the ruling class insulates themselves.
Sanctions can provide the ruling class with a tool for fomenting national pride and anger against the external enemy. This approach hasn’t really helped us with North Korea, and it won’t really help with Iran. Also, look what happen when the isolationist US took this approach with Imperial Japan. I’m not saying that Iran will launch an attack on a US base; but they very well might make some drastic moves out of desperation. For example, start shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz. What will US pacifists say then?
A military option against Iran is [i]by far[/i] the worst option. And even if we bomb Iran into smithereens, we don’t stop their nuclear program. Sanctions and containment are much more effective in the long run and don’t have the collateral effects.
I don’t know what “US pacifists” will say. We will keep the Strait of Hormuz open if we have to.
“Sanctions are interesting in that they tend to more drastically harm poor people residing in the target country. This is especially true in non-democracies where the ruling class insulates themselves.
Equally true for bombing and invasion where the wealthy and ruling classes can leave the country or in other ways protect themselves. Not true of the poor. I think if I were poor, I might choose sanctions over having my home bombed, my daughters raped, and my children killed in the name of a foreign country “nation building” ( read creating an empire for themselves in everything but name.)
It is fascinating to me that as heinous as the attacks on the Twin Towers were, if you read the explanations for these actions as put forward by the Islamic extremists, they read almost identically to the justifications that many use for our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They obviously felt just as passionately as many of you do that what they were doing was fighting evil and preserving their own way of life. The men who crashed the planes on 9/11 may have been many things, but they were not cowards. They were willing to give their lives for what they believed was right. Do I agree with them ? Of course not. But do I agree with anyone including the United States using force except in self defense ? No. And our actions have gone far beyond self defense with many justifying pre emptive strikes whether there is sound evidence of a direct threat or not. This is not protection of free movement of people ( how free do you think movement is within the American established military zones?). This is protection of our economic interests pure and simple.
And while it is true Jeff, that I was frequently picked last for athletic teams, I was often first picked for academic competitions. Hmmmm….. I wonder what effect that had on my self esteem.
[i]”The men who crashed the planes on 9/11 may have been many things, but they were not cowards.”[/i]
From Wikipedia:
[quote]Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient mental robustness and courage in the face of a challenge.[/quote]
Can the criminally insane be considered brave by their insane actions? Or, if you don’t accept the insanity claim, how about someone brainwashed? Can a brainwashed person’s actions inspired by his brainwashing be considered brave?
I like this definition because of the term “mental robustness”. These terrorists failed to demonstrate mental robustness. As is a common tendency of their culture, they failed to demonstrate sufficient introspection and self-criticism. They took the less difficult (more cowardly) path of blaming others for their lack of satisfaction about their world. For many, many Muslims, it is more appropriate to kill those that offend or criticize them rather than look in the mirror. Many historians and cultural experts have commented on this aspect of Muslim culture – lack of self-criticism, and inability to accept outside criticism – to be at the heart of their collective difficulties. Muslims believe they are superior and that Islam is superior. They believe the Koran is the direct word of God and so they believe the scripture that says that the people who believe in Muhammad should rule the world. Criticize a Muslim for actions that he can defend with his religion, and you criticize his God. How convenient is that for blocking the need to take responsibility for his problems and mistakes?
As I understand, most of the 9-11 terrorists were well-educated sons of well-off Saudi families, dissatisfied with their lot in life, and angry that Muslim people were continually falling behind in global economic and cultural prominence. They blame Israel, yet they continue to oppress women. They blame the US, yet they continue to support laws that forbid lending. They blame Christianity and Judaism as being the false religions that are a danger to Islam, even though they all developed around the same periods of time and from similar sources, and no leader of a primary Jewish or Christian state has announced they want to wipe Islam off the map.
[i]”I was often first picked for academic competitions. Hmmmm….. I wonder what effect that had on my self esteem.”[/i]
medwoman, I do not know what causes some people to focus on the glass half empty as it relates to the greatest nation even on God’s green earth. Reagan had a positive message… one that focused on the glass being more than half full. He made the majority feel good about the country. Obama is doing the opposite and seems to appeal to people that tend latch on to a negative message about the country. He has changed the narrative, in the wrong way in my opinion, and it almost feels like a revenge of the nerds plot.
“Can the criminally insane be considered brave by their insane actions? Or, if you don’t accept the insanity claim, how about someone brainwashed? Can a brainwashed person’s actions inspired by his brainwashing be considered brave”
I believe that anyone who has been taught to consider other people “the enemy” and thus being deserving of being killed has been brainwashed.
We define it as “training” when it is our troops, and brainwashing when it is theirs. The actions, namely capturing or killing the enemy, are the same whichever side is doing it. You can call the willingness to sacrifice ones life’s bravery, or you can call it brainwashing as long as you are consistent and apply your standard to both sides, I will respect your definition.
“I do not know what causes some people to focus on the glass half empty as it relates to the greatest nation…..”
Maybe the body count ?
Medwoman… have you ever had to use physical force to save your own, or a loved one’s life? Is self-defense a sign of brainwashing?
hpierce
“Is self-defense a sign of brainwashing?”
No, I consider it an automatic response. I also made exception for this circumstance in a previous post. I do not feel it has any relevance to the situation where a group takes young people, conditions them specifically for the purpose of killing other young people who are defined as “the enemy” and then turns them loose with the best weaponry available. What caused you to ask ?
I hope you’re not claiming there is some kind of moral or even functional equivalence between our military and al-Qaeda.
With Romney’s wins in Arizona and Michigan, it is looking more and more that he will be the GOP candidate to take on BillionDollarPacMan in the general election.
Speaking of Obama, recent quotes from DOE Secretary Steven Chu confirm what we have suspected… that the Obama administration is using “starve the beast” methods to reengineer society toward green energy even though it means hurting poor people.
[quote]Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.” Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.[/quote]
“I hope you’re not claiming there is some kind of moral or even functional equivalence between our military and al-Qaeda.”
I do not know why you would hope that Don. As a pacifist, I believe that killing for any purpose other than self defense, or the defense of others is immoral. I do not make a distinction between the belief systems or justification for the use of lethal force. I do feel there are some gray areas. After we were attacked on 9/11, was the use of military force to capture or kill those directly responsible for those attacks in order to prevent them from doing more harm justifiable? Possibly. Was going in to Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction justifiable ? Absolutely not. I fully recognize that this is an extreme position and that many would consider me a traitor for holding this opinion. It is my position none the less. Humans do not have the right to kill one another. Being American does not give us exemption from this in my view.
Watches ([url]http://www.cbawatch.org[/url]) are no longer just an indicator of time – at present they are seen as elegant fashion accessory as well as revealing some of his personality nostitele. replica watches ([url]http://www.cbawatch.org[/url]) is so cheap, which can meet your every fashion desire to opt your dress code.