E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIt appears Republicans aren’t so confident they can beat Obama now. “Having gone from despondency in 2008 to euphoria last November, a more sober GOP is wincing in the light of day as they consider just how difficult unseating an incumbent president with a massive warchest is going to be, even with a still-dismal economy,” Politico’s Martin writes. Karl Rove calls Obama “a favorite, albeit a slight favorite.” And: “[A]side from the traditional advantages of incumbency, Republicans are also fretting about the strength of Obama’s campaign infrastructure, the potential limitations of their own field and, particularly, the same demographic weaknesses that haunted them in 2008.” Plus, there’s the lackluster GOP field…
All about 2012 fundraising? The Hill: “Obama makes Oscar cameo.” “The president appeared in a montage of man-on-the-street interviews, during which participants were asked to name some of their most memorable songs from movies,” the paper writes. His favorite: "As Time Goes By," from "Casablanca."
Over the weekend, President Obama said Khaddafy has to go. "When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule," the White House said in a statement.” The New York Post notes, “The strong words from Obama, who had previously stayed mum on the Mideast madman's fate, came during a phone chat with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. ‘The president and the chancellor shared deep concerns about the Libyan government's continued violation of human rights and brutalization of its people,’ read the statement.”
So now rejecting federal funds are about the “risk” of “cost overrun”? “Our taxpayers aren’t going to take the risk of the cost overrun,” Florida Gov. Rick Scott told CNN. “I haven’t seen how we can do it,” he added.
Former President Bush “canceled a scheduled speech Saturday at a business leaders' conference in Denver after learning the WikiLeaks head was also invited to speak to attendees via satellite,” the New York Daily News reports. “‘Upon learning that Julian Assange had recently been invited to address the same summit, President Bush decided to cancel his appearance,’ Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in a statement. ‘The former President has no desire to share a forum with a man who has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States,’ he added.”
Leave a Comment:
I thought Governor Scott was a businessman.
Every businessman knows, if you are worried about the risk of "cost overrun", then you put it into the contract. It's amazing how work gets done on time and on budget when it's in the contract.
Agreed Obama should be a slight favorite for re-election. A billion dollar warchest, including a good slice of taxpayer money siphoned off through public employee unions, will help him.
Another helpful fact for Obama : Voters by the fall of 2012 will realize they will be moving the US Senate to Republican control, and the House will no doubt stay GOP; Obama may sell the notion of divided government being a good idea...
What also helps Obama's chances is the always-loyal to the Left traditional Media, like MSNBC !
But you have NO problem with FOX and their always-loyal to the Right slant, no?
I also have to get a kick out of all the people that keep yammering about Novermber being a madate about one thing or another, and how the 'people have spoken', but when you consider so was the '08 election, the effort has been non-stop by the Right to obstruct to no end.
Hypocrits much?
Love the way you all assume the GOP is taking over the world... when these cuts come down to the middle class (not the Koch boys).. you will see screaming.... How about we cut all Congress salaries by 50% or make them like NH which is $100 per year.... But then Koch will hire them all and they will be rolling in the streets... If the GOP doesn't delivery on the jobs.. .they are toast.... and to waste their time on the defense of marriage act is crazy... it has nothing to do with jobs... but then 99% of what they are doing has nothing to do with jobs... just keeping their red meat crowd happy..... and the independents unhappy.... The dem's overreached and the GOP is doing the same thing.....
I can't help but disagree with MSNBC. November was a referendum on the obama policies, and if the Republicans take a firm handle on the objectives projected by that election, Obama will be defeated.
Let's see, lately Obama has lost core support from: the Latinos who are angry they haven't seen progress from the president on criminal alien reform; the Gay population from the administrations lack of forcefulness on the marriage issue; the ultra-left liberals that are still angry about Obama sigining the Obama Tax Credit Bill; the high projected costs of the Obama Health Care legislation; the takeover of private business; and the increasing deficit that the government is saddled with; and the spending in the Obama budget; the lack of Democratic participation in government.
And who will emerge as competition to this failed president for his party nomination in the next election? I don't agree that Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012, either from a strong Republican contender or from a member of his own party.
How many ultra left liberals are going to vote for Christie, Newt or, anyone? Latinos likely to vote republican? I don't think so. The "takeover of private business", do you mean the US Auto industry that Obama's actions saved and the millions of jobs that go with it, and they are paying back the loan with interest. Can you name one 'Strong republican contender"?
Obama saved the country from a full depression, Is ending Bushes wars, getting pre-existing conditions covered for all americans, ended DADT and soon DOMA (Gays will vote Republican?) . Not bad for a "failed presidency". How about that 8 years with Bush and the deficits/economy he left Obama to fix.
The Republicans have done nothing but addressed social issues. They can't even come up with a substantial amount to cut, and they stand in constant opposition to Obama daily. Now, with all these governors attacking the Unions and collective bargaining, do anyone in their right might think that the thirty thousand of protesters in the state of Wisconsin, along with the other protestesters in other states are going to vote Republican in 2012? Think again. The Republicans have set the stage for failure once again, that's why they're still pulling straws and twigs for hopefuls in 2012.
Renee A.,
With the union membership numbers so few in relation to the balance of the country, if every union member voted against the GOP, it would have a marginal impact on the vote. Union membership has been reduced annually. There is a reason for this.
So, safecracker, on the one hand, conservatives are saying unions are bad, they are funding the Democrats, they are killing the economy, they are forcing people to pay into something against their will and on and on... Now you are saying union numbers are so few as to be inconsequential, that they will have marginal impact.
I'm confused...
I'm confused too Nutcracker - try to make some sense next time.
Well fielden, I have no idea what conservatives are saying about unions. I am stating they are major contributors of the Democratic Party. Media reports do prove this. Union membership is declining. Viewthis information for yourself. Are the public sector unions helping to drive state and local budgets in deficit positions? Yes.
Hey Tim, if you are confused, too bad.
Saferacker, you are forgetting that in addition to those union numbers you say are not significant, there are the families of union members and retirees who were union members and their families.....that number is not insignificant when all are added together.
OK Bill, and you propose that they are now a significant force to help elect the President for another term?
Right. I disagree with you, but isn't it great we can have the opportunity to disagree? Imagine in some countries, a union would not be permitted.
Don't get all mad Nutcracker, you're not the first poster to spew nonsense. Just try harder next time not to be so incongruous...that will help.
Nutcracker Tim? Cute as well as saying that I am out of place or inappropriate for this conversation. At least you have some intelligence and differ from some of the other libbies that only use two and three syllable words.
You must be watching the O'Reilly show to see the word of the day.
But in 2012, your God Obama will lose the election.
safecracker: ....and the spending in the Obama budget.....
________________________________
What spending are you referring to? Let me answer for you: only the spending you disagree with, e.g. maybe on Medicare, pensions for former federal employees etc. Certainly NOT worried about the spending in the military budget, or the spending to on the "war on drugs" or maybe the HUGE federal prison system - you know, the one where we have more citizens incarcerated for misdeameanors than felonies. NO, we should not be worried about those things, ONLY the items Republicans think are "entitlements".
When one has nothing to add to the debate, they use generic terms such as "the spending in the Obama budget"! The last time I looked, ALL budgets have spending, it's just the spending you agree with vs the spending you disagree with.
Spending on Medicare and SS are issues we all need to be concerned about since we will have to pay for it. Do cuts need to be made here too, yes. Should the government continue to borrow from the SS account - no.
Am I concerned about the high cost of the prison system - yes. In CA we have high costs.....inmates are suing the state repeatedly, and the best health care in the state is in the prison system. And you can't beat the pay scale for the Corrections Union.
Should we pull out of the mid-east war, why not. I am tired of having young lives lost due to the political fighting of this war. I also feel we need to remove foreign aid from the budget, spending more on our citizens where needed. Are you against helping Americans before helping the world? Are you a believer of America being the world's police force, or should the UN be this entity?
And has the Obama administration overreached in their spending programs? As you stated, you either agree or disagree.
THe CBO says SS is solvent through 2038 or 2035 depending on forecasting errors. I am glad you are concerned about these things.
So it seems that, in many cases we have similar opinions:
1] I would like to see both ME wars ended and the respective countries given control of their own governance- of course, we know the United states of Oil and Gas(both parties IMO) are not interested in that.
2] I woud love to see much foreign aid questioned if not ended. Especially the aid to Israel as I believe most defenders of Israelie policies in the US tend to support the "interests of Israel" before the interests of the US.
3] The UN should be the entity to police world grievences. However, if that were to become true, we would have to pay our share of the dues we constantly withold from the UN.
Finally, I ask of your final sentence- which spending programs? if you get specific, then we can all respond accordingly. Until then, it is plain ol' rhetoric.
The CBO is projecting outcomes based on the data presented. I don't believe 2038 a viable date, but I haven't the data they are working on. Do you happen to know how the analysis was requested, and by whom?
Sure, we could end the ME wars, and we can also use our internal resources to provide oil and gas for our nation. Unfortunately, we currently have laws that do not provide for this. Our oil policy is second to the green energy wanted by obama. And when our gasoline costs rise to over $5/gal. he will promote more of the same while the economy again returns south.
Will the policies of the world governments end the country of Israel? Are they not one of the stable economies in the mid east and do the rest of the mid eastern countries want to wipe them off of the face of the earth? Haven't many officially made this point? Will the UN go to bat for a democracy?
With respect to the UN......what have they accomplished for the world nations? What have they done with the funds we do contribute? I would pay our fair share, but first tell me how they spend.
OK Guy, what would I like to see cut from government programs? Well, here is a start:
End earmarks....end Freddie and Fannie.....consoludate the various agencies in government, merging those with like charters, reduce staff and reduce expense and regulation......reduce the term limits for those in the House and Senate, get back to a part-time legislature......reduce House and Senate office expense, reduce staff and reduce travel.......eliminate and outlaw lobbyists.......actually have transparancy in government - real transparancy......eliminate the need for ANY President to have Tsars on his team - everyone should be vetted and hold a position accountable to the taxpayers.......as any CEO has, provide the sitting President with an operating budget that he is accountable for - perhaps it will limit unnecessary trips at taxpayer expense.......run the smaller government like a business as many do.......force members of BOTH parties to work for the people that elected them, not the party to which they belong......keep our money home to work on programs that effect our people.......reduce the deficit logically, but do it rather than pass the buck to the next president and the people of the nation......deal with the Medicare and SS problems, rather than push it under the rug......
A start, and I know a large number of lawyers would be unemployed if the size of government is reduced, but like any program, it is the cost of doing business....besides, with a JD they can move on to the private sector. And would others be forced to feel the pain....sure. But I am interested in hearing your thoughts to my ramble.
I know
Wow, very lenghty response. I left the convo yesterday so will only make 1 or 2 points to respond:
1] I don't know if propping up a certain nation/economy is the only way to provide stability. Furthermore, didn't Israel essentailly steal the land back in 1946-1948? And, if you acknowledge that is what they did, don't the Arabs who were subjugated get to exercise some form of democracy there?
2] The commentary about US government organization is really one of reducing agencies and/or services. This is essentially the Grover Norquist "starve the beast" model where his "libertarian" goal is to "drown government in the bathtub". It seems as if you fall a bit short of that sentiment, but aren't you basically advocating for NO government, or do I have that incorrect?
On that topic, the thing I don't get about libertarianism, is that we don't have a small society and can't readily change everything about our government, even though most Americans seem to be fed up with it. I, for one, think education, health and welfare of the citizens ARE a proper function of 'government". Additionally, public works such as parks, roads, and the utility infrastructure should have some form of comunal/governmental regulation else we the people won't be able to actualize our "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In conclusion, it seems to me that a pure libertarian approach for US governance would more heavily favor the "haves" vs the "have nots" than the current (broken) system.
There, now you can call me a communist since I believe in people and not anarchy.