Barely Supported Speculation Regarding Obama

[OCinBuffalo]

Does anybody else see a pattern to the last 3 weeks or so WH stories? By that I mean, does it seem that Obama is purposely doing far-left things that he even he can't possibly not know are going to be used directly against him in the election? Slashing defense and demanding 3 separate major increases in social/Federal Employee spending at the same time, in the same 2 week period?

 

Is he that clueless, or, is it something else? Does he know he's going to lose, and therefore, figures he has nothing to lose?

 

Is it possible that he's trying to swing the pendulum as far to left as possible now, while he can, before he gets beat? Basically operating on the assumption that much of what he does will be difficult to undo, or will move the definition of "middle" to the left, or will provide some political points for those still around after he leaves?

 

Is it possible that he's being coerced into this by his donors? Quid pro stupid? Or are they operating on the same pendulum assumption, and figuring they might as well get as much return on their investment as possible now, since they are shorting Obama futures?

 

I dunno how this is supposed to work, but, it seems to me that moving to the left, instead of the center, right in the middle of a phase when Republicans are getting a ton of free TV time to blast you repeatedly and generate 1000s of soundbites...is not a good plan for winning an election. Instead, it seems to be a "get whatever we can while we can" plan.

 

Meanwhile, every time the Republicans have a chance to look bad for a few days, it seems he's putting himself in the position of looking worse, or at least stepping on the Republican "story". It's like he can't stand it not being about him, even for a few days, even when it not being about him helps him. We need a :facepalm: emoticon.

 

I really don't understand this approach or why he keeps giving speeches that distract from the Republicans killing each other, as Romney continues to cruise along virtually untouched. Perhaps some of you can help out.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Four more years!

[Buftex]

Does anybody else see a pattern to the last 3 weeks or so WH stories? By that I mean, does it seem that Obama is purposely doing far-left things that he even he can't possibly not know are going to be used directly against him in the election? Slashing defense and demanding 3 separate major increases in social/Federal Employee spending at the same time, in the same 2 week period?

 

Is he that clueless, or, is it something else? Does he know he's going to lose, and therefore, figures he has nothing to lose?

 

Is it possible that he's trying to swing the pendulum as far to left as possible now, while he can, before he gets beat? Basically operating on the assumption that much of what he does will be difficult to undo, or will move the definition of "middle" to the left, or will provide some political points for those still around after he leaves?

 

Is it possible that he's being coerced into this by his donors? Quid pro stupid? Or are they operating on the same pendulum assumption, and figuring they might as well get as much return on their investment as possible now, since they are shorting Obama futures?

 

I dunno how this is supposed to work, but, it seems to me that moving to the left, instead of the center, right in the middle of a phase when Republicans are getting a ton of free TV time to blast you repeatedly and generate 1000s of soundbites...is not a good plan for winning an election. Instead, it seems to be a "get whatever we can while we can" plan.

 

Meanwhile, every time the Republicans have a chance to look bad for a few days, it seems he's putting himself in the position of looking worse, or at least stepping on the Republican "story". It's like he can't stand it not being about him, even for a few days, even when it not being about him helps him. We need a :facepalm: emoticon.

 

I really don't understand this approach or why he keeps giving speeches that distract from the Republicans killing each other, as Romney continues to cruise along virtually untouched. Perhaps some of you can help out.

 

Weren't you telling us a few weeks ago, Gingrich was the guy? You are not a believer in the "Santorum Spike", I take it?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Buftex

[B-Man]

Does anybody else see a pattern to the last 3 weeks or so WH stories? By that I mean, does it seem that Obama is purposely doing far-left things that he even he can't possibly not know are going to be used directly against him in the election? Slashing defense and demanding 3 separate major increases in social/Federal Employee spending at the same time, in the same 2 week period?

 

Is he that clueless, or, is it something else? Does he know he's going to lose, and therefore, figures he has nothing to lose?

 

 

 

My thinking is that this sudden re-appearance by Mr. Obama is by design. He and his handlers realize how low his ratings are, the only one's lower are congress.

 

So, asking us to ignore the last 3 years and the fact that the dems control the senate, Mr. Obama is trying to run as the DC Outsider.....................................that only he can battle this "do-nothing" congress.

 

 

So he starts picking battles that he knows will be resisted, it doesn't really matter what they are, as long as he can get his willing press to repeat his handouts about "its up to him to stand up for the middleclass"

 

 

 

 

As if he wasn't the President of the United States..............Remember....."the buck stops here"

 

Well, some folks will fall for this, but (in today's internet world) I don't think a majority will fall for this rather obvious ploy.

 

 

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by B-Man

[Nanker]

Smub's dik.

[OCinBuffalo]

Weren't you telling us a few weeks ago, Gingrich was the guy? You are not a believer in the "Santorum Spike", I take it?

No. I was telling you Gingrich has a political skill set that is elite. That is...until he stops using it and lets his emotions run wild. But, I have no dog in this race.

 

I still want to hear and see what happens in South Carolina, as I think that will answer the questions regarding the ultimate goal. I am firmly in the "get rid of Obama" camp, because he is simply incompetent. If there is anything to learn from Bush2/Obama, we have to vote for the best leader, not the ideology.

 

I detest protected incompetence, as in the VP who sucks on wheels but will never be fired for reasons not pertaining to their performance(nepotism, don't want a civil rights suit, shamelessly banging the boss-->sexual harassment if fired, brutal lesbian that scares boss...and the new one I've seen recently: Female boss's favorite pet gay guy). As this drags on, I think it will become increasingly clear Democrats are willing to overlook Obama's incompetence, because he is their favorite pet black guy, but, I ask you: wouldn't you rather it was Hillary running right now? Hey, you did it to yourselves, again.

 

But, to get back to the point of this post, think about it this way: would Gingrich be doing any of the things Obama is right now if he were the sitting President in an election year?

 

Nope.

 

Would Hillary? Hell, Hillary would be doing the opposite of Obama, and better than Gingrich would be.

Edited January 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

My thinking is that this sudden re-appearance by Mr. Obama is by design. He and his handlers realize how low his ratings are, the only one's lower are congress.

 

So, asking us to ignore the last 3 years and the fact that the dems control the senate, Mr. Obama is trying to run as the DC Outsider.....................................that only he can battle this "do-nothing" congress.

 

So he starts picking battles that he knows will be resisted, it doesn't really matter what they are, as long as he can get his willing press to repeat his handouts about "its up to him to stand up for the middleclass"

 

As if he wasn't the President of the United States..............Remember....."the buck stops here"

 

Well, some folks will fall for this, but (in today's internet world) I don't think a majority will fall for this rather obvious ploy.

This is predicated on that fact that they think we are idiots. This premise is fascinating to me. They really don't understand that the feeling is mutual. I mean, honestly, it has to be hubris, DC bubble, whatever. In my travels I have yet to meet a relevant person who sees a government employee/political staffer as an equal. Sure we respect them as people, but WE are the idiots?

 

 

Yes, the sitting POTUS as an...outsider?

 

You are right, this WH seems to be stuck in the 50s/60s, where the internet doesn't exist, neither does talk radio, the only way to get news is from the NYT or Walter Cronkite, and somehow Harry Truman and LBJ are wise figures that need to be emulated. Christ, why don't we just go back to Huey Long and Andrew Jackson? We can all sit around our radios by the fireside and be regaled by stories of Obama living in his log cabin and being introduced to far-left thinking by the Welfare fairy leaving food stamps under his pillow.

[Buftex]

No. I was telling you Gingrich has a political skill set that is elite. That is...until he stops using it and lets his emotions run wild. But, I have no dog in this race.

 

I still want to hear and see what happens in South Carolina, as I think that will answer the questions regarding the ultimate goal. I am firmly in the "get rid of Obama" camp, because he is simply incompetent. If there is anything to learn from Bush2/Obama, we have to vote for the best leader, not the ideology.

 

I detest protected incompetence, as in the VP who sucks on wheels but will never be fired for reasons not pertaining to their performance(nepotism, don't want a civil rights suit, shamelessly banging the boss-->sexual harassment if fired, brutal lesbian that scares boss...and the new one I've seen recently: Female boss's favorite pet gay guy). As this drags on, I think it will become increasingly clear Democrats are willing to overlook Obama's incompetence, because he is their favorite pet black guy, but, I ask you: wouldn't you rather it was Hillary running right now? Hey, you did it to yourselves, again.

 

But, to get back to the point of this post, think about it this way: would Gingrich be doing any of the things Obama is right now if he were the sitting President in an election year?

 

Nope.

 

Would Hillary? Hell, Hillary would be doing the opposite of Obama, and better than Gingrich would be.

 

I always wanted Hillary.

 

Just curious, why do you think Gingrich is somehow above re-election politics? I guess I haven't really noticed this elite political skill set of Newts' that you keep touting.

He has a dirty past, so he went around trying to pretend that he was running a clean, "no-negativity" campaign, only becasue he has so much baggage himself. I think it was pretty transparent. It seems like many Republicans thought so too.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Buftex

[Magox]

Obama is moving back more to the left, they realized that his shift to the middle since the midterms of 2010 didn´t move the needle whatsover with independents, so their strategy is simple. Shore up the kooky left with the move to the left and spend a record amount of money on negative ads against Mit Romney in the general elections and paint him as the greedy, ¨callous, insensitive¨ Wall street dude and hope that, that gains enough traction to win just enough independents to win the general election.

[Dante]

Obama is moving back more to the left, they realized that his shift to the middle since the midterms of 2010 didn´t move the needle whatsover with independents, so their strategy is simple. Shore up the kooky left with the move to the left and spend a record amount of money on negative ads against Mit Romney in the general elections and paint him as the greedy, ¨callous, insensitive¨ Wall street dude and hope that, that gains enough traction to win just enough independents to win the general election.

Just wondering if our culture is diluted enough? Has the education system brainswashed enough people? Is the media still credible in enough peoples eyes for this to work?

[OCinBuffalo]

I always wanted Hillary.

 

Just curious, why do you think Gingrich is somehow above re-election politics? I guess I haven't really noticed this elite political skill set of Newts' that you keep touting.

He has a dirty past, so he went around trying to pretend that he was running a clean, "no-negativity" campaign, only becasue he has so much baggage himself. I think it was pretty transparent. It seems like many Republicans thought so too.

I think Gingrich the politician absolutely has the skill set to project that he is above it all. That's because: that's precisely what he did in the early debates. It was masterful, and even though the billing for each debate was "Perry vs Romney" or "Cain vs Everybody that isn't Romney", Gingrich kept coming in and at least partially stealing the show if not the whole thing. Masterful.

 

The problem is: Gingrich the spoiled, petulant child also exists. So does the ghost of Gingrich past, as you have accurately identified. And most of the past problems stem from whenever Gingrich the expert politician wasn't able to contain Little Lord Newt.

 

 

All I have ever said is: the guy has an incredible skill set. The fact that he can't get out of his own way doesn't mean his skill set isn't elite.

 

If I was Romney, I'd be looking for a way to apply that skill set in some way. There's lots of ways I can think of to apply Gingrich, but you'd have to make sure he was always working and had no time to misbehave. When Gingrich is on the job, he's killer. It's when he gets something completed, or you start distracting him with praise, that it all goes to schit.

[Buftex]

 

All I have ever said is: the guy has an incredible skill set. The fact that he can't get out of his own way doesn't mean his skill set isn't elite.

 

If I was Romney, I'd be looking for a way to apply that skill set in some way. There's lots of ways I can think of to apply Gingrich, but you'd have to make sure he was always working and had no time to misbehave. When Gingrich is on the job, he's killer. It's when he gets something completed, or you start distracting him with praise, that it all goes to schit.

 

 

Do you mean Romney should pick Gingrich as his VP, should he get the nod? That would be an interesting ticket. I just can't see Newt playing "second fiddle" to Romney. I don't particularly like Gingrich, but I acknowledge, he is no dummy. Petulant is a good word to describe him. It is just hard to take him seriously when he says (whether he means it or not) that he would consider Sara Palin as his running mate. Her recent endorsement of Gingrich makes me think there might be something to it. It seems that Gingrich kind of po'd the Tea Party folks early on, so he has to find some way to get in their good graces. Is Sara Palin still legit, amongst Tea Partiers?

[Magox]

Do you mean Romney should pick Gingrich as his VP, should he get the nod? That would be an interesting ticket.

Hell No!

 

 

Newt is too easy to pick apart, just like Sarah but only different.

 

1) Marco Rubio

2) Jeb Bush (never gonna happen)

3) Chris Christie

4) Susana Martinez

5) Nikki Haley

 

 

Thats who his choices should be in that order

 

Anyone one of those five, he most likely wins with over 60% chance at winning

 

Just wondering if our culture is diluted enough? Has the education system brainswashed enough people? Is the media still credible in enough peoples eyes for this to work?

Of course it is. Lemmings are plentiful. It´s gonna be about who gets their message out more effectively. Havent you heard how these occupy morons interrupt these GOP stump stops parroting what the DNC or other political ads spew? same ****. So yeah, its gonna be a messaging war, and the only shot Obama has in winning this election is by going negative, he has very very little to run on that is positive. So its gonna get ugly, if Romney doesn´t do a good enough job of winning the message war, he´ll be caste as a much worse villain than Bush ever was.

 

Do you mean Romney should pick Gingrich as his VP, should he get the nod? That would be an interesting ticket. I just can't see Newt playing "second fiddle" to Romney. I don't particularly like Gingrich, but I acknowledge, he is no dummy. Petulant is a good word to describe him. It is just hard to take him seriously when he says (whether he means it or not) that he would consider Sara Palin as his running mate. Her recent endorsement of Gingrich makes me think there might be something to it. It seems that Gingrich kind of po'd the Tea Party folks early on, so he has to find some way to get in their good graces. Is Sara Palin still legit, amongst Tea Partiers?

It wasn´t Sarah who endorsed him it was her husband Todd.

[OCinBuffalo]

Do you mean Romney should pick Gingrich as his VP, should he get the nod? That would be an interesting ticket. I just can't see Newt playing "second fiddle" to Romney. I don't particularly like Gingrich, but I acknowledge, he is no dummy. Petulant is a good word to describe him. It is just hard to take him seriously when he says (whether he means it or not) that he would consider Sara Palin as his running mate. Her recent endorsement of Gingrich makes me think there might be something to it. It seems that Gingrich kind of po'd the Tea Party folks early on, so he has to find some way to get in their good graces. Is Sara Palin still legit, amongst Tea Partiers?

Not really. Believe me, there's always a way to apply the skill set of a talented a-hole, you just have to figure it out. I agree with you, that Gingrich isn't a VP choice. In fact I think VP is quite possibly the worst place for Gingrich = too much time on his hands, too much exposure, and no real work to do. That's why I like Gingrich for Secretary of State. That may sound insane, but consider: it's a job that keeps you working 18 hours a day. You don't really get much time on the air and you are never "done". That is a near perfect fit for Gingrich.

 

The reason he talked Palin: it was the best tactic he had in his bag. When you are in trouble you do what you can do, and spend 0 time pissing and moaning about what you can't. Talking about Palin was something Gingrich could do. He had nothing to lose with only gains, however marginal, to be had....since I assume you and the rest of the Palin detractors won't be voting in a Republican primary any time soon. It's just another example of wise politics on Gingrich's part. It doesn't mean he will win, it simply means he is doing what he can do.

 

Yeah there's something to it: Palin's new vocation is power broker. But the only way Palin has power to wield is if others give it to her, or acknowledge she has some. So, when Gingrich gives her props, that helps her. And, given these machinations, Palin basically had to reciprocate...which is also smart, because it costs her nothing while affirming her new job.

 

Sarah Palin will always be relevant to conservative women, therefore, she will always be relevant, as the number of conservative women, and the amount of power they have in the party, is growing. Might as well get used to it.

 

Palin is no leader of the TEA party, but they are glad to have her show up, because she helps them immensely. Above all, that's what the left doesn't comprehend. Consider: the TEA party is mostly regular people. We can talk about Koch money but it started with regular people talking to each other on the internet about "what that CNBC guy said". Love her or hate her Palin is one of the regular people, and they don't like it when she gets attacked, because it's like having a bully attack them. Fighting back against the bully is as American as you can get, and that's what puts butts in lawn chairs at TEA party rallies.

 

This is why attacking Palin doesn't harm the TEA party, it does the exact opposite. It's like attacking the Roman Empire, by going into the arena and attacking the gladiators, instead of the army. Get it? The Romans love to see the show, and more of them will show up the more you attack the gladiators. Meanwhile, Palin would much rather be fighting your soldiers in the arena, than some lowly slave. It makes the eternal fight she can never lose more visible.

 

So given all of this, the answer to your question is: Palin never had the relationship to the TEA party that you thought she does, and doesn't have it now. She's not "legit" the way you think of it. The only way she gains power, TEA party or otherwise, is when you give it to her by attacking her. And, when you attack her, more TEA party people show up to see the show and root for her, especially the conservative women.

 

Instead of attacking the gladiator, Gingrich comes in and praises her, which also fires up the crowd, because they like their gladiator.

 

Ultimately, Palin, the TEA party, and their relationship are not linear concepts, and perhaps that's why they befuddle the left so much.

[Buftex]

 

It wasn´t Sarah who endorsed him it was her husband Todd.

 

Wow..he got the endorsement of Gary Busey AND the "First Dude"? Gingrich can't lose!

[Adam]

I disagree- I think President Obama will be in the White House for four more years. I think the nomination process has already done damage to Mitt Romney and it will get much worse over the next couple weeks.

 

As far as far left moves, they wouldn't be seen that way a few decades ago- we are leaving our wars in the middle east, so it is (or should be expected), that there will be cuts in defense spending. In addition to that, we knew a long time ago that the debt limit would go up- regardless of what party the president is affiliated with. Personally, I would like to see an investment made into finding the appropriate ways to cut defense spending even more. And no, I'm not a far-left whacko who just wants to get rid of the military. I just feel that something with the scope of our military is difficult to keep cutting edge, without losing efficiency. If we take the time to identify the redundancies and inefficiencies, we can maintain the current level of excellence, while making it even more efficient. This can be done, but it wouldn't be without cost, in terms of dollars and time.