http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7034296.ece
"Can a president whose poll ratings have slumped and whose agenda is all but paralysed still help his senators to get re-elected? In Las Vegas, anything is worth a try, and Barack Obama was there yesterday to find out.
The “optics” — to use a White House cliché — were not good. This was not just because the city’s wildly popular Democratic mayor was refusing to meet Mr Obama unless he apologised for caricaturing Vegas-style extravagance and bought him a Martini. The President has also been forced to write to Harry Reid, the senator whom he hopes to help, to make clear that he thinks “there’s no better place to have fun than Vegas”.
Back in Washington, conservatives are giddy on the prediction by Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President, that Mr Obama will be a one-term leader.
That may turn out to be true. But to create a defensible record on which to seek a second term Mr Obama has two urgent priorities: to persuade Americans that he understands they worry more about their jobs than climate change or health insurance reform, and to shore up the congressional majorities without which his presidency could quickly slide from disappointing to disastrous"
....
any thoughts?
Obama's name alone isn't enough to do it, but if he goes about it using tactically sound techniques he can be an asset.
In other words he's no longer a hugely positive name that by itself will bring results. But it's also not as if his name is mudd, like Dick Cheney during the last elections.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat then happened to Obama's name?
Obama's name alone isn't enough to do it, but if he goes about it using tactically sound techniques he can be an asset.
In other words he's no longer a hugely positive name that by itself will bring results. But it's also not as if his name is mudd, like Dick Cheney during the last elections.
Originally posted by whodeyWhen times are tough the incumbent party suffers. I also think the Republican strategy of block and filibuster everything possible has been very effective politically. I think it's disgusting and shameful, but effective nonetheless.
What then happened to Obama's name?
Interesting Trivia. The only President in modern history to have worse poll numbers than Obama his first year in office? Ronald Reagan.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell Reagan turned things around and was successful. As for Obama....well...its been nice known ya.
When times are tough the incumbent party suffers. I also think the Republican strategy of block and filibuster everything possible has been very effective politically. I think it's disgusting and shameful, but effective nonetheless.
Interesting Trivia. The only President in modern history to have worse poll numbers than Obama his first year in office? Ronald Reagan.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's good to see you're so supportive of a guy who increased the national debt 189% during his term. At least you're consistent when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Well Reagan turned things around and was successful. As for Obama....well...its been nice known ya.
It's also good to see you have psychic powers that can predict the state of the country three years from now.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt is not that I enjoyed the increase in the national debt under Reagan. It is just that his policies were pro-growth. Now we have someone in office who sits around punishing CEO's and talking about policies which could render businesses further impetent such as cap and trade and a NHC plan at a time when they are hurting the worst. He then introduces a jobs bill that is mostly a stimulus package although he offered minimal tax breaks for businesses.
It's good to see you're so supportive of a guy who increased the national debt 189% during his term. At least you're consistent when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
It's also good to see you have psychic powers that can predict the state of the country three years from now.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhen Obama was giving out bailouts, the conservatives did nothing but complain. If they cared so much about the CEOs, they should have kept quiet. Oh well.
Now we have someone in office who sits around punishing CEO's
as for Reagan - the main policy that stimulated growth was the decision by Fed chairman Paul Volcker (whose term began under Carter) to raise interest rates sky high and finally kill the inflation monster. It created a nasty recession in 1982 but it worked.
Originally posted by MelanerpesWell the Dems have two options here. They can either say that the President has precious little to do with the economy and that Reagan simply got "lucky" when the economy finally picked up, or they can give him all the praise for the recovery under him. If they choose to say that Reagan did nothing to merit the recovery and that the President has no power over such things, then why in the @@$$ is Obama passing stimulus package after stimulus package? He is doing nothing more than drowning the nation in more debt. In fact, the recent jobs bill is nothing more than another stimulus package. Didn't they learn after the last stimulus package in which they promised millions of jobs to be created and unemployement to be held under 8%? Nope.
When Obama was giving out bailouts, the conservatives did nothing but complain. If they cared so much about the CEOs, they should have kept quiet. Oh well.
as for Reagan - the main policy that stimulated growth was the decision by Fed chairman Paul Volcker (whose term began under Carter) to raise interest rates sky high and finally kill the inflation monster. It created a nasty recession in 1982 but it worked.
Originally posted by whodeyReagan borrowed money to stimulate the economy in the short term. Technological advances explain the rest. Hardly rocket science, is it?
Well the Dems have two options here. They can either say that the President has precious little to do with the economy and that Reagan simply got "lucky" when the economy finally picked up, or they can give him all the praise for the recovery under him. If they choose to say that Reagan did nothing to merit the recovery and that the President has no power o ...[text shortened]... ch they promised millions of jobs to be created and unemployement to be held under 8%? Nope.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you are saying that so long as Barak has a simlar technology advances then Barak is toast? Which particular technology advances are we talking about here? Also, has the economy be stimulated by the stimulus packages? If so, what evidence is there?
Reagan borrowed money to stimulate the economy in the short term. Technological advances explain the rest. Hardly rocket science, is it?
Originally posted by whodeyJob losses were accelerating at an alarming rate, month after month before Obama got in office. Since he's been elected the rate of job losses dramatically slowed to what we have now, a slow trickle. Before Obama took office the economy was shrinking, and now it is growing.
So you are saying that so long as Barak has a simlar technology advances then Barak is toast? Which particular technology advances are we talking about here? Also, has the economy be stimulated by the stimulus packages? If so, what evidence is there?
Hope all you want that the economy will be shambles in 2012, but all evidence points to otherwise. Obama is going to win a second term. Would you like to bet $100 on Paypal on that?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe economic stimulus package of last year was too limited in scope; very little of the infrastructure money has even been spent yet. It was a good idea to reduce withholding rather than give some kind of one shot stimulus payment like Bush did; the latter generally just get saved or used to pay down debt. There's little doubt among any but the Republicanist of partisan hacks though that the package slowed the rate of unemployment increase (at the very least).
Job losses were accelerating at an alarming rate, month after month before Obama got in office. Since he's been elected the rate of job losses dramatically slowed to what we have now, a slow trickle. Before Obama took office the economy was shrinking, and now it is growing.
Hope all you want that the economy will be shambles in 2012, but all ev ...[text shortened]... o otherwise. Obama is going to win a second term. Would you like to bet $100 on Paypal on that?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.
It's good to see you're so supportive of a guy who increased the national debt 189% during his term. At least you're consistent when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
It's also good to see you have psychic powers that can predict the state of the country three years from now.
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase
To summarize, the National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. The largest increase for a complete term occurred during George W. Bush’s second term. The largest increase during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year.
Or, to put it another way, after one year, Obama is already in fourth place for increasing the national debt behind George W. Bush II, George W. Bush I, and George H.W. Bush. He’s already out-paced Bill Clinton’s entire eight years in office, and is only a few hundred billion dollars away from passing Reagan’s two terms.
Anyone want to guess where this is headed ?
http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/01/21/obamas-first-year-increase-in-national-debt-already-record-setting/
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI also think the Republican strategy of block and filibuster everything possible has been very effective politically. I think it's disgusting and shameful
When times are tough the incumbent party suffers. I also think the Republican strategy of block and filibuster everything possible has been very effective politically. I think it's disgusting and shameful, but effective nonetheless.
Interesting Trivia. The only President in modern history to have worse poll numbers than Obama his first year in office? Ronald Reagan.
so you're one of those liberals who think the republicans should just shut up and do as they're told?