Slap Shot
I got nothing
I disagree. If the current proposal stinks, it stinks - regardless if there's at present a legitimate alternative.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama V: For Vendetta
- Thread starter Red Cloud
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. If the current proposal stinks, it stinks - regardless if there's at present a legitimate alternative.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Well said. The Dem conservatives have played an important role that the GOP could have played if it wasn't impotent and run by whack jobs. Their insistence on cost controls will result in a better bill.
The GOP is screwed in this debate. Lost in some of the polling is that any relatively small drop in Obama's standing isn't flowing to them. Organizing an ambush of politicians at a health care event may win a news cycle or two, but it loses the war. With nothing to offer, all they can do is go for gimmicks and appeal to crackpots. I give tremendous credit to the 3 senators trying to negotiate a compromise in the finance committee. The rest of them though have failed their constituents and the country. This is the most important domestic legislation in 40 years. You'd think they'd want to have some part in shaping it.
Well said. The Dem conservatives have played an important role that the GOP could have played if it wasn't impotent and run by whack jobs. Their insistence on cost controls will result in a better bill.
The GOP is screwed in this debate. Lost in some of the polling is that any relatively small drop in Obama's standing isn't flowing to them. Organizing an ambush of politicians at a health care event may win a news cycle or two, but it loses the war. With nothing to offer, all they can do is go for gimmicks and appeal to crackpots. I give tremendous credit to the 3 senators trying to negotiate a compromise in the finance committee. The rest of them though have failed their constituents and the country. This is the most important domestic legislation in 40 years. You'd think they'd want to have some part in shaping it.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
duper
Well-known member
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
The bolded is a reason to oppose it. Opposing it because there could be loopholes is equal to opposing bills, which seems short-sighted.
The bolded is a reason to oppose it. Opposing it because there could be loopholes is equal to opposing bills, which seems short-sighted.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I think that is an extreme viewpoint, as extreme as some conservative mouthpieces claiming Obama has "plants" in the audience at the same townhall meetings...to lob softball questions...
Instead,give credit to some Americans that, regardless of their political affiliation, find that this "most important legislation" is worthy of dialog, debate and study, and not shotgunned through Congress. It is not too hard to figure out that Americans are concerned about a thousand page document written in legalese that does nothing to answer concretely how it will be paid for and how it is going to work.
I think that is an extreme viewpoint, as extreme as some conservative mouthpieces claiming Obama has "plants" in the audience at the same townhall meetings...to lob softball questions...
Instead,give credit to some Americans that, regardless of their political affiliation, find that this "most important legislation" is worthy of dialog, debate and study, and not shotgunned through Congress. It is not too hard to figure out that Americans are concerned about a thousand page document written in legalese that does nothing to answer concretely how it will be paid for and how it is going to work.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
You're right in that this is likely the single largest bill to come during this election cycle (I doubt 40 years). If you're from a deeply conservative district, it doesn't matter if the plan is a success or not (depending on measurements used), you do not want your name attached to the formation or passage of this bill in any manner whatsoever. While I'm not inclined to find out the demographics to any Republican working with the Democrats on the fine points, I'd wager their districts looked very purple with a tinge more blue on those election maps. In this manner, they could be serving their constituents in the best manner possible - by putting all their efforts into defeating the bill rather than trying to "fix" it.
As for not serving the country, I doubt you and I would ever come to an agreement on that with regards to this bill.
As for failing their constituents, it could easily be argued that keeping their names off the bill in any way, shape or form could help their chances come 2010 or 2012. It all depends on their local polls, and the platforms upon which they ran during their campaigns.
You're right in that this is likely the single largest bill to come during this election cycle (I doubt 40 years). If you're from a deeply conservative district, it doesn't matter if the plan is a success or not (depending on measurements used), you do not want your name attached to the formation or passage of this bill in any manner whatsoever. While I'm not inclined to find out the demographics to any Republican working with the Democrats on the fine points, I'd wager their districts looked very purple with a tinge more blue on those election maps. In this manner, they could be serving their constituents in the best manner possible - by putting all their efforts into defeating the bill rather than trying to "fix" it.
As for not serving the country, I doubt you and I would ever come to an agreement on that with regards to this bill.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/1...hall-has-not-so-random-political-connections/
one example out of several... there was one debate from last year where 8 of the 9 were identified to be either staffers or donors for Dems and dem related causes.
Obama's entire message system is based on the control of the conversation and the tenor. Much of these events have been stage-managed to some degree or another. Its not an extreme view point because you can see this just by the actions of his administration. Watch what they do and call it as you see it. Their goal is nothing more than "control the message".
If you can control what is said and what is said about you then the rest will carry itself. This is the true problem of a loss of a credible adversarial media. If you watch what occurs you will see how Obama's team handles this and how poorly the media does to pierce through this with questions.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/1...hall-has-not-so-random-political-connections/
one example out of several... there was one debate from last year where 8 of the 9 were identified to be either staffers or donors for Dems and dem related causes.
Obama's entire message system is based on the control of the conversation and the tenor. Much of these events have been stage-managed to some degree or another. Its not an extreme view point because you can see this just by the actions of his administration. Watch what they do and call it as you see it. Their goal is nothing more than "control the message".
If you can control what is said and what is said about you then the rest will carry itself. This is the true problem of a loss of a credible adversarial media. If you watch what occurs you will see how Obama's team handles this and how poorly the media does to pierce through this with questions.
Last edited:
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Instead of whining like a bunch of petulant little biatches about "euthanasia panels" and "socialism", where are their ideas? They direct half-baked retards to develop "scripts" to take to townhall meetings to shout at their MOCs and fellow constituents. Even the loyal opposition on the House of Commons has the gravitas to offer counter-proposals. The GOP used to have an intellectual core that was unrivaled, until the Bible thumping retards hijacked the party and started talking about Creationism and prayer in schools. ****ing inbred southerners ...
Instead of whining like a bunch of petulant little biatches about "euthanasia panels" and "socialism", where are their ideas? They direct half-baked retards to develop "scripts" to take to townhall meetings to shout at their MOCs and fellow constituents. Even the loyal opposition on the House of Commons has the gravitas to offer counter-proposals. The GOP used to have an intellectual core that was unrivaled, until the Bible thumping retards hijacked the party and started talking about Creationism and prayer in schools. ****ing inbred southerners ...
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I was just trying to balance my comments. If you know me, I am decidedly conservative and tend to agree with what you are saying, but out of fairness I needed to make a judgment by witnessing his meetings, not on hearsay. It doesn't lend much credibility to "our" viewpoint when Palin and the Limbaugh and the other ultra rights are bloviating opinion as fact.
I am still trying to determine how Obama is going to justify the cost when they cannot get their arms around programs like "cash for clunkers". The intend seems to be good, but I doubt that the execution will match it... and that isn't good considering the impact of health care to the economy in terms of employment and cost. I am all for streamlining the current pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry... as well as making medicare and medicaid more efficient... but Robin Hood thinks that by closing the Bush cuts for the wealthy will make up the difference... I think he'll be far short of his budget goals.
I still don't buy into the notion that a gov't option will not damage private industry's ability to compete... and his Fed Ex v. Post office example is poor, IMO. After all, what choice do we have when the postal service decides it needs more revenue and raises the costs of their products? You think that the gov't doesn't set up red tape for private industry for rate hikes? I know each state does.
People are fearing not because of being prompted... they are fearing because there has been a steady pattern in the six months that Obama has been in office... of gov't intervention into private industry... banks, mortgages, auto industry... now private health... so they have a right to be concerned.
I was just trying to balance my comments. If you know me, I am decidedly conservative and tend to agree with what you are saying, but out of fairness I needed to make a judgment by witnessing his meetings, not on hearsay. It doesn't lend much credibility to "our" viewpoint when Palin and the Limbaugh and the other ultra rights are bloviating opinion as fact.
I am still trying to determine how Obama is going to justify the cost when they cannot get their arms around programs like "cash for clunkers". The intend seems to be good, but I doubt that the execution will match it... and that isn't good considering the impact of health care to the economy in terms of employment and cost. I am all for streamlining the current pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry... as well as making medicare and medicaid more efficient... but Robin Hood thinks that by closing the Bush cuts for the wealthy will make up the difference... I think he'll be far short of his budget goals.
I still don't buy into the notion that a gov't option will not damage private industry's ability to compete... and his Fed Ex v. Post office example is poor, IMO. After all, what choice do we have when the postal service decides it needs more revenue and raises the costs of their products? You think that the gov't doesn't set up red tape for private industry for rate hikes? I know each state does.
People are fearing not because of being prompted... they are fearing because there has been a steady pattern in the six months that Obama has been in office... of gov't intervention into private industry... banks, mortgages, auto industry... now private health... so they have a right to be concerned.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
The flaw with this bill was that it was rushed through Congress as if the world was coming to an end if the bill was not passed immediately. Anybody in their right mind should have said "Whoa!" and tried to slow the process down for a reasonable debate on the issues.
I said before, what about tort reform? Is that something that needs to be addressed? Should their be a cost/benefit analysis on treatment decisions? Should the government be involved in health decisions? Do what degree is the governments' fiscal involvement? etc. etc. etc.
I offer no alternative right now other than to say that the current bill (as on Thomas) is flawed and should be defeated. Let's talk about it, and get something passed, that won't cost an arm and a leg, in 2010.
One of the consequences of the 2008 election was that the GOP is now irrelavent to the legislative process. The Dems, with their bullet-proof majorities, can do what they want.
The flaw with this bill was that it was rushed through Congress as if the world was coming to an end if the bill was not passed immediately. Anybody in their right mind should have said "Whoa!" and tried to slow the process down for a reasonable debate on the issues.
I said before, what about tort reform? Is that something that needs to be addressed? Should their be a cost/benefit analysis on treatment decisions? Should the government be involved in health decisions? Do what degree is the governments' fiscal involvement? etc. etc. etc.
I offer no alternative right now other than to say that the current bill (as on Thomas) is flawed and should be defeated. Let's talk about it, and get something passed, that won't cost an arm and a leg, in 2010.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
You think Tort reform would go over well with some of Obamas biggest donors?
You think Tort reform would go over well with some of Obamas biggest donors?
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Instead of using the usual left practice of deflecting by resorting to insults and name calling, perhaps you should attempt to explain why the same tactics used by liberals during the past 8 years were "exercising their right to free speech," but when the tables are turned, it's "un-American" and "facist."
Instead of using the usual left practice of deflecting by resorting to insults and name calling, perhaps you should attempt to explain why the same tactics used by liberals during the past 8 years were "exercising their right to free speech," but when the tables are turned, it's "un-American" and "facist."
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Maybe I just expect more from the GOP than what's been delivered during the reign of Bush 2.0, and what they're offering now. And if you think I'm "liberal", you should pull your head out and read some of these theads.
Instead of using the usual left practice of deflecting by resorting to insults and name calling, perhaps you should attempt to explain why the same tactics used by liberals during the past 8 years were "exercising their right to free speech," but when the tables are turned, it's "un-American" and "facist."
Maybe I just expect more from the GOP than what's been delivered during the reign of Bush 2.0, and what they're offering now. And if you think I'm "liberal", you should pull your head out and read some of these theads.
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
You're confusing two different kinds of attendees. People who want to show up and ask tough questions get plenty of credit from me. People who want to scream their heads off, disrupt others from asking questions and basically just make an @ ss out of themselves are idiots. They're adding nothing to the political dialogue.
Take that guy that freaked out on Specter (someone I'm not exactly a fan of). "God is going to judge you and your **** cronies"??? Lets put aside the biblical irony of using the word God and then **** in the same sentence. When I was growing up Catholic, I remember learning of a merciful higher power who dealt in forgiveness and love, not political retribution. Back in those days, God hadn't registered as a Republican yet (I believe Reagan was the one to get Him to change His affiliation
). That guy, and others like him, are idiots. I don't mind saying that, and call me old fashioned, but I don't think getting in an 80 year old man's face and screaming at him is appropriate, no matter what his political affiliation.
You're confusing two different kinds of attendees. People who want to show up and ask tough questions get plenty of credit from me. People who want to scream their heads off, disrupt others from asking questions and basically just make an @ ss out of themselves are idiots. They're adding nothing to the political dialogue.
Take that guy that freaked out on Specter (someone I'm not exactly a fan of). "God is going to judge you and your **** cronies"??? Lets put aside the biblical irony of using the word God and then **** in the same sentence. When I was growing up Catholic, I remember learning of a merciful higher power who dealt in forgiveness and love, not political retribution. Back in those days, God hadn't registered as a Republican yet (I believe Reagan was the one to get Him to change His affiliation
). That guy, and others like him, are idiots. I don't mind saying that, and call me old fashioned, but I don't think getting in an 80 year old man's face and screaming at him is appropriate, no matter what his political affiliation.Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
This debate seems to be breaking down between two sides, and its not Dem vs Republican or liberal vs conservative. Its really between those who want to reform the system somehow and are debating the best way to get that done, vs some bitter, angry people who don't know what they're for, but just want to see this get defeated for the sake of being able to say they helped somebody else fail.
You can see that in Congress (conservatives such as Grassley and Enzi deep in negotiations while people in Inhofe just want it to lose to discredit the President). You can see it in town hall meetings, where some can ask the President tough but respectful questions, while other people want to scream at Specter for things not related to health care but to vent frustration with their own lives. You even see it out here, where I've found some conservative posters (ScottM, Lynahfan) actually want to debate the subject, while others (Patman, walrus, Sicatoka) just want to make wild accusations and trot out the same old tired right wing slogans.
So basically its a debate between "can do" vs "can't do". In a lot of years, "can't do" might win, particularly in an unsettled (but improving)economic climate. What will most likely make this year different is that the Dems have large enough majorities in Congress so as to not have to worry about another 1994 debacle, and this is wisely occuring over a year before the next election, unlike last time where the plan was still being debated up to the August recess of the mid-term election year.
Anger and bitterness however isn't a political philosophy. Americans are generally a positive, forward looking people, particularly younger ones. What I will say is that once this debate is over, I expect to see the very same people crawl out to protest immigration reform, probably even more stridently.
This debate seems to be breaking down between two sides, and its not Dem vs Republican or liberal vs conservative. Its really between those who want to reform the system somehow and are debating the best way to get that done, vs some bitter, angry people who don't know what they're for, but just want to see this get defeated for the sake of being able to say they helped somebody else fail.
You can see that in Congress (conservatives such as Grassley and Enzi deep in negotiations while people in Inhofe just want it to lose to discredit the President). You can see it in town hall meetings, where some can ask the President tough but respectful questions, while other people want to scream at Specter for things not related to health care but to vent frustration with their own lives. You even see it out here, where I've found some conservative posters (ScottM, Lynahfan) actually want to debate the subject, while others (Patman, walrus, Sicatoka) just want to make wild accusations and trot out the same old tired right wing slogans.
So basically its a debate between "can do" vs "can't do". In a lot of years, "can't do" might win, particularly in an unsettled (but improving)economic climate. What will most likely make this year different is that the Dems have large enough majorities in Congress so as to not have to worry about another 1994 debacle, and this is wisely occuring over a year before the next election, unlike last time where the plan was still being debated up to the August recess of the mid-term election year.
Anger and bitterness however isn't a political philosophy. Americans are generally a positive, forward looking people, particularly younger ones. What I will say is that once this debate is over, I expect to see the very same people crawl out to protest immigration reform, probably even more stridently.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I know, locally in Michigan, John Dingell held a similar town hall and the same thing happened, and he is about as old as Moses.
Grant it, those people are the exceptions, though. They make for great, sensational soundbites which the networks gravitate to. To be fair... didn't the media also make a big deal about the protesters that got shouted down at both political conventions last summer? Is that all we remember about those events, or the speeches and discourse that took place?
Free speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, so I am with you. But don't buy into the media's method of making it the story and not the byline. They are using this as a way to broadbrush 'angry America', which, in reality, there is much fear based on misinformation, but hardly the anarchy the media is projecting.
Maybe the Democratic leadership should revise, clarify and target their message based on the demographics of the disturbers- i.e. baby boomer and aged populations. I think Obama made a good start yesterday... (although he took a hit when the AARP came out and strongly rebuked Obama in that they do not endorse any legislation at this time) ....but I don't think that he speaks for the leadership in whole, considering the positions that Palosi and others have taken on this issue (as opposed to what the bluedogs are saying). That is a mainstream concern as far as what modified legislation will come out of this bill, who will interpret it fairly in layman's terms, and present it to America before it is voted on. As a common citizen, I am concerned that the ready-shoot-aim approach to legislation is not good for anybody... and that a splintered Democratic majority will end up having any form of reform die on the vine.
Answer these questions definitively and the common citizen will probably be satisfied:
Single payer or Universal Gov't option w/ private option? (Obama gave us his straight answer yesterday, although his position was different ten years ago.)
How is it going to be funded and will the 95% be affected with a tax increase? (Still murky, although Obama clarified his vision as to how he thinks it should be funded, which I doubt will cover the entire gap.)
Will it impact the national debt? (see above.)
Can citizens keep their current coverage, doctors, specialists etc? (Yes, according to Obama's idea of this reform.)
Can private industry maintain a viable business model (protecting employment and quality of coverage)? (Obama thinks so, even with a Gov't option, but really didn't explain, other than offering a poor example using the postal service, and basically exclaimed that there will be people that will never agree with him.)
Will there be a method of preventing bureaucratic regulation effecting health care rationing and other means to help fill the health care professional shortages?
(Obama said that there would have to be discussions on how to alleviate the extreme caseloads from PCP's, but didn't address the industry professional shortages other than talking to the salary disparities for front line physicians and instructors.)
How will public funds be used for certain treatment options... and will public funds be used for abortions or other birth control? (This was not addressed, but there is a contingent of Americans that DO NOT support their tax dollars being used for this, even though it is a legal option in this country that is routinely provided through private insurance. Obama only addressed the "death panel" hysteria for families of the elderly etc with his 'we won't pull the plug on grandma' soundbite.)
How will citizens that cannot afford coverage (even a gov't option) be subsidized in order to have health care? How will it be coordinated, processed, reviewed and paid for? (Assuming this means the unemployed, impoverished or those with pre-existing conditions.) (Obama only addressed how he sees these groups obtaining more affordable insurance coverage through the idea of pooling risk- which will also make it more affordable for small businesses/self employed as well.)
Will Congress continue to be offered a different tier of public heath care coverage above what an average American can be offered? (Obama seeks to offer average Americans similar coverage as public officials.)
I am sure there are other important questions, but these were foremost to me, at least.
You're confusing two different kinds of attendees. People who want to show up and ask tough questions get plenty of credit from me. People who want to scream their heads off, disrupt others from asking questions and basically just make an @ ss out of themselves are idiots. They're adding nothing to the political dialogue.
Take that guy that freaked out on Specter (someone I'm not exactly a fan of). "God is going to judge you and your **** cronies"??? Lets put aside the biblical irony of using the word God and then **** in the same sentence. When I was growing up Catholic, I remember learning of a merciful higher power who dealt in forgiveness and love, not political retribution. Back in those days, God hadn't registered as a Republican yet (I believe Reagan was the one to get Him to change His affiliation
I know, locally in Michigan, John Dingell held a similar town hall and the same thing happened, and he is about as old as Moses.
Grant it, those people are the exceptions, though. They make for great, sensational soundbites which the networks gravitate to. To be fair... didn't the media also make a big deal about the protesters that got shouted down at both political conventions last summer? Is that all we remember about those events, or the speeches and discourse that took place?
Free speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, so I am with you. But don't buy into the media's method of making it the story and not the byline. They are using this as a way to broadbrush 'angry America', which, in reality, there is much fear based on misinformation, but hardly the anarchy the media is projecting.
Maybe the Democratic leadership should revise, clarify and target their message based on the demographics of the disturbers- i.e. baby boomer and aged populations. I think Obama made a good start yesterday... (although he took a hit when the AARP came out and strongly rebuked Obama in that they do not endorse any legislation at this time) ....but I don't think that he speaks for the leadership in whole, considering the positions that Palosi and others have taken on this issue (as opposed to what the bluedogs are saying). That is a mainstream concern as far as what modified legislation will come out of this bill, who will interpret it fairly in layman's terms, and present it to America before it is voted on. As a common citizen, I am concerned that the ready-shoot-aim approach to legislation is not good for anybody... and that a splintered Democratic majority will end up having any form of reform die on the vine.
Answer these questions definitively and the common citizen will probably be satisfied:
Single payer or Universal Gov't option w/ private option? (Obama gave us his straight answer yesterday, although his position was different ten years ago.)
How is it going to be funded and will the 95% be affected with a tax increase? (Still murky, although Obama clarified his vision as to how he thinks it should be funded, which I doubt will cover the entire gap.)
Will it impact the national debt? (see above.)
Can citizens keep their current coverage, doctors, specialists etc? (Yes, according to Obama's idea of this reform.)
Can private industry maintain a viable business model (protecting employment and quality of coverage)? (Obama thinks so, even with a Gov't option, but really didn't explain, other than offering a poor example using the postal service, and basically exclaimed that there will be people that will never agree with him.)
Will there be a method of preventing bureaucratic regulation effecting health care rationing and other means to help fill the health care professional shortages?
(Obama said that there would have to be discussions on how to alleviate the extreme caseloads from PCP's, but didn't address the industry professional shortages other than talking to the salary disparities for front line physicians and instructors.)
How will public funds be used for certain treatment options... and will public funds be used for abortions or other birth control? (This was not addressed, but there is a contingent of Americans that DO NOT support their tax dollars being used for this, even though it is a legal option in this country that is routinely provided through private insurance. Obama only addressed the "death panel" hysteria for families of the elderly etc with his 'we won't pull the plug on grandma' soundbite.)
How will citizens that cannot afford coverage (even a gov't option) be subsidized in order to have health care? How will it be coordinated, processed, reviewed and paid for? (Assuming this means the unemployed, impoverished or those with pre-existing conditions.) (Obama only addressed how he sees these groups obtaining more affordable insurance coverage through the idea of pooling risk- which will also make it more affordable for small businesses/self employed as well.)
Will Congress continue to be offered a different tier of public heath care coverage above what an average American can be offered? (Obama seeks to offer average Americans similar coverage as public officials.)
I am sure there are other important questions, but these were foremost to me, at least.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
FYP...lets not pretend that only the Dems are supported by Lawyers ok...even you can do better than that!
FYP...lets not pretend that only the Dems are supported by Lawyers ok...even you can do better than that!
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01
But let's not kid ourselves about who they favor (by almost 20:1)FYP...lets not pretend that only the Dems are supported by Lawyers ok...even you can do better than that!
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I expect more from the GOP also. Instead, all I have been getting are multiple questionaires skewed toward answering in the terms they want, while having their hand out for a donation at the same time. Sent one in, with comments as to what the GOP has to do IMO to regain political traction with people in this country.
Their biggest problem right now is that they are not listening to anybody, let alone their own constituents, so they will continue to founder along allowing the Beck's, Palin's and Limbaugh's to be their speakpiece and incite fear and extreme opinion instead of forming some relatively positive platform to target for 2012. They need a young, moderate candidate to emerge that has the appeal and charisma that Obama enchanted with, while maintaining conservative fiscal, economic and foreign policies that appeal to a broad base.(I proposed an idea that this country should start an initiative to regain its once mighty manufacturing position in the world, which generally secured healthy employment, instead of the service/consumptive economy we have become.)
Obama will be re-elected in 2012 unless he royally screws up the economic recovery, doesn't improve employment and falters on his tax and Iraq pledges. He'll definitely be re-elected if he succeeds with health care reform that delivers what he has promised.
I expect more from the GOP also. Instead, all I have been getting are multiple questionaires skewed toward answering in the terms they want, while having their hand out for a donation at the same time. Sent one in, with comments as to what the GOP has to do IMO to regain political traction with people in this country.
Their biggest problem right now is that they are not listening to anybody, let alone their own constituents, so they will continue to founder along allowing the Beck's, Palin's and Limbaugh's to be their speakpiece and incite fear and extreme opinion instead of forming some relatively positive platform to target for 2012. They need a young, moderate candidate to emerge that has the appeal and charisma that Obama enchanted with, while maintaining conservative fiscal, economic and foreign policies that appeal to a broad base.(I proposed an idea that this country should start an initiative to regain its once mighty manufacturing position in the world, which generally secured healthy employment, instead of the service/consumptive economy we have become.)
Obama will be re-elected in 2012 unless he royally screws up the economic recovery, doesn't improve employment and falters on his tax and Iraq pledges. He'll definitely be re-elected if he succeeds with health care reform that delivers what he has promised.
- Status