The Obama legacy – it doesn’t look promising

[mlyonsd]

I think Obama should listen to this guy because I think he's right.

The Obama legacy – it doesn’t look promising
By Frank Donatelli
Published February 11, 2013| FoxNews.com

Democrats, Republicans and indeed all American citizens are eagerly anticipating President Obama’s State of the Union Address Tuesday evening, hoping for a clearer picture of what he plans to accomplish before 2017 to cement the Obama legacy.

But as we look toward the next four years, we must not overlook the far-reaching consequences of the president’s actions early in his second term. For starters, his refusal to cement a long term fiscal deal with Republicans is a tell-tale sign that the political and economic environment he’s created does not bode well for the legacy he hopes to leave behind.

He has no more excuses on the deficit.

Obama campaigned for reelection promising to reduce the deficit almost exclusively through tax increases and phony cuts, like ending a war that was already over. Despite his tax increases, US debt is still growing as far and fast as the eye can see. The CBO’s midyear forecast shows this year’s deficit will still be $845 billion, over 5% of GDP.

Worse, the public debt is predicted to be 77% of GDP in 10 years, double the average of the last 40 years, and this despite exceedingly optimistic CBO growth targets never achieved during Obama’s time in office.

When the fed finally stops subsidizing interest rates, government debt payments and entitlements, which Obama also refuses to touch, will consume virtually the entire federal budget in 12 years. The president’s ability to blame this all on his predecessor will only diminish with time.

It's also clear that our commander in chief faces budget warfare for the next four years.

Because he snubbed a comprehensive budget solution, Obama will now have to deal with fiscal issues one at a time. He still faces a $1 trillion sequester, which his own retiring Defense Secretary says will devastate our national defense. Hopefully this worries the president who is after all still our commander in chief.

Next up is a budget resolution and appropriations bills for the coming year plus a need to raise the debt ceiling yet again. There will be no more shortcuts or negotiations with Speaker Boehner.

All of these issues will be handled in regular order.

A balanced, long-term agreement could have taken many of these matters off the table, but the president will now be forced to spend valuable political capital and time for the balance of his term dealing with them individually. Hopefully he’ll still have time to fit in regular appearances on "The View."

The country will remain divided with our major problems unsolved.
It bears mentioning at least once more that Obama began his first term pledging to end legislative gridlock and change the way Washington works. He is destined to end his second term reinforcing both gridlock and partisan division.

His class warfare rhetoric and constant questioning of the motives of his opponents have made him one of the most divisive presidents ever. One example: Before he gave a long-anticipated speech on immigration, one of his second term priorities, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus asked him NOT to introduce his own bill, presumably because an Obama immigration bill would be dead on arrival and set back the prospects for bipartisan reform.

Apparently he has also applied that advice to fiscal matters since he has again missed the deadline and failed to submit a presidential budget for this year. -- That actually might be a good thing, however, given that his previous two budgets were rejected by nearly unanimous votes in the Senate.

Some of Obama’s many admirers in the media have compared him to Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln as an equally historic figure. The better comparison would be with their predecessors, James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. President Buchanan stood by, watched the Union dissolve and did nothing. President Hoover was overwhelmed by the Great Depression.

Sadly the record will show that despite enormous promise and opportunity, President Obama stood by and watched as America mortgaged its fiscal future and its citizens grew even further apart. The solution to those problems will be the province of our next president.

Frank Donatelli is the Chairman of GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and electing a new generation of Republican leaders. He previously served as Political Director for President Ronald Reagan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2KpkHTBu5

[|Zach|]

Why Romney will win
By FRANK DONATELLI

Our two-year quest to elect a president will (mercifully) conclude next Tuesday. No more campaign stops in Ohio, no more 30-second attack ads, no more fundraising letters — well, those letters are likely to keep coming. But a cold, hard reading of the most important trends and numbers tells us that Mitt Romney will be elected America’s 45th president. Here are the reasons why.
The composition of the electorate favors the GOP: Polls by both Gallup and Rasmussen predict a partisan electorate modeled more closely after 2004 than 2008. In 2004, the GOP’s edge among self-identified Republicans and the larger category of “lean Republican” carried George W. Bush to a narrow win. In 2008, Democrats held a large partisan edge (Gallup plus-12, Rasmussen plus-7), and then-Sen. Barack Obama coasted to victory. While it was not uncommon for surveys earlier this year to find Democrats’ partisan edge approaching double digits, both pollsters now see an electorate evenly divided between the parties with a slight edge to the GOP due primarily to heightened Republican voter intensity. Other surveys still show an edge to Democrats, but the margins are down to 3 or 4 percentage points.

In addition, surveys by the Tarrance Group find Romney with a double-digit lead among independents , a group vitally concerned about the economy and job creation, precisely the Romney closing message in the campaign. For that reason, Tarrance partner Ed Goeas feels that this Republican advantage could actually grow as Election Day approaches, resulting in a potentially larger GOP victory than is now being forecast.

The GOP ground game rivals the Democrats’: This is a surprising finding of two national surveys (ABC-Washington Post and NBC-Wall Street Journal). The number of households that report being contacted by the respective campaigns is virtually even. It was generally assumed that Obama would outperform his poll numbers because of superior organization, but that may not be the case. A wave of intensity and enthusiasm is powering one of the strongest Republican voter contact programs ever. Given the president’s deficit in the national polls, this can mean only bad news for Obama .

Romney is winning on the key issues: While Americans find Obama better able to handle most issues (abortion, Medicare and education) and more in touch with them on key personal qualities (support for the middle class, likeability, etc.), Romney scores convincingly on the most important economic issues. The recent NBC-WSJ survey finds Romney leading on only three issues: handling the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs. These are also the issues that matter most to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Romney was able to hit Obama on the economy time and again in the debates, and the message has apparently hit home. If this election is “about the economy, stupid,” Romney is in very strong shape.

Romney has momentum: Momentum in politics is hard to describe, but real. It relates to people’s expectations, the tone of news coverage, the size of crowds and what is being talked about generally — and Romney’s prospects and expectations are clearly on the upswing. Prior to the first debate, Obama led national surveys by 3 to 5 percentage points. Today, Romney continues to maintain a narrow but real national lead. Growth in Romney support by just a couple points could put him over the top in most battleground states.

Support for a challenger running against a besieged incumbent normally exceeds poll numbers: No one thought Ronald Reagan would win 44 states and a popular vote majority against two opponents in 1980, or that Bill Clinton would defeat President George H.W. Bush as easily as he did in 1992. Last-minute deciders, though relatively few in number, are more likely to cast ballots for the challenger, thus expanding razor-thin leads into larger victories on Election Day.

There are still many factors that can affect this closest of elections. But the most likely outcome is for Mitt Romney to ride strong public dissatisfaction with the president’s handling of the economy to victory on Nov. 6.

Frank Donatelli is chairman of GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and electing the next generation of Republican leaders.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz2KqDDVcPj

[Aries Walker]

Does anyone expect FOXNews to praise the guy?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Does anyone expect FOXNews to praise the guy?

I was hoping they'd be fair and balanced.

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

No, I didn't read the propaganda of Fox News. But, I don't read Limbaugh, Olbermann, Maddow or any other partisan pieces. I watch Fox News every once in a while. Try to watch at least two shows a week. See how things are being slanted. It's terribly disappointing. If you are getting your news from Fox News or MSNBC you are getting a partisan slant on your information.

I'm curious as to where you like to get your unbiased, unslanted news on politics and such. If there is truly such a thing, I'd love to know the source.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Why Romney will win
By FRANK DONATELLI

Our two-year quest to elect a president will (mercifully) conclude next Tuesday. No more campaign stops in Ohio, no more 30-second attack ads, no more fundraising letters — well, those letters are likely to keep coming. But a cold, hard reading of the most important trends and numbers tells us that Mitt Romney will be elected America’s 45th president. Here are the reasons why.
The composition of the electorate favors the GOP: Polls by both Gallup and Rasmussen predict a partisan electorate modeled more closely after 2004 than 2008. In 2004, the GOP’s edge among self-identified Republicans and the larger category of “lean Republican” carried George W. Bush to a narrow win. In 2008, Democrats held a large partisan edge (Gallup plus-12, Rasmussen plus-7), and then-Sen. Barack Obama coasted to victory. While it was not uncommon for surveys earlier this year to find Democrats’ partisan edge approaching double digits, both pollsters now see an electorate evenly divided between the parties with a slight edge to the GOP due primarily to heightened Republican voter intensity. Other surveys still show an edge to Democrats, but the margins are down to 3 or 4 percentage points.

In addition, surveys by the Tarrance Group find Romney with a double-digit lead among independents , a group vitally concerned about the economy and job creation, precisely the Romney closing message in the campaign. For that reason, Tarrance partner Ed Goeas feels that this Republican advantage could actually grow as Election Day approaches, resulting in a potentially larger GOP victory than is now being forecast.

The GOP ground game rivals the Democrats’: This is a surprising finding of two national surveys (ABC-Washington Post and NBC-Wall Street Journal). The number of households that report being contacted by the respective campaigns is virtually even. It was generally assumed that Obama would outperform his poll numbers because of superior organization, but that may not be the case. A wave of intensity and enthusiasm is powering one of the strongest Republican voter contact programs ever. Given the president’s deficit in the national polls, this can mean only bad news for Obama .

Romney is winning on the key issues: While Americans find Obama better able to handle most issues (abortion, Medicare and education) and more in touch with them on key personal qualities (support for the middle class, likeability, etc.), Romney scores convincingly on the most important economic issues. The recent NBC-WSJ survey finds Romney leading on only three issues: handling the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs. These are also the issues that matter most to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Romney was able to hit Obama on the economy time and again in the debates, and the message has apparently hit home. If this election is “about the economy, stupid,” Romney is in very strong shape.

Romney has momentum: Momentum in politics is hard to describe, but real. It relates to people’s expectations, the tone of news coverage, the size of crowds and what is being talked about generally — and Romney’s prospects and expectations are clearly on the upswing. Prior to the first debate, Obama led national surveys by 3 to 5 percentage points. Today, Romney continues to maintain a narrow but real national lead. Growth in Romney support by just a couple points could put him over the top in most battleground states.

Support for a challenger running against a besieged incumbent normally exceeds poll numbers: No one thought Ronald Reagan would win 44 states and a popular vote majority against two opponents in 1980, or that Bill Clinton would defeat President George H.W. Bush as easily as he did in 1992. Last-minute deciders, though relatively few in number, are more likely to cast ballots for the challenger, thus expanding razor-thin leads into larger victories on Election Day.

There are still many factors that can affect this closest of elections. But the most likely outcome is for Mitt Romney to ride strong public dissatisfaction with the president’s handling of the economy to victory on Nov. 6.

Frank Donatelli is chairman of GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and electing the next generation of Republican leaders.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz2KqDDVcPj

Mlyonsd also thought that Romney was going to win. I can now see how they would think alike.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I don't post here often because I always end up getting my ass handed to me by people much smarter and politically savvy than I...

Doesn't stop me.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by fan4ever

I'm curious as to where you like to get your unbiased, unslanted news on politics and such. If there is truly such a thing, I'd love to know the source.

drudge...CSNews... /Pete

NaturalNews...Info wars /Killer

E-mail /shtspryr + livesteam + R8ers

[La literatura]

Frank Donatelli is the Chairman of GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and electing a new generation of Republican leaders.

Gosh, I'm shocked he would conclude that Obama's legacy looks negative. I wonder when the "GOP -- Future Looks Promising!" article comes out.

[Iowanian]

I believe you. Politically, I'd guess your reading ledger to contain mostly Sandra Boynton.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

No, I didn't read the propaganda of Fox News. But, I don't read Limbaugh, Olbermann, Maddow or any other partisan pieces. I watch Fox News every once in a while. Try to watch at least two shows a week. See how things are being slanted. It's terribly disappointing. If you are getting your news from Fox News or MSNBC you are getting a partisan slant on your information.

[Direckshun]

I think that, as usual, Mr. Donatelli will end up incorrect and on the wrong side of history.

If we're going to talk about the "political environment" Obama's "created" when we discuss his legacy as a President, it'd be helpful if you actually freaking explained why that is the case (as I believe it is not). If we're going to talk about the "economic environment" Obama's "created," it'd be helpful if you actually freaking explained what it is (since I'm guessing we disagree) and why (as I believe it is not). But Donatelli doesn't explain either of these, probably because he's posting on FoxNews.com and he feels like his reading audience already agrees with him.

On fiscal matters, Donatelli says the President never achieved a long-term fiscal deal, yet fails to mention the President has enacted 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction and as reduced the government at speeds unseen in most of our lifetimes.

5% of GDP is not that bad for a deficit in the midst of a recovery from a crippling depression. It's not ****ing fun, but he inherited a deficit $500 billion larger than that four years ago. The idea he should reduce that deficit faster can only retard growth.

That's it. That's the story. That's the game, fiscally. You can complain about tax increases and "phony cuts" which he doesn't even bother to explain.

Most of the article is just pablum about "Obama screwed up the long-term fiscal deal in 2011!" and "look how divided we are -- it's Obama's fault!" Color me unimpressed. The President has rolled out a moderate agenda that even leaned right occasionally, and was shot down in the face of a scorched earth campaign the Republicans now openly say they adopted before he was even sworn in.

The comparison to Buchanan is paper-thin, and again, not explained. The comparison to Hoover is hysterical because it's just thrown out there with zero explanation.

Except that Obama "stood by" (whatever that means) as America buried itself in debt.

But the debt growing isn't Obama's fault. He inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit adding to the debt every year. And he's slowed it as much as he responsibly can without retarding economic growth. (I'd say he's actually done it too much.) Anybody claiming you could do more deficit reduction than that without killing the economy needs to explain how far you have your head up your own ass.

The idea that government debt will swallow our entire budget in little more than a decade is a flat falsehood. There is no truth to it, this article might as well have been written by Dick Morris. Donatelli doesn't even bother defending the math on that. It's atrocious.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Anybody claiming you could do more deficit reduction than that without killing the economy needs to explain how far you have your head up your own ass.

Or just ask England who took this approach and are now enjoying their triple dip recession.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Or just ask England who took this approach and are now enjoying their triple dip recession.

Exactly.

[oldandslow]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Or just ask England who took this approach and are now enjoying their triple dip recession.

Exactly X3.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

drudge...CSNews... /Pete

NaturalNews...Info wars /Killer

E-mail /shtspryr + livesteam + R8ers

Natural news is good, Don't believe I've posted a link from infowars in quite a while though. Don't let facts get in the way of your dumbass argument though, it's zackypooh to the rescue.

[KILLER_CLOWN]