2012 Election

[mudjack]

Even many on the left are dissatisfied with the Big O. 

I'm disappointed on some issues, but who else could I possibly vote for?

[grovester]

bingo

[phxcat]

bingo

In addition to this, the political reality of it is that he has done a pretty good job, considering the Republican obstructionism that he has faced.  Could he have done more his first two years?  (Or, while the Dems still had a supermajority in the Senate)?  Yes, that was his failing as a Senator, not a Governor coming in.  However, he has accomplished a lot, considering, and those on the left who expect more will never be happy when faced with political reality.  The same can be said for those on the right who are running Tea Party candidates against people like Orin Hatch. 

[phuqueue]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ohn-wayne/

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

Mrs. Bachmann grew up in Waterloo, and used the town as the backdrop for her campaign announcement, where she told Fox News: "Well what I want them to know is just like, John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too."

I feel like if this crop of GOP candidates were on a TV show, like say a comedy version of the West Wing or something, it would seem too wacky to uphold suspension of disbelief and the show would get annoying.

But since it's actually real life it never stops being entertaining.

[KCMax]

This election is shaping up to be 2004 all over again. Obama, like Bush, has alienated a bit of his base by moving to the center. The opposition has villified him, much as the left did with Bush. His approval ratings are sagging, although not terrible - much like Bush. Both were fairly polarizing figures. Ultimately, the base will be rallied to re-elect him because they hate the other party - much like Republicans came out to make sure a Democrat didn't win in 2004.

Even the GOP race looks like the Dem race in 2004. You have an electric, red-meat type candidate in Michelle Bachman who says everything the base loves, but is prone to gaffes and has little chance of winning the general election (Sarah Palin may ultimately fill this role) - like Howard Dean. Her popularity will scare the mainstream/elites of the party so much they will run towards the boring, safe pick - Mitt Romney (John Kerry) who provides the best chance of winning but will still ultimately come up a bit short.

And to carry out the analogy further, Jon Huntsman = Wesley Clark (media favorite that fails to catch on with voters), Rick Santorum = Dick Gephardt (long-time party establishment figure whose time has passed), Ron Paul = Dennis Kucinich (small, but very passionate voter base on the extreme), Tim Pawlenty = Joe Lieberman (terribly boring moderate who is gunning for a VP slot), Herman Cain = Al Sharpton (says kooky things, but can deliver a speech) and John Edwards = Newt Gingrich (morally bankrupt).

[aknowledgeableperson]

I'm disappointed on some issues, but who else could I possibly vote for?

Show displeasure by not voting or voting for some 3rd party candidate.

[mean]

Show displeasure by not voting or voting for some 3rd party candidate.

I used to do this, but 8 years of GWB cowed me into conforming.

[grovester]

akp's plan has been exposed.

[mudjack]

Show displeasure by not voting or voting for some 3rd party candidate.

While Obama is not everything that I could possibly hope for, I definitely want him to win. I would not want to be complicit in a Bachman or Palin or Gingrich presidency.

[mean]

If Bachmann picks Palin for veep, I will totally vote for that ticket. Otherwise, it will probably have to be Obama.

[FangKC]

I cannot imagine a bigger disaster than a Bachman-Palin adminstration.

[mean]

Exactly!

[AllThingsKC]

I'm just wondering what would qualify as a "disaster."  I mean if a 25% increase in unemployment, a 35% increase in debt, a 104% increase in gas prices, and a record number of people on welfare and food stamps isn't a disaster, then what is?

Not that I'm saying Palin or Bachman would be the perfect solution to the problem since they only have about the same amount of experience as our current president.  So, while I don't think they would fix much, I don't see how they would do much worse either.

[aknowledgeableperson]

While Obama is not everything that I could possibly hope for, I definitely want him to win.

No problem with that statement.  The point is the level of support one offers.  Let's say one donated $1,000 and 500 hours to Obama in 2008.  For 2012 given a more lukewarm support because he hasn't performed the way you expected you donate only $250 and give 50 hours of your time.

[mean]

I'm just wondering what would qualify as a "disaster."  I mean if a 25% increase in unemployment, a 35% increase in debt, a 104% increase in gas prices, and a record number of people on welfare and food stamps isn't a disaster, then what is?

That stuff is pretty insignificant. Not to voters, I realize, but in historical context? Tis but a blip. A disaster would have been a suitcase nuke going off in lower Manhattan (of course, that would probably have increased support for Obama), getting into a war with China, raiding that private home in Abbotobad and having it just be some eccentric retired Pakistani military commander's house, etc. I can think of a lot of things I would call legitimate disasters. The recession continuing to play out, which is basically impossible to control with policy anyway, is not what I would call a legitimate disaster.

[AllThingsKC]

That stuff is pretty insignificant. Not to voters, I realize, but in historical context? Tis but a blip. A disaster would have been a suitcase nuke going off in lower Manhattan (of course, that would probably have increased support for Obama), getting into a war with China, raiding that private home in Abbotobad and having it just be some eccentric retired Pakistani military commander's house, etc. I can think of a lot of things I would call legitimate disasters. The recession continuing to play out, which is basically impossible to control with policy anyway, is not what I would call a legitimate disaster.

Ok, I'm a little confused on your point.  Are you saying that Palin or Bachman could seem to be too war-hungry and/or allow terrorists attacks to happen?  Or have I missed your point completely?

[Highlander]

A disaster would have been a suitcase nuke going off in lower Manhattan (of course, that would probably have increased support for Obama.

Probably.  The 9/11 disaster no doubt strenghtened Bush's presidency despite the fact that his administration did not take the already-known threat, vague as it was, seriously enough.  Nonetheless, YouTube conspiracy theorists would have a heyday showing how the Obama administration actually provided the device and it was a CIA-DNC operation.  

Many of the things mentioned here are out of the control of the president just as he has only modest impact on the economy.  I am starting to think that the presidents job on things like the economy is not so much to fix it but to simply not do anything that would exacerbate the situation.

[mean]

Ok, I'm a little confused on your point.  Are you saying that Palin or Bachman could seem to be too war-hungry and/or allow terrorists attacks to happen?  Or have I missed your point completely?

I wasn't commenting on Palin or Bachmann, I was attempting to illustrate that "disaster" is a bit hyperbolic when describing Obama's first term.

Previously, when I said, "Exactly!" in response to Fang opining that a Bachmann/Palin administration would be a disaster, I wasn't speaking to their ideas on policy. I was speaking more to the fact that they're both willing to say completely crazy, poorly researched, and sometimes even 100% false things.

[AllThingsKC]

I was speaking more to the fact that they're both willing to say completely crazy, poorly researched, and sometimes even 100% false things.

Ok, now I understand what you're saying.  But how would that be different from any other President?

[phxcat]

Probably.  The 9/11 disaster no doubt strenghtened Bush's presidency despite the fact that his administration did not take the already-known threat, vague as it was, seriously enough.  Nonetheless, YouTube conspiracy theorists would have a heyday showing how the Obama administration actually provided the device and it was a CIA-DNC operation.  

Many of the things mentioned here are out of the control of the president just as he has only modest impact on the economy.  I am starting to think that the presidents job on things like the economy is not so much to fix it but to simply not do anything that would exacerbate the situation.

I think that the Hyperpartisanship that has taken hold in recent years would definitely push the time line beyond the point of 9/11/01 when we were all in it together to the point where people were people were blaming Bush for either incompetence, allowing a "Reichstag fire" moment, or being complicit himself.  Right now there is a rather large subset of the American electorate (it is always there but it is bigger than in the past) who see Obama as the enemy and would expect him to be complicit.  Also, nobody in 2001 was really expecting the President to be watching for something like 9/11.  Now, I think for any president, missing the attack would be seen by many as a failing of the President.

Ok, now I understand what you're saying.  But how would that be different from any other President?

It is more extreme for them than most any other President.  Bachman says things that are not on the extreme of the mainstream, but extreme of the right wing.  Palin, I think that the Paul Revere flap is instructive- she had just taken a historic tour of Boston, I'm sure she knew what had happened, and there really wasn't anything wrong with what she said, but in her singsongy, rambling way of talking, she made a statement that wasn't 100% factually correct.  She could have said that she had misspoken and corrected herself and nobody would have noticed, but she couldn't admit that she had misspoke and tried to twist history to fit with what she said.  It was probably similar to when Obama said that he had been to 57 states- watching the video, he was obviously tired, the way he said it, it appears that he said "50", paused while he started counting backwards the states he hadn't been to in his mind, and finished with "7".  He didn't try to add territories or attempted states to get to 57, he admitted that he misspoke.