Obama is not the issue in 2012
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:10pm
It is likely that the current President will be our next President with a campaign war chest of a billion dollars or more The real question is does it matter?
The Republicans look more and more able to beat the Democrats badly in the next Congressional elections and there is every indication that they will take control of the Senate and strengthen their hold on the House.
If so, we will have a President that will be in constant conflict with the Congress setting the stage for the Presidential elections of 2016, a year that could usher in a prolonged period of prolonged Republican rule. What does this mean for the country and how will it impact the power and scope of government in the coming decades?
One can only hope that as the Republicans gain ground against the progressive movement, we will also see a Republican party that is open to the ideas and ideals of the founding fathers. Returning to a government that is instituted to protect our rights and not abridge them through activist programs, departments, and czars. Unfortunately, history does not support this outcome as conservatives have proven not to be radical enough to challenge the status quo, merely perpetuate it.
Only time will tell.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:35pm
#2
PTC Observer
The days of the "founding fathers" are over with finally.
Slaveholders, elite, property owners only, biggest bs'ers elected by those who could vote, and creating a Constitution for their day, not ours.
No amount of further amendments will make it "the bible."
If we are to survive as powerful civilization, we must consider today's situations. Something most past (now gone) powers did not do!
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:49pm
#3
No Huckabee, no problem
The religious right wingers now have a choice of paying attention to the real issues (instead of abortion and gay marriage) or finding another bible thumper like Huckabee to carry their flag. The idea that they will sit the election out is silly and the alternative - voting for the abortionist-in-chief is way beyond any credible thought.
Whatever they do, they vote Republican. The baby killers on the left and in the press love to gin up the power of the bible thumpers to make them look silly - remember the "bitter clinger" comments? There is not one single Republican left standing that will lose a right wing zealot's vote when the choice is the man who thought killing a newly born (albeit accidently) baby was ok. Get real.
The only issues that matter are the economy and securing the borders. Period. Anything else is irrelevant. Period.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:27pm
#4
This is a lot of wishful thinking
So, the Democrats will vote for President Obama for a second term, but not for the Senate and House!
Those days are over!
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 1:57pm
#5
Obama's 2012 Opponent
Huckabee is going to sit out the 2012 bloodbath. This is probably a disaster for the Republican party.
Huckabee was the only candidate (with a chance of winning, anyway) who could fire up the Christian Fundamentalist big-government-in-the-name-of-JESUS social conservatives.
Without Huckabee in the race, Christian conservatives will stay home on election day. The NY Times today said that grubby Herman Cain has the most to gain from Huckabee's decision, but I seriously doubt that as I cannot envision substantial numbers of them voting for a non-white candidate.
The conventional wisdom has 2012 as a match between Romneycare and Obamacare. This is toxic to the teahadists.
The more Christian conservatives and teahadists that stay home, the greater the likelihood that the Senate will stay in Democratic hands.
This means that President Obama will likely get 2 more Supreme Court nominations between 2012 and 2016 (Ginsburg and Kennedy likeliest to step down). This gives the Democrats a golden opportunity to get a rock solid 5-4 majority on abortion for the next 20 years, which would destroy the Republican party (20% or so of the Republican party thinks government exists solely to outlaw abortion).
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 5:30pm
#6
Huckabee sitting it out
He's always whining about "lack of respect" from the media and political pundits, so now he gets to try the role of Kingmaker. There's no doubt he had some clout in some of the early Repub primary states, but who'll get his nod of approval and what does it really mean?
I don't think Cain gets much of a bounce at all...he's at best a potential VP candidate and no one takes him seriously as contender. He'll get a a few dribbles of votes from all of this. Some more will go to real nothing contender and lousy candidate Rick Santorum(UGH!)and some will head towards Michelle Bachmann, another fringe contender and a joke.
One thing about the social c's is that they won't stay home on election day, but there small campaign contributions that they normally really pour in is going to be a lot drier this go-round. Repubs will also miss all the free campaign work and volunteering they are known to do.
If Mitch Daniels enters the race(he sounds like he REALLY doesn't want to), C-Street would get all hyped about him. They are a little huffy with him because last year he had the AUDACITY to say that "social issues need to be on the backburner for now" and you would have thought he instead said "ALL HAIL SATAN! LET'S SACRIFICE VIRGINS AND BABIES!" judging by the hysterics from the neo-con hard right fundies. The fact is that he's got a history of a near-perfect social conservative voting record and even those dimwits would realize that he's as good as Huckabee on those issues and also a seriously better candidate than Huckabee. The rest of the field isn't going to excite them either, so I can see them getting behind Daniels.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 5:53pm
#7
Cain and Santorum
I think I'll disagree with ya, Nuk.
First of all, grubby Herman Cain has basically moved to Iowa and has been spreading his peculiar gospel of hatred and class envy from cornfield to cornfield. The press loves an "out of nowhere" story (see: Jimmy Carter 1976) and grubby Herman is so far off the lamestream media's radar he's poised to make a flash in the pan.
Protestant Christian Conservatives won't vote for Santorum, because he's Catholic. They won't vote for Romney or Huntsman, because they're Mormon. That leaves them with a choice between grubby Herman and insane Michelle. Since neither are white males, I doubt they'll get significant numbers.
I believe the Christian Conservatives are most likely to sit out this election, not unlike 1996 (strong popular Democratic encumbant, big-business endorsed candidate) Obama vs. Romney would be a rematch of Clinton vs. Dole.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:02pm
#8
Crisp - The Supremes
"This means that President Obama will likely get 2 more Supreme Court nominations between 2012 and 2016 "
Not if the Republicans control the Senate, he will never get his appointees past them.
I don't buy your assertion that the conservatives and Tea Party will stay at home, on the contrary, I think they are highly engaged and will have a record turnout against Obama and his gang.
In the end, it won't make much difference though, there will be plenty of fighting between the parties but not much will change about how the government is structured or run. We will trade one group of corrupt politicians for another group of corrupt politicians.
Different pockets will be lined that’s all.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:21pm
#9
Inadvertent paragraph break
"This means that President Obama will likely get 2 more Supreme Court nominations between 2012 and 2016 "
Not if the Republicans control the Senate, he will never get his appointees past them.
Inadvertent paragraph break.
The more Christian conservatives and teahadists that stay home, the greater the likelihood that the Senate will stay in Democratic hands. This means that President Obama will likely...
Better now?
The Tea Party has already peaked, they bit off more than they can chew when they went after unions. They've done more to energize the union-heavy midwest than President Obama and/or any Democrat could have done.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:40pm
#10
ChrisP_B, don’t forget all
ChrisP_B, don’t forget all those “grandma” voters that will vote against the party that wants to kill Medicare.
Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:48pm
#11
Crisp - As in
all things, time will tell.
We'll see, but in my opinion it doesn't look too good for the Democrats, this next cycle.
However, Obama will be nearly impossible to beat.
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 1:41pm
#12
PTCO: Horror of horrors!
How do you suppose those five conservatives (RW) got onto the Supreme Court? Did democratic presidents nominate them? No? Then how?
The last time I looked Presidents can nominate for openings! Haven't we had enough of these 5-4 votes saying everything the majority of the people want is unconstitutional? Talk about interfering into local rights!!!!
(Just one good example: Florida election counting of ballots: FL Supreme court said count em; US Supreme court said do not count em again! WHAT POSSIBLE REASON DID THEY NEED TO INTERFERE IN THAT?)
The fact that the losers got most of the popular votes was reason enough to recount!
I fear that republicans will not control the senate!
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 6:58am
#13
It's mostly much ado about nothing.
Obama will be hard to beat as most incumbents are. The good news there is he can only possibly stay one more term.
We Christians are not all "bible thumpers" and most seek to forgive those who repent and make corrections in their lives.
I think Newt Gingrich will surprise most Republican critics and is our best bet.
But ultimately God is in control and I agree that politics doesn't matter as much as most people would like to think.
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:15am
#14
Newt's done
His tendency to lead with his mouth and shoot from the hip lost the bid for him. Criticizing Ryan's budget plan without having an idea of what he would do put him too far to the left for the Teaparty and Conservatives. He is toast.
Look for him to drop out soon.
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:23pm
#15
Ridiculous OOU... maybe
Newt got interesting quick. Has he made a major gaffe or did he look at the candidates and decide that the Teas will divide up the vote and he could get all the Rs not of the Tea persuasion? If Newt, sometimes down the road, frames the debate as Ryan's budget is to radical for Medicaid, then he can get the over 55 vote while embracing parts of the Ryan plan later as needed.
Who would he be up against? Romney is the only other Tea alternative and Newt is perfectly capable of shredding Romney on his health plan. Everybody is going to be going against Romney but the Teas are going to be going against each other, too. Newt may have decided to take on the Romney vote and leave the Teas to split their vote into insignificance. You can bet that Newt knows the primaries are winner take all.
You can disagree with Newt but you'd be hard pressed indeed to make an argument that he is either politically naive or stupid. He's a long shot and he knows it. If it's a plan, it's brilliant. It's Newt at his best! The debates are going to be wonderful.
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 4:48pm
#16
BHH & Newt
Disagree about Newt--his grating personality, bordering on intellectual arrogance, has always been a problem , both with staff & voters. No question that he is a great "idea" person and would serve the country well in some Cabinet position--perhaps Education, if that Dept survives at all!
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 5:14pm
#17
GYM: Newt
You don't really understand Newt.
The only job in government he has any interest in now is the Presidency.
The man makes millions from speeches, boards, books, etc., and would have no interest in a cabinet job, Vice President, or anything else for a couple hundred thousand a year. He has his pension!
However a former president can make untold millions these days.
Thousands of unthought-out worthless ideas are useless as President.
The presidency is not a "brainstorming" job, one must get things done.
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 7:48pm
#18
grating personality, bordering on intellectual arrogance? Gym?
Let's see here, who else does that describe? Hmmmm. Gee whiz, I can't really think of anyone else. Can you?
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:23pm
#19
MUD: Nasty stuff
Well maybe hutch or gym! Sounds like a description of Newt, but I doubt you meant that.
Now if you had said snobby, nose in the air, better than you, poor people get in the way, immigrants are all bad, then I would have known exactly who, or is it whom?
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:15pm
#22
AHG - No
No way he can win, he won't even be part of a Republican administration if there is one, and there won’t be this go around.
Mitch Daniels looks interesting, he's proposing that the Republicans stay away from social issues and regulating personal behavior. He's a fiscal hawk and would like to significantly downsize the government. Now, if he only had a billion dollars he could go head to head with money bags in chief.
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:28pm
#23
RWM alert. OMG, stay away from social issues? RWM alert.
Robert will get right on this guy (so to speak) as he is also a big fan of staying out of people's bedrooms and later their abortion clinics. In a way it makes sense and might get Daniels or someone like him elected. We shall see.
Wed, 05/18/2011 - 7:24am
#24
AtHomeGym, there's never a perfect candidate.
It's always the lessor of evils.
I think so far Newt is the least evil.
I think not.