Obama out?

Grey said:
I know what you mean, but I think shaking off the extremists will be more difficult for the Republicans than it was even for Labour.

Labour was able to expel people it didn't want from the party, branch by branch, and in that way remove their influence. The US parties don't work in the same way, I think. People can register at their town hall as supporters of a particular party and have a vote in primaries without having to be members, and I don't know if there is any way of getting them de-registered.
Click to expand...

Being registered as a Republican simply qualifies a voter to vote in a primary (though some primaries are open to all voters). The vast majority of political involvement for most voters goes no further than that. I'm actually not sure if voters can be "deregistered" but it is never going to happen. Totally different to expelling Labour members as you say.

In any case, there seems to have been a fundamental shift in the nature of the conservative movement in the US. Not only has it become more "extreme" (for want of a better term) but, more importantly, it seems to have become, and in no small measure due to the success of the Tea Party, utterly intransigent and unwilling to compromise. Moderate is a dirty word for many it seems.

In many ways this is the problem for Romney with regards to Santorum. He can't go after his most glaring weakness - his weakness as a candidate in a general - because it would undercut his own already tenuous credentials as a conservative.

For what its worth, I disagree with Santorum's views on the vast majority of issues, but I don't actually think he is the nutjob that many make him out to be.
 
When you consider how jammy George Dubya was in the first place to beat Al Gore with all that Florida controversy, then you could argue the Democrats have been unfortunate not to be in charge since what, 1992 wasn't it? Since Bill Clinton?

Another fours years and an even more volatile world in all probablilties (thanks to their own and Blairs 'liberation exercises'), and I'm sure they'll produce another squeaky-clean right wing salesman.

Hopefully Obama can improve the economy in a second term, or just get lucky by then.

When America is not a reasoned country as it was not under Bush, and even worse has a reason not to be reasoned, like it did with 9/11, the world is a much scarier place. We're all better off without it, (and generally them I think).
 
Last edited:
The exit polling data on "political philosophy" from Ohio last night illustrates the changing dynamics of the Republican electorate quite nicely. Last night 32% of voters identified themselves as 'very conservative' and 34% as 'somewhat conservative' with the other 34% 'moderate or liberal'. In the 2000 primary 15% identified themselves as 'very conservative' with just over a half 'moderate or liberal'.

In 2000 Romney would have gotten the knock-out blow he needed comfortably; as it is he ended up pulling it out by the skin of his teeth and the race grinds on.
 
Bill Clinton's advisor described Obama as "the worst president since Nixon" today. Theres a good article in Atlantic Monthly this month (a liberal publication for sure) which lays bear a lot of the misgivings that americans have about his style and ability too.

Point is that just as Wenger will claim that AVB is a "good manager", those a fair bit closer think very differently.
 
No Grass it wasn't :) Its obviously a bold statement but the fact that it is said quite openly by someone who's career depends on judgement in the political arena, tells you something

All im really pointing out is that the rather "Isnt it wonderful that he's black and not bush?" drivel thats been the old europe view is a little out of sync with the view in the US amongst many middling voters.

But unless Romney really shines, Obama is looking like being a very lucky president. Mind you Bush faced the dull and unlikable Gore and the even more dull Kerry, so it works both ways

If they could, they should dump Obama and let hilary have a run.
 
Last edited:
Obama is very lucky indeed

As uninspiring as he has been the GOP seem determined to do everything they can to lose the election. Surely for al the hype surrounding the lying idealogue Paul Ryan, the simple fact that hes all for attacking benefits for the elderly is crazy when Florida is such a pivotal state? Dont they think these things through?

Didnt see his speech but it seems that for all the charisma, hes a total bullshitter. That will come undone

But I would like to have seen Condis performance. Impressive and serious by most accounts.

Even now though, the polls are pretty level, which tells us a lot when we are looking at the blundering Romney. Obama doesn't deserve a second term imo but will probably get it by default
 
On what basis does Obama not deserve a second term? What, exactly, has he gotten wrong - given the prevailing, global economic wind?

You can rattle-on as much as you like about his health-care reform; but that's largely an idealogic for/against argument; and he is up against intransigent Republicans in both Houses. Regardless, set against what he has achieved in nailing Bin Laden, running-down the war (and US casualties) in Iraq, stabilising a broken economy, and quietly going about rebuilding America's reputation abroad, it is small beer.

He deserves a second-term more than any other incumbent that I can remember since Reagan.
 
Obama is the typical nowdays politician
an empty person, very good reader of the teleprompter and someone with a clean looking man with a good haircut

he is the worst american president since Carter


the situation of Syria is the clear sign of a lacking of leadership


I have to say I thought it was going to be worse but if US people has a little of common sense Romney will be next president
 
Sunybay, are you suggesting that Obama enter the US into another war to effect regime change?

Do you have the memory of a goldfish?

The consequences of direct, independent action - when Russia and China are so implacably opposed - is a can of worms he has rightly refused to open.

Given the opposition most Arab countries had to US intervention in Iraq, he is rightly - in my view - giving them the opportunity to take the lead in resolving this. And, not unexpectedly, they are proving to be utterly useless in making any headway.

How exactly do you expect Obama/the US to intervene here?
 
Last edited:
My twopenneth, for what it`s worth, is that most of the major problems facing Obama, and most world leaders, are, effectively, insoluble...given the various and conflicting self-interest positions of those involved...and the politicians need to be re-elected...depressing.
 
The Republicans have been engaged in civic rebellion, even to the point of putting the country's credit rating at risk because they have made the country ungovernable. In these circumstances the hypocrisy of their appeals to patriotic values, their complaints about the size of the national debt - which they created, the choice of an extremist like Ryan as their vice-presidential candidate, and their refusal to make the rich pay for anything make them a deeply unattractive group. I find it shocking that they stand any kind of chance of getting into the White House.
 
They stand a chance because for all that Romney looks like "the guy that fired you" (and he does), americans respect those in commerce far more than rather aloof lawyers. Rightly so IMO

achieved in nailing Bin Laden, running-down the war (and US casualties) in Iraq, stabilising a broken economy, and quietly going about rebuilding America's reputation abroad
Click to expand...

First good, although upset a few on this forum didnt it? Second was happening anyway. Debatable how "broken" the economy was but although he made the right moves in some areas, unemployment hasnt shifted. As for reputation abroad, I am not so sure. Some would say that there has been a paralysed and slightly gutless lack of leadership.

Overall though the vibe seems to be that he hasnt inspired. Clinton he is not...
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Sunybay, are you suggesting that Obama enter the US into another war to effect regime change?


How exactly do you expect Obama/the US to intervene here?
Click to expand...

It is so obvious how weak and irresponsible he is that evry country knows they can do what they want,


the question is not to go to war, it is that Obama is so like zapatero was that in dictator will do what they want , have a laugh and kill thousends of people like in Siria


with the economy Obama is the same
he is not guilty of the debts he inherated,
but anybody knows how will solve the problems,
printing dollars and not much more,
he is not a leader and he does not have the level to be a South Carolina gobernor, let alone to rule a country like USA.

I find very funny how George Clouny, Oprah and all his clowns justify him with everything he does and with whats he doesnt.


Guantanamo still open is another of his big achievements
 
Sunybay, how the hell is Obama responsible for what's happening in Syria?

Are you suggesting he should invade?

If so, why should America take the lead on this? And by what authority?

There is no political mandate for direct interference by any nation in Syria's affairs. And why the hell would he want to anyway, given the ongoing examples of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Your every comment on him, demonstrates that you have an axe to grind about Obama. The above is nothing but incoherent, unsubstantiated drivel.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
And as repotted today. Bills verdict on obama ? Incompetent, amateur etc etc
Click to expand...

Bill is a has-been doing nothing more than paying his debt to Hillary by trying to make her a sinch for the post-Obama nomination. Regardless of his opinion, he isn't going to actively try and bring this ticket down, and it's of academic relevance anyway.
 
Given the opposition most Arab countries had to US intervention in Iraq, he is rightly - in my view - giving them the opportunity to take the lead in resolving this.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt be too sure about that. In fact i reckon the majority of them were well pleased to see the back of Saddam. There is the public "muslim world" bollocks that gets trotted out but the reality is (especially Saudi, Kuwait and yes, Iran) they were delighted to be rid of him
 
he consequences of direct, independent action - when Russia and China are so implacably opposed
Click to expand...

Going to be dictated to by those states? Fck that. Complete moral vacuums the pair of them and as little more than commodity producers and one big factory, they need the US and the west plenty

And China will do well to remember that theres a big world out there that can also manufacture ipads

Would also suggest that for all the pronouncements you may here from various muslim dictators and south american plastic Che guevaras, the eyes are pretty wide open about the what those two states are all about. ie free of any values whatsoever and about as qualified to lead the world as Peter Sutcliffe is to run an infant school.

Little admiration for the leaderships there outside of Guardian columnists and the mentally ill (same thing maybe)
 
Last edited:
Usual question-dodging hyperbole, clivex.

Instead of swinging your metaphorical tackle with nonsense like "Won't be dictated to by them" how about, instead, you tell me what you think America should be doing about Syria - beyond what they are doing already?
 
I didnt dodge any question because none was posed. I simply pointed out that craven behaviour to those two foul states should not be on the agenda. Seemingly you think that america should go pleading to Putin and co for approval before taking any decision.

I dont know about Syria. It doesnt pose a threat to the wests security either way frankly (unlike Al Quaeda state Afganistan) but there is a clear humanitarian issue. As should have been the case with Iraq, the detailed logistics and intelliegence should be nailed down first

If it gets more out of hand, then some sort of intervention might be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top