JULY 19, 2011 12:05PM

Two Ways Obama Will Be Re-Elected

Rate: 2 Flag

Frank Apisa and a few others have been gnawing over this bone for a while now.  There is some spirited debate over what constitutes a “liberal” and what doesn’t, as well as why Obama has been losing the “faithful” and what that may ultimately mean.

I’m going to go out on a limb (a rather thin and shaky one, at that) and surmise that the voting population in this country isn’t always quite as stupid as we think.  I’m going to blindly go on the belief that after eight years under Bush’s administration (which equates quite nicely to “Republican Rule”) people are still not in any hurry to turn back the clock and implement the very same mindset that crippled the country.

Yes, I’m taking a lot on faith.  A LOT.

 

Now, I will readily admit to voting for Obama in 2008.  For me (and apparently the majority of the voting public), it was a no-brainer.  The McCain-Palin ticket meant another four years of failed policies and allowing the financial market to run roughshod over the best interests of the country as a whole (much like allowing a six-year-old to drive a Mack truck pulling a trailer of explosives – what the hell did you THINK was gonna happen, G.W.?).  Obama meant – well, in all probability the antithesis of another four years of the same.

 

My biggest beef with the Prez is that he had TWO YEARS of a virtual Democratic majority to undo as much damage as he could.  He sat on his hands and did nothing, which pissed off the voting population enough that they began replacing his much-needed congressional majority and made it virtually impossible for him to do anything worthwhile without a major battle.

Also, Obama made a bunch of promises when he campaigned.  Now, I’m not the naïve little doe-eyed kid that believes the promises of a politician any more than a hooker believes the promises of a john.  But I expected change, at the very least.  What I got was not so much change. 

He could have first and foremost jettisoned the powers that Bush took for himself that no president has a right to (such as declaring a war without actually obtaining a declaration of war from Congress; such as trampling the rights of individual states by enacting legislation such as the “Patriot Act” and allowing the torture of “enemy combatants” even though we were “at war” and those acts violated the Geneva Convention).

He didn’t.  His plan for our failed economy was to go forward with paying the guys who caused it – sort of like a bonus for screwing us over.  Not a single one of those corporate CEOs or financial wizards has been brought to justice, even though their acts were provably criminal.  Not one.

 

We’re getting to the point where it is almost time for elections again.  Obama is obviously going to make a re-election bid; after all, why the hell not?  The Democrats aren’t even going to try and dissuade him, because they don’t have anyone warming up in the bullpen.  Why they believe that another term for Obama is going to do the party any good is beyond me.  To date, he has not given the Democrats anything to be proud of.

As for the Republicans, they continue to shoot themselves in the foot time and time again by promoting characters for candidates that have no real hope of winning over a majority of the voting public (most importantly those “tweeners” that might change their voting allegiance if it were in the best interests of the nation) because they are all rhetoric-spouting bigots that almost make Sarah Palin look smart.

By doing that, by promoting candidates like Michelle Bachmann (to name only one - there are many more, as you know), the Republicans are virtually guaranteeing four more years with Obama at the helm.  Whether or not he becomes our generation’s albatross remains to be seen, but my expectation is that when he IS re-elected nothing much is going to change in terms of how this country is administered.  Obama does not seem to be too interested in protecting our freedoms or our civil rights, nor does he seem too interested in bringing about the “change” in Washington that he loudly proclaimed in his first bid for the White House.

Maybe he can't really be blamed for that - since, in reality, he isn't really the one running the country anyway.  But he must be accountable because the office is still accountable - the whole "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" thing, ya know.

So there, in a nutshell, are the two ways that Obama will retain the White House:

1)      No Democratic opposition

2)      No serious Republican opposition

 

Meet the new boss…..

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Quatto…

…I certainly do not want to see the GOP in the White House. They do more than enough damage as a minority in congress; even more as a partial majority in congress…

…and the mere thought of what they could do with a congressional minority; congressional partial majority; or total congressional majority…and the White House is beyond my ability to imagine disaster.

I think we are going to find out if my fears are out of line.

I think Obama will be the Democratic candidate…and I think he will lose. I think the Republicans, after much ado, will come up with someone who CAN win…and who will.

I think our country…and by extension, the rest of the world…in a heap of trouble because of that.

But good luck with the “ 1) No Democratic opposition 2) No serious Republican opposition”

Anything that keeps the GOP out of the White House is good for everyone.
"1) No Democratic opposition

2) No serious Republican opposition"


To the first point; true. To the second, I'm not so sure; Romney may actually be able to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents, given that so far he's staying away from the more ludicrous Tea Party-type talking points. Regarding Obama, I'm getting a little sick of being told by his supporters that by not supporting him I'm handing a victory to the GOP. So far he's done a really good job of betraying his base, and that's on him, not on the people who recognize him for the sell-out he is.
You have to really consider the moderate Dems, who are the ones that could be swayed by a viable Republican candidate. Romney, IMHO, ain't it. They would need to push someone more central-leaning than Romney to get the fence-sitting Dems.

I'm waiting to see what shakes out by year's end. That should tell us who the real contenders are. If push came to shove, I'd vote for Obama again for no other reason than to keep the Republicans from a majority administration that would really drive this country to its knees.

Frank, I ain't so sure he'll lose regardless. There are still a lot of young people out there that support him. They may very well be the difference, 'cause the Reps can't reach them. They are critical thinkers (the young people, that is ;-D).
Regarding Obama, I'm getting a little sick of being told by his supporters that by not supporting him I'm handing a victory to the GOP. So far he's done a really good job of betraying his base, and that's on him, not on the people who recognize him for the sell-out he is.

May I point out, respectfully as possible, that if enough liberals and progressives withhold their support from Obama…he will lose and the GOP will be handed a victory by the people who didn’t support him.

You may argue that he deserved to lose…you may argue that he has betrayed his base…you may argue that he is a traitor to progressive initiatives...you may argue all sorts of things. But if a Republican takes over the White House because enough people did not support Obama…the responsibility for the loss is on the electorate.

It always is in a democracy or a representative Republic.

The people you are “getting a little sick” of…are only pointing that out to you, Nanatehay.

I hope you consider it.
I hope so, Quatto. The alternative...a GOP victory, no matter who is the puppet for the extreme right wing...is simply unbearable to contemplate.
Frank, if Obama loses, that is on him not on me. For two and a half years now I've heard people make excuses for him and try to shove blame on to liberals just as you're attempting to do by saying we're gonna cost him the election, but I ain't buying it. It has been up to Obama to demonstrate that his administration isn't just Bush Lite, but time and time again when faced with important decisions he has proven that he's more concerned with the well-being of Wall Street and the corporate sector than the well-being of regular, working Americans. Just to name one case: even before the debate on HCR got under way in '09, Obama had already met with insurance industry representatives and let them know the public option was off the table, even though for months afterward he kept saying it was necessary for any real reform. So there we have a case of him preemptively surrendering to corporate interests then lying about it afterward, and that is only one example among many which illustrate where his priorities are. We'll see how well all that works out for him next year, and if the GOP regains control and Barack and his supporters attempt to blame liberals for it, they might do well to remember what Truman once said about where the buck stops.
I'll take Bush Lite over Bush any day, if that's the only choice. Unfortunately it looks to be the only choice.
I agree, Matt; Bush Lite is still preferable to the real article. I'm gonna go "big picture" here for a second though: If a Republican has any chance of winnning next year it's because 1. too many people have apparently already forgot what a surrealistically bad presidency W's was and what a disaster it was for our nation, and 2. too many people are buying the Koch brothers' propaganda that permeates our media and our political discourse these days. In both cases, I can think of no better cure than to go ahead and let people see how catastrophic four more years of Republican control will be. As idiotic economic policies that favor the rich and which will lock in economic ruin for our working and middle classes are strengthened, and as our social safety nets are dismantled, maybe, just maybe, we'll get a candidate in '16 who will mean it when he says he wants change, and maybe just maybe he'll succeed in ways that Barack Obama never even bothered attempting.
And honestly, Mitt Romney won't be much more of a corporate pawn than Obama has proven to be.
Correcting a sentence in my remark to Matt, it should read:

As idiotic economic policies that favor the rich and which will lock in economic ruin for our working and middle classes are strengthened, and as our social safety nets are dismantled, maybe people will finally realize Rightist policies are destroying our nation, and just maybe we'll be ready for a candidate in '16 who is about change in a more meaningful way than as a campaign slogan, and just maybe he'll succeed in ways that Barack Obama never even bothered attempting.
Until we finally do away with this two-party system we have, we the people will constantly have to choose the lesser of two evils.

It is why I advocate for the abolishment of the electoral college and support the populist vote - it will give viable candidates from other parties an equal shot at getting elected. Which theoretically should also improve the quality of candidates in all parties, because they'd actually have to COMPETE for votes for a change.
Actually, nanatehay, I probably agree with almost the entirety of your last post. The only part I might have some slight disagreement was the sentence you corrected to read:

“…maybe people will finally realize Rightist policies are destroying our nation, and just maybe we'll be ready for a candidate in '16 who is about change in a more meaningful way than as a campaign slogan, and just maybe he'll succeed in ways that Barack Obama never even bothered attempting.”

I would have preferred, “…and just maybe she’ll succeed….”

During the primary season, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. But I don’t think even Hillary would have gotten more out of the Republican obstructionists than has Obama.