This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 28, 2012 11:45 PM. The previous post in this blog was Delusion upon delusion in Blazerland. The next post in this blog is Finding his calling. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

A bad night for Obama

With his victories today, Mitt Romney is all but certain to be the Republican nominee for President this fall. And of the nattering nabobs on the GOP debate stage, Romney will be the hardest for Obama to beat. Bland against bland. Unprincipled against unprincipled. With them both grasping for the middle come late summer and early fall, it will all come down to the economy. And no matter how the administration doctors up unemployment numbers, the economy is suffering from a long and lingering illness. People are not going to be bamboozled into thinking everything's o.k. as they pay $5 a gallon for gasoline and watch their children's standard of living go inexorably down.

We had unreasonably high hopes for the President, and he's disappointed us more often than not. Health care, taxes, civil rights, he has sold us out at seemingly every turn. Many of his most fervent supporters from four years ago are tepid about him now. And so the election will probably be quite close. Against crazed altar boy Santorum or the supremely unlikable Newt, it wouldn't be much of a race at all.

Comments (30)

I respect the position but I gotta disagree. 'People' can be bamboozled into anything. With the approval rate of congress being at historic lows the president can easily pin the blame on those guys.

Then he can point to his overseas war 'success' getting out of Iraq, drawing down Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, Gaddafi, etc...That'll put a positive spin on a lot of failings.

Then he can ratchet up the saber rattling with Iran, or N. Korea in a pinch, and you get a second term for Obama.

Remember Bush in 2004 was one of the most ridiculous presidents since Harding. Hell maybe even since Grant. Prison scandals, wars, civil rights issues, faith politics and all manner of crap the left could easily exploit. But he rattled the sabers, spoke well (to certain folks at least). S**t at least he spoke in a firm and decisive way. He also had a weak opponent. He won, it was close. But he won.

Obama can do all of this and more. Romney is far weaker than Kerry. With all the same liabilities and more. Hard to relate to. Aloof. They even look similar.

Those who know me know I hate all of these bought off anti-American pieces of garbage. No one who holds political office is allowed to visit my home. I honestly can't think of a single politician that has my best interests at heart.

But strategically Obama wins this handily. There is no McCain here, no Bush Junior or Senior. There's no Dole or Reagan. No Nixon. No one to fire up my heart. Shit I'd settle for a Buccanan or Ford at this point. So would all of you. I could name 5 politicians right now that could beat Obama. Huntsman, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Perry (running on good ol' boy values), Hillary Clinton (that right!). Tell me I'm wrong...

There is just no one to make this jaded hillbilly stand up and take notice. And I'm just sad about the whole thing. My Obama t-shirt is currently lining my cat box. But looking at these right wing yahoos I will probably vote for a 3rd party candidate this year in protest.

Unless we go into the tank economically or have to go after Iran, Obama will win.

Who knows what the heck that means for our country for the nxt four years. Obama or Romney really have no clue about how to help the average guy in the street.

This campaign will be defined by vicious attacks, with the candidates laughably claiming a good cop persona, while the affiliated super PACs spend hundreds of millions in efforts to destroy the opponent. This is the dynamic that's driven the unprecedented volatility in the R primaries; it will be bigger and bolder in the general. The Mariotts et. al. will give/raise however much money Romney needs and Obama will use the power of the presidency to secure whatever lucre he requires. By the way, talking about Obama's record without mentioning $16 trillion in debt betrays a blind spot a mile wide.

I'd just like to note that while his current incarceration prevents him from voting, there's absolutely no reason why Charles Manson couldn't run for office. In fact, I think he'd make a great third-party candidate this year, with the slogan "Because A Nation of Freaks Deserves To Be Led By One".

You make both sides sound the same. They are not.

I still have hopes for the 'crazed altar boy'. He appeals to a lot of the right wing nuts that make up the GOP base. Since it only takes one billionaire to keep a campaign going, he can go and go and go.

Prison scandals, wars, civil rights issues

Indefinite detention? Bush just did it, said it was "wartime." Obama made it law, even for Americans. And last I checked, Guantanamo is still in operation.

And yes, Allan, they are both the same. Both parties come down to money and power. That's all they care about any more. The country doesn't matter, the people don't matter.

Blame Bush, and run on Hope and Change... it worked the first time. Dope and Same?

they are both the same. Both parties come down to money and power.

Oh, hey, I stand corrected. They're both parties, so I guess that's the same.

But when it comes to lying us into wars, upward distribution of wealth, voodoo economics, government in your bedroom, religious wackos on the Supreme Court and laissez-faire private sector corruption, one of them really has the edge.

Yeah, if only Obama would appoint another religious wacko, he would really trounce Mitty in the above categories.

-lying multiple wars? I'll need my toes...
-wealth disty? Obama? Nah...
-Voodoo Obamanomics? Kenya Econ 101
-corruption? Solyndra? More toes again...

Allan, you can do better. Go get you coffee and try again.

I agree with newleaf that this will be a Battle of the SuperPACs. And Obama is forecast to have the upper hand on that front. I also think people like him better personally, while Romney is going to keep failing the "connects with people" test. The US persists in the naivete that we are electing a person rather than their enormous apparatus and wide-ranging support blocs.

I also think it is true that those of us who voted for Obama were doing so primarily on hope, and it was a bit blind. Personally as soon as I started seeing his appointments (quickly grabbing Clinton retreads since Obama did not know anyone) the air started to go out of balloon. When we got to Geithner (now the last man standing of the economic advisors) it popped.

It was frequently said about Obama before his election that his inexperience would prove hazardous. That charge was quickly born out and still holds. His orator act has gotten old.

I'm not sure what the mood is in Portland right now; but here in Northern Nevada, where Democrats and Republicans each have similar voting numbers, the genuine dislike for Obama is so thick you can almost cut it with a knife.
And even big supporters of Obama in 2008 like Steve Wynn, have abandoned providing any support for him in 2012.

Hoping Romney picks Christie for VP. It would be a Laurel and Hardy campaign.

I will not vote for Obama because he believes he can order companies to give away products for free. I will not vote for Obama because he believes he should write the rules for private charities not the people who have dedicated their treasure and time to building them and serving the needy. I will not vote for Obama because he believes the government should act as a venture capitalist and pick winners and losers in the market. I will not vote for Obama because he believes that the federal government can mandate that a citizen purchase a product or face punishment. I will not vote for Obama because he believes he can start wars without consulting congress. I will not vote for Obama because he believes in class warfare, endless trillion and a half deficits. I will not vote for Obama because he does not believe in American energy unless its his failed "green" energy. Obama is a failure and a threat to limited government.

For those who need a reminder of just how much Obama's administration looks and acts like the previous one, just search for this meme:

"They told me if I voted for John McCain" on Google:
Google Search of above quote

I've been traveling a lot around the country and my take is that Obama is more likely to lose. I've talk to many independents in purple states like Florida and Colorado. Many expresses feelings of betrayal with Obama. In the vernacular of the advertizing business, his brand is damaged.

And Sally -
"...while Romney is going to keep failing the "connects with people" test..." And Obama does?? If you're black and/or absolutely beholding to government for your every dime, then I guess Obama would be connecting to you. But for those of us who are still considered middle class (whatever that has come to be defined), no, Obama is talking to someone other than us.

I've said it before, I'd vote for the dust bunny in the corner before I'd vote for Obama - just saying.

We get the elected officials we deserve. Expect things to go from bad to worse. Obama is using the constitution for toilet paper and Romney does not have the will to change course. Funny that we are afraid of the alterboy but have no concern over the marxist or cult member.

The game is rigged and there isn't really too much difference between Obama and Romney. You can be fired for pointing that out in some venues though:


Romney is not a strong candidate on his own (Christie or Daniels would be much better for the GOP), but he's not somebody people will vote "against" like they would Newt or Santorum. Couple that with the huge enthusiasm gap that is plaguing Obama (and he deserves it - hope and change my butt, the man is just another politician) and the lower turnout/donations that will result, if I had to bet I'd say Obama is out of a job in November.


While I agree with the rest of your post, talking about the $16 trillion debt without mentioning its principle causes -- extensive tax cuts combined with negligent oversight and not one but two unfunded wars -- betrays a blind spot that's at least a kilometer wide.

"We had unreasonably high hopes for the President, and he's disappointed us more often than not."

Well, unreasonably high hopes more often than not will lead to more disappointment - no? ;o)

This system and these candidates are so far from perfect I fight the urge everyday to just give up on voting. But people have fought so hard for that right over the years, that I refuse to squander it.

Obama inherited a serious mess. It is not gonna be fixed so quickly. I have been disappointed by him too, but there have been some admirable achievements. I liked Sullivan's (he's not a liberal, but a self-described conservative independent) article in the Daily Beast about how Obama isn't looking short term, but is really interested in "the long game."


My entire voting life I have chosen the lesser of two evils. I don't expect that to change, especially with our current system.

I've said it before, I'd vote for the dust bunny in the corner before I'd vote for Obama - just saying.



Don’t have to vote for the dust bunny.
People need to put a stop to politics as usual, with no real choice offered.

If we really want change, we as a people need to do more than vote, we need to become engaged and learn about what needs to be done now to get our public interest, our country and constitution and our city back on track for the people, not special interests.

"with the huge enthusiasm gap that is plaguing Obama ... if I had to bet I'd say Obama is out of a job in November."

NEPGuy: Latest polls show Romney way behind Obama with the independent vote. I would have agreed with you a few months ago. The Republican primary has been wicked even as such things go. The independent vote is critical. Disillusioned a few months ago with Obama, unless it changes they are now even more disillusioned with Romney.

Native Oregonian: I will be voting for Romney also. I'm betting against that being on the winning side.

I'll vote for Obama (no surprise to many, I'm sure), despite numerous disappointments, the indefinite detention issue in glaring particular. But Rs are throwing around some pretty nasty rhetoric about the guy. Any reference to Kenya and using the Constitution as toilet paper is just vile.

I'm impressed with getting ANY health bill done. If you don't buy health insurance, you're freeloading. We require employees pay into an insurance system, and that's constitutional, so the mandate to buy health insurance is too. Simple as that.

I'm impressed with how he's handled just about every foreign intervention. Better than I expected from him.

The debt issue is scary, but it's not his fault we were already down that road. He inherited a situation equally dire to 9/11. At least he has the integrity to believe we should raise taxes to help pay for it. R's actually still think that lowering taxes on rich people will create jobs. Hilarious. Obama is dead on - lower corporate taxes, raise top marginal rates, raise payroll limits, raise cap gains on the wealthy.

Obama supports environmental programs, social safety net, and opposes religious governance. The parties are not the same. Romney will pose a viable threat, though. More than McCain, plus a more difficult electoral environment. Obama's win is not a foregone conclusion. $5 gas could be the backbreaker.

For all their faults, at least Obama, Santorium and Gingrich have the ability to sound like real people. Willard is incapable of that.

Gas prices are the GOPs only hope, save something catastrophic. And even then, people aren't shocked over $5 gas like they used to be.

Roger, if you happen to believe the causes you mention are the only the factors in the $16 trillion debt bomb (though not even close, there have been enormous spending increases under Obama) then the remedies are to increase taxes, and to have pulled out of Afghanistan (instead of doubling and then tripling down); and then replace a President whose stewardship hasn't involved lifting a finger to do anything to close the deficit or reduce the debt (ya, I actually read the President's budgets each year, so challenge me on that one, just try).

Obama is just the latest phony and failure who needs to be voted out until someone finally gets with the program. Show results, stop playing the blame game and screwing our kids -- that's my agenda. I don't care if that agenda has an R in front of it or a D.

Re: "Obama is just the latest phony and failure who needs to be voted out until someone finally gets with the program."


Speaking of phonies, Mr Krugman's -- he is not a phony -- blog today is modestly but appropriately quantified:

"So it remains true that all of the proposals, except maybe Ron Paul’s (which contains huge and probably impossible spending cuts) would lead to higher deficits than Obama, based on a common assessment."

"I mean, we’ve had two fairly clear-cut tests in recent decades: the Clinton tax hike, which all the usual suspects said would produce disaster, and the Bush cuts, which would supposedly produce a wonderful boom. How did those turn out?"

In the absence of the mythical candidate on a white stallion curing the country's political ills, Obama remains the viable default candidate.

The GOPers, meanwhile, continue to separate themselves from what is best for this country's enduring experiment with democracy. Consider Olympia Snowe's parting observations regarding the toxicity of the Senate:

"'You can never solve a problem without talking to people with whom you disagree,' she said. 'And the United States Senate is predicated and based on the essence of consensus building. That was certainly the vision of our founding fathers. And if we abandon that approach, then we do it at the expense of the country and the issues we need to address to put us back on track.'"

Mr Obama's most debilitating shortcoming may well be his overemphasis upon compromising with those who have never contemplated compromise.

Give me a Mormon millionaire governor of Massachusetts a thousand times, over this giant squid fake idealist IDIOT, who is mean, manipulative, conniving, and as clueless as they come.

As they say, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. And one thing has become very clear about Obama: he overflows with hypocrisy and wallows in his own world of slick slogans. What he has managed to achieve, in terms of persuading large numbers of Americans that he was going to offer a "new dawn of American leadership" to the world, is quite impressive, however.

It least with Bush, he didn't try to hide the fact that he was a buffoon.
I respect him now, for being true to himself, however much I disagreed with him.

Romney would have had a chance if he had been unopposed for the nomination. But his far-right opponents have forced him to take so many extreme positions, in such explicit detail, to appeal to the old-white-Christian-male base of the Republican Party that I don't see how he can wiggle out of them after the convention. He's trapped. Obama is not a particularly strong candidate, but I don't think he's in serious electoral trouble. Congress is another story.

Clicky Web Analytics