PDA

View Full Version : Obama "Obama could be president now, if he wanted to be."


qabbaan
06-08-2012, 09:33 AM
Good summary of where things stand, I think.


What's Changed After Wisconsin
Peggy Noonan


What happened in Wisconsin signals a shift in political mood and
assumption. Public employee unions were beaten back and defeated in a
state with a long progressive tradition. The unions and their allies
put everything they had into "one of their most aggressive grass-roots
campaigns ever," as the Washington Post's Paul Whoriskey and Dan Balz
reported in a day-after piece. Fifty thousand volunteers made phone
calls and knocked on 1.4 million doors to get out the vote against
Gov. Scott Walker. Mr. Walker's supporters, less deeply organized on
the ground, had a considerable advantage in money.

But organization and money aren't the headline. The shift in mood and
assumption is. The vote was a blow to the power and prestige not only
of the unions but of the blue-state budgetary model, which for two
generations has been: Public-employee unions with their manpower,
money and clout, get what they want. If you move against them, you
will be crushed.

Mr. Walker was not crushed. He was buoyed, winning by a solid seven
points in a high-turnout race.

Governors and local leaders will now have help in controlling budgets.
Down the road there will be fewer contracts in which you work for,
say, 23 years for a city, then retire with full salary and free health
care for the rest of your life - paid for by taxpayers who cannot
afford such plans for themselves, and who sometimes have no pension at
all. The big meaning of Wisconsin is that a public injustice is in the
process of being righted because a public mood is changing.

Political professionals now lay down lines even before a story
happens. They used to wait to do the honest, desperate, last-minute
spin of yesteryear. Now it's strategized in advance, which makes
things tidier but less raggedly fun. The line laid down by the
Democrats weeks before the vote was that it's all about money: The
Walker forces outspent the unions so they won, end of story.

Money is important, as all but children know. But the line wasn't
very flattering to Wisconsin's voters, implying that they were
automatons drooling in front of the TV waiting to be told who to
back. It was also demonstrably incorrect. Most voters, according
to surveys, had made up their minds well before the heavy spending of
the closing weeks.

Mr. Walker didn't win because of his charm - he's not charming. It
wasn't because he is compelling on the campaign trail - he's not,
especially. Even his victory speech on that epic night was, except for
its opening sentence - "First of all, I want to thank God for his
abundant grace," which, amazingly enough, seemed to be wholly sincere
- meandering, unable to name and put forward what had really happened.

But on the big question - getting control of the budget by taking
actions resisted by public unions - he was essentially right, and he
won.

By the way, the single most interesting number in the whole race
was 28,785. That is how many dues-paying members of the American
Federation of State, County and Municiple Employees were left in
Wisconsin after Mr. Walker allowed them to choose whether union dues
would be taken from their paychecks each week. Before that, Afscme had
62,218 dues-paying members in Wisconsin. There is a degree to which
public union involvement is, simply, coerced.

People wonder about the implications for the presidential election.
They'll wonder for five months, and then they'll know.

President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he
looks each day - careening around, always in flight, a superfluous
figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to
Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's
place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the
stump - where else? - about an essay by a fellow who said spending
growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was
startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had
left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's
presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a
misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would
he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked?
Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it,
the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic
program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

For more than a month, his people have been laying down the line that
America was just about to enter full economic recovery when the
European meltdown stopped it. (I guess the slowdown in China didn't
poll well.) You'll be hearing more of this - we almost had it, and
then Spain, or Italy, messed everything up. What's bothersome is not
that it's just a line, but that the White House sees its central
economic contribution now as the making up of lines.

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But
there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now,
that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly,
on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are
becoming a national scandal - the "avalanche of leaks," according to
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out
of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies
infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA
and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer
virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the
California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our
nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual - this is something different. A special counsel
may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour's
house. He's busy. He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.

It just all increasingly looks like a house of cards. Bill Clinton -
that ol' hound dog, that gifted pol who truly loves politics, who
always loved figuring out exactly where the people were and then going
to exactly that spot and claiming it - Bill Clinton is showing all the
signs of someone who is, let us say, essentially unimpressed by the
incumbent. He defended Mitt Romney as a businessman - "a sterling
record" - said he doesn't like personal attacks in politics, then
fulsomely supported the president, and then said that the Bush tax
cuts should be extended.

His friends say he can't help himself, that he's getting old and a
little more compulsively loquacious. Maybe. But maybe Bubba's looking
at the president and seeing what far more than half of Washington
sees: a man who is limited, who thinks himself clever, and who doesn't
know that clever right now won't cut it.

Because Bill Clinton loves politics, he hates losers. Maybe he just
can't resist sticking it to them a little, when he gets a chance.

mlyonsd
06-08-2012, 09:54 AM
Ouch.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 10:10 AM
Taking shots at presidents for fundraising. For traveling. For campaigning.
JFC, every one of them does it, they have to do it if they want to be competitive, and complaining about it every election is mindless whining.

Fairplay
06-08-2012, 10:27 AM
There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.


<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2J9-agtX258?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

qabbaan
06-08-2012, 11:45 AM
Taking shots at presidents for fundraising. For traveling. For campaigning.
JFC, every one of them does it, they have to do it if they want to be competitive, and complaining about it every election is mindless whining.

Way to miss the point. The point is that there is no leadership at all. It's just this administration bouncing from one embarrassment to another, taking no action whatsoever beyond careful campaign calculations.

This is most certainly a low water mark for leadership from the white house. No matter what you felt about Bush or Clinton, they knew what they were endeavoring to do and lead the way doing it.

All we have today is someone who is hoping to survive on voters' charity.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 11:55 AM
Way to miss the point. The point is that there is no leadership at all. It's just this administration bouncing from one embarrassment to another, taking no action whatsoever beyond careful campaign calculations.

This is most certainly a low water mark for leadership from the white house. No matter what you felt about Bush or Clinton, they knew what they were endeavoring to do and lead the way doing it.

All we have today is someone who is hoping to survive on voters' charity.

I don't think I missed the point. She said it several times--he's not leading, he's fundraising with celebrities and giving campaign speeches (funny though that she CRITICIZES him for NOT going to Wisconsin to get involved in that campaign). Its a cheap and easy shot that could be (and is) aimed at every president in an election year.

JonesCrusher
06-08-2012, 12:07 PM
I don't think I missed the point. She said it several times--he's not leading, he's fundraising with celebrities and giving campaign speeches (funny though that she CRITICIZES him for NOT going to Wisconsin to get involved in that campaign). Its a cheap and easy shot that could be (and is) aimed at every president in an election year.

You should read it and then comment on what it says.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Taking shots at presidents for fundraising. For traveling. For campaigning.
JFC, every one of them does it, they have to do it if they want to be competitive, and complaining about it every election is mindless whining.

Every election? This is a lightning rod issue. He is the leader of this country and he chose to punt. And now his once promising campaign is looking really damaged, as unionization among the public sector crumbles.

He chose to punt on the budget issue for years, even with a democratic majority. He chose to punt on unions, even though his endorsement of Barrett could have swung the election toward the liberals. And now he's blaming the Republicans because they don't want to do anything.

Not that I'm complaining, because he'd be leading both initiatives in the wrong direction. But you can't choose to not dig into mission critical issues because you're afraid it will affect your electability.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 12:31 PM
I don't think I missed the point. She said it several times--he's not leading, he's fundraising with celebrities and giving campaign speeches (funny though that she CRITICIZES him for NOT going to Wisconsin to get involved in that campaign). Its a cheap and easy shot that could be (and is) aimed at every president in an election year.

This isn't about campaigning with celebrities. This is about choosing to deliberately stay out of one of the nation's top issues because he was afraid that taking a side would affect his electability.

It's not like he's punting on a tax cut or increase, or on a stimulus bill. Those are forgettable things politicians do to get a quick swing in favorability. We're talking about a vote that could become arguably the biggest blow to the public sector in recent memory.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 12:31 PM
Every election? This is a lightning rod issue. He is the leader of this country and he chose to punt. And now his once promising campaign is looking really damaged, as unionization among the public sector crumbles.

He chose to punt on the budget issue for years, even with a democratic majority. He chose to punt on unions, even though his endorsement of Barrett could have swung the election toward the liberals. And now he's blaming the Republicans because they don't want to do anything.

Not that I'm complaining, because he'd be leading both initiatives in the wrong direction. But you can't choose to not dig into mission critical issues because you're afraid it will affect your electability.

Wow, now he's punting. I thought he was actively ruining the country, but apparently he not doing anything?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 12:33 PM
Wow, now he's punting. I thought he was actively ruining the country, but apparently he not doing anything?

Even if I disagree with his ideas, I'd expect that when there is a mission critical initiative, my leader would take a firm stance on it.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 12:34 PM
This isn't about campaigning with celebrities. This is about choosing to deliberately stay out of one of the nation's top issues because he was afraid that taking a side would affect his electability.

It's not like he's punting on a tax cut or increase, or on a stimulus bill. Those are forgettable things politicians do to get a quick swing in favorability. We're talking about a vote that could become arguably the biggest blow to the public sector in recent memory.

He's campaigning too much...he's not campaigning enough. :banghead:

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 12:48 PM
He's campaigning too much...he's not campaigning enough. :banghead:

He ducked it, plain and simple. He did the same here in North Carolina over gay rights. Spin it all you want, both these times he betrayed his supporters because he thought it would not poll well~

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 12:59 PM
He ducked it, plain and simple. He did the same here in North Carolina over gay rights. Spin it all you want, both these times he betrayed his supporters because he thought it would not poll well~

So he should have gotten involved in the NC vote over gay marriage? Give me a break.

Reaper16
06-08-2012, 01:02 PM
This is probably the most well-written op-ed from the Right that's been posted on CP in quite some time.

qabbaan
06-08-2012, 01:02 PM
So he should have gotten involved in the NC vote over gay marriage? Give me a break.

I think we all know he's always been for gay marriage.

The fact that he politically calculated last time around and said he wasn't in favor of it should tell us more about his character than his not wanting to be covered in the stench of defeat from NC or WI just before an election.

Reaper16
06-08-2012, 01:03 PM
So he should have gotten involved in the NC vote over gay marriage? Give me a break.

IF he was gonna' come out a few days later and say that he supports marriage equality then he might as well have come out with his support in time for it to affect that vote, yes.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 01:07 PM
So he should have gotten involved in the NC vote over gay marriage? Give me a break.

If he really supported the rights of gays, he would have helped by speaking out before the vote. His hiding while the recall vote was coming up showed the same political cowardice~

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:09 PM
This is probably the most well-written op-ed from the Right that's been posted on CP in quite some time.

Its typical election-year whining about neglecting presidential duties in favor of campaigning and fundraising.

"Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But
there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now,
that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly,
on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win."

You could take out Obama's name, insert anyone else, run it during an election year, and the supporters would all nod, Yep, Yep.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:13 PM
If he really supported the rights of gays, he would have helped by speaking out before the vote. His hiding while the recall vote was coming up showed the same political cowardice~

Look, at some point you just have to admit that no matter what he did or didn't do, you would find some angle to bitch about it.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:13 PM
He's campaigning too much...he's not campaigning enough. :banghead:

Give me a break.

This isn't about campaigning. This is about doing his job. Even as senator, he chose to back away from votes that had any political implications.

He stalled for 3 years on the budget. He had zero voice in easily the most important vote in 2012. That's not about campaigning. THat's an indictment on his leadership.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 01:16 PM
lambs baah, bah, baah

Fixed your post~

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Give me a break.

This isn't about campaigning. This is about doing his job. Even as senator, he chose to back away from votes that had any political implications.

He stalled for 3 years on the budget. He had zero voice in easily the most important vote in 2012. That's not about campaigning. THat's an indictment on his leadership.

His job is to insert himself into state referendums and recall elections? You would bitch either way.

Reaper16
06-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Its typical election-year whining about neglecting presidential duties in favor of campaigning and fundraising.

"Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But
there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now,
that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly,
on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win."

You could take out Obama's name, insert anyone else, run it during an election year, and the supporters would all nod, Yep, Yep.

That's true. I agree.

But it's an apt critique no matter who is in office. People voted for Obama because his 2008 campaign talked him up as being above the whole "once in office, just try to stay in office" way of leading that's so systemic in American politics. He is clearly not.

I'm sick of politicians putting their own ambitions and legacies ahead of their office. I'm fucking sick of it.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 01:19 PM
Look, at some point you just have to admit that no matter what he did or didn't do, you would find some angle to bitch about it.

At some point you just have to admit that no matter what obama did wrong you will find some angle to deflect or to blame it on President Bush.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:23 PM
That's true. I agree.

But it's an apt critique no matter who is in office. People voted for Obama because his 2008 campaign talked him up as being above the whole "once in office, just try to stay in office" way of leading that's so systemic in American politics. He is clearly not.

I'm sick of politicians putting their own ambitions and legacies ahead of their office. I'm ****ing sick of it.

So that meant he wouldn't be involved in the fundraising and campaigning activities that go along with running for office? C'mon...

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:25 PM
His job is to insert himself into state referendums and recall elections? You would bitch either way.

Surely you're not suggesting that the Wisconsin recall doesn't have very strong national implications....

And surely you're not dumb enough to think that losing this recall election in Wisconsin isn't going to very, very seriously undermine his efforts to grow government, which is the primary part of his platform.

Face it. This wasn't just some small cookie jar he didn't stick his hand into. This was a huge gamble on Obama's part and he lost huge.

Reaper16
06-08-2012, 01:27 PM
So that meant he wouldn't be involved in the fundraising and campaigning activities that go along with running for office? C'mon...

There's a difference between "being involved with" and "is the absolute primary focus."

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:29 PM
At some point you just have to admit that no matter what obama did wrong you will find some angle to deflect or to blame it on President Bush.

That I take on a case-by-case basis, but there's no question that he inherited an unprecedented mess.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Look, at some point you just have to admit that no matter what he did or didn't do, you would find some angle to bitch about it.

There is more than plenty to be critical about. Him showing the blatant cowardice is pretty low on the list. I would have stuck up for him, if he would have supported opposition to the gay marriage amendment here in NC. The law has no effect on me, or anyone I know. I do think it is bible belt bullshit, and feel our country should have moved past this silly fight years ago. Keep bahing little lamb~

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:32 PM
And surely you're not dumb enough to think that losing this recall election in Wisconsin isn't going to very, very seriously undermine his efforts to grow government, which is the primary part of his platform.

Sure, that is his main goal. What else did Hannity tell you?

mlyonsd
06-08-2012, 01:35 PM
That I take on a case-by-case basis, but there's no question that he inherited an unprecedented mess.And he's followed it up with an unprecedented recovery.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:37 PM
There's a difference between "being involved with" and "is the absolute primary focus."

And that's your impression--that fundraising and such is his absolute primary focus? I guess if that's how it looks to you, that's all that matters. I just don't think that is a very thoughtful conclusion. Simply just sounds like the tossed-off rantings one hears from Rush or Hannity.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 01:40 PM
So that meant he wouldn't be involved in the fundraising and campaigning activities that go along with running for office? C'mon...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:41 PM
And he's followed it up with an unprecedented recovery.

At least there's been one. The Rs (alleged) plan would have apparently been to do nothing, let the auto and investment banking industries crumble, and lower taxes on millionaires. I'm sure that would have worked out better.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:41 PM
Sure, that is his main goal. What else did Hannity tell you?

I don't watch Hannity. And I'm not a conservative.

His primary initiative was a health care program that would involve massive levels of government involvement.

He is grilling conservatives because they won't accept his new stimulus package. Incidentally, that stimulus is built off the premise that the private sector is doing fine but, for some reason, the public sector needs a jumpstart.

Hannity isn't telling me shit. Obama is saying it.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:44 PM
At least there's been one. The Rs (alleged) plan would have apparently been to do nothing, let the auto and investment banking industries crumble, and lower taxes on millionaires. I'm sure that would have worked out better.

As of right now, one key republican initiative has been to neuter public sector unions. And right now that is proving to be a very popular initiative and one that is dramatically improving the state government cost structure for Wisconsin.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 01:44 PM
That I take on a case-by-case basis, but there's no question that he inherited an unprecedented mess.

Can't help yourself can you?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Sure, that is his main goal. What else did Hannity tell you?

. . .”The big challenge we have in our economy right now is state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction."

That seems to be an endorsement for more government.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:51 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html

Who knows what they are counting as a "fundraiser." Plus the rules have changed. Huge amounts of money can now come from very few people. That's how Mitt raised his money in the primaries. You keep up, or you lose.


"Doherty, however, said that although the tactic of labelling Obama’s activities as fraud was ‘novel’ in reality the opposing party always complained about a president facing re-election dressing up political events as official ones.

‘This is not new. The Republican complaint is more of a situational complaint than a principled complaint because they certainly weren’t complaining when George W. Bush did this eight years ago.'

He added: ‘In 2004, President George W. Bush broke all records for presidential fundraising in terms of time devoted to fundraising and in terms of money raised and at the time Democrats hit him hard for that.

'Obama has already surpassed Bush [Jnr] in numbers of re-election fundraisers, but not yet in money raised.'

The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

Bwana
06-08-2012, 01:51 PM
Ouch.

No doubt, good read.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:53 PM
I don't watch Hannity. And I'm not a conservative.

His primary initiative was a health care program that would involve massive levels of government involvement.

He is grilling conservatives because they won't accept his new stimulus package. Incidentally, that stimulus is built off the premise that the private sector is doing fine but, for some reason, the public sector needs a jumpstart.

Hannity isn't telling me shit. Obama is saying it.

Anyone saying stuff like, "His main goal is to grow government" is parroting the empty nonsense of people like Hannity.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2012, 01:53 PM
Who knows what they are counting as a "fundraiser." Plus the rules have changed. Huge amounts of money can now come from very few people. That's how Mitt raised his money in the primaries. You keep up, or you lose.


"Doherty, however, said that although the tactic of labelling Obama’s activities as fraud was ‘novel’ in reality the opposing party always complained about a president facing re-election dressing up political events as official ones.

‘This is not new. The Republican complaint is more of a situational complaint than a principled complaint because they certainly weren’t complaining when George W. Bush did this eight years ago.'

He added: ‘In 2004, President George W. Bush broke all records for presidential fundraising in terms of time devoted to fundraising and in terms of money raised and at the time Democrats hit him hard for that.

'Obama has already surpassed Bush [Jnr] in numbers of re-election fundraisers, but not yet in money raised.'

The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

Well out spending previous presidents is something he is good at. I am certain he will succeed in this also~

Reaper16
06-08-2012, 02:31 PM
The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

Yes. Which is fucked up.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Its typical election-year whining about neglecting presidential duties in favor of campaigning and fundraising.

"Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But
there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now,
that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly,
on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win."

You could take out Obama's name, insert anyone else, run it during an election year, and the supporters would all nod, Yep, Yep.


Obama has been punting on first down since last year. We are completely leaderless at this point.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 02:39 PM
Obama has been punting on first down since last year. We are completely leaderless at this point.

Example?

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 02:44 PM
Example?

It all started when the grand bargain with Boehner went down. It was reported they had a deal in principle and the next day Obama torpedoed it by insisting on $400,000,000 more in tax increases.

He hasn't led since. His budget for this year lost 97-0 in the Senate.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 02:49 PM
It all started when the grand bargain with Boehner went down. It was reported they had a deal in principle and the next day Obama torpedoed it by insisting on $400,000,000 more in tax increases.

I'm not sure how this supports "not leading," but the lack of details and phrase "It was reported" leave me a little suspicious.


His budget for this year lost 97-0 in the Senate.

This is an example of not giving the complete story.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 03:01 PM
I'm not sure how this supports "not leading," but the lack of details and phrase "It was reported" leave me a little suspicious.



This is an example of not giving the complete story.

Do your own homework .... It was headline news for weeks and weeks.

cosmo20002
06-09-2012, 01:43 AM
Do your own homework .... It was headline news for weeks and weeks.

I know it was in the news. That's how I know what you posted is BS. You know that 97-0 vote wasn't a real, full budget proposal. Or maybe you didn't. You're either dishonest or ignorant.

patteeu
06-09-2012, 11:20 AM
I don't think I missed the point. She said it several times--he's not leading, he's fundraising with celebrities and giving campaign speeches (funny though that she CRITICIZES him for NOT going to Wisconsin to get involved in that campaign). Its a cheap and easy shot that could be (and is) aimed at every president in an election year.

No, I think he's right. You clearly missed it.

Ebolapox
06-09-2012, 04:06 PM
hope and change. that is all.

mikey23545
06-09-2012, 04:42 PM
hope and change. that is all.

Barry is so transparent we can see right through him...

scho63
06-10-2012, 04:58 AM
Great article and it shows how Obama is just floundering around like a fish on a boat deck. He was 100% unqualified for the job of POTUS and just like so many other people, I voted for him because of what I THOUGHT he could do and I was dead wrong...

He is going to lose by7-8% minimum in November. He has been a complete failure, fraud, and disappointment.

chiefzilla1501
06-10-2012, 08:32 AM
Great article and it shows how Obama is just floundering around like a fish on a boat deck. He was 100% unqualified for the job of POTUS and just like so many other people, I voted for him because of what I THOUGHT he could do and I was dead wrong...

He is going to lose by7-8% minimum in November. He has been a complete failure, fraud, and disappointment.

The problem is that he's floundering, but nobody's running with the fish.

No matter how many times he screws up, I just never hear people talk about it. Anytime Bush said anything stupid, everybody pounced. I just hope Romney's team is smart enough to run with these sound clips at some point in the campaign.

blaise
06-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Basically, cosmo's approach is to say that any negative article about Obama is just trivial news. Any criticism about Obama and he just says, "So, what? This isn't news."

Iz Zat Chew
06-10-2012, 12:33 PM
The problem is that he's floundering, but nobody's running with the fish.

No matter how many times he screws up, I just never hear people talk about it. Anytime Bush said anything stupid, everybody pounced. I just hope Romney's team is smart enough to run with these sound clips at some point in the campaign.

Blind bias by the Networks play a part in the problem. One of the other problems are the people that are on any of the entitlements programs tend to feel that Obama would give them free stuff, they just don't realize that free stuff comes from other people's pocket. As long as it's not their pocket they don't care, just give them the money.

chiefzilla1501
06-10-2012, 12:55 PM
Blind bias by the Networks play a part in the problem. One of the other problems are the people that are on any of the entitlements programs tend to feel that Obama would give them free stuff, they just don't realize that free stuff comes from other people's pocket. As long as it's not their pocket they don't care, just give them the money.

Well, yes and no. What bothers me is that the conservatives have created a war against the public sector. They claim that the workers are overpaid, over entitled, and contribute nothing. What Wisconsin proves is that there are lots of good public sector employees out there who don't want unions to tell them what they are entitled to. I just hope the conservatives will learn the lesson from Ohio and remember that the war is against unions, not necessarily against teachers, cops, etc....

JonesCrusher
06-10-2012, 01:14 PM
Well, yes and no. What bothers me is that the conservatives have created a war against the public sector. They claim that the workers are overpaid, over entitled, and contribute nothing. What Wisconsin proves is that there are lots of good public sector employees out there who don't want unions to tell them what they are entitled to. I just hope the conservatives will learn the lesson from Ohio and remember that the war is against unions, not necessarily against teachers, cops, etc....

The union didn't march on Madison and demand that Walker be recalled. I have to say in this case the union members brought it on themselves. And if the conservatives are the ones who cooked up the war on the public sector why did Walker win by a landslide in a very liberal state?

btw unions are actually just people joined together for a common goal.

chiefzilla1501
06-10-2012, 01:35 PM
The union didn't march on Madison and demand that Walker be recalled. I have to say in this case the union members brought it on themselves. And if the conservatives are the ones who cooked up the war on the public sector why did Walker win by a landslide in a very liberal state?

btw unions are actually just people joined together for a common goal.

I'm in full support of the war against unions.

In Ohio, they treated it like a war against teachers, cops, and firefighters. First of all, clueless move, because that's only going to destroy your favorability. Secondly, the bad ones represent a small fraction of the problem. In Ohio, Kasich had a similar bill to Walker's that got crushed because he was so clueless to the idea that ripping on these people isn't good PR.

To your last point, unions are supposed to be a collection of people joined together for a common goal. But that doesn't become the case if it's coerced. And it doesn't become the case when union heads are as powerful as they have become.

I'm saying the conservatives have to be really careful about how they play this game. I think it's an enormous mistake to declare war on cops, teachers, and firefighters.

RedNeckRaider
06-10-2012, 02:27 PM
I'm in full support of the war against unions.

In Ohio, they treated it like a war against teachers, cops, and firefighters. First of all, clueless move, because that's only going to destroy your favorability. Secondly, the bad ones represent a small fraction of the problem. In Ohio, Kasich had a similar bill to Walker's that got crushed because he was so clueless to the idea that ripping on these people isn't good PR.

To your last point, unions are supposed to be a collection of people joined together for a common goal. But that doesn't become the case if it's coerced. And it doesn't become the case when union heads are as powerful as they have become.

I'm saying the conservatives have to be really careful about how they play this game. I think it's an enormous mistake to declare war on cops, teachers, and firefighters.

When you are on the tax payer dime you should not be shocked at the push back going on. When a person works in the private sector they are aware when their company is struggling. I have had to accept a company wide wage cut, and loss of company participation in our 401k plan before. What these people need to understand is their employer ( the government ) is broke, in fact past broke. Time to accept some give back, if they don't like it, then try their luck in the real world~

chiefzilla1501
06-10-2012, 03:04 PM
When you are on the tax payer dime you should not be shocked at the push back going on. When a person works in the private sector they are aware when their company is struggling. I have had to accept a company wide wage cut, and loss of company participation in our 401k plan before. What these people need to understand is their employer ( the government ) is broke, in fact past broke. Time to accept some give back, if they don't like it, then try their luck in the real world~

I'm trying to suggest that there are lots of public sector employees who understand that. If 50% of Wisconsin has already dropped their union membership, that means that at least half of the state (and growing) understands that the union is holding them back more than helping them.
Keep in mind that the one benefit of the private sector is that when you do a great job, you get rewarded for it through promotions, raises, etc... In the public sector, the unions have created an environment that favors tenure over merit. I think that's especially true for teachers. Especially young teachers, who are often victimized because a crappy teacher with tenure gets to keep their expensive job over the young, energetic teacher who is trying hard to keep one. So let's not act like everything is rosy in the public sector. If I'm in that environment, it would absolutely infuriate me to know that lazy d-bags were getting promoted over hard-working people.

I'm a private sector guy. And it infuriates me that public sector workers get outrageous benefits on my taxpayer dime. But I don't like the path we're going down where conservatives often treat the individual workers in the public sector like they're a big part of the problem. Teachers, for example, I imagine a lot of them would trade everything in for the freedom to teach their own curriculum instead of having every single minute of the day micro-managed by a teacher's union that will scold you for working too hard or trying new things.

Iz Zat Chew
06-10-2012, 03:41 PM
Well, yes and no. What bothers me is that the conservatives have created a war against the public sector. They claim that the workers are overpaid, over entitled, and contribute nothing. What Wisconsin proves is that there are lots of good public sector employees out there who don't want unions to tell them what they are entitled to. I just hope the conservatives will learn the lesson from Ohio and remember that the war is against unions, not necessarily against teachers, cops, etc....

I'm a conservative and I agree with what you've said. At one time in America there was a need for unions, it is my opinion that today all unions are out of date and woefully out of touch with reality. I feel that no government employee should feel the need to be represented by a union. If there are issues they should be worked out in arbitration between the workers and the entity. After all, the government (city, county, state and federal) are all honest entities - right? If they aren't they should be and there should be laws that cover their accountability to the workers.

When I was in a union I paid dues and the union rules were iron clad and the employer adhered to their rules, when I did the same job in a right to work state the employer covered all of the same issues that the union represented in the union job. All it takes is honest businessmen to make that happen.

I do feel that in today's America the unions should be outlawed and in the same legislation that all employers have a standard of preformance regarding their employees to maintain fairness all around.