At what point to Democrats give up on Obama?

[Anonymous]

How about the question "Would I be better off if McCain had been elected?"

My answer is (a) I suspect the economy would probably not be much different, since it's a world-wide problem, and (b) SCOTUS would be a catastrophe.

Don't agree to part (b) but you get my vote for the most intelligent posting on this thread.

[Anonymous]

I think we'll keep taking turns between the R's and D's until we either (1) get bought out by the Chinese or (2) some smart guy figures out how to make money from nanotech or green energy without relying on massive government subsidies.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:How about the question "Would I be better off if McCain had been elected?"

My answer is (a) I suspect the economy would probably not be much different, since it's a world-wide problem, and (b) SCOTUS would be a catastrophe.

So, while I don't think Obama has been great, I don't see anyone on the horizon that I would like to see replace him.

That is the much better question.

I think the economy would be worse, the health insurance situation would be worse, the wars would be worse, and we'd still have DADT. Then there's SCOTUS and the agency heads.

[Anonymous]

With McCain the economy would be slightly better, because we would have had a better stimulus and no downgrade. The wars would be "worse" in that they would be more expensive and ongoing, but probably also more effective at killing bad guys and stabilizing the respective countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Of course the democrats will not give up on Obama.

Ask yourself honestly, are you better off now compared to 2008? I think that any honest person who has not been brainwashed by Fox News will have to answer, "Yes."

Look at all the promises that Obama has made and kept and the progress that he is making,..

He has gotten us cheap affordable health care, is actively pulling us out of Bush's two disastrous wars and has repaired our sullied international reputation, is saving the economy, is investing in Green Energy, has dramatically cut back on the corrupt crony capitalism that was rampant under Bush and is cutting back on all of the terrible 911 civil right violations like the fascist Patriot Act and he will soon close Gitmo.

And, lately he has been moving back to his true progressive roots. The country will soon rally around him. The Repubs don't have a chance...

Mars is calling, they want you home, its late.

Are you crazy? Where have you been for the last 3 years? Living under a rock?

[Anonymous]

Mars is calling, they want you home, its late.

Are you crazy? Where have you been for the last 3 years? Living under a rock?

No. The poster is living in a dream world with a bunch of unicorns.

Nothing that the OP mentioned has come to pass, the economy is undeniably worse, we are in three wars now not two, Gitmo is still open, crony capitalism is certainly not dead, green energy investments have turned into green energy scandals, our international reputation has not been restored and the Patriot Act has not been repealed; "Hope and Change" has become "Hate and Blame" the republicans. Wealth distribution has been a total failure unless you mean wealth distribution to the 6 wealthiest counties in the US that all happen to surround DC. Maybe that is why so many posters in this forum like Obama so much...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing that the OP mentioned has come to pass, the economy is undeniably worse, we are in three wars now not two, Gitmo is still open, crony capitalism is certainly not dead, green energy investments have turned into green energy scandals, our international reputation has not been restored and the Patriot Act has not been repealed; "Hope and Change" has become "Hate and Blame" the republicans. Wealth distribution has been a total failure unless you mean wealth distribution to the 6 wealthiest counties in the US that all happen to surround DC. Maybe that is why so many posters in this forum like Obama so much...

Here is what I don't get:

1) The three wars -- Republicans want to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and thought Obama was too soft on Libya. So, they must be glad we have three wars now;

2) Gitmo -- Republicans wanted to keep Gitmo open. So, they must be happy that it is still open;

3) Crony capitalism -- of course Republicans love crony capitalism and have been linked to far more insider green energy deals than Obama. So,they probably are only disappointed that a few dollars made it to someone else's pocket. Generally, they should be happy.

4) International reputation -- Republicans don't care about our international reputation and want to fuck entire world except Israel. So, they should be happy.

5) Patriot Act -- Republicans want to continue the Patriot Act. So, they should be happy.

6) Wealth distribution has been a failure -- Republicans should be happy.

Given all of this, I can understand why a liberal like myself would be disappointed by Obama. What I don't understand is why Republicans are not rallying around him. He should be the most popular Republican candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With McCain the economy would be slightly better, because we would have had a better stimulus and no downgrade. The wars would be "worse" in that they would be more expensive and ongoing, but probably also more effective at killing bad guys and stabilizing the respective countries.

Yeah, your team did a bang-up job stabilizing Iraq and getting Osama Bin Laden.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing that the OP mentioned has come to pass, the economy is undeniably worse, we are in three wars now not two, Gitmo is still open, crony capitalism is certainly not dead, green energy investments have turned into green energy scandals, our international reputation has not been restored and the Patriot Act has not been repealed; "Hope and Change" has become "Hate and Blame" the republicans. Wealth distribution has been a total failure unless you mean wealth distribution to the 6 wealthiest counties in the US that all happen to surround DC. Maybe that is why so many posters in this forum like Obama so much...

Here is what I don't get:

1) The three wars -- Republicans want to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and thought Obama was too soft on Libya. So, they must be glad we have three wars now;

2) Gitmo -- Republicans wanted to keep Gitmo open. So, they must be happy that it is still open;

3) Crony capitalism -- of course Republicans love crony capitalism and have been linked to far more insider green energy deals than Obama. So,they probably are only disappointed that a few dollars made it to someone else's pocket. Generally, they should be happy.

4) International reputation -- Republicans don't care about our international reputation and want to fuck entire world except Israel. So, they should be happy.

5) Patriot Act -- Republicans want to continue the Patriot Act. So, they should be happy.

6) Wealth distribution has been a failure -- Republicans should be happy.

Given all of this, I can understand why a liberal like myself would be disappointed by Obama. What I don't understand is why Republicans are not rallying around him. He should be the most popular Republican candidate.

Sure, but without a boogeyman the GOP would collapse. The whole point of the current GOP is to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few plutocrats. Obviously you can't do this with just the votes of those in the top 1% of HHI. So you need a lot of credulous rubes who are afraid the socialist Demon-crat is going to take your guns and gay-marry your son. The only way to get the credulous rubes to vote for you is to demonize the political opposition. What possible better boogeyman than a black man with a strange name? So what we'll get is a general election between Obama, and the white Obama: Romney.

BTW, you forgot one more similarity: 8) The "stimulus" was essentially tailored to mollify centrist Republicans. They could've actually done a Keynesian stimulus of the kind Krugman and Stiglitz, et al recommend. Or they could've done one that was about half the recommended size, and comprised largely of tax breaks, rather than spending. They chose the latter. Which also answers the question, "Would the economy have been largely the same under President McCain?" Of course it would've been. Because Obama has largely pursued Republican policies, implemented by a Republican Fed chief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With McCain the economy would be slightly better, because we would have had a better stimulus and no downgrade. The wars would be "worse" in that they would be more expensive and ongoing, but probably also more effective at killing bad guys and stabilizing the respective countries.

Yeah, your team did a bang-up job stabilizing Iraq and getting Osama Bin Laden.

And don't forget, we would've had no "downgrade" because there's no way in Hell the Republicans would've raised the debt ceiling as they did scores of times before. There would've been no point in deliberately sabotaging the American economy under a McCain president. Remember, it's not treason when you betray your country if there's a Democrat in the White House.

[Anonymous]

Sorry "wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling"...

[Anonymous]

Here is what I don't get:

1) The three wars -- Republicans want to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and thought Obama was too soft on Libya. So, they must be glad we have three wars now;

2) Gitmo -- Republicans wanted to keep Gitmo open. So, they must be happy that it is still open;

3) Crony capitalism -- of course Republicans love crony capitalism and have been linked to far more insider green energy deals than Obama. So,they probably are only disappointed that a few dollars made it to someone else's pocket. Generally, they should be happy.

4) International reputation -- Republicans don't care about our international reputation and want to fuck entire world except Israel. So, they should be happy.

5) Patriot Act -- Republicans want to continue the Patriot Act. So, they should be happy.

6) Wealth distribution has been a failure -- Republicans should be happy.

Given all of this, I can understand why a liberal like myself would be disappointed by Obama. What I don't understand is why Republicans are not rallying around him. He should be the most popular Republican candidate.

Actually those are all good points except for #6. Using those metrics you can argue that republicans should be happy with Obama although I don't think you can apply many of those points to those libertarian Tea Party types. With #6 however it is a complete non-starter because the wealth distribution HAS been successful either in destroying wealth or in transferring it here. There is a reason that the counties around here have 4% unemployment while the rest of the country is at 9% or higher. Not to mention inflation, and that our debt has gone over a trillion. Hey, as long as Obama is president, at least I can be pretty confident that the economy here will be good at least compared to the rest of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is what I don't get:

1) The three wars -- Republicans want to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and thought Obama was too soft on Libya. So, they must be glad we have three wars now;

2) Gitmo -- Republicans wanted to keep Gitmo open. So, they must be happy that it is still open;

3) Crony capitalism -- of course Republicans love crony capitalism and have been linked to far more insider green energy deals than Obama. So,they probably are only disappointed that a few dollars made it to someone else's pocket. Generally, they should be happy.

4) International reputation -- Republicans don't care about our international reputation and want to fuck entire world except Israel. So, they should be happy.

5) Patriot Act -- Republicans want to continue the Patriot Act. So, they should be happy.

6) Wealth distribution has been a failure -- Republicans should be happy.

Given all of this, I can understand why a liberal like myself would be disappointed by Obama. What I don't understand is why Republicans are not rallying around him. He should be the most popular Republican candidate.

Actually those are all good points except for #6. Using those metrics you can argue that republicans should be happy with Obama although I don't think you can apply many of those points to those libertarian Tea Party types. With #6 however it is a complete non-starter because the wealth distribution HAS been successful either in destroying wealth or in transferring it here. There is a reason that the counties around here have 4% unemployment while the rest of the country is at 9% or higher. Not to mention inflation, and that our debt has gone over a trillion. Hey, as long as Obama is president, at least I can be pretty confident that the economy here will be good at least compared to the rest of the country.

How?!!! How has our tax code changed since Obama took office? How has our national distribution of wealth changed since Obama took office? It hasn't.

The tax code is Bush's. The money in Washington DC is Bush's. In case you didn't notice, this area was growing while the rest of the country got hit in the post 9/11 economy. You broke it, you own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is what I don't get:

1) The three wars -- Republicans want to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and thought Obama was too soft on Libya. So, they must be glad we have three wars now;

2) Gitmo -- Republicans wanted to keep Gitmo open. So, they must be happy that it is still open;

3) Crony capitalism -- of course Republicans love crony capitalism and have been linked to far more insider green energy deals than Obama. So,they probably are only disappointed that a few dollars made it to someone else's pocket. Generally, they should be happy.

4) International reputation -- Republicans don't care about our international reputation and want to fuck entire world except Israel. So, they should be happy.

5) Patriot Act -- Republicans want to continue the Patriot Act. So, they should be happy.

6) Wealth distribution has been a failure -- Republicans should be happy.

Given all of this, I can understand why a liberal like myself would be disappointed by Obama. What I don't understand is why Republicans are not rallying around him. He should be the most popular Republican candidate.

Actually those are all good points except for #6. Using those metrics you can argue that republicans should be happy with Obama although I don't think you can apply many of those points to those libertarian Tea Party types. With #6 however it is a complete non-starter because the wealth distribution HAS been successful either in destroying wealth or in transferring it here. There is a reason that the counties around here have 4% unemployment while the rest of the country is at 9% or higher. Not to mention inflation, and that our debt has gone over a trillion. Hey, as long as Obama is president, at least I can be pretty confident that the economy here will be good at least compared to the rest of the country.

And by "as long as Obama is President" you mean, "so long as Washington is the capitol of the united states."

[Anonymous]

How?!!! How has our tax code changed since Obama took office?

Not from Obama and the democrats from not trying they keep getting stymied by those pesky republicans although I bet that the democrats could have repealed the Bush tax cuts if they had really wanted to.

How has our national distribution of wealth changed since Obama took office? It hasn't.

The tax code is Bush's. The money in Washington DC is Bush's. In case you didn't notice, this area was growing while the rest of the country got hit in the post 9/11 economy. You broke it, you own it.

Ha, ha, more like Obama and the democrats broke the economy by spending more money than any other time in our history with a huge pile of it ending up in the DC area...

US Deficit


Hey and its the democrats who own the economy, just follow the link below so that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz can explain it all for you...

Democrats are ready to take responsibility for the state of the economy and they deserve credit for putting it on the right track, the party’s chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said on Wednesday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57025.html