It's The Economy, Stupid: ABC Poll Puts Romney Ahead of Obama

It's The Economy, Stupid: ABC Poll Puts Romney Ahead of Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:18:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tim Geithner could cost President Obama reelection:

In a general-election trial heat in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll [Mitt Romney] runs evenly with Barack Obama among all Americans, and numerically outpoints him, 49-46 percent, among registered voters -- not a statistically significant lead, given sampling error, but a clear reflection of Obama's vulnerability to a ell-positioned challenger.

Yes, it's the economy, stupid:

59 percent, a new high -- disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, which, in a nutshell, is what the public's frustration is all about.

Mitt Romney can beat Obama in 2012, thanks to Tim Geithner. Let's hope the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone else.

Speaking for me only

< Eye Off The Housing Crisis Ball | Words That Don't Go Together: Transformers And Feminism >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

It's The Economy, Stupid: ABC Poll Puts Romney Ahead of Obama | 174 comments (174 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

People (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:34:27 AM EST

desperately want the bleeding to STOP -- NOW. And the only way they feel they have any control over the matter is to try someone new. That sounds reasonable to me! Most people aren't hyperpartisan and even if they are somewhat so, they realistically believe that Republicans are only about 2% less evil. And with Geithner at the helm, Democrats have closed that gap.

Co-president Geithner has got to go. But he won't go.

: Perhaps our only hope (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Zorba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:44:44 AM EST

for getting rid of Geithner is if he sends lewd pictures of himself to young women and then lies about it. Maybe then he'd be embarrassed enough to resign. Or maybe not.

Parent
: With all the recent (none / 0) (#6)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:50:26 AM EST

departures of economic advisers (Romer, and now Goolsbee) I think it's clear who Obama really listens to - Geithner. I get the feeling Obama has almost completely ceded running of the economy over to Geithner and doesn't even want to be bothered with the issue. Geithner is probably assuring him that any day now the market will solve the problem for him and guarantee Obama's re-election.
All we can do is wait and see how much longer things can go on like this before Obama realizes that his job is really in jeopardy if he doesn't change course.

Parent

Donald Trump... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by ek hornbeck on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:52:19 AM EST

could beat Obama in '12 if the real economy keeps headed toward the drain.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Since 2006 people have voted for change and they'll keep voting that way until they get some.

No incumbent is safe if they persist in Village Idiocy.

Obama the Idiot (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Dadler on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:59:43 AM EST

All he needs to do is say, "We are going to make sure that this economic game we all have to play has fair and enforced rules. We are going to make sure that people can still be rewarded with wealth through their innovation, invention, initiative, luck, what have you. We are going to ensure that our tax system does not burden most heavily those who can least afford it. Fairness, plus enforced rules, plus rich rewards for achievement: In other words, we are going to work for the America and the American Dream that we all know can exist through effort and imagination."

: he can say it (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:11:09 PM EST

yeah he can make a speech
so what?

Parent

Watching Obama speak on the tube (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:19:42 AM EST

right now about the European and U.S. economies. He's scared. The administration is scared. He has nothing that makes sense to say. Merkel seems to have aged a lot lately. The stress has got to be enormous. Obama doesn't look so fresh though these days either. Based on Goolsbee leaving and Obama's unusual stuttering, I'm not so certain that we aren't on the brink of another crisis and they don't know what to do about it now. They should have reined those banks in hard and returned them to the regulations that existed instead of making new ones. Derivatives needed regulations. At the very least the rule of law needed to be followed on the mortgage situations. They really screwed up HUGE!

And messaging isn't going to save him. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Anne on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:24:41 PM EST

I think it's crunch time now - and I'm not talking about the election, either; his strategy of just repeating the same tired talking points is falling flat and people are beginning to smell fear. Geithner may be an adrenaline junkie, but Obama's not, and he's starting to look a little panicky.

Someone asked Obama in an interview this morning, whether, since there were so many public sector jobs being lost, and clearly the states are in a bad way, there were any plans for the federal government to assist the states. Obama responded along the lines of "times are tough, sacrifices and compromises are going to have to be made because our prioroty is to get our fiscal house in order."

In other words, Obama's going to go for putting more leeches on the economy until it has had just the right amount of blood drained out of it, and then - voila! - it will magically get better, the unicorns will appear, and we will all wake up sprinkled in fairy dust.

To borrow a scene and a tag line from "Seinfeld," all I can think to respond to the malpractice that is being perpetrated upon the economy is, "and you want to be my latex salesman."

Oy.

Parent

Hey, let's don't blame (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by brodie on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:47:39 PM EST

leeches -- they've gotten a bad rap from movies like The African Queen and the like, but doctors in recent years have actually re-discovered their therapeutic properties, especially in aiding recovery from major surgery and preventing dangerous blod clots.

The US economy probably could use a generous serving of mass amounts of leeches applied either directly to people or indirectly at the least to their state govts.

I think you might want to say instead that Obama is continuing to rely on Geithner's blood-letting approach to the economy -- bleeding being the favored traditional method for many centuries among doctors to treat a sick patient, but which modern medicine now properly recognizes as actually harmful, just as modern economics, or the more enlightened economists who practice in that field, recognizes that cutting budgets and seeking to reduce the deficit during a major recessionary period can be risky and even fatal to the patient.

Parent

: I kind of like "vampire squid," (none / 0) (#38)
by Anne on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:05:07 PM EST

actually...
:-)

Parent

Also.....it is only "confidence" that (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:28:19 AM EST

keeps us alive according to Obama. Whatever happened to market fundamentals?

Parent

Can't feed your family on supposed 'confidence'. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by nycstray on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:34:37 AM EST

Parent

Those are a confidence GAME (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Dadler on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:36:51 AM EST

And he got worked. Like a rag doll.

Parent

When you are surrounded by a bunch (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:16:42 PM EST

of political strategists whose job it is to sell rock soup to the masses as caviar, you are so far away from "the fundamentals" that you might as well be on another planet.

Of course, he thinks that confidence is the key. He's got a bunch of confidence men surrounding him. They always think that they can pull off "just one more sting". Problem is that the public is catching onto their game of three card monty.

I just had a vision of Obama as one of those guys who goes around NYC setting up their little three card monty games. Hope! Change! Win the Future! A winning smile, an honest face and a gifted slight of hand...

Parent

in reality is IS confidence, but... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by Dadler on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:28:51 PM EST

...there is NOTHING right now, nor in the forseeable future, with the imagination vacuum currently running the country, to be confident about regarding the economy. It's as if Obama doesn't realize you have to have something to be confident ABOUT before you can talk about anyone possibly having that confidence. And he, nor we, have it.

Parent

it just hit me! (none / 0) (#106)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:08:13 PM EST

This has been bugging me for a while, but it just crystalized in my head.

Larry Summers is Obama's Mark Penn.

You know, one of those people who always has the prefix, "smart," "really smart," "brilliant," etc.

And, who always turn out to be a disaster to whomever they're advising.

Parent

: Another Greenspan: (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:13:58 PM EST

another "genius" who no one can ascribe any specific thought or action particularly ingenius to.

Parent

Goolsbee leaving? Since when? (none / 0) (#39)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:05:37 PM EST

Derivatives shouldn't exist, in my opinion.
The complexity gives too many opportunities for rigging the game.

Parent

: Yesterday (none / 0) (#43)
by me only on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:13:53 PM EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/usa-obama-goolsbee-idUSN0629123020110607

Parent

But it was nice (none / 0) (#158)
by Nemi on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:20:00 AM EST

to see Merkel and Clinton totally crack up laughing. :) They seem to get along real well.

Parent

Obama and W Bush (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:28:55 AM EST

suffer from the same problem. They are both tentative. Bush went into Iraq with too small a force, overran his logistics and the consequenses are still apparent. Franks may have been the commander, but it was Bush's cheap-on-the-fly that led to it.

Obama had the chance to get the economy started. Instead, he saved banks. He squandered his literal capital and his political capital.

I'm on my second round of unemployment in two years. Evaluations? 4.0/4.0 from both universities. So...what's the issue?

People need to be working in order to pay taxes. Too big to fail banks just eat other banks and then discharge redundant workers.

A pox on them all.

Isn't it terrible? (none / 0) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:31:56 AM EST

I have made the same comparison in my head since yesterday too. And where the economy is concerned, it doesn't matter if what the administration is doing is killing all of us for nothing....We Are Staying the Course and that's that!

Parent

Tracey, on June 6, th in Valdosta, GA, (none / 0) (#24)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:40:24 AM EST

I ran into a man, SFC, who jumped into Normandy and Holland , was in Bastogne, and took herr Hitler's Eagles nest. He was a communications guy, but his credit is good with me.

We don't have any politicians with that kind of cred except maybe Charlie Rangel, and he's discredited.

Lindsy Graham? Not so much. Joe Sestack? still not impressed. Virginia's senator? give me a break.

What happened to leadership?

I was reading this morning how Eisenhower wrote to himself, after he was elected, that he had to look out for the entire country, and not for self glory.

I'm rapidly approaching an unpleasant crossroad. I don't want to say more. It will be, if it is, personal. I may expatriate and renounce.

But then how do I look a fellow Screaming Eagle in the eye?

Parent

What were you doing in (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:19:54 PM EST

Valdosta?

Parent

Driving to Miami (none / 0) (#65)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:33:07 PM EST

For no apparent reason, it turns out.

Parent

: LOL (none / 0) (#156)
by Amiss on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 03:19:43 AM EST

All I could think of was the "Wild Adventures" theme park. And heck we are all already on a "wild adventure" with Obama and the economy.

Parent

If your fellow Screaming Eagle... (none / 0) (#70)
by kdog on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:42:12 PM EST

has eyes & ears and has observed what has become of the country you all served and put it all on the line for...they will understand and respect whatever you decide to do.

I know how you feel (I think), and I have never given this country sh*t except trying to do the right thing, be a good neighbor, and paying most of my taxes...nothing compared to what you have given. You owe this joint nothing man...in fact this joint owes you more than the grief you're getting...a lot more.

Just don't do anything rash when your blood is so hot. Can Vets Affairs be of help ya think?

Parent

Not today, not down here. (none / 0) (#92)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:15:14 PM EST

I'm 700 miles from my paperwork, but I have my anti-anxieties. I've been light on them for months, but its time to go back to the recommended levels for a few days.

If I wasn't so screwed up with anxiety I would run for congress as a poor broke everyday guy.

If this keeps up, then the proles won't be able to afford their xbox games. But I fear they won't care because a double cheeseburger is still about a buck or so.

Parent

: Don't do it, Jeff (none / 0) (#108)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:17:38 PM EST

I've had my crunch times too, even drove to NYC to enlist in a foreign country's military because of the "rightness" of their cause.
But then I remembered what my Mom taught me after coming to this country from Russia. She said, "Son, this is your country now. And just as you wouldn't abandon your family, no matter what they did, so you can't abandon your country. Stand and fight!"

Parent

How (none / 0) (#174)
by roger on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 02:42:29 PM EST

With pride!

From another fed up Screamer

Parent

I've been (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:18:55 PM EST

saying for a while that Romney could beat Obama.

As far as him getting through the primaries, it's not going to be a problem if the GOP elite decide they want him. First of all, he can get all the money. Second of all, what a lot of people don't understand is that in states like SC people like Strom Thurmond's widow will come out and say "vote for Romney" and baa...baa...baa...the GOP primary voters in SC will come out and vote for him.

Ding! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:35:51 PM EST

As much as the press loves to focus on Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann - the nominee will be a much more serious candidate, especially if poll numbers are like this.

They aren't going to give a Kenyan Muslim socialist a second easy walk to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Parent

Yep, President Romney---Vice President (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:07:56 PM EST

Bananas will be the ticket.

Parent

which one is bananas? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by nycstray on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:13:59 PM EST

Parent

: Any one of the others. (none / 0) (#55)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:55:18 PM EST

Parent

disagree (none / 0) (#78)
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:20:17 PM EST

Strike one: Romneycare

Strike two: used to be pro-choice

Strike three: Mormon

I have a hard time seeing Romney get through the primaries. I do think he could beat Obama, though.

Parent

I will say this again (none / 0) (#100)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:54:09 PM EST

Jon Huntsman will be the republican nominee.
I like process.
The republican party want to win,period. Watch how much money Huntsman will have (he will miss the next time they have to reveal how much money they have raised)he will probably have 100million to start. This money have been waiting for about three Yrs.
1. Father is a billionaire.(invented the Big Mac container)
2. His biography is to die for. And has a wonderful family. This family is extremely photogenic.
3. He was a great Governor.(lowered taxes across the board,the best state for business,the best manage state,healthcare plan,act..)
4. He believes in civil union (not same sex marriages)
5.he speaks Chinese.(ambassador to Singapore and China.
6.he played in a band (drop out of high school,later got his GED.
7.he rides motorcycles
I could go on,but I'm not campaigning for him. these are just the facts.
This campaign season reminds me of GWB. Except the republicans learned a lesson.Don't pick a dummy.
Romney is like Hillary, she made it possible for a women to be respected as a presidential candidate,but she could not win, the cards was stacked against her. They are stack against him(Sarah Palin stepping on his presidential announcement),he made it acceptable for a mormon to be elected president,but it will not be Romney.

Parent

I've been saying the same (none / 0) (#118)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:03:07 PM EST

for a while. A true compassionate conservative?

Parent

: He has something even for BTD (none / 0) (#135)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:33:11 PM EST

he thought the stimulus was to small.Double the amount going to construction.

Parent

Might be time for Obama's fan club (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:32:42 PM EST

to stop telling him (and anyone else who will listen) how truly awesome he is. There are hints that the meme "The "best" president evah" might not fly if the economy continues to tank.

Polls don't measure facts. They measure opinions (none / 0) (#87)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:03:46 PM EST

This poll, and others, show that folks think the economy is shrinking. It isn't. They think we're losing private sector jobs. We're not. They can't explain the difference between the annual budget deficit and the public debt, but they know they're bad. And yet polls show the majority is against cutting spending, and the majority is against raising revenues.

Folk think US manufacturing is disappearing. It's not. Since 2009 US output has been greater than that of China, India, and Brazil - combined. It's higher than it's been since WWII. 2010 US auto sales were the highest since 2005, and expected to grow another 13% this year.

Problem is, everybody knows the economy is off the rails. And they know statistics are just make believe things that elitist liberals use to lie with. So, vote Romney.

Parent

got it (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:09:18 PM EST

people criticize Obama because people are stoopid

thanks

Parent

Way to cut to the meat of the matter (none / 0) (#95)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:33:37 PM EST

except... I didn't mention Obama. Or people criticizing Obama. But other than those details, you're right on target with your comment.

Parent

here is the comment (none / 0) (#101)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:54:47 PM EST

to which your comment was a direct response:

Might be time for Obama's fan club to stop telling him (and anyone else who will listen) how truly awesome he is. There are hints that the meme "The "best" president evah" might not fly if the economy continues to tank.

but hey, what was i thinking - upon reflection, i don't see how i could have thought your comment had anything at all to do with stoopid people criticizing Obama, the Obama administration or the policies of Obama & the Obama administration

thanks

Parent

Right. My comment was titled (none / 0) (#115)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:41:30 PM EST

"Polls don't measure facts. They measure opinions." The portion of the preceding comment related to the ABC poll was the "economy continues to tank" comment. My response was to that - had you read it.

My response ignored the derogatory labels "Obama fan club," "truly awesome," and "best president evah" as they didn't relate to the economy.

Oh, and the title of the overall thread? "It's The Economy, Stupid: ABC Poll Puts Romney Ahead of Obama" which is what I was also talking about.

Parent

: right (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 07:15:21 PM EST

folks think the economy is shrinking. It isn't. They think we're losing private sector jobs. We're not. They can't explain the difference between the annual budget deficit and the public debt, but they know they're bad. . . . Folk think US manufacturing is disappearing. It's not. . . . Problem is, everybody knows the economy is off the rails. And they know statistics are just make believe things that elitist liberals use to lie with.
translation: "folk" are stoopid
& when it comes to the comment to which yours was, again, a direct response, guess i'm too stoopid to have preternaturally intuited which parts of that comment your direct response "ignored"
my bad

Parent

So everything's fine? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:26:47 PM EST

What a relief!

Parent

Not everything, but in general things are (none / 0) (#97)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:36:13 PM EST

dramatically improved from where they were four years ago.

Thanks for asking!

Parent

OK I have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:39:26 PM EST

your hyperbole is way funnier than mine.

Parent

I doubt the unemployed and (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:04:30 PM EST

the underemployed feel that things are dramatically improved from where they were four years ago.

Four years ago would have been 2007. May 2007 BLS statistics.

The number of unemployed persons (6.8 million) and the unemployment rate (4.5 percent) were unchanged in May.
link

Unemployment Rises Slightly to 9.1% in May 2011
June 3, 2011
Unemployment rose slightly in May, according to figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, June 3. The unemployment rate in May was 9.1%, up from 9.0% in April.
..
Approximately 13.9 million citizens are out of work. Of those, 6.2 million workers are considered long-term unemployed, having been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. There are also over 800,000 discouraged workers who may have given up looking for jobs. link

But hey, keep telling people that they never had it better and that they should be grateful that things are soooooo much better than they were 4 years ago.

Parent

Imagine (none / 0) (#157)
by Amiss on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 03:28:36 AM EST

what the figures would have looked like if McDonalds had not hired 60,000 people.

Parent

Yep don't think the argument of (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by MO Blue on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:26:14 AM EST

"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" will play well with the people who lost jobs in the $19.05 -$31.40 per hour range only to be forced to accept jobs now in the $9.03 -$12.91 per hour range.

According to NELP:

Lower-wage industries (those paying $9.03 -$12.91 per hour) accounted for just 23 percent of job losses, but fully 49 percent of recent growth.

Midwage industries ($12.92 -$19.04 per hour) accounted for 36 percent of job losses, and 37 percent of recent growth.

Higher-wage industries ($19.05 -$31.40 per hour) accounted for 40 percent of job loss, but only 14 percent of recent growth. NYT

Once again, only 14% of the new jobs pay an hourly wage that will generate an annual income of $39,624 (based on 40 hr week) or higher.

Parent

Don't think the argument of (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by MO Blue on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:29:22 AM EST

"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" will play well here either.

State, local layoffs to hit record levels

State and local governments are forecast to shed up to 110,000 jobs in the third quarter, the first time the blood-letting has risen into the triple digits, according to IHS Global Insight.
"We're on a downward path," said Greg Daco, principal U.S. economist at IHS. "It's not looking good."

Parent

Wouldn't try the argument of (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by MO Blue on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:36:41 AM EST

"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" here either.

Long-Term Unemployment Worse Than During The Depression | CBS News reports: "About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months -- a higher percentage than during the Great Depression." link

Now the argument that things are better now than four years ago may play well with the top 2%, those savvy businessmen, who are thriving under the Obama administration. Some were bailed out and protected from the consequences of their actions and all were given even bigger tax cuts by Obama than Bush with the added bonus of raising the tax free inheritance amount to $5 million.

Parent

: Thanks (none / 0) (#167)
by sj on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 09:50:17 AM EST

for doing all that research

Parent

Wonder if O knows that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:38:39 PM EST

some people can no longer afford $100/lb spanish ham.

Its really not (5.00 / 2) (#150)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 09:14:43 PM EST

that complicated, Angry Guy. The feelings so many people have on TL towards Obama have nothing to do with the reasons your groupie mind comes up with.

The feeling, in my case bordering on hatred, is as simple as can be. When people are hurting, when their economic well being is destroyed, when the future for their children, for the first time in history, is predicted to be worse then their own, when their self respect & dignity are used as door mats by the power elite, when their family's health, in the richest country on earth, is considered to be unaffordable, when their privacy is violated simply because the powerful want it to be so, when the country the people so deeply love engages in acts so despicable and inhumane that it shocks the conscience,

and when the country that has these problems knows they are totally within its ability to fix are so brazenly, and cynically, betrayed by the man who convinced it to put its hopes, dreams and futures into his hands, well, then you get the types of comments you read here at TL. And, that's why so many here consider cheerleading for this vapid, heartless charlatan to be a libel against the very idea of decency and good faith.

Obama saw that child, shrugged, and went back into the club to join the other members.

Your "Obama saw that child" (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by Nemi on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 08:03:50 AM EST

reminded me of the Healthwhatever signing ceremony where a young black kid was brought in as a "prop" to stand beside Obama. Makes for a great photo-op, I'm sure - but watching the live action, Obama doesn't even once acknowledge or "see" the kid. Not even when, after the signing, he shakes his hand.

Parent

: Unfortunately, (5.00 / 2) (#169)
by NYShooter on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 12:26:41 PM EST

In my haste, I left out the part that should have preceded that: "If you walk past a pool and see a young child drowning, would you lecture him/her on the dangers of going in without an adult? Would you toss him/her a book on how to swim, or would just dive in and save the child?
Sorry about that, but you made a good point anyway.

Parent

Time to figure out (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:33:43 AM EST

how likely it is that Romney would make it through the primaries.

In current polls, he's leading in (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by tigercourse on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:57:31 AM EST

New Hampshire (not a surprise), Iowa (a bit of a surprise) and South Carolina (huge surprise).

There's a huge amount of time between now and the primaries, but he's pretty strong right now.

Parent

not really "leading" in Iowa (none / 0) (#81)
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:22:07 PM EST

Was well behind Huckabee in every Iowa Republican poll until the last one, taken after Huck ruled out running. Six or seven candidates polled above 10 percent, Romney was at 21 percent. As soon as "not Romney" coalesces around a couple of other names, he will fall back to third or at best second place in Iowa. Most of his big name, big money 2008 backers in Iowa are shopping around for alternatives now.

Parent

Big Deal (none / 0) (#84)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:32:53 PM EST

He could win New Hampshire. Iowa is not the be-all end-all.

Parent

Can GOP caucuses be gamed in Iowa (3.00 / 2) (#121)
by Towanda on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:11:38 PM EST

the way that the Dem caucuses were? That was significant in 2008, so I wonder whether the core cheapness of Iowans again will come to the fore.

Parent

in the republican party caucuses are caucuses (none / 0) (#130)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:23:33 PM EST

In the primary races, winner takes all the delegates.

Parent

"the core cheapness of Iowans"? (none / 0) (#146)
by Rupe on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 09:01:59 PM EST

Parent

Caucuses are cheaper (none / 0) (#148)
by Towanda on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 09:07:33 PM EST

than primary elections, the reason for caucuses in many states, as we learned in 2008. Well, that's when a lot of discussion of the debacles educated me; old party regulars no doubt already knew it.

Parent

And (none / 0) (#171)
by jbindc on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 01:32:05 PM EST

There is an article in The Atlantic titled, "On College Campuses, Obama's No Longer Cool" (or something like that - when I go to the link, it freezes my work computer, so if someone can link to it, that would be great).

If he doesn't have the adoration of college kids anymore, who WILL he have at rallies in Iowa so they can puff up his numbers and have people fainting?

Parent

what? (none / 0) (#172)
by CST on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 01:40:03 PM EST

Obama is not going to face anyone (relevant) in a primary. Iowa really doesn't matter.

Parent

: They also (none / 0) (#173)
by jbindc on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 01:45:45 PM EST

Won't vote for him in the numbers they did in 2008 - he's dropped off a lot with support from college kids. THAT will matter.
You missed the sarcasm.

Parent

I think (none / 0) (#3)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:46:40 AM EST

Obama can beat Romney in 2012. The key word there being can. I don't see Mitt Romney improving upon closer acquaintance, and the dance he will have to do to win the nomination may help kill him in the general election.

Still, I agree he is the Dems "worst-case" candidate.

: Not to pat myself (3.50 / 2) (#102)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:56:13 PM EST

on the back, but I was right about Obama, and I
believe, I'll be proven right about Romney.
But, you're right about Romney's biggest challenge being the primaries, and what distortions, machinations, and hypocrisies he will have to offer to the whack-jobs that constitute republican primary voters.
But, if he gets through that, I think its better than even money that we'll be saying "President Romney" a little over a year from now.

Parent

Would it help Obama to get rid of Geithner? (none / 0) (#4)
by republicratitarian on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:47:11 AM EST

Or would it be viewed as an admission of failure?

I don't care (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:49:48 AM EST

Did it help Bush to get rid of Rummy? I don't know, but it sure helped the rest of us.

Parent

: It seemed to help the military (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:24:56 AM EST

command. After Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman, it was impossible for me to look at Rumsfeld for more than 2 seconds. I wanted to scream. I hated him. He was a giant unethical evil POS!

Parent

Too little, too late. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by ek hornbeck on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:55:06 AM EST

Without a change of policy.

Not that Geithner doesn't need to go.

But I won't make the category error of blaming it on Tim.

Barack Obama hired him and listened to him.

Parent

Unless Geithner gets caught (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:06:23 AM EST

tweeting pictures of his junk, I think firing him would almost certainly mean that a change of policy is coming.

But I see no indication that Obama is about to do that. The departures of Romer and Goolsbee show that Geithner is the one Obama believes in.

Parent

Sorry, Warren (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Zorba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:46:28 AM EST

I made my comment upthread before scrolling down and reading yours. We definitely had the same thought, but you won. ;-)

Parent

Somebody PLEASE take a picture of his (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:36:14 PM EST

junk and tweet it.

Parent

: Way ahead of you ... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:45:26 PM EST

Oh you mean Geithner's junk? Nevermind.

Parent
: I agree -- and with certitude, Jeff! (none / 0) (#122)
by Towanda on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:12:35 PM EST

Parent

It would help us little people (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:22:25 AM EST

in the long run. Wall street would take it as a bad signal for them and sell off though and that is the only bubble that Obama has left before he has to embrace some economic theories that he convinced himself long ago were outdated and didn't work anymore if they ever did.

Parent

Only if he were replaced with someone (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:20:03 PM EST

who A. Obama would listen to and B. is interested in helping the little guy.

The chances of that happening in that universe, imo, are slim to none.

Parent

I know it is never too late to do the right things (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:43:03 PM EST

but I think it is probably too late to prevent the second crash.

Parent

Here's my take on Obama's understanding (5.00 / 3) (#77)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:07:08 PM EST

of economics on a scale of 1-10 - 1 being the lowest...

Obama is a 1, imo.

I don't think that he has a clue. The problem is though that at this point I believe he thinks he has a clue and he has been educated and indoctrinated by a bunch of people who have drilled into him that the little guy is not important - and even dangerous to a healthy economy.

I read an interesting story around the time that Alan Greenspan retired about how he set out to indoctrinate Clinton when Clinton came on the scene. I think he was pretty successful on that front and I also think that the only thing that stood between Clinton adopting Greenspan's ideology in its entirety is that Clinton was dirt poor growing up. It was always going to be hard for him to leave that entirely in his past. Obama, on the other hand, lived a fairly privileged and middle class life. He's a perfect target for the free-marketers and comes with not nearly as much "baggage" or empathy for that matter.

Anyhow, the short point to this long post is that I really do not think that Obama knows what doing the right thing on the economic front means either practically, rationally, morally or even politically. But he thinks he knows! Danger Will Robinson -arms flailing!

Parent

It's clear that Obama believes (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:21:18 PM EST

that a lot of the job and housing problems are due to personal, individual moral failure; hence, he doesn't want to intervene.

Parent

: Right and what he and every other (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:01:10 PM EST

moron who thinks that that is an important factor in helping or not do not seem to understand that these "degenerates" do not simply disappear off the face of the earth once they've been spun out of productive society. They live on and are unproductive because they don't have any productive outlets. They tax the system much more than helping them not spiral to the bottom of the pit would ever have. There are so many levels of dumb and out of touch here - not to mention the lack of understanding with respect to the nature of human self preservation requiring a certain level of cooperation and mutual assistance.

Parent

b-b-b-b-but (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:21:34 PM EST

don't you know that Obama was brought up by a SINGLE MOTHER on FOOD STAMPS???

Parent

This is becoming almost (none / 0) (#90)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:11:12 PM EST

unbearable.

Parent

: oh i agree, Angry Guy (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:01:29 PM EST

it's unbearable when people say stuff like this . . .

Clinton was dirt poor growing up. It was always going to be hard for him to leave that entirely in his past. Obama, on the other hand, lived a fairly privileged and middle class life
. . . when everybody knows that Obama was brought up by a SINGLE MOTHER on FOOD STAMPS!!!
Obama said it & i believe it, Angry Guy
by comparison, Bill Clinton was brought up in the lap of luxury

Parent

"He thinks he has a clue" (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by Nemi on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:48:50 PM EST

also because that's what his "inner circle" and the media tells him, ad infinitum - not to mention ad nauseam.

Parent

The Republican establishment (none / 0) (#11)
by KeysDan on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:04:58 AM EST

seems to be running scared with the distinct possibility that a Tea Party Republican or other Republican monster they helped to create may actually snare the presidential nomination. Romney is their big hope, he may well be competitive in the general election, but then there is that pesky primary. The slightest indication of Romney as winner will be broadcast wide and far in order to curb proclivities for political suicide. But, it will not be easy, Sarah Palin has the spark and this may not be the election cycle for sanity to prevail.

What more do they want? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:38:35 PM EST

They already have republican economic wet dream policies... Why should they want different, except to spend 100 percent of the budget on the military industrial complex? And that would hurt the road building complex...

Parent

: Greed and power (5.00 / 0) (#83)
by KeysDan on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:32:46 PM EST

have no bounds. Take (please, per Henny Youngman), Stephen Schwarzman's,(head of Blackstone Group, one of the largest private equity groups), reaction to Obama's plan to increase taxes as "its like when Hitler invaded Poland". Schwarzman, a big supporter of John McCain, became unhinged with the thought of private-equity fund managers profits being taxed as ordinary income (35%) rather than as capital gains (15%). Paying a fair share was just too un-Republican/un-American. Schwarzman's net worth is estimated at $8 billion.

Parent

Probably an outlier, but it is not good (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:08 AM EST

i'm not ready - yet - to say (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:39:39 PM EST

that Romney will be the next president

i do think he will be the GOP nominee

Parent

If you don't hit (none / 0) (#104)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:02:38 PM EST

the "respond to" key we don't know who you're responding to.

Parent

I wasn't responding to anyone or anything (none / 0) (#114)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:39:44 PM EST

but the post and the poll. What confused you?

Parent

: o.k, you meant (none / 0) (#145)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 08:09:55 PM EST

Romney's lead in the polls was an outlier. Wasn't sure if that was it or you were responding to something someone said.
gotcha

Parent

Yeah, it can't be foreign policy that (none / 0) (#15)
by me only on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:21:46 AM EST

is the problem. For all the rhetoric the change amounted to pennies on the dollar.

It is worth noting the George Bush's approval rating was extremely high at this same point in his presidency and you can see how much that mattered come re-election time 17 months later.

Maybe it'll be a few more (none / 0) (#23)
by brodie on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:36:55 AM EST

polls like this one that finally gets this president to wake up. The economic advisers discussions inside the WH, a moderate-liberal faction of Romer and to a lesser extent Goolsbee being in the minority and not winning the argument, apparently have failed to budge Obama off of his Hooveresque "Everything will work out all right if we just sit tight and keep quiet."*

He may not understand economics or markets or Keynesian approaches, and it's quite possible he isn't fully aware of the extent of the widespread and deep suffering happening out in the land he supposedly governs since he seems to want to see only the few positive things, as with the auto industry recovery.

But he does probably understand simple presidential election matchup polls and since I peg him as about as highly ambitious as most first-term presidents are, it's difficult to imagine him being completely oblivious to the negative political trends.

* not actually a real Herbert Hoover quote. It's from an uncharacteristically stubbornly stupid FDR, speaking to his cabinet in 1937 as the economy continued to go south as he held out faith in the budget-cutting/free market approach

Speaking of Mittens (none / 0) (#31)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:39:45 PM EST

In case anyone was wondering what his latest and greatest stances on the issues of the day are (note, these are subject to change at a whim, after the election, due to public opinion - well you get it):

"Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it"

"Only at the beginning of the address did he mention social concerns, reiterating his opposition to abortion and gay marriage."

"Romney continued talking about cutting spending, but he did not identify areas to target. He said he supported the general goals of a politically dicey proposal from House Republicans that would partially privatize Medicare."

But wait! No worries, he continues to hedge:

"No one in my party has proposed any change for those programs for anybody who's retired or who's near retirement,'' he said. "The question is: What are we going to promise people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s? And the answer is, let's tell them the truth.''

"I think the right thing for matters related to abortion is very similar to one I've described in other measures, which is return this to the states,'' Romney said. "I'm pro-life, and I think this is a decision best handled, like many other things, at the state level.''

In other words, sure, I am willing to sell out women (but no worries nice republican northeasterners, you'er fine!), gay people (but no worries nice republican northeasterners, you're fine!), old people (but not the old people of today, only tommorow's old people). But I do believe in science, so there's that. Although I make no promises to do anything about it.

Just like every other politician (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:45:34 PM EST

See: 2008 election, 2004 election, 2000 election; 1996 election, 1992 election, 1988 elction, etc.

Parent

agree to disagree (none / 0) (#34)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:49:34 PM EST

not like every other politician, IMO.

There is changing positions, and then there is changing who you say you are as a human being.

I do enjoy watching him squirm over Romneycare though.

Parent

True - (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:00:06 PM EST

Ron Paul is one of the very few who have actually been consistent. Too bad he's only one of a handful on the national level who can say that.... (and too bad that he's crazy)

Parent

I dunno (none / 0) (#42)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:12:26 PM EST

maybe it's the craven way he blatantly flip-flopped while he was still in office as governer, when he clearly no longer gave a cr@p about running the state.

His last year or so that he was in office running around the south belittling the state he was hired to run did not go over well.

Parent

People in MA (none / 0) (#50)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:30:37 PM EST

May not like it, but that may play well in the South, the West, and parts of the Midwest - basically the rest of the country.

Parent

the west? (none / 0) (#56)
by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:56:59 PM EST

I doubt it.

I get that he's not "scary" and he's not "Obama".

He is however, a complete and utter f*ckwad.

Parent

: After W (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:05:28 PM EST

was elected I'll never underrate the ability of any Republican to get elected. I mean the worst president in the history of the country managed to get himself reelected and didn't even win the most votes the first time. I have truly decided there are no barriers to being elected if W could serve as president.

Parent
: Well, yeah (none / 0) (#58)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:01:55 PM EST

But tht hasn't stopped anyone from getting elected before - being a f*ckwad, I mean.
Just not an eliminating feature.

Parent

No question, as Mike Dukakis (none / 0) (#35)
by brodie on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:55:11 PM EST

reflected last night with Spitzer, Milt Romney is not only a flip-flopper, he's slick.

And I would also add, quick, as in the silver-tongued snake oil salesman or used car dealer.

A little too-obviously an insincere ambitious politician willing to say anything for most people, probably, but some of the more sane GOP primary voters likely will consider that the least of their problems considering the almost laughable quality of his competition.

With the one exception of Huntsman, who of course being more sincere and principled and moderate than the Mittster, stands far less of a chance, because of his moderation, of being nominated.

Parent

I guess (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:04:27 PM EST

if it's Obama vs. Romney we can all buy stock in flip flops?

Parent

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:27:11 PM EST

Exactly....The pot shakes hands with the black kettle once again.

The old "but their side is a bunch of flip floppers" argument gets so old after awhile....

Yawning...

Parent

: Dear dog. Both will be running to get to (none / 0) (#69)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:41:29 PM EST

the right of the other. They are not good politicians. They are in NO WAY statesmen.

Parent
: BTW (none / 0) (#76)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:51 PM EST

My post was about the pot calling the kettle black. It was in no way a reference to race.

Parent

Romney can't win the Iowa caucuses with 21% (none / 0) (#45)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:17:18 PM EST

And he won't get the nomination. Why? Forget about his constant pandering and his previous political stances. It's his religion that will disqualify him with the right, plain and simple. To these folks, Mormons aren't Christians.

From the ABC poll: "21 percent of leaned Republicans support Romney for the nomination."

It will depend on (none / 0) (#48)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:28:17 PM EST

How many open primaries there are - how many Democrats will cross over to make trouble and vote for Palin versus how many independents will vote for Romney because they like him?

Of course, there's also this:

Today just 22 percent of Americans (and 24 percent of leaned Republicans) are following the 2012 presidential election very closely.

Parent

: And this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:29:35 PM EST

Forty-nine percent disapprove of the president's performance, including 53 percent of independents, and strong disapprovers outnumber strong approvers by 10 points.
More -- 59 percent, a new high -- disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, which, in a nutshell, is what the public's frustration is all about. Obama also is back to about an even split with the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the economy -- 42 percent pick him, 45 percent the GOP.

Parent
: Dare I whisper this? (All the GOPers (none / 0) (#142)
by oculus on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 07:15:13 PM EST

who are disturbed we now have an African American President may prefer a Caucasian, despite the fact he is an observant Mormon.)

Parent

I GOT IT! Breaking! BTD Is Looking For A New Job (none / 0) (#47)
by seabos84 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:28:01 PM EST

here is the game plan I just figured out in my own mind,

BTD keeps pushing this blame geithner meme,

eventually geithner not only gets dumped, and

is not only out of the way, BUT

0-bummer realizes that if he's gonna keep 1600 Casa Blanca AND beat his mentor clinton at post-presidency pocket lining ...

0-bummer realizes that he HAS to do something REAL for the real bottom 80%++ !!

Just like ... what's her name that called the '87 stock market crash - Garzarelli?!

BTD gets the credit for starting the meme which dumped the geithner and saved the 0-bummer, and BTD gets a new gig!

;)

I've been grilling chicken & while standing in the charcoal smoke it came to me ...!

rmm.

: Ummmmm- (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by Zorba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:56:26 PM EST

just what exactly are you burning in that grill besides charcoal, seaboss84? ;-)

Parent

Won't Matter (none / 0) (#52)
by pluege2 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:42:33 PM EST

by the fall of 2012, the obama-geithner disaster will have the economy even worse than it is today, probably considerably worse leaving us exposed to almost any dirtball insane scum the republicans run becoming the next POTUS.

With the strong support of obama's stupidity and the insidiously incompetent geithner, the republicans have achieved their no. 1 goal of making obama fail.

Austerity and deficit reduction: "rope a dope" anyone.

Just Don't See a Mormon... (none / 0) (#53)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:48:13 PM EST

... making it through the R primaries.

Mittens always tests well, he's [pretty and America loves pretty until it comes down to the issues.

Obama just isn't that strong, but he only needs to be stronger than his competitor. These die hard Christians that make up their base are going to have real hard time voting for a Mormon with Universal Health Care creds.

Mormon = scary (none / 0) (#54)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:50:00 PM EST

so 2008.

Besides, it's much more appealing than a socialist Muslim - especially if a Mormon could beat him.

Parent

I agree (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:05:04 PM EST

And we have had a black President now, seriously considering women for President, and we had that Catholic and a couple of Quakers.

Parent

Well, the Quakers were (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Zorba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:55:07 PM EST

Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon- not exactly the poster boys for the true Quaker beliefs. ;-)

Parent

Hoover, imo (none / 0) (#113)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:38:06 PM EST

made somewhat of a spiritual/ethical comeback during WWII, in his work in attempting to relieve starvation in Europe.

Parent

: Hoover was also (none / 0) (#129)
by Zorba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:22:16 PM EST

a brilliant mining engineer, and was quite the humanitarian during and after World War I. Link. His WW I and WW II humanitarian work was much more in line with his Quaker background. But he was a disaster as a President.

Parent

the Southern Baptists (none / 0) (#120)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:05:38 PM EST

and evangelicals are suddenly open minded and tolerant of other religions now? Wheres the evidence?

And wheres the recent evidence a Repub can carry a national without them and thier various coalitions, forums etc etc

Prediction: a hard-Right Teabagger candidate splits the rw vote, and, baring some major catastrophe, Nr Mean-to-Hillary carries the day again.

Parent

9.8% unemployment (5.00 / 2) (#123)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:13:17 PM EST

overrides everything else.

Parent

: it's the result of (none / 0) (#125)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:17:53 PM EST

God's wrath for the U.S's toleration of sodomites and baby killers. In that sense, those unemployment numbers are a revelation of his righteous judgement and a good thing..
Get with the program, sister.

Parent

The Ralph Reed forum this weekend (none / 0) (#139)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:44:52 PM EST

They gave Huntsman a standing ovation.

Parent

"Mr. Mean to Hillary"? Nahhhh ... (none / 0) (#168)
by Yman on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 11:17:13 AM EST

Mr. Give-a-nice-speech, tell-em-what-they-want-to-hear, make-backroom-deals-with-the-health ins. lobbyists, cave-on-everything and put-the-details-on-the-website .... sounds about right.

You could throw in Mr. "Play-the-race-card", but that one's kinda' used up, at this point.

Parent

It's 1976 (none / 0) (#57)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:01:53 PM EST

and Obama is playing the part of Gerald Ford and Romney is playing the part of Jimmy Carter. No one was ever elected from the deep south prior to Jimmy Carter. There's always a first time for everything and Mormonism might not be that big of a deal.

Parent

The similarities are close, except for a few (none / 0) (#82)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:30:45 PM EST

things. First: Ford was so disliked by his party that Reagan nearly took the nomination away from him. This poll doesn't mention it, but as of last week Obama enjoyed 80% Democratic approval overall - and there's no contender anywhere in his party.

Second: Political blunders. Ford pardoned Nixon and refused to explain why. Ford thought that the Soviets had no European influence. Dole badmouthed FDR and claimed the Democrats almost cost the US WWII. It's still early, but Obama/Biden haven't made any mistakes of that magnitude.

Third: Carter ran as a Washington outsider during the post-Watergate period. Romney can't play the outside with clean hands card - well, he could. He's lied about enough other things.

Parent

Being liked (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:07:02 PM EST

by your party doesn't matter if the party isn't enthusiastic about Obama which it isn't for the most part.

Gaffes don't matter that much in the scheme of things.

Romney can credibly run as an outsider because he's never served in the senate or house.

And 9.8% unemployment which is what UE is projected to be next year is at least as much of an albatross as a presidential pardon.

Kerry got those numbers and split independents with Bush and still lost.

It's going to be close like '76 and that is the biggest reason that I'm comparing the two years.

Parent

Is the thinking here (none / 0) (#91)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:14:58 PM EST

That these comments are representative of democrats. It's a wall of hateraid and I am actually at a loss for words on how to respond, which is really saying something.

I am kind of let down with the uniformity of opinion. I like this place better than Kos and other places (and like to hear people push Obama more than other places) but damn.

It's off the hook around here right now. There have got to be some TL'ers that don't see the man as a complete failure the way he is portrayed here. Hell, maybe it is just me.

This was just a demoralizing set of comments to read on almost every level. I don't see any common ground here. The anger is too strong.

Parent

then take that to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:17:26 PM EST

I don't see any common ground here. The anger is too strong.

Parent

Nah, couldn't be. ;) (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Nemi on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:33:41 PM EST

Hell, maybe it is just me.

Parent

Hateraid? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:31:05 PM EST

Win the future???

We're supposed to be Obama's the most wonderful president we've ever had. He's "the one". He is just awesome. Anyone who criticizes him must be a disgruntled Edwards or Clinton supporter. Michelle Obama has the most awesome arms. Their dog is so cute.

We're supposed to ignore high unemployment and the fact that Obama has done nothing about it. We're supposed to ignore the housing crisis. We're supposed to ignore all the pretty bad things that are going on the economy right now and swoon and say "Obama is just awesome" like a groupie. Ooookkkkaaayyy. I gotcha.

Parent

He is awesome (none / 0) (#124)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:17:34 PM EST

I like most of what he has done from supreme court picks to LGBT issues to healthcare reform. He has had a spectacular first 3 years.

I invoked PUMA because Towanda invoked the myth of the wrong person being selected. I think Obama was the right person for the job.

Bottom line: If the unemployment number is in the 8's Obama looks like a smashing success. Unemployment is higher so it gives some the ability to call him a complete failure.

But common sense tells us that a Presidency is about more than that. It is about courts and wars and social issues and international standing and humanitarian concerns.

Overall, I stand proudly behind my support of Obama. I think I will grow more proud as time goes on despite some bumps in the road. I know this is unfathomable here, but (heads up) the overwhelming majority of dems feel that way.

It's just that we're in a bit of an alternative universe where Obama is a conservative wimp who has done nothing.

Parent

You would (5.00 / 2) (#131)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:25:51 PM EST

think that he's doing a smashing job. You're a cultist is the only conclusion that I can come to. 8% unemployment will cause Obama to lose the election and only a few people in this country would say that's "a smashing success". I understand that you have very low standards for Obama and that is where you are coming from.

BTW, the same economist Roubini who predicted the collapse in 2008 predicts 9.8% unemployment in '12. Obama is toast if his predictions are right.

Parent

Moving the goalposts? (5.00 / 5) (#138)
by Yman on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:41:11 PM EST

If the unemployment number is in the 8's Obama looks like a smashing success. Unemployment is higher so it gives some the ability to call him a complete failure.

Just a few weeks ago you were telling us how good things were looking re: the economy, how unemployment was headed to the 7 percent range, and how Obama's chances were looking good because of it. Now it's only going to take a number "in the 8's" to make Obama look like a "smashing success", despite the fact that you've already declared his first 3 years "spectacular".

Funny stuff.

BTW - It's not all about his failure to improve the economy, although if he loses it's likely to be the primary reason for his defeat. It's about FISA, a public option, backroom deals with the health insurance companies, failing to fight/lead and a couple dozen other reasons he's being criticized here.

Parent

Yman (none / 0) (#147)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 09:06:03 PM EST

My original comments haven't changed. I still think we'll be in the 7s late next year.

8s are a possibility and I still think he will win at that level. The trajectory of unemployment the first year isnt his issue. The number has been falling since his policies took hold and it will continue.

I would take your words to heart if his accomplishments were discussed as vigorously as his "failures".

Parent

: Of course YOU think that ... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
by Yman on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 08:03:08 AM EST

... unemployment will be fine. Of course YOU think that his first three years have been spectacular. Of course YOU think he will win based on the fact that unemployment has been falling "since his policies took hold".
The rest of us have to deal with reality.
BTW - Just to get you on the record - you attribute the imaginary drop in unemployment to his policies. If unemployment remains high into next year (or even grows higher), will you be attributing that to his policies as well, or will you go back to claiming it's beyond his control/attributable to something else?

Parent

"A Presidency (5.00 / 1) (#166)
by Nemi on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 08:22:57 AM EST

is about courts and wars and social issues and international standing and humanitarian concerns."

And I thought it was about being cool, making "bestest evah" speeches, photo-ops - my bad I guess.

Parent

"Spectacular?" Sheesh... (4.25 / 4) (#153)
by Anne on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:19:20 PM EST

more like "Craptacular," I think.

I invoked PUMA because Towanda invoked the myth of the wrong person being selected. I think Obama was the right person for the job.

One person's myth is another person's truth, but you did get the "selected" part right; when the party has to change its rules to make sure the party elite's preferred candidate gets the delegates he needs, something is very wrong. What the Obama people engineered in Texas should have been criminally prosecutable. And it may surprise you to read this, but I can say - for myself, anyway - that had the party done that to any other candidate, it would have been just as wrong.

Bottom line: If the unemployment number is in the 8's Obama looks like a smashing success. Unemployment is higher so it gives some the ability to call him a complete failure.

There is nothing the Obama administration is doing now that is going to increase the demand that is needed to create jobs. The states are shedding jobs like never before, and with more cutting in the future, there will be more job losses in both the public and private sectors. To believe that we will get from 9.1% down to the 7's is, frankly, delusional.

But common sense tells us that a Presidency is about more than that. It is about courts and wars and social issues and international standing and humanitarian concerns.

When push comes to shove, if people can't support themselves or their families, if they can't afford health care, if they can't afford to retire, all those other things you mention don't mean a hill of beans.

Economic pain is a social issue and it's a humanitarian issue; a policy of austerity that hurts people is nothing to brag about. Wars? Libya. Social issues? Women's health choices. Child nutrition programs. And then there's indefinite detention, privacy rights, the war on whistleblowers, state secrets, predator drones, and on and on and on. I'm sorry I can't be proud of all of that.

Overall, I stand proudly behind my support of Obama. I think I will grow more proud as time goes on despite some bumps in the road. I know this is unfathomable here, but (heads up) the overwhelming majority of dems feel that way.

I don't care how other Democrats feel; I don't base my opinions on which bandwagon is carrying the most people. But I have no doubt your pride will grow in direct proportion to how much criticism Obama continues to get; I'm sure there were people who believed the Titanic really was unsinkable, too. But - head's up - those precious independents that Obama constantly panders to? He can't win without them.

It's just that we're in a bit of an alternative universe where Obama is a conservative wimp who has done nothing.

If anyone is inhabiting an alternative universe, I think it's you. I don't think Obama's a wimp, per se; I think he's doing exactly what he wants to do - but his essential inability to avoid confrontation is not serving him - or us - well.

His world view is much more conservative than I expect from someone calling himself a Democrat; I don't care what he calls himself, nor do I care what you call him - I look at his policies and his decisions, and they have been moving the center more and more to the right.

You don't agree; we know that. If it's too hard to face what the people here think, no one's forcing you to be here.

Parent

: The belief that we could (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by MO Blue on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:44:40 AM EST

"actually" go from 9.1% down to the 7's is delusional.
But if enough people drop out of the job market and a few creative changes to BLS's calculation methods could make that statistic look much better than it actually is. That is what has been happening in the last year to make unemployment look much better than reality.

Parent

representative of Democrats? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by sj on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:03:06 PM EST

I'd say it's representative of the rank and file middle and working class. It's a place where polls and spin don't buy the groceries. It's also a place where there are a fair number of those who have actually seen effective politics where the common good was actually important.

D@amn straight the anger is strong.

Parent

Just as an exercise, try looking for any negative (none / 0) (#99)
by Farmboy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 04:40:03 PM EST

comments about GOP politicians. If you find any, compare the degree of criticism to that leveled at Dems.

Research can be fun. Enjoy!

Parent

Blaming Conservatives (none / 0) (#111)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:33:35 PM EST

Does not provide the appropriate level of psychic relief it seems like.

Obama is more to blame for not defeating the GOP than the GOP is for opposing liberal policies in the first place.

Parent

A lot of (5.00 / 4) (#116)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:41:35 PM EST

the bad legislation Obama advocated for was before the GOP took over the house. So, yes, blaming conservatives just doesn't get it and the fact that Obama let them run all over him doesn't help.

Parent

it's that 500 mil (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:47:39 PM EST

he had to raise in order to run for President. No one, including that dashing southern gentleman Col Clinton, gets that money for questioning the essential economic narrative of the people holding the purse strings.

That discussion is off limits around here though.

Parent

Heh ... the "Clinton word assoc. game" (5.00 / 4) (#133)
by Yman on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:31:14 PM EST

You could say pretty much anything, and a few CDSers will try to work the word "Clinton" into their response ...

... no matter how nonsensical.

Parent

: don't say nothin' bad (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:38:47 PM EST

about my baby..

Parent

Right (none / 0) (#126)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:18:54 PM EST

So now Obama was bribed. He didn't have a good campaign strategy and an incredible fund raising team.

No way he earned his success?

You see why this sort of thing would make a black guy angry, right?

Parent

: I'm an angry slav (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:37:53 PM EST

who thinks there are plenty of black guys who would make better Presidents than Obama -- if the PRIMARY objective is electing a black President.
I'm also very much an economic determinist when it comes to American politics; firmly believing that no gets a toe in the door under the current system who poses a threat to economic conceits of the ruling class and their enablers.

Parent

But Obama (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by lilburro on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:05:22 PM EST

can't even pin it on the GOP because they haven't actually opposed a new jobs bill or second stimulus. They got their tax cuts for the rich extended. Obama likes to talk bipartisanship, so one might assume that if there is no visible opposition, there is no opposition, period.

Obama has a year to do something, or at least fight to do something. TL folk aren't the reason people are looking at Romney.

Parent

Except that (none / 0) (#127)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:20:01 PM EST

Obama got unemployment benefits extended and got a lot of additional stimulative dollars through.

That doesn't count because everything in the Deal is evil or something.

Parent

: The price (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:27:44 PM EST

that he "paid" to get those unemployment benefits is costing the country jobs right now. He completely caved into the GOP on that and that's why we have "austerity" now ruling.

Parent
: Maybe if you tried sticking ... (5.00 / 4) (#134)
by Yman on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:32:33 PM EST

... to arguments that other people are actually making, rather than coming up with ridiculous hyperbole and straw...

Parent
: The unemployment (none / 0) (#144)
by lilburro on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 07:56:40 PM EST

benefits were good but you know he can't win 2012 with that. As far as stimulus dollars, the proof is in the pudding. But Obama does have a year to try and change the dynamic.

Parent

Is popularity (none / 0) (#149)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 09:08:30 PM EST

A proxy for success now? Will it continue to be if Obama's poll numbers creep up? Will it be if he is reelected?

Can we choose a metric and stick with it?

Parent

popularity a proxy for success? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
by sj on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:18:55 PM EST

That's rich coming from you, who has been measuring success by citing popularity polls. To quote you:

Bottom line: If the unemployment number is in the 8's Obama looks like a smashing success.

He will look like a success. mm-hmmm. Gotcha

Parent

As a liberal (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by lilburro on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:00:50 PM EST

I'm not utterly disappointed in Obama. I have hopes for the ACA, I love DADT, I love a lot of what he has done. I'm not a fan of his governing style, per se. But...he's still a Democrat in office. Not only that, but he seems like a likable guy. As I've said before, I will vote for him. I will probably work for him. But there's very little I can do as a Democrat if the economy is shaking people's confidence, and I do think he's a disappointment as far as the housing market goes, at a personal and at a big picture level.

If the economy being in the sh*tter means he is a one term President, and someone comes along to further screw up our country, I'm not going to be pleased. I didn't vote for a Pyrrhic victory. Grassroots won't save 2012. If Obama wants to fire people up, he needs to do stuff that will have that effect. Simply setting for a crappy economy isn't going to do the trick. If you're knocking on doors explaining the "political reality" isn't going to get a lot of play. You need more to stand behind.

Parent

Hope this helps: (none / 0) (#155)
by oculus on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 11:22:40 PM EST

LAT

Parent

: Thanks (none / 0) (#163)
by lilburro on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 07:50:40 AM EST

for the link. Also very helpful - a close friend of mine finally got an offer on her house. Hopefully it works out.

Parent

Obama is the president (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:56:49 PM EST

The bucks stop there.

Parent

I don't know. I don't think it is (none / 0) (#63)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:23:35 PM EST

impossible and honestly I don't think that the GOP will be as concerned with their base if they think that they can capture a good portion of independents - which is something that Romney could really do. He is perfect for the majority of that crowd. Like Obama before him, he appears to be a winning guy, good looking, in command and all the other stuff that helps on that very superficial political front.

Parent

Republicans in the House (none / 0) (#74)
by observed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:56:01 PM EST

are going to vote on privatizing SS.
I'm sure Obama will find a stimulating way to respond.

Obama was done the minute he was elected. (none / 0) (#112)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 05:34:13 PM EST

Point blank,He had no experience. How could he pick a competent treasury secretary,when he knows nothing about business. Giether was refered by who knows? He came from Wall Street.
This is worse than the foxes in the hen house,we gave them a microwave oven.

I have a feeling that (none / 0) (#128)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 06:21:40 PM EST

when Obama is running next year, you will be arguing that he has no executive experience.

FYI: The experience argument has a shelf life for a sitting president.

Parent

: He has shown he has no experience (none / 0) (#141)
by loveed on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 07:10:01 PM EST

Name one thing he gotten right?
Even killing OSBL, this administration leak so much confidential information, all the terrorist had to do was turn on CNN. Come on, the navy seal families were receiving death threats.
Everything is about his reelection!!!

Parent

why??? (none / 0) (#170)
by roger on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 12:28:41 PM EST

Why do we want to keep Obama? Exactly? Before you yell at me, I am as leftie as they come, but I just see this president as a continuation of the Bush presidency. Obama is not a progressive, he is to the right of Richard Nixon! Chronic unemployment is worse than during the great depression, we are at war in even more countries than we were four years ago, and the war on drugs continues unabated.

Frankly, I dont even care anymore who gets elected, Nader was right, they are all the same

It's The Economy, Stupid: ABC Poll Puts Romney Ahead of Obama | 174 comments (174 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment