Reps latest initiative: Flatter Obama into not running 2012

[Sheepshank]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html

Opinion | One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010

President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election. In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

<<snip>>

Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

Should the president do that, he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public.

It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

Idiots attempting to be insiduously clever.

[TwilightGardener]

1. In fact, had he not run at all, he could have been the greatest President in history!!

:crazy:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. These 2 are utterly useless. Why does the Washington Post waste its space on this bullshit? nt

[Sheepshank]

3. I guess...if you followed their flawed logic through to the end.

dumbasses

oops this was supposed to reply post #1...sorry.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Their article pisses me off in so many ways my head is about to explode!

1.)They accuses Obama of being "the problem" with what's going on in Washington DC with absolutely NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the Republican's culpability for ANYTHING nor does it excoriate them for any of their hyper partisan behavior and/or rhetoric during the past two years. There's no mention of Republican obstructionism in the Senate on everything, including procedural matters, no mention of DeMint's "waterloo" comments, Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment during a SOTU address no less, no mention of Palin and Grassley's "death panel" lies about health care reform. And this is just a small fraction of the partisan warfare THEY'VE been conducting against President Obama since DAY ONE! Need I even mention the "birthers"? :crazy:

2.)They essentially blame OBAMA for the Republicans not liking him and refusing to work with him. It is eerily similar to what other individuals have previously suggested about Hilary Clinton and, more recently, Nancy Pelosi. Basically, it goes like this: The Republicans don't like you and don't what to work with you? Well, it must just be YOU. Well then, YOU need to be the one to resign "for the good of the country" :eyes:

3.)Where are Caddell and Shoen getting the notion anyway that the Republicans will suddenly graciously decide to work with President Obama should he hypothetically pledge not to run in 2012? :shrug: Where's the proof? Where's the f*****g evidence??
:wtf:
I'm sure that they'll be mildly orgasmic (and relieved) that none of their candidates will have to go up against him in 2012 but none of them (mark my words) are going to change their deeply ingrained modus operandi if President Obama pledges not to run again. Not.going.to.happen. The fact that Caddell and Schoen even think that this is a good, if even plausible, idea makes me think that nobody on the Republican side has any real confidence in beating President Obama in 2012, which only convinces me further that he SHOULD definitely run and be our candidate in 2012.

4.)Why the f**k should President Obama have to resign despite the fact that he hasn't done anything *wrong*? What's he messed up? What's he "failed" at? Certainly, nobody on the other side of the aisle (that I can recall) were calling for Bush's head after 9/11, Iraq, Abu Gharib, etc. Those were incidents of spectacular incompetence and malfeasance at the highest levels of his (mis-)administration but there were no calls from people on the right for him to pledge not to run for re-election in 2004 "for the good of the country". People like Caddell and Shoen probably even stumped for his re-election. At least one of them did reportedly vote for him. What has Obama done that's harmed our country or taken it away from its values, exactly? His party had a rough midterm election that was preceded by a Congress full of important policy and legislative accomplishments, mostly achieved by his own party while Republicans did nothing but obstruct. For this, he is being called on to pledge not to run again?
:wtf:

:mad: