Does a one-term President have more power?

[96Qowner]

A very interesting solution for Obama's current troubles. He could make himself into a great President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02846.html

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

[heliochrome85]

no.

[heliochrome85]

there is absolutely nothing he can do that would make republicans work with him. to pretend that if he did this or if he did that, would make him more likable, is ridiculous. why? because most of the ranking members of the GOP leadership have stated that it is their ultimate goal to prevent him from passing any more legislation. so much for bipartisanship.

[IBCoupe]

The Washington Post wants President Obama to quit? Say it ain't so!

Moonie rag is Moonie.

EDIT: Washington Times is the Moonie-rag, silly past-self. If only you remembered what you remember now.

[96Qowner]

No one read the article? Shucks. I thought it deserved more than just heckling.

They're a couple of pretty wise fellas, and the concept is fascinating - exactly what we thought Obama was going to be instead of what he became. The whole country (well, a majority) would support him, if he actually wanted to take the responsibility of getting us out of this jam.

[heliochrome85]

thats the dumbest argument ive ever heard.

the guy isnt bush. he has 45+ job approval. dispite apparently being a socialist, a black, a muslin, a hypocrite, satan, an anarchist, atheist, a terrorlst, and america hating.

So yeah, you are right, he should just abandon those 45+% of america because apparently some pundits and their mindless supporters hate what he's done. You want to really cut the deficit? Burn your medicaid card. Id pay good money to see a Tea Partier/GOP member do that. But alas, Glenn Becks audience is a sea of Medicaid purchased mobility scooters.


the truth of the matter is that the right is agaist socialism, just not agaist the socialism that they use/abuse.

[96Qowner]

Just read the article. Then we can discuss it.

[heliochrome85]

i dont need to open a flaming brown paper bag to know that its got s*** inside.

the washington post is barely less conservative than the Wall Street Journal. I read the article. my opinion is unchanged.

[heliochrome85]

fine you want an argument to ignore here it is:

the article supposes that if he doesnt run, he will magically get cooperation from the republicans. Cheech and Chong had less ridiculous hallucinations.

Again, the article claims that he has "largly lost the consent of the goverend." yeah, i guess that would be true if he had a 10% approval rating, but we know that isnt true.

"Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue. "


Its not even worth my time. that you think that this article was worth even mentioning, or worth debate is indicative of the problems of our political system today. The argument that this article proposes, and that you found SO INTERESTING AS TO REQUIRE A THREAD, makes me question my own sanity. What color is the sky in your world? because its clear to me and everyone else, taht its not blue.

[IBCoupe]

Well, that's one way to get consensus.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltwxC19s5u8[/youtube]

"Of course! How selfish of me. Let's do all the things you wanna do!"

[96Qowner]

Interesting reactions. That article must have hit a nerve, eh? Tsk, such blind blustering.

I don't believe in Obama, never have, but he's extremely charismatic. This country needs a leader right now and Obama could be that leader. He does, indeed, have high personal ratings, and if he put partisanship aside he could lead. He could make history.

Or he could keep up the good fight and lose the Senate for the Dems, too.

[heliochrome85]

I don't believe in Obama

im shocked.

[96Qowner]

This was my objection to Obama in the fall of 2008. I preferred the guy with some experience. It seemed a bad time for an inexperienced guy:

Oh, brother. OK, so I went through all 93 posts over 2 days and here's what I came up with:

1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"
2.) "He is a fantastic orator"
3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."
4.) "-Taught constitutional law"
5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.
6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"
7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.
8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership (rather dubious as a qualification)

Have I missed anything? Step back a minute and ask yourselves if these 8 qualify him to be President. Usually, we expect more ... don't we?

When I say that this election is between McCain and an unqualified guy, how am I incorrect? Would anyone with these qualifications (like my neighbor) be suitable to run for President, or is Obama somehow special?

(My neighbor was running for Governor and had more experience than Obama,)

ok-let-s-talk-about-qualifications-and- ... ilit=obama

Somebody's gotta lead - Obama might as well take a stab at it. He's President, after all.

[IBCoupe]

...but he's extremely charismatic.

You must not have been paying attention since 2008. That's one of the biggest complaints: he's not charismatic anymore. This is the Barack Obama I saw in the debates - the one that made me say, "I don't mind this guy." President Obama has been everything I expected him to be, and I have to say that it sounds like I'm the only one.

And I still haven't read the article. Don't really intend to - I was responding to the quoted portion in T's post, and in large part to the prominent (though, perhaps not sizeable) push for President Obama to cave to everything Republican.

[96Qowner]

Obama's job approval/disapproval average per RCP has been stable since the first of August at about 46/49. That's remarkable given what happened in the election. People don't actually hold Obama responsible for this mess we're in. (It may be that they actually understand that it was Pelosi and Reid who did this to us, but that's another subject.) Obama could pull it off. He could be dutifully enshrined as the President who pulled us out of total financial collapse - the course we're currently on, thanks to Pelosi and Reid.

[heliochrome85]

People don't actually hold Obama responsible for this mess we're in.

thats funny, cause im fairly certian, i cant say ive ever heard anyone on the right attribute our country's problems to anyone other than his "socialism"

oh, and its pelosi' and reid's fault now? how so? what exactly did pelosi do to deregulate wall street and push companies to make less safe investments for higher profits? what did reid do?

[heliochrome85]

oh look, Newt Gingrich has taken up the call too!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... f-the-year

[96Qowner]

Pelosi is majority leader of the House and was uniquely responsible for getting legislation passed. She did what she wanted to do, and did it on her own schedule. Reid is leader of the Senate. Legislators are responsible for legislation. Nothing Obama did was particularly constructive. The White House didn't even have anything to do with writing the legislation. They left it to Pelosi and Reid. This is all pretty well known - you should be able to Google for the whole history of the legislative battles. Obama gave a speech every day, and Pelosi and Reid did whatever they did on their own schedules and their own terms.

[IBCoupe]

It may be that they actually understand that it was Pelosi and Reid who did this to us, but that's another subject

Also, it may be that, in remembering that Wall Street took its dive in September of 2008, it wouldn't be chronologically sound to blame President Obama, who took office in January of 2009.

She did what she wanted to do, and did it on her own schedule. Reid is leader of the Senate.

So walk me through what they did that created the mess.

[heliochrome85]

Yeah, thanks for that Q. It really cleared up everything. I had no idea that they worked on their own schedules and for their own agendas.


Also, Obama bailed out the banks. And the auto industry. And most of the major municipal projects are from federal funds. And we stand to make a substantial profit from all of those investments. But you're right, he did nothing constructive. I guess all he did was play basketball, and eat watermelon.


The level of ignorance is appalling.

[AZhitman]

...someone say watermelon?

[audtatious]

[heliochrome85]

noted moron Warren Buffet says: "Pretty Good for Government Work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opini ... ef=opinion

but yes, obama, nazi pelosi, and hairy reid all screwed over america.

[stebo0728]

Weve been in foreplay with socialism for years, Busy played with her nips, now O/P/R have moved to "FAP" zone, lets just hope someone smells the herpes before its too late....

EDIT - And Europe's starting to shout "dat b**** gave us herpes already..." so maybe we'll listen

[heliochrome85]

Weve been in foreplay with socialism for years, Busy played with her nips, now O/P/R have moved to "FAP" zone, lets just hope someone smells the herpes before its too late....

EDIT - And Europe's starting to shout "dat b**** gave us herpes already..." so maybe we'll listen

we've had socialism in this country since before any of the members of this forum's time.

no one is against THEIR socialism, just the socialism towards others.

[IBCoupe]

Everybody's a little socialist. And Europe's economic troubles aren't due to "socialism," it's due to the economic recession.

[96Qowner]

More and more socialism is always a good thing? Always?

Apparently, nobody is interested in responding to the actual subject of the thread. When you have nothing to offer, change the subject.

[heliochrome85]

we discussed it. or are you incapable of reading?

[96Qowner]

we discussed it. or are you incapable of reading?

Yes I am.

My turn now to ask you a question.

Are you capable of polite conversation?

[heliochrome85]

i am. but i have a limit to my patience. you are welcome to PM me if you have any further concerns. but this charade you put on about "reasoned discourse" is just that, a charade. when you source your opinion from the Heritage Foundation, i think its obvious where you stand on the issue.



the premise of this thread was and still is RIDICULOUS, and in no way based in reality. that you think its worth discussing further is more a sign of the way you see things, than my impatience and resultant impoliteness.