Two reasons why Obama will lose the White House in 2012

[Better Believe It]

Wall Street Wins Again
By Nomi Prins
November 8, 2010

The Republicans may have stormed the House, but it was Wall Street and the Fed that won the election. Regardless of party power plays and posturing, there are two constants that remain unaltered after the election. First, Wall Street will continue on with business as usual while shifting its campaign and lobbying dollars to the new winning team. And second, the Fed will keep on pretending to prop up the economy by buying more U.S. debt, thereby keeping interest rates low, the dollar weak and money cheap for the banking system to inhale. This fictional boosting of the financial economy, absent the real boosting of the general economy, will march on sans debate, inspection or restriction.

In other words, nothing will change. And that, more than the disillusionment of his supporters who had thought he would actually stand by his campaign rhetoric, is why Obama will lose the White House in 2012.

Last Wednesday morning, Obama had the chance to at least attempt to re-engage the voters who believed in his mantra of change. In his contrition speech, he took responsibility (read: apologized) for having made it seem he extended government too much (thereby taking on the language of the Republican opponents), explaining that we were in an emergency situation (not that the banks screwed up and stole the life rafts). He assured businesses he was still on their side (in case the fact that he’s keeping Wall Street lackey Geithner on and his ringing praise for Larry Summers on “The Daily Show” weren’t sufficient signs).

Yet sadly, Obama showed pre-emptive signs of capitulation with two words: free market. Toward the end of the Q&A session after his speech, Obama said that the free market has to be “nurtured and cultivated” and that he has to take responsibility to make clear to the business community and the country that the most important thing we can do is boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that companies are hiring. His facial expression was as hollow as his words. He added that “we” have been talking to CEOs constantly (and don’t we all feel good about that?)—and that on his trip to Asia this week his whole focus will be on opening up markets, so “we can prosper, sell more goods and create more jobs in the United States” (that playbook comes from Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson, but that policy has been shown only to enable CEOs to outsource more, not less). He also pointed out that a whole bunch of corporate executives will join “us.”

And that is the second reason he will not be re-elected: Businesses won’t need to fund his next campaign when they can fund the Republicans now that they are back in vogue. Businesses will meanwhile just extract what they can as long as they can, like better deals abroad in the name of free markets—the kind that the Fed is subsidizing back here at home. Obama and his supporters will see this in 2012 if they don’t now. The president could go all out and ignore the CEOs and focus on the general populace, but signs point to the contrary. If he has learned something from the November elections about loyalty to his voters, he isn’t showing it. So maybe progressives should stop defending him and start yelling at him … or seriously look for another 2012 candidate to run against Sarah Palin.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/wall_street_wins_again_20101108

[leftstreet]

1. ...if he runs n/t

[Better Believe It]

9. I believe he indicated last year that he might not run for re-election under certain conditions.

I'll have to look it up unless someone else can find the quote.

[GSLevel9]

53. that's right... if things look bleak he may just forgoe a second shot.

[rury]

120. Here is what resident Obama said about a second term

He NEVER said he might not run again...he simply said he would rather do good things, right things, in his first term - even if it makes him unpopular and costs him a second term - than do what is easy, popular and politically expedient just to get re-elected.
Watch the video or read the transcript below:
I hope he runs because he's a good president.
Much more could have been accomplished if Democrats stuck together like the evil Repukkkes do.
Conservadems and Blue Dogs siding with Repukkkes forced him to compromise to get legislation through Congress, because moderate and conservative DINOS outnumber liberals in both houses.
Sad but true, so Obama did what he had to do.


http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337

[Better Believe It]

123. Here's what Obama said:

""I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he told ABC's "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview today."

I think that his statement opens the door to not running for a second term if he thinks he can't win or will only be a "mediocre" president if it looks like the Republicans will win control of both houses in Congress in the 2012 elections.

But, the point will be moot if his poll approval numbers drop below 40 by the end of next year and stay there going into 2012.

He just won't run.

Most progressives believe Obama has been at best a mediocre first term president so I don't think you'll see much "grass roots" support for a second term.

Of course, this is all speculation but I just don't accept your excuses for President Obama's failure to pass a progressive agenda.

He hasn't acted like a leader and might go down in American history known as "The Great Compromiser".

[live love laugh]

116. He'll run AND be re-elected. nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBR]

4. +1 nt

[rfranklin]

5. Unfortunately, there is a lot of serious content in the OP...

just because it doesn't suit your mindset doesn't mean it won't be a factor in 2012.

[bigtree]

8. serious content?

"maybe progressives should stop defending him and start yelling at him … or seriously look for another 2012 candidate to run against Sarah Palin." :rofl:

[grantcart]

21. lol boy are these guys going to be disappointed at Gallups' new numbers

on Obama's approval ratings.

But we wouldn't want a small ray of reality to take away the fun.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. x 2 I loathe defeatism eom

[countrydad58]

80. Then you must loathe

the Obama administration of deafeatism then ! EOM!

[BlueCaliDem]

105. We'll talk

in two years.

I can't stand people who actually believe in Obama the Myth. He really can't walk on water, you know.

I take a more pragmatic approach when making my assessment of the man. I know what he had to deal with. I'll never forget the very first blow "his" Party dealt him when he signed the order to shut down Gitmo, but 95% of the Senate voted down giving him the funds to bring the prisoners into the United States in order to have them stand trial.

He got a wake up call, and he realized Democrats in Congress aren't always Democrats. At least, their votes don't always reflect that, unlike the Repubes who have no problem forming a united front - against a Democratic President, that is. Early on he knew he not only had to fight the Repubes, but he had to fight members of his own Party.

[countrydad58]

110. Yes.

Some of those same members he ardently endorsed & campaigned for Like Lincoln, where he could of remained neutral during the primaries. Also his hiring of Rahm , foretold where his Presidency was heading,there the buck stops with him & him solely!

[BlueCaliDem]

118. Yes

Hate on him. Put him down. Teach that uppity guy a lesson and not vote in the coming elections. Let those corporatist Dems suffer.

Let the Republican'ts win so they can finish destroying this country. Yeah. That'll teach him! Again.

Me? I'm a realist. I'd rather have one bird in the hand than two in the bush.

[sabrina 1]

27. Way to make sure that 'shit' becomes a reality.

Every reputable person in this country has expressed puzzlement at the way this administration has consistently ignored the American people, on DADT, on Health Care, on the Bailouts, on the SS Commission.

The results of that obtuseness have already been disastrous for those of us who DID NOT WANT Republicans back in power. Thank you to all those who preferred to remain blind to what the obvious results would be!

The course can be changed. Starting with firing the Goldman Sachs cabinet and getting some real economists to start advising this president before it's too late.

People are increasingly angry at those who supported every wrong decision and attempted to silence those with legitimate concerns about the way this WH was going. Even now that the results are obvious, the denials remain.

:kick: and rec'd

[MineralMan]

32. "Every reputable person?" Really?

You must have a very, very narrow definition of "reputable," I'm thinking.

I guess all those who have a high opinion of President Obama, as reflected in recent polls, are "unreputable." Is that your position?

[sabrina 1]

42. I would say I have a high opinion of this president in a poll.

And so would every democrat I know. You should not place too much importance on polls like that. No democrat is going to slam the president in such a poll. But if they asked me about issues, that would be a different story.

What reputable people agree with this president on compromising with Republicans? Name one please.

[countrydad58]

111. around 45% in less than 2 yrs.

After the Bush debacle, I would not consider that as a ringing endorsement.

[BlueCaliDem]

119. Still higher than Carter, Reagan, Dubya, and Clinton

in their first term at around the same time.

Only one who scored higher was GHW.

Didn't you see Rachel Maddow's show where she showed those facts?

[bigtree]

40. what I see

Is a larger number of Democrats who approve of the President's conduct in office so far. That doesn't mean that they are oblivious or at opposite poles on the issues you describe, it just means that they haven't concluded that the President has abandoned these, or, (as his more strident critics have) that he's ultimately responsible for their neglect or demise.

Btw, the 'anger' that was registered at the polls was republican anger at our party's progress, both in the election and in the last Congress. You may well have differences with the President over the content of the Health legislation that was passed into law, but the majority of 'anger' registered at the polls over the health bill was republican anger at our progress.

You may well find voters who sat out the election who share the views you express here, but I'd suggest they have no place complaining about the results of the election if they refused to participate. It's a curious argument to point to the republican 'enthusiasm' in voting against our President and party in the last election as proof of Democratic failure or incorrectness.

[sabrina 1]

49. It was the loss of Independents that caused most of the losses.

I do not see a larger number of Democrats who are happy with this WH's decisions to cave in to Republicans.

Nearly every democrat I know, who DID vote for Democrats did so only to stop Republicans and in some cases because they hoped if they won again they would change course. But not one of them is happy at all with what Democrats did with that majority.

The younger voters I know, just lost interest as they became disillusioned with all the excuses. Some voted, others just didn't have the enthusiasm they had in 2008. And that is really a shame, because they are the ones who either become Democrats or Republicans in the future.

But independents either stayed home, or voted third party or went back to the Republicans.

[bigtree]

57. the wishy-washies?

. . . the voters who can't decide if they're republicans or Democrats?

So you're really saying that these voters preferred republicans in this past election, right? You should realize that any vote for a republican was a vote against our Democratic agenda, not some message that they wished our party and President were more progressive. You don't go left if you want to get a majority of independents to vote for you.

Besides, these were individual Democratic legislators and candidates up for reelection, not President Obama. You can stretch the results to determine some approval or disapproval of the presidency, but you can also take that too far and ignore the more determinate politics surrounding the particular races.

All of the noise around here about Harry Reid, yet, his exit results point to an energized and motivated Democratic constituency. It's easy to make up your own narrative . . .

[suzie]

122. You talk about Independents, and yet you can't seem to explain why independents

stayed home or went back to the Republicans.

You seem only able to rail against Obama and complain that Democrats are unhappy with this administration.

You don't seem to be able to grasp what another poster above has mentioned, that Independents might have different opinions than those you hold.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

63. I agree with Sabrina.

She is correct with her assessment. Obama needs to stop reaching across the aisle with an open hand and start swinging his closed fists at them. He is showing no sign of doing so.

We need living wage jobs. For two reasons. 1- To get the economy moving again and 2- To stop the Republicans from taking over the government again.

You'd think the bu$h years should have been painful enough for most people to remember. Guess not.

[TheWraith]

72. Jingoism and "just ram it through!" is rather a different matter from having to actually govern. nt

[sabrina 1]

66. 'Enjoy your time here'?

Explain that threat please. I have been here since 2004, different name for reasons I don't feel obliged to explain to you.

Is having an opinion different to yours against DU rules now? Which rule was broken in my comment?

[TheWraith]

71. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote.

I mentioned that you're creating your own reality, and suggested that you should enjoy your time THERE. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

76. And what is that reality that I created? Did Republicans NOT

obtain a majority in this election? And what is your explanation for that? I could just say that anyone who offers an opinion that is different to mine is 'making up their own reality' but first I would want to point out why I believed that.

[laughingliberal]

93. +1000 nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Will you still be saying that after he allows the 'restructuring' of SS? nt

[bigtree]

46. I've found that particular speculation to be groundless

. . . and part and parcel of an ongoing campaign to undo or neuter this presidency.

[sabrina 1]

74. How is trying to help him understand that Republicans cannot be

bargained with, 'attempting to neuter' him? Frankly if I did not like this president I would advise him to keep extending his hand to the most reactionary, anti-democratic Republican party in living memory.

I can understand him hoping that they will rise to the responsibility they have to the American people. I spent a few years making that argument, that we could persuade them to change their minds on certain issues if we just talked to them. But, in the end, I realized it was like attempting to talk to members of a cult.

Now, people are trying to help him understand that. Or do you think these rightwing extremists that are the current make-up of the Republican party, CAN be reasoned with?

[bigtree]

90. the outreach is a political act

. . . in response to the republicans' obstinacy. It's for the benefit of the voters to make our party appear reasonable and responsible in comparison to republicans. That point has been lost in all of the knee-jerk criticism. The President and his political team are not as naive as you imagine them to be.

[sabrina 1]

98. And many people believe it is a bad strategy.

People in general are not really interested in who makes who look bad and after two years of trying to use this strategy, it has gone over the heads of the average American, especially since we don't know that is what they are doing. It makes the president look like a nice guy, but weak at best.

What impacts the public is bold action. They are impressed with someone who fights for their issues. I know the WH thought that by giving in to Republicans on, as the president himself said 'over 200 of their proposals', the public would see how obstructionist they are. The public doesn't see this as a strategy, they see it as giving in.

Don't you think it's time to drop this strategy now since it has not worked? And listen to his own party (why, eg does he seek advice from people like Lindsey Graham?) and those who voted for him and WANT him to succeed rather than those who have stated openly that they want to see him be a one term president?

He's done his best to try to work with Republicans, it didn't and won't work. After this length of time, it seems to me he should have lost patience with them and use the power he has for the next two years to go ahead with or without them.

FDR, eg, issued a flood of Executive Orders to get things done, so did Bush Jr. I think this WH worries far too much about what the right thinks of them instead of what the American people and their own party thinks of them.

Nearly every single person who supported this presidency is saying the same thing. When that many people are in agreement over something, I think it's time to listen.

[laughingliberal]

94. Bookmarking. nt

[countrydad58]

112. You didn't answer the question.

Would you still have undying love & devotion, if he fucks with SS. a yes or no will do.

[JackRiddler]

65. A brilliant retort, worthy of the Enlightenment essayists!

[bigtree]

91. I can get the same 'enlightenment' found in this article whenever I please

. . . by tuning into FOX News.

[JackRiddler]

106. Yes, of course, Nomi Prins is on FOXNEWS all the time along with Palin.

Everyone who says anything whatever critical of Obama is one hundred percent FOXNEWS!!!

[bigtree]

121. sensitive

save it. This rag took the first shot at our party and President here. Don't act all hurt and surprised when defenders equate the attacks with FOX's republican central committee. You want to open up on the President and party and have roses thrown at your feet? This just might be the place for that . . . that won't be anything I'm interested in, btw.

[Number23]

107. Wow!! Coming from you that really stings!

I've never seen you use language like that!! :wow: :wow: :rofl:

And what makes it even funnier is that it is totally appropriate for this OP. :thumbsup:

[rfranklin]

3. I've already been yelling...

and been getting yelled at.

[BzaDem]

7. Edited

at the request of BBI

[Better Believe It]

13. Yet another personal attack from you.

Why do you insist on attacking DU'ers instead of engaging in civil debate and discussion?

Keep that nasty uncivil behavior up and I'll have to put you on ignore.

[BzaDem]

15. How is that a personal attack? n/t

I mean, I'll edit the post since you appear to think it is, though I would like to hear why.

[Better Believe It]

19. I celebrated Obama's win against McCain. To suggest I would celebrate a

win by Sarah Palin against Barack Obama in 2012 is more than just a personal attack. Your question strongly implies I'm some sort of Obama hating right-winger.

I expect an apology from you.

You owe it to me.

[BzaDem]

29. I did not imply that you were a right-winger

After all, on many of the sites you quote, there are scores of people who would love nothing more than Obama to lose, despite not being right-wingers. I was only drawing an inference from where you get your articles.

Since you have denied that the inference is true, I apologize.

[rfranklin]

44. Being fearful of another shameful defeat is not wishing for defeat...

There are those of us who believe that a strong, progressive stance on Obama's part would be well received by the electorate, especially if the Dems could trumpet it the way that the Republicans trumpet their attacks.

[laughingliberal]

97. +1000 nt

[bobbolink]

70. Not only owes you an apology.. what was said to you is against the rules.

[CBR]

22. Better apologize or you'll be on Planet Ignore! nt

[dionysus]

101. !

:spray:

[polichick]

10. Well, ya can't help someone who is hell bent on self-destruction...

So many people, first-rate thinkers, have offered their thoughts about what has to change in order to save this presidency, but President Obama listens to none of them.

[thereismore]

11. Fuck that, I am not buying it. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to run a liberal instead of a "politics-as-usual" centrist.

[glinda]

Maybe an establishment of more LW media outlets would help. Nothing matters more than that.

[RC]

69. I can get behind that!

We seem to have a choice between a center-right and right-right candidate. No real choice. Center-right only slows the slide over the edge.

[MineralMan]

14. Unrecommended because it's idle speculation and posted here

without comment for what reason, I do not understand.

[CakeGrrl]

18. Probably because it supports the OP's personal view. n/t

[MineralMan]

26. I have no idea. It has always seemed to me that quoted

material needs some comment from the poster. Since there is none, I don't know whether the OP believes this editorial represents his/her own view or not. That's the problem, as I see it. Even a single sentence would be helpful.

But, apparently, that is not required at DU, so we may never know. My unrecommendation was based on the speciousness and heavily anti-Obama slant of the editorial that was quoted. Since the OP wrote nothing, I have no comment on what the OP thinks.

[hfojvt]

59. the OP thought the article was worth posting without comment

to me, that constitutes an endorsement.

[MineralMan]

64. That may well be. If that's the case, then

so be it. The editorial is still unvarnished defeatist bullshit.

[Better Believe It]

113. I thought the section of the article I posted was a correct factual assessment and told the truth.

What part do you disagree with and why?

[Itchinjim]

16. Welcome back to my ignore list.

[jaxx]

17. Unrec for presenting loss as a foregone conclusion.

Really, the message just doesn't resonate.

[leftstreet]

25. It's an opinion piece, not WH press release

jeez.....

[MineralMan]

28. It is an opinion piece. My opinion of it is that it is unvarnished

bullshit. Unvarnished bullshit deteriorates quickly.

[leftstreet]

30. This is GD. Opinion pieces are posted here all the time n/t

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, they are. I'm not arguing that they are not.

I was expressing my opinion that comments from OPs about the editorials they post are very helpful. You do not share that opinion, apparently, so we differ in our opinions on the subject. :shrug:

[leftstreet]

36. Before God kills a kitten, could you give us your opinion of the article?

NOT the motives of members who post on DU. We got that.



We'd all be very interested in your opinion of the original opinion piece

[MineralMan]

48. Why would anyone be interested in my opinion of the article?

In any case, I have already expressed that opinion, and in no uncertain terms. It's pure defeatism, and does not appear to be based on adequate information to make the prediction it makes. The author has a clear bias against President Obama, as you'll see if you read her other writings. She also has some pretty fixed ideas regarding political events with which I also disagree.

I have said nothing about the motives of the OP. I have said that I consider the editorial to be unvarnished bullshit. In another post, I expressed the opinion that it was defeatism.

You may have missed those statements of my opinion.

[sabrina 1]

39. That's what was said about the warnings that if Democrats didn't

stand up fight they would lose the House.

Just what exactly is bullshit about looking at reality, seeing no signs of a change in strategy and making predictions based on what has already happened?

It was not DU that lost this election. It was the loss of Independents mostly, something many here warned about and were told to STFU.

According to the stats on this election, the % of Independents who voted Democratic in 2008, left the party in this election. Can you explain why that happened?

[MineralMan]

45. You asked if can explain. I cannot.

I can observe. What I observed about this editorial was defeatism. I don't like defeatism.

As for the cause of the results of this election, they are still up in the air. There are a number of opinions about it. I do not have adequate information to know for sure. My own opinion, and it's a very rough one, is that the failure of the economic recovery to reach the middle class voter was largely responsible. But, that's not a solid opinion, and may change as more information is available.

Have a pleasant evening.

[bobburgster]

20. Utter B.S,

But it surely is the republicans pipe dream.

You might not want to spread their unsubstantiated rumors.

[Better Believe It]

24. What "unsubstantiated Republican rumors" appeared in the article?

I didn't see any.

Point them out.

I'm listening.

[RZM]

23. Here's one problem with 'bold' predictions like this

Rarely do you see those who make them express contrition and say 'I was dead wrong' when events follow a different course. Usually they've already moved on to the next bullshit prediction by that point. The author here will probably be proved wrong in most of what they've said in this piece, but don't expect to hear them say that.

Obama's going to have a fight on his hands in 2012, no question about it. Depending on whom he runs against, he probably won't win as many states as he did in 2008 he will most likely get a lower percentage of the raw vote, but he does have some room to fall and still win. It's also conceivable that he could lose, but again, much depends on his opponent. I'm not convinced Sarah Palin will even run at all. If she does, I don't think it's out of the question that she could get the nomination, as the Tea Party has proven it can often get its way in primaries. But, the other Republican hopefuls would probably all gang up on her and it would get really nasty, so she very well could end up flaming out. Even if she did win, she'd probably be pretty damaged for the general.

This 'other candidate' business on the Democratic side is laughable. The only path to that outcome is Obama declining to run. No other credible Democrat would dare mount a challenge and even if somebody did, they'd be utterly trounced.

[sabrina 1]

34. IF he starts fighting, he will win. The concern is that we already

see signs of more compromise. That tactic failed. Being in the minority can actually be a very good thing, as Republicans so expertly demonstrated.

But fear rules in the Democratic Party. Fear of how things will look if they don't try more 'bi-partisanship'.

Repeating over and over again what has already failed, will simply have the same result. Which is why the only way to make these predictions wrong, is to CHANGE TACTICS. Start FIGHTING Republicans for a change. Do it their way, it works. When they were in the minority, we were constantly told we couldn't do anything because of them.

Well, now the situation is reversed. Let's make it impossible for them to do anything because of US. What's so hard about that?

[SidDithers]

31. Unrec...nt

Sid

[polichick]

43. Is that your whole gig, just unrec'g? nt

[snooper2]

37. you are so predictable...

like clockwork :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

47. +1000

Ya think? :think:

[Scurrilous]

54. Yep.

Day in. Day out.

@#$% pathetic...

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. The unemloyment rate will be one of, if the not the biggest, factors

[guardian]

41. It's simpler than that

If the economy/employment situation has improved significantly he will be reelected. If the economy is still in the shitter and unemployment above 9% he will not be reelected.

[HughBeaumont]

52. Right, and America will then put someone in that will make things infinitely worse.

All this after 30 years of Republicans.

Would they really do that? Is America that abysmally stupid?

[RC]

73. Apparently so.

[datasuspect]

103. yes and yes.

they already have several times.

[Better Believe It]

114. Voters might do that again, picking a new dance partner who promises changes they want.

And after they get a royal screwing by Republicans after 2012 what do you think the voters will do in 2016?

They will change dance partners and vote once again for a change, the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

And if they don't get the changes they wanted, who do you think they will vote for in 2020?

A new dance partner who promises more changes, the Republican candidate for President.

And once again Wall Street and corporate America remain in firm control and nothing changes.

Doesn't this political dance get just a little bit tiring?

[PBS Poll-435]

51. You can't fix stupid (or keep them from OPining) nt

[Drale]

55. One reason he will win in 2012

and the article gives it, Sarah "the Quitter" Palin.

[TwilightGardener]

56. You know what makes me feel better after a demoralizing couple of weeks?

DEMORALIZING PREDICTIONS!! :woohoo:

[treestar]

58. We won't be giving up, however

Interesting you are already trying here.

[lovemydog]

60. Just my opinion

I believe if the democrats put up a different candidate in 2012 they would get slaughtered.

I think Obama has a very good chance of getting reelected.

That's just my opinion.

[Yo_Mama]

61. It's way too soon to conclude this.

Here's one hard fact - despite a really bad economy, despite widespread popular frustration and worry about how things are going - Obama's popularity ratings are far above those of Congress, or Democratic congressmen, or Republicans.

So I'd say at this point he has a good chance of reelection.

[krabigirl]

62. I agree, but would add his support for the endless wars as another reason.

[Codeine]

67. Defeatist bile. Unrec. nt

[KamaAina]

68. The third reason he could lose in 2012

is that Chicken Littles keep posting stuff like this in order to demoralize the rest of us. :eyes:

[tsparker78]

75. I've said it before,

and I'll say it again. We electeced the wrong democrat to office.

[HughBeaumont]

88. Yes, that ever economic progressive HILLARY would have gotten it done!

:eyes:

[countrydad58]

77. Till he does a 360 in his policies

I will hold his feet to the fire,just as he asked us in the campaign.

[SidDithers]

78. "Till he does a 360 in his policies"...

:rofl:

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

82. ...and now for your moment of Zen.

:rofl:

[countrydad58]

83. Go do your unrec Sid .LMAO!

[HughBeaumont]

87. Uhhhhh . . .

. . . nah, I'll let you figure it out . . .

[racaulk]

102. Pssst...it's 180.

From basic geometry, a 180-degree turn means you're now heading in the opposite direction. A 360-degree turn means you've come full circle and are heading in the same direction.

Based on the context of your comment, 180 makes more sense than 360. This is why you received the dismissive responses in this subthread.

:hi:

[Bucky]

79. Problem is, Republicans need to produce a candidate that can hold the middle & the TeaPers.

I think the Tea movement sees thru Romney & the RomneyLite Pawlenty. Just about the only conservative Republican that could give Obama a run for his money is Huckabee--but he simply isn't crazy enough for the Tea Party. He's the only one who I'd fear, as it stands now. The rest are pure amateur hour. They might've pulled a coup if they'd waited another two years. But I suspect they'll peak right around this time next year, just enough time to demonstrate they have nothing to offer but slogans. After that, it's just a race to the Outer Limits over who can say the most extreme stuff.

None of the Republicans' credible nominees is in a position to take the nomination (again, other than Huckabee). No one else among them scares me (not politically, anyway).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

104. I'm willing to bet you right now that it won't matter. In 2012 right wingers

will vote for whomever Penis Navey...... I mean Dick Armey tells them to. There is no such thing as a Tea Party. I guarandamntee you that they'll in line like the lemmings that they are come '12.

[girl gone mad]

81. I hope he doesnt' run..

for the good of the country.

Bloomberg may well run, which would peel off most of Obama's remaining "centrist" support. We would need to run a real populist progressive to have a shot at keeping the WH.

[grahamhgreen]

84. He's done. Unless he embraces the progressive caucus.

[jaxx]

85. Well I guess that's that.

[donheld]

86. Is it just me or is Obama doing everything in his power to defeat himself?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. Coming from you, this thread doesn't surprise me one bit.

It gives me much pleasure to UNRECOMMEND.

[Better Believe It]

117. Unrecommend? Whatever. That's the smart thing to do .....

if you are at a loss for words and find it difficult to express an opinion.

[Catherina]

92. Rec'd despite the frenzied shrieks of the Praetorian Guard. n/t

[SeattleGirl]

95. Have you ever posted anything even remotely positive about Obama?

Oh wait.

Never mind.

Rhetorical question.

Unrec!

[Cleita]

96. I'm somewhat disappointed in his move to the right

but there is no way I would vote for a Republican after what BushCo did to us for eight years and I can't imagine why any thinking American would. However if any progressive like Alan Grayson or Howard Dean would run in the primaries against him, I would vote for them in the primaries.

[LawnLover]

99. Nomi has a crystal ball!

Nomi, will I still be alive in two years? How much money will I be making? Will the Giants win the world series again? Who's going to get kicked off Survivor??

[AtomicKitten]

109. Ask Jambi.

[dionysus]

100. you don't ever stop, do you?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Number23]

108. Unrec'd BECAUSE of the frenzied shrieks of the Eeyores.

[earth mom]

115. Progressives have been yelling! No one is listening while Rahm tells us all to shut the fuck up!

:argh: