Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member BetsyRoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,262

    If President Obama carries on like this, he will turn into a

    If President Obama carries on like this, he will turn into a lame duck
    The president hasn't grown into the job - all that's needed to beat him is a serious Republican, says Simon Heffer in New York.

    By Simon Heffer
    Published: 8:26PM BST 27 Jul 2010

    The shock about coming to America after an absence of four months is how, in that time, respect for and confidence in President Obama has slumped. It wasn't good in March; now the effect of what one blogger has called his apparent "impotence" has taken hold. It is not clear what Mr Obama actually does. He isn't engaged with the economy; he certainly isn't engaged with foreign policy; he has abandoned hope of a climate change bill this year (and probably for ever); he has seen his health care bill into law, but America awaits news of how it will be implemented; he is under attack for a casual approach to illegal immigration, notably from the Mexican narco-state. He has only just girded himself to go campaigning for his party in the mid-term elections. Last Sunday was the 100-days-to-go mark, and the talk in politics here is of little else. Joe Biden, the vice-president, has been nominated as "campaigner in chief". Why? What is the President doing?

    He appears to be reading the newspapers and the blogs and watching television. Last week, a twisted opponent put out a selectively edited video of a black Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, apparently admitting discriminating against a white farmer. Mrs Sherrod had done nothing of the sort – either the discrimination or, therefore, the admission of it – but was immediately sacked, for fear that Fox News was about to broadcast the video. This outrageous act was followed by an even more outrageous apology by the president the next day – outrageous in that Mrs Sherrod was not immediately given back her job. In the White House there were, we are told, great mutual congratulations (to start with) that swift action had stopped this becoming "a story". Well, it's a story now, not least because it exemplifies the incompetence and disconnection of the administration. Mrs Sherrod's husband was a leading civil rights activist and her father was murdered by white racists in 1965, so there is a resonance to this story that is causing discomfort.

    This immediate proof of mismanagement adds to the cumulative feeling on so many other fronts that Mr Obama and his team simply don't understand governance. Last month Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, warned America that without more care being taken it could have a Greece-style debt problem. The president seemed to regard this warning as so self-evidently absurd that he quickly asked Congress for another $50 billion for various social projects. Last week, benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended for another six months at a cost of $34 billion. The health care programme is forecast to cost at least $863 billion. The total deficit this year is to be $1.47 trillion. America's debt is likely to be $18.5 trillion by 2020, though it will be so low as that only if growth is maintained at 4 per cent: it is currently 3 per cent, and rocky.

    Unemployment is 9.5 per cent and forecast to stay there for the time being. There are three million more jobless than when Mr Obama came to power, and unemployment among teenagers is around 25 per cent. The very constituencies to which he made his greatest appeal – the young and the disadvantaged – still suffer. This is despite the $787 billion stimulus programme last year, much of which was sucked into America's corrupt and inefficient local government system, or did favours for congressmen and senators, or provided wonderful pay days for trade unionists, or in some cases all three at once. The President sought the stimulus on the grounds that it would stop unemployment rising above 8 per cent; so that has been an expensive failure. All Mr Obama appears to have done is wave the money goodbye. Last week, trying not to sound provoked, Mr Bernanke announced that there was "unusual uncertainty" about economic recovery. The dollar fell against sterling and even the euro.

    Mr Bernanke wants a renewal of Bush-era tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 a year, which are due to expire on December 31. So do many Democrats, who fear that removing incentives and purchasing power from the better-off will harm recovery by reducing consumption and employment. These are arguments familiar from Britain, about the equally damaging and pointless 50 per cent rate. The response, by Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, is familiar too – the "rich" must take their share of the burden. It is equally specious here; the political importance of bashing the (presumably Republican) wealthy plainly exceeds what is good for the US economy.

    One advocate of renewing the cuts is Newt Gingrich, architect of the "Contract with America" in 1994, and now threatening to seek the Republican nomination in 2012. He is the sort of opponent Mr Obama should fear, because he is experienced, an intellectual, and has widespread name recognition. Yet some Democrats (including Howard Dean, the party chairman) are urging him to stand, if only to ensure that the Republicans make some policies that the Democrats can attack: for, at the moment, the GOP is simply attacking the incumbents rather than offering any solutions of its own. Wishing for Mr Gingrich (or someone like him) is a big gamble, though: all that seems to prevent Mr Obama's being confirmed as a one-term president is the absence of a credible Republican against him.

    One senses that the Democrats are talking down the likelihood of success in the mid-terms in order to look better if things go less badly than expected. It is possible that they could lose control of Congress, though that looks a close-run thing. They certainly won't lose their Senate majority, though the Republicans should get sufficient seats to operate a filibuster against legislation they don't like. A lame-duck Congress like that would emphasise the reality of a lame-duck president. On Wall Street, some former donors to the Democrats, so angry at what they perceive to be Mr Obama's vindictive and ignorant attempts to re-regulate them, have stopped giving money to the party. Some are saying that if the mid-terms go badly then Hillary Clinton should resign as Secretary of State and declare her intention to seek the Democratic nomination in 2012. That is highly unlikely; but the fact that it is being talked about seriously in Mrs Clinton's New York heartland ought to horrify the president.

    Last week an opinion poll reported that not only is Mr Obama less popular than Mrs Clinton (who by spending much time out of the country succeeds in seeming only vaguely associated with him), he is less popular than her husband, who is forbidden by the constitution from seeking the highest office again. President Clinton is much in demand for the mid-term campaign, but it will be interesting to see what sort of role his wife plays in it. There is no summer vacation for those seeking re-election in November, who will work hard throughout August to get their message over. They will return to Washington in September to see one of the Democrats' most senior congressmen, Charlie Rangel, a costermonger-like 80-year-old representative from New York, tried on an $831,000 ethics violation; which in its way sums up what the Democrats have done for America over the last couple of years. In that ecstatic dawn in November 2008, the Democrats would not have thought that things could turn out like this. But that is the trouble with the modern political mind these days: it never does think.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -duck.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member ReggieMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,527
    It's the "serious Republican" I'm worried about. Obama should have lost the last election, and would have if the Republican Party had a decent candidate instead of Rino McCain, with his buddy Juan Hernandez. For the life of me, I can't fathom why the Republicans so often come up with such weak candidates.
    "A Nation of sheep will beget a government of Wolves" -Edward R. Murrow

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member TexasBorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Getyourassoutahere, Texas
    Posts
    3,783
    Quote Originally Posted by ReggieMay
    For the life of me, I can't fathom why the Republicans so often come up with such weak candidates.
    Reggie, perhaps it was deliberate? IMO, the election was rigged from the git go. Things just didn't add up or make sense.
    ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...

    William Barret Travis
    Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    Gietner is doing nothin but political party spin.
    The response, by Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, is familiar too – the "rich" must take their share of the burden. It is equally specious here; the political importance of bashing the (presumably Republican) wealthy plainly exceeds what is good for the US economy.
    Are all of these folks going to pay taxes, or will the burden fall to the former middle class?

    Glitzy Fundraisers, Posh Vacations, And Celebrity Concerts Show Obama’s Elitist Disconnect From The American People

    http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-207381.html
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Justthatguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    735
    Actually the Presidential election of 2008 was decided long before the election was held. The oligarchy decided that Obama was going to be President. That's why McCain got the nomination. He was too old, out of step with his own party and incompetent. He only spent about half of what Obama spent on the election and did that deliberately. Without adequate funds to run a Presidential campaign how could he get elected? No way no how. McCain was in effect ordered to lose. But notice that when it comes to McCain's senate campaign in Arizona he has no problem spending an unlimited amount of money. That's because the oligarchy wants him to win. He'll contine to be a useful puppet for the oligarchy in the Senate while pretending to be a war hero and Republican.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Tbow009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,211

    The Reason

    The Reason McCain won the Republican Primary is because Liberal activists voting in it.
    Its why J D will not win against McCain this time as well. The system is corrupt.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rockfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    From FLA to GA as of 04/01/07
    Posts
    6,640

    Re: The Reason

    Quote Originally Posted by Tbow009
    The Reason McCain won the Republican Primary is because Liberal activists voting in it.
    Its why J D will not win against McCain this time as well. The system is corrupt.
    Election rules and procedures are being ignored just like our laws.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #8
    GR
    GR is offline
    GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    680
    Obama will "turn into" a lame duck president?

    Obama arrived at that level a long time ago.

  9. #9
    Senior Member TexasBorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Getyourassoutahere, Texas
    Posts
    3,783
    Quote Originally Posted by GR
    Obama will "turn into" a lame duck president?

    Obama arrived at that level a long time ago.
    Agree with that! Lame or Duck, pick your poison. He's been exposed for what he really is. Can't wait until his actual place of birth is exposed for all to see. It's coming and people will know the truth. He is a complete and total fraud who has committed treason against the United States. Prison would be too good for him and those who are complicit.
    ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...

    William Barret Travis
    Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •