Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

After the stinging rebuke Obama's policies received in Massachusetts, he could have decided to follow Bill Clinton's successful example and tack to the center.

Looks like he is choosing another course.

Yesterday he laughably claimed that Scott Brown was elected on the same wave of change that swept him into office a year ago. Today he is in Ohio making partisan class warfare campaign speeches.

Which populism will prevail, Scott Brown's conservative/libertarian version, or Obama's marxist/class warfare version?

The guy is clueless.........but so are most people in this country.

mainejeff wrote:The guy is clueless.........but so are most people in this country.

Yep, 69,456,897 were clueless last November.

May be too early to tell, although yes, Obama's response to the loss in the Senate of blistering the banks, again, and saying they're to blame for all our troubles is a little unsettling. It works fine in a campaign to go so populist, but you can't govern very effectively that way. Just hope this isn't the start of just one long year of campaigning in the hopes of staving off too many losses come the Fall. It's almost impossible to lose control of the Senate and it's very unlikely to lose control of the House, so the current arrangement of government is likely to stay the way it is, with numbers moving a little bit towards the GOP, until at least 2012. Gonna need to do something other than just villify certain parts of America between now and then.

HI54UNI wrote:

mainejeff wrote:The guy is clueless.........but so are most people in this country.

Yep, 69,456,897 were clueless last November.

Obama brought many - perhaps millions - of new voters to the polls last year. I am going to swallow my anger and frustration at who and what they naively voted for to say that bringing new voters to the polls and into the process was a good thing!

Yes, most of those new youthful and race-based voters were clueless at best, but I hope that many of those voters have been chastened by Obama's first year in office and will be unwilling to make the same stupid mistake twice by supporting him again.

Those Obama voters who voted in anger against Bush already have much more to be angry about with Obama.

native wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Yep, 69,456,897 were clueless last November.

Obama brought many - perhaps millions - of new voters to the polls last year. I am going to swallow my anger and frustration at who and what they naively voted for to say that bringing new voters to the polls and into the process was a good thing!

Yes, most of those new youthful and race-based voters were clueless at best, but I hope that many of those voters have been chastened by Obama's first year in office and will be unwilling to make the same stupid mistake twice by supporting him again.

Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Obama brought many - perhaps millions - of new voters to the polls last year. I am going to swallow my anger and frustration at who and what they naively voted for to say that bringing new voters to the polls and into the process was a good thing!

Yes, most of those new youthful and race-based voters were clueless at best, but I hope that many of those voters have been chastened by Obama's first year in office and will be unwilling to make the same stupid mistake twice by supporting him again.

Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Point well taken, GF, but Obama and his ilk continue to consistently mis-read the electorate and misunderstand the economic fundamentals which actually create jobs.

I consider it likely that the "recovery" will remain essentially jobless as long as Obama stays the course with his ridiculous socialist policies and "solutions." As a result, the political landscape will retain the extreme volatility which allowed Scott Brown to engineer a 30 point swing in only a couple of months.

I agree that McCain was a mediocre candidate, but the substantive actions he probably would have taken differently on the economic front would have been to veto excessive spending bills. Porkulus would not have passed on his watch.

GannonFan wrote: Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote: Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

Can you say, "1968 Democratic Convention?"

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Point well taken, GF, but Obama and his ilk continue to consistently mis-read the electorate and misunderstand the economic fundamentals which actually create jobs.

I consider it likely that the "recovery" will remain essentially jobless as long as Obama stays the course with his ridiculous socialist policies and "solutions." As a result, the political landscape will retain the extreme volatility which allowed Scott Brown to engineer a 30 point swing in only a couple of months.

I agree that McCain was a mediocre candidate, but the substantive actions he probably would have taken differently on the economic front would have been to veto excessive spending bills. Porkulus would not have passed on his watch.

I agree - Obama's going to be in a bit of trouble if he continues to pursue policies thatgo directly against economic recovery (i.e. if he goes too far in reigning in the banks, any climate change cap and trade, punitive taxation, pork spending described as stimulus, etc). I certainly think that's been one of his major gaffes from the past year - he didn't seem to really care enough about the economics of what he was doing or he was just hoping things would turn around on their own so that he would be covered. That didn't happen obviously.

As for McCain, eh, he always talked a good game of restricting spending, but he also sat in a Senate that for the better part of this decade, under Republicans or Democrats, has been part and parcel of one of the most wasteful spending decades we've seen. I'm not sure how he would've done as President in stopping the runaway train considering he did little to stem it in his current job, and he'd still have to deal with a Democratic Congress that has been even more spendthrift than the bad Republican one they replaced back in 2006.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote: Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

On point #1, how come that didn't work from '06 through '08? The Democratic Congress, with less pull, managed to outspend the Republican Congress they replaced, even with a Republican President in pace. Just switching out Bush for McCain, and with a bigger Democratic majority, wouldn't have guaranteed anything positive.

On point #2, you're right, he could see his own party bring him down, but you'd need the economy to continue exactly as it is today, or god forbid be worse, for him to be credibly challenged. Hillary will only run if it's a slam dunk for her to win the nomination and the country would need to be in shambles, or close to it, for that to happen. We're a long way from there right now.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

On point #1, how come that didn't work from '06 through '08? The Democratic Congress, with less pull, managed to outspend the Republican Congress they replaced, even with a Republican President in pace. Just switching out Bush for McCain, and with a bigger Democratic majority, wouldn't have guaranteed anything positive.

On point #2, you're right, he could see his own party bring him down, but you'd need the economy to continue exactly as it is today, or god forbid be worse, for him to be credibly challenged. Hillary will only run if it's a slam dunk for her to win the nomination and the country would need to be in shambles, or close to it, for that to happen. We're a long way from there right now.

On point #1, despite constant blathering to the contrary by the left, McCain<>Bush. Bush was as free-spending a Republican as you're (hopefully) likely ever to see, but you're right, there's no guarantee, but odds certainly favor my version of events with a Republican president not named Bush.

On point #2, ARE WE? And it wouldn't have to be Hillary. I only use her as an example. In fact, I can almost more likely see some upstart Democrat trying to make a name for himself doing it....

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Point well taken, GF, but Obama and his ilk continue to consistently mis-read the electorate and misunderstand the economic fundamentals which actually create jobs.

I consider it likely that the "recovery" will remain essentially jobless as long as Obama stays the course with his ridiculous socialist policies and "solutions." As a result, the political landscape will retain the extreme volatility which allowed Scott Brown to engineer a 30 point swing in only a couple of months.

I agree that McCain was a mediocre candidate, but the substantive actions he probably would have taken differently on the economic front would have been to veto excessive spending bills. Porkulus would not have passed on his watch.

I agree - Obama's going to be in a bit of trouble if he continues to pursue policies thatgo directly against economic recovery (i.e. if he goes too far in reigning in the banks, any climate change cap and trade, punitive taxation, pork spending described as stimulus, etc). I certainly think that's been one of his major gaffes from the past year - he didn't seem to really care enough about the economics of what he was doing or he was just hoping things would turn around on their own so that he would be covered. That didn't happen obviously.

As for McCain, eh, he always talked a good game of restricting spending, but he also sat in a Senate that for the better part of this decade, under Republicans or Democrats, has been part and parcel of one of the most wasteful spending decades we've seen. I'm not sure how he would've done as President in stopping the runaway train considering he did little to stem it in his current job, and he'd still have to deal with a Democratic Congress that has been even more spendthrift than the bad Republican one they replaced back in 2006.

You and AZG are both correct in that we will never know what McCain would actually have done.

However, examine the man's record! As a Senator, McCain accepted no earmarks. That is a remarkable accomplishment in an of itself and bodes well for what might have been.

As to AZG's point that the economy is close to being in shambles, I would add that the Democratic Party is even closer to being in shambles, and could quite possibly continue to be so through the 2012 convention. Are you whipper snappers too young to recall and understand the significance of the 1968 Democratic Convention?

With Obama presiding over an Afghan war the left will continue to label as a "quagmire," whether true or not, and unemployment still greater than the 7.6% inherited by Obama, is there really any reason for anyone to be confident about the outcome of the 2012 elections?

native wrote:I agree that McCain was a mediocre candidate, but the substantive actions he probably would have taken differently on the economic front would have been to veto excessive spending bills.

And there where would we be?????

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote: Well, unless the Republicans can find a suitable candidate, it's very likely, considering history, that Obama will win relatively easily in 2012. Not everyone was necessarily voting for Obama - to many, he was simply the better alternative to a very mediocre McCain. Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

1. Do we not have gridlock now???

2. I hope so!

We need a Romney vs. Clinton 2012 Election.......unfortunately, we may end up with Palin or Huckabee vs. Obama.........

mainejeff wrote:

native wrote:I agree that McCain was a mediocre candidate, but the substantive actions he probably would have taken differently on the economic front would have been to veto excessive spending bills.

And there where would we be?????

Legitimate question. I think it possible that if McCain had been elected, we would have slightly less unemployment and slightly greater economic growth, maybe one or two percentage points.

Would it have been enough to assuage public fear and anger? Probably not, but it would certainly have set a better example of leadership than the sorry ass amateur we have now.

native wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
And there where would we be?????

Legitimate question. I think it possible that if McCain had been elected, we would have slightly less unemployment and slightly greater economic growth, maybe one or two percentage points.

Would it have been enough to assuage public fear and anger? Probably not, but it would certainly have set a better example of leadership than the sorry ass amateur we have now.

So you are saying that we should have let banks fail???

mainejeff wrote:

native wrote:
Legitimate question. I think it possible that if McCain had been elected, we would have slightly less unemployment and slightly greater economic growth, maybe one or two percentage points.

Would it have been enough to assuage public fear and anger? Probably not, but it would certainly have set a better example of leadership than the sorry ass amateur we have now.

So you are saying that we should have let banks fail???

I am honestly not sure about whether some of the banks should have been allowed to fail, but BILLIONS were given away to foreign creditors as part of the bank rescue, and that sticks in my craw. In any case, the bank rescue was already a done deal before Obama was elected. McCain would have had no chance to weigh in as a President. Bush, and both McCain and Obama as Senators are responsible for it.

I am talking about the porkulus bill passed by Democrats after Obama took office. The political payback spending in that bill was astonishingly wasteful and counterproductive to economic recovery.

As far as business failures, it would indeed have been It would have been far better for GM and Chrysler to have been allowed to go bankrupt, as opposed to the corrupt and illegal bailout that was provided.

http://www.gmbailout.com/

All of you need to stop wasting time debating the course of the Democratic Party in 2012. There is absolutely no way the DNC pushes a second candidate. 0% chance. The current DNC leadership knows that it would be suicide for the the party to nominate anyone other than Barack Obama in 2012 unless he suddenly goes crazy and starts eating his own turds.

There are a few people with sense left in the Democratic Party and they will never kick Barry to the curb while he is in office. Watch somebody suggest it, and then watch his supporters start calling the other Dems racists. It would be a galloping train wreck for them and they know it.

CID1990 wrote:All of you need to stop wasting time debating the course of the Democratic Party in 2012. There is absolutely no way the DNC pushes a second candidate. 0% chance. The current DNC leadership knows that it would be suicide for the the party to nominate anyone other than Barack Obama in 2012 unless he suddenly goes crazy and starts eating his own turds.

There are a few people with sense left in the Democratic Party and they will never kick Barry to the curb while he is in office. Watch somebody suggest it, and then watch his supporters start calling the other Dems racists. It would be a galloping train wreck for them and they know it.

Barry is already eating his own turds!

It would not be the first galloping train wreck among the Democratic party leadership. In my view, such a schism remains well within the realm of possibility if body odor remains on his strident socialist/class warfare course.

mainejeff wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Disagree on two fronts:

1) McCain at least would have accomplished one thing: we wouldn't have a Democratic Senate, House and President, which would have caused more gridlock and prevented the horrendous pork, "stimulus" and spending bills that have been ramrodded through on Obama's watch.
2) I fully believe that if Obama continues to show this much weakness, indecisivenss and poor decision-making, he will have opposition WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY in 2012.

Can you say "Hillary, 2012"?

1. Do we not have gridlock now???

2. I hope so!

We need a Romney vs. Clinton 2012 Election.......unfortunately, we may end up with Palin or Huckabee vs. Obama.........

How can we possibly have gridlock with a supermajority? The reality is they can't get out of their own way...has nothing to do with partisan politics. They're so fucking giddy with power they are falling all over themselves.

AZGrizFan wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
1. Do we not have gridlock now???

2. I hope so!

We need a Romney vs. Clinton 2012 Election.......unfortunately, we may end up with Palin or Huckabee vs. Obama.........

How can we possibly have gridlock with a supermajority? The reality is they can't get out of their own way...has nothing to do with partisan politics. They're so **** giddy with power they are falling all over themselves.

Neither Palin nor Huckabee will get the nomination. Look for Romney, along with Newt Gingrich and possibly Bobby Jindal as the only realistic contenders.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
How can we possibly have gridlock with a supermajority? The reality is they can't get out of their own way...has nothing to do with partisan politics. They're so **** giddy with power they are falling all over themselves.

Neither Palin nor Huckabee will get the nomination. Look for Romney, along with Newt Gingrich and possibly Bobby Jindal as the only realistic contenders.

Agreed.

GannonFan wrote: Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

I think you could argue that we'd be better off than McCain. I'm not saying we'd be in the Pax Americana by any means but we'd be more well on our way to recovery...

1) The stimulus money would have been given to the people, and not for frivolous projects like studying the mating habits of mosquitos and drunk coeds.

2) Businesses and Corporations wouldn't be terrified of hiring new workers and taking other risks in expanding because there wouldn't be looming taxes from every angle.

Obama will pay a price if he stays on his present course. That much is clear from the November '09 elections and the special '10 Massachusetts. Americans will remember where falling for smooth talk got them and they will turn to the republicans even if the party chooses another trite, blase candidate like McLame.

Pwns wrote:

GannonFan wrote: Even looking back one year now, it's hard to make an argument that we'd be any better off with McCain at the helm. If the Republicans run a dud candidate again in 2012, Obama will win in a walk (assuming that we aren't in year 4 of a jobless recovery by then).

I think you could argue that we'd be better off than McCain. I'm not saying we'd be in the Pax Americana by any means but we'd be more well on our way to recovery...

1) The stimulus money would have been given to the people, and not for frivolous projects like studying the mating habits of mosquitos and drunk coeds.

2) Businesses and Corporations wouldn't be terrified of hiring new workers and taking other risks in expanding because there wouldn't be looming taxes from every angle.

Obama will pay a price if he stays on his present course. That much is clear from the November '09 elections and the special '10 Massachusetts. Americans will remember where falling for smooth talk got them and they will turn to the republicans even if the party chooses another trite, blase candidate like McLame.

Do you really think McCain would have been able to do anything different with a Dem controlled Congress?