Re: Woman of the people's bus tour hoax




"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hfc5js$44j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Tony" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VogSm.14855$_b5.9374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul M. Cook wrote:

I do not think he is living up to his promises of change as much as we
expected him to.

I think that this statement is what is going to finish off Obama
politically.

Could be. It's up to him.


Throughout the campaign, he never articulated exactly what that "change"
was. So each of his adoring fans projected his and her version of
"change" onto hist promises. All the people want "change" sometimes in
opposite ways. And then there's the contingent who is seeing the
"change" and frankly is alarmed by it.

That's not what really irks lefties. The three things are health care
which he has not been a leader in, the war in Afghanistan which although
he did say it was the "just war" he in fact just issued a plan he would
have voted against as a senator and his backtracking on labor reform by
cooling off the support for EFCA - which is how he won the rust belt
states. Reasonable people know the score that change does not happen
overnight. Only his detractors seem to read instantaneous change into his
message and that was predictable.

So he's destined to piss off half his base. Add that to the Republicans
and you have a recipe for a colossal loss in 2012 no matter *who* the
Republicans place against him.

22% of the country identifies with repugs. The "tea party" crowd is
eroding support even more, kind of like the Green Party and the tea
baggers are not at all large enough force to win anything. Repugs face a
huge uphill battle. It's anything but their's to win. Obama's losses in
the polls have not translated to an upswing in repug support.

The historicalness of being the first black (well, half black) president
can only get you so far.

You act like the election is tomorow. It's 3 years away and 3 years is an
eternity in politics. A whole lot can and will change by then. I'll
worry about it in 2012.

Paul
Except for Sarah, where the worrying is well underway.

Where do you get the 22% from? I would say there is an equal number on the
far left and the far right. Neither of them determine the winner of
elections, it's the group in the middle (Independents, moderate Dems and
Repubs) that determine who comes out on top. They can be swayed by many
things that are affecting their lives including the economy, wars, health
care, etc. If they are unhappy with who is in office, they usually go in
the opposite direction. Past elections were won because of the
dissatisfaction of who was in office (Reagan and Obama come to mind) and
also the charisma of the candidate (Reagan, Clinton and Obama). The fact is
that Reagan and Clinton were able to do enough to maintain people's
confidence in them (outside of Clinton's personal behaviour). Obama is not
only disappointing those in the middle but obviously, his far left base as
well. He had all the charisma as a campaigner but seems to have none when
it comes to leadership and decision making. He definitely has not gained
the respect of the Muslim world - Iran in particular. And I don't thing
North Korea is worried about the U.S. too much lately.

Sarah Palin may appeal to the far right but will not have the popularity
with the swing voters. Blame it on her or on the media, it doesn't really
matter. She may have some impact in other ways. I think Huckabee is going
to be sunk for good by the clemency decisions. If the Republicans want to
win back the W.H. - assuming that not too much changes in the next three
years (I'm hoping it does but think it will be worse) - then the Republicans
will have to put up a better candidate to represent them. Fred Thompson and
Rudy G. ran disappointing campaigns so I don't see them as viable. Maybe
Pawlenty or Romney. If Romney can win in a state like Massachusetts, he has
to have some political savvy. Maybe the Mormon issue will do him in though.

But I don't want to talk about politics any more.


.