Obama wins 4 more years!

Just one small question? can President Obama win the US election? Who will face him for the Republicans and what does Obama need to do too win? or how could a Republican beat him. me, I hope Obama eats the Republicans for breakfast myself. as the Republicans are so back would looking too me

what states with Obama need to win or hold in the US election? what are the key swing states?

Just one small question? can President Obama win the US election?

Absolutely. In fact I think he has a better than average chance of winning, especially if Republicans don't bother voting - which they may not. The Republican politicians running for election this year are second-string politicians, the type who fill the vacuum when there just isn't anyone of higher caliber willing to step forward. If the GOP had been serious about winning against Obama, they should have been grooming a candidate - someone charismatic, someone only somewhat right of center, and someone without extremist views. Personally I think the GOP itself feels it has little chance of victory hence why no one cut from better cloth has challenged Obama.

Who will face him for the Republicans and what does Obama need to do too win?

It's basically down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Santorum has yet to win a primary and Ron Paul has fallen off the radar. It's only a matter of time before Santorum and Paul drop out.

Obama needs to really pound home the positives of the last 4 years. Americans, I think, are sick of negativity, and I have a feeling the Republican candidate is going to try and run a very negative campaign against Obama. I predict doing so will backfire. The GOP campaigns against each other have been intensely negative, smearing the other guy instead of laying out a solid plan for America's future. Now they're yammering about each others' wives - as if that matters a damn to a country desperate for job growth and economic recovery. In essence they're saying, "Don't vote for me because I'll make a good president, vote for me because the other guy will be even worse." You wouldn't try to sell a product in that fashion, so why would you try to sell a president to the American people with such a lame strategy?

Obama, I'm hoping, will rise above the slime and remind Americans of his accomplishments. Obama did, in fact, bring us out of the recession, and while people whine about the spending, this is a classic Keynesian approach to solving recessions. It worked. Many of the automobile companies that were bailed out are now thriving and have paid back the government in full. The banks are loaning money again. Industry is ramping up production. The housing market, while still sluggish, is no longer spiraling out of control. Not only did Obama bring the troops home from Iraq after almost 10 long years of war, he also accomplished our primary mission - bringing down Osama bin Laden. This, after George Bush declared of Osama, "I don't care where he is, I don't give him much thought." Obama also managed to get the first embryonic stage of universal health care passed, and while "Obamacare" isn't perfect, it is a step in the right direction.

If Obama does have to engage in bashfests - and he probably will - he needs to stick to the facts and not stoop to the high school gossip-mongering tactics prevalent within the GOP. No one at this point gives a crap about who cheated on his wife or who goes to church more often. Those kinds of petty concerns are luxuries for more prosperous times. Obama has truckloads of ammunition to sling at the GOP - everything from their ridiculous birth certificate conspiracies to outright lies (like accusing him of spending $200 million per day on a trip to India). Obama hasn't "redistributed the wealth," taken away anyone's guns, destroyed America as the fear mongers have predicted. It can be easily shown that the fear-mongering (the GOP certainly likes to monger) was sensationalist garbage; all of this can be used to swing the moderates and independents by showing the GOP has very little integrity, honesty, or trustworthiness. Oh, and let's not forget the GOP's petulant, baby-like behavior in trying to block everything Obama proposed - from job bills and increased benefits for returning Iraq veterans to a highway and infrastructure bill that has passed every year since the Eisenhower administration.

Obama has one major hurdle and that is the issue of jobs. Perhaps two years ago, one could make a case for blaming it on Obama. Not now. As I said (and this is easily researched), retail outlets are reporting record profits - people are spending again. Industry is gearing up to increase production. Businesses are doing well for the most part and even manufacturing is boosting output. BUT ... no one is hiring. That is something beyond the president's control. Obama has absolutely NO power to force companies to hire. Obama, if smart, will turn that around and blame the business community in general - stop being stingy, stop working existing employees half to death, stop trying to boost profits by refusing to hire. The president can only do so much. The proverbial ball is in business's court. The government helped you, now you help America. It wouldn't be hard at all, given movements like Occupy Wall Street and the latest polls about class warfare, for Obama to turn the people against businesses instead of promising more jobs that NO president can deliver.

or how could a Republican beat him.

I'm not sure a Republican can beat him. At least, none of the GOP candidates he has to face. I predict that the GOP will use a lot of smokescreen issues in this campaign - things like family values, the sanctity of marriage, abortion, and vainglorious patriotism to make itself more electable than any of the candidates really are. I call them "smokescreen" issues because they disguise the fact that none of the GOP candidates have a coherent plan for the BIG issues like job creation, health care, foreign affairs (Iran, especially), and the Afghanistan war. They have no plan to correct the trade imbalance between the US and China, they have no plan to revitalize the manufacturing sector, in fact they have no plan for anything. Their whole idea of a campaign platform is to simply repeal everything Obama has ever done, tax the poor, slash social program funding, bomb the hell out of Iran, BIG tax breaks for the wealthy ... and if Americans can't find a job, it's the people's fault.

But those plans are not what the people want and the GOP knows it. So they're going to lay a smokescreen with a lot of vapid flag waving, empty patriotism, and "feel good" measures that appeal to emotion rather than pragmatism. In short, the GOP will be like the orchestra that played "Nearer My God to Thee" as the Titanic sank.

what states with Obama need to win or hold in the US election? what are the key swing states?

The big states are New York, California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. California and New York are almost certain to go to Obama and Texas is likely to go Republican. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, I think, will be the big question marks in this election. Pennsylvania usually votes Democratic, but Santorum is a Pennsylvanian senator. If they can vote Santorum into the senate seat, they could vote him or another Republican into the Oval Office. Ohio is notorious for voting against their economic interests - it was Ohio that essentially put Bush in the driver's seat for another four years in 2004. But being a part of the northeast, voting Democrat is not unheard of. Florida is especially "iffy" since it is filled with retirees; it depends largely on whether the GOP plan to monkey around with Social Security and Medicare, two social programs the elderly rely upon. Politicians mess with those programs at their own risk - the elderly like their social programs, and they vote. Boy do they ever vote.

I hope Obama eats the Republicans for breakfast myself.

I'm hoping for a big landslide victory for Obama, the biggest in history. It probably won't happen, but I would love to see the GOP defeated so soundly that a message is sent to the Republicans saying clearly that the American people reject right-wing extremism. Perhaps then, we won't have to go through this again in 2016.

The question, can President Obama win ?.

My honest opinion as an outside observer is that President Obama has already won. Watching and looking at the Republican opposition, there is not much to fear from any of the candidates. If they are the best the Republicans have to offer then the Republicans are going to come second best for a long long time.

Agreed, though it's never wise to be over-confident.

Gingrich has Form, so this temporary lead could evaporate if someone really roots around in his past - as they probably will. Already public knowledge is that when he was House speaker, the House enacted welfare reform, passed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, and in 1998 passed the first balanced budget since 1969. During his tenureship as speaker his popularity within congress gradually diminished as he was increasingly seen as a lightning rod for controversy. He was disciplined in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for ethics accusations, although a full hearing was avoided. Following a poor Republican showing in the 1998 Congressional election, Gingrich resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, under pressure from his Republican colleagues.

Newt Gingrich, what kind of a name is that, Hitler did have the sense to change is name from Schickelgruber. What kind of parents did he have, I would never call my kid after an amphibian, they must have realised at birth that he was a bit of a chameleon.

errr, people like Mr. Gingrich thrive on personal abuse.

Didn't you see on TV how he demolished the threat from one of his former wives?

Stick to the facts, just the facts.

Shirina wrote:
Absolutely. In fact I think he has a better than average chance of winning, especially if Republicans don't bother voting - which they may not. The Republican politicians running for election this year are second-string politicians, the type who fill the vacuum when there just isn't anyone of higher caliber willing to step forward. If the GOP had been serious about winning against Obama, they should have been grooming a candidate - someone charismatic, someone only somewhat right of center, and someone without extremist views. Personally I think the GOP itself feels it has little chance of victory hence why no one cut from better cloth has challenged Obama.

God How I was hopping you would say this Shirina. as the very idea of a Republican win sends me cold with utter fear. To me Obama is not only good for the US he has been good of World peace as well. For me here in England we need someone who can see outside the Box on World issues. I also share your summary of the US economy. its starting to look good and that is down to Obama sticking to his guns while facing attacks from a economically dead Republican party who if they had there way would of driven the US economy into the sea. The last thing anyone needs right now is a right wing extremist in office in the US. why is Florida like this? is it the make-up of the state? as its a big state with the old I understand? is this view right?

New York is always going to go for Obama in my view. I do hope he holds Ohio, as its his home state is it not? you know the inter-net is full of Republican rubbish right now? but its just a lot of Hot Air in my view. let just hope the Republican race goes on and on. as it will drain the money and fight out of them? well come on Obama I say.      

Shirina
Have you read this? its very interesting.

Signs of life
In his acclaimed new book, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, the US historian Michael Kazin argues that socialists and progressives have had a huge transformative effect on American culture, helping to boost the rights of women, racial minorities and
homosexuals. Yet even Kazin concedes that the US left has lacked impact: it has never succeeded in building durable institutions or movements, winning elections, or enacting its economic programmes. And the present era, he argues, could be described as "a nadir of the historical left". The latest polls show that only one in three Americans has a positive reaction to the word "socialism"; one in five Americans self-identifies as "liberal".
Yet all may not be lost. There are flickering signs of life on the US left. An energised Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Keith Ellison (see page 29), is now the single biggest Democratic bloc on Capitol Hill. In recent months, the CPC has helped push Obama to the left on job creation. In Wisconsin, public-sector unions mobilised tens of thousands workers who took to the streets to protest against Republican plans to restrict collective bargaining rights.

Meanwhile, the Occupy movement, which erupted on Wall Street in September 2011, has spread across the United States - from Arizona to Alaska, from California to Colorado. Astonishingly, a Pew Research Centre poll released in mid-December showed that 44 per cent of Americans support Occupy Wall Street and just 35 per cent are opposed to it.

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2012/01/barack-obama-socialist

Not once did the President complain about the fact that Edward Kennedy's death totally stymied his intended first-term reforms.

Is the Democrat Party machine better-prepared for a similar event this year?

oftenwrong wrote:Not once did the President complain about the fact that Edward Kennedy's death totally stymied his intended first-term reforms.

Is the Democrat Party machine better-prepared for a similar event this year?

its my own view that the Democrats are most happy with how things are going right now. with US Growth on the move at 1.7%

Can President Obama win? ....... is harder to answer than a similar but opposite question .... Can the Republicans stop his re-election?

On present showing, they won't put a glove on him, but a lot can happen over the next ten months.

Yet even Kazin concedes that the US left has lacked impact: it has never succeeded in building durable institutions or movements, winning elections, or enacting its economic programmes. And the present era, he argues, could be described as "a nadir of the historical left". The latest polls show that only one in three Americans has a positive reaction to the word "socialism"; one in five Americans self-identifies as "liberal".

Liberals, I believe, are more independent. Believe it or not, I read very little news and rarely ever watch news broadcasts. My opinions, analyses, and predictions are completely my own even if they do sometimes match up rather with what others are saying. But it's not just me. For instance, Fox News is now the most watched news outlet in America. Rush Limbaugh is the most listened-to radio talk show host. Both of them are unabashedly right-leaning. The left-leaning shows are at the bottom of the list and have the fewest viewers/listeners of all the major networks. Left-wing radio shows are hard pressed to even stay on the air.

What this means is that the liberal strength actually stems from the fact that we have not built "institutions" or "movements." The lack of these things allows us to have a firmer grasp on reality and we are less influenced by propaganda and outright lies. The right, on the other hand, are oozing propaganda, and even when they are demonstrably and factually wrong, they cannot and will not go against what their media masters tell them. Any organization or individual who attempts to point out the errors simply become part of the conspiracy, part of the cover-up, part of the liberal agenda. I have heard right-wingers actually call very conservative publications such as the Wall Street Journal "liberal rags" for daring to contradict the right-wing propaganda.

Certainly there exists left-wing propaganda, and the left doesn't get it right all of the time, either. BUT, the difference is that leftist propaganda, and those that believe in it, have been pushed into the lunatic fringe by most liberals quite some time ago. A good example of this centers around 9/11 and the belief that Bush engineered it as an excuse to invade Iraq. In addition, the conspiracy was that Bush would engineer another terrorist attack so he could suspend elections, declare martial law, and become America's first dictator.

Rubbish. And we all knew it was rubbish. The majority of liberals didn't believe this garbage even if we didn't like George W. Bush. The liberal fringe never made a true impact on politics or the majority opinion of left-thinking people. However, take Obama's birth certificate, an equally stupid conspiracy theory put out there by the rightists. Not only did a large number of people believe that Obama was not eligible for the presidency, actual conservative presidential candidates and other prominent politicians and business leaders publicly discussed it as part of their campaigns! Donald Trump was going to use the Birther Movement if he ran for president; Sarah Palin kept goading Americans to believe in the Birther Movement; Santorum has given the Birther supporters a microphone (even if he wisely stays out of it). The Tea Party continues to believe in Birther conspiracies and even go so far as to convince the American people that Obama is a Muslim (which means nothing since there are no religious requirements to be president).

Equivalent nonsense from the left never made it past obscure radical leftist websites, blogs, and Youtube videos. But nonsense from the right has made it all the way to the presidential campaign. The lack of liberal "institutions" keeps the leftists somewhat immune to propaganda, and if we built such an institution, it is likely that a much larger percentage of liberals would lose their ability to think for themselves. It has already happened to the right, and drinking from the same glass of Kool-Aid may not be the best decision liberals can make.

Well first of all thank you for explaining this so well. its a good insight into US left of center thinking. what's more I happen to share this view of the US left wing. Given what you have said. How do the left get there message over to people. as there are so very view left of center media outlets left in the US? What role does the US print media play?

There is no "left of center" political party visibly involved in the US Presidential election.

Having the immense benefit of knowing nothing about American politics, I can only imagine that if any of the Republican candidates ( variously mad, bad - or both) I have seen as being on offer to the electorate are able to oust Obama as President, the USA is indeed in a sorry state ...

There is no "left of center" political party visibly involved in the US Presidential election.

No, but Obama is definitely merely "left of center." He is not a full-blown liberal and certainly not a socialist despite what the ofttimes lying right-wing propaganda might tell you.

Your dead right...Obama is as left of center that you could have in the US. but never a Socialist. not that it will matter one jot to the Right wingers. as they do not understand the meaning of socialism at all.

Phil Hornby wrote:Having the immense benefit of knowing nothing about American politics, I can only imagine that if any of the Republican candidates ( variously mad, bad - or both) I have seen as being on offer to the electorate are able to oust Obama as President, the USA is indeed in a sorry state ...

Phil
how very true your post is my friend. The republican's are as mad as march hairs, if US people was silly enough to reject Obama, they would be back living in the dark ages within two years. what's more our stupid right wing lead government would follow them. God, do we all need Obama to win this election...you bet we do. The Republican party would be a war with Iran within one month, just what the world does not need in my view. not only that...US women would be facing the same sort of Laws that you would or could find in Saudi Arabia. as for Human rights...well forget it....Then there is Global warming...Hell most Republican's do not even think this is happaning at all. As for God....well you would be talking about what the bible says happened...Darwin goes right out of the window with them. I could go on...but its far too depressing Phil

How do the left get there message over to people. as there are so very view left of center media outlets left in the US? What role does the US print media play?

I know this might come across as a bit sanctimonious for the left-wing cause, but this is what I truly believe:

The leftists do not need a news show or radio pundit to tell us what's wrong with this country - and what is right about it. We already KNOW these things because most of us simply want what is right, just, fair, and decent. We don't need to be brow-beaten by constant propaganda to do and believe what we would have done or believed anyway. Think of it this way - whenever there is a natural disaster in this country, it is amazing how we pull together. There are people who come from every corner of the US to help look for survivors, to feed and clothe them, to ensure that their needs are met. The base morality within each of us that says, "When one suffers, we all suffer" is there, loud and clear, tried and true. We KNOW it is evil to stand by counting our money while others starve, sleep in the streets, or suffer from painful medical conditions with no ability to see a doctor. We don't need MSNBC, CNN, or the Huffington Post to tell us these things. I have lived all over the world, and Americans are some of the most generous people I've ever met. Why, just the other day, I was at the drive-thru at Burger King, and when I pulled up to pay for my order, the cashier said not to worry about it - the driver ahead of me paid for it. He couldn't even see me, had no idea who I was, but this kind stranger bought me a meal.

It takes constant pounding by right-wing propagandists and spin doctors to beat that kind of morality out of people. It takes constant fear-mongering and Chicken Little proclamations of doom to convince Americans to work against their better angels. We all know in our heart of hearts that is wrong to value money, greed, and material gain over human life, but this is what Republicans teach us, and they pound and pound and pound relentlessly, telling lies - BIG lies - and people believe it.

We look at an evil institution like Hitler and the Nazi party and say, "It could never happen here." But it is! Oh, not the Holocaust, to be sure, but everything else is marching in lock step with Nazi propaganda techniques, and all the pieces are in place. Just to give you an example, the people Republicans want you to hate are the very same people Hitler threw into the concentration camps: Liberals, intellectuals, gays, Muslims (instead of Jews), socialists, leftists, communists, Marxists, prisoners of war (Guantanamo), and essentially anyone else who does not conform to their version of "family values."

And the sad thing is: It's working. Fear is a powerful motivator, one that has convinced millions of people throughout history to act against their own consciences. They are convincing people that Obama is out to destroy America, that gays will destroy the institution of marriage, that liberals are out to force communism onto America, that "Obamacare" endorses death panels, that all 1.5 billion Muslims are out to destroy the Western way of life ... it is primitive, jittery, almost animalistic behavior to be afraid of everything that might exist in the "darkness" just beyond the firelight.

After 9/11, the policemen and firemen who tried so hard and sacrificed so much were regaled as heroes. They were as revered as any American hero ever was. Now, just a decade later, a Republican governor of Wisconsin ordered that police and firemen must pay more for their health benefits and to give up their collective bargaining rights. This began a crusade by conservatives to destroy unionized labor and slash government jobs - because anyone who works for the government is just a "fat cat" bureaucrat who leeches off the taxpayers. Yep, that's right ... that included firemen, police officers, and now, teachers. Most of these men and women make less than $40k per year (the median salary for a stock broker is $88k per year), but that was just too much money. Why should the taxpayers (meaning conservatives) have to pay for these "parasites" to make so much cash? Somehow, in 10 years, those who were once held up as heroes in our society are now nothing more than parasites. Isn't that something?

Liberals know better, of course, and understand that firemen, policemen, and teachers are three of the most essential professions for an orderly, secure, and educated society. We don't need the media to tell us that. The right-wing propagandists, however, have to work at chipping away the reasoned, rational part of our brains so the weaker-willed among us can get caught up in an emotional fervor of flag, country, religion, and fluff. They teach that the profit-motive is more noble than altruism, that religion should be used as a weapon, that net worth should determine who should receives health care, and the poor are in their predicament because they are lazy and made poor choices. It's all irrational, and I've said as much to many conservatives. For them, it makes it easier when they read about a 13 year-old boy who died of a simple tooth-ache because the parents (obviously lazy) couldn't afford the medical bills.

All of this goes against our better judgment, and this is why the right-wingers need such a massive institution for disseminating their self-serving ideologies. Liberals do not need to be told repeatedly what we already know to be true. If we need propaganda to convince us to do the right thing, then our society is in serious trouble. And it might be. You said that only 1 in 5 people in America identify as liberal ... which means that the right-wing propaganda is infecting even liberals. Part of the tactic used by right-wingers is to make being a liberal something to be ashamed of, something unpatriotic, something evil. It seems to be working because I know that 4 out of 5 people are not conservative, and doubt very much that all that many are politically agnostic. I would bet confidently that many people polled shied away from identifying as liberal because they have been convinced by right-wing propaganda that they aren't, or shouldn't be - even though they are.

I cannot agree more with this summary of liberal views and right wing actions. its very clear to me that is very little in your views I would not totally agree with. For me most right wingers see very little wrong in acting in a autocratic way that for me is classical authoritarian and Machiavellion style. while seeing themselves as some sort of moralist elitist group. for me.. UK authoritarian right wingers only have two senses that involve the subordination of an others individual's rights too make there own judgment's while attempting to justify there right wing views and argument's by act of force if needs be. I believe the right wingers live in some distorted world that tries to control the agenda at all times. its all about authoritarian control over the many by the very few.

Even Rasmussen has Obama winning

"In potential Election 2012 matchups, it’s President Obama 47% and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 43%. However, if former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, the president holds a double-digit lead, 50% to 38% (see tracking history). These matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update)."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I've just completed watching a speech by Gingrich outlining his first day as president. (words in quotes are the actual words spoken by Gingrich)

Here is his plan in a nutshell.

1. "Replace Bill Nelson with a conservative." Bill Nelson is the senior Democratic senator from Florida; why Gingrich is targeting Bill Nelson specifically is unknown; his voting history is actually left of center but he is only outright liberal on foreign policy. What's interesting here (and elsewhere) is how Gingrich keeps using the word "conservative." Not Republican, but conservative. Democratic politicians - even liberal ones - almost never use the term "liberal." So instead of having a government where both left and right are represented, it would seem Gingrich is hell bent on ensuring liberals have no voice in a representative democracy.

2. "Elect a Republican Congress and a Republican House." Yeah, no kidding since Gingrich probably knows that the Democrats are going to play the "block a bill" game just like the Republicans did to Obama.

3. "Immediately pass the repeal of Obamacare." Because only the rich should have health care. Note, there is no plan for any sort of replacement for Obamacare. Americans are just supposed to go back to the way things were even though everyone knows that "the way things were" was officially considered a health care crisis.

4. "Immediately pass the repeal of the Dodd-Frank bill." The Dodd-Frank bill is a series of new regulations designed to keep Wall Street and the banks under control. In short, to prevent another artificially created recession that plunged America into the abyss in late 2009. Apparently Gingrich wants to take off the leash so Wall Street can run amok ... just like they did in 2009. Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Gingrich has obviously not read his Santa Anna.

5. "Immediately pass the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act." This bill protects consumers and investors from corporate and accounting scandals that have cost investors billions of dollars. But, of course this negatively affects corporate profits, so this bill MUST be repealed. Sure, Mr. Gingrich, laws always negatively affect profits when they prevent corporations from obtaining profits illegally! I can only assume Gingrich doesn't care if people are investing in a CEO's pocket instead of an actual company.

6. "My goal is to have all three bills sitting there waiting for me when I'm sworn in so I can sign off on them and have a pretty good morning!" Apparently he wants to sign these bills with no debate. A democracy only moves that fast when the president is a dictator, Herr Gingrich. And speaking of dictatorial powers ...

7. "The very first executive order will abolish all of the White House Czars as of that moment." Well, the "Czars" are heads of government regulatory agencies. Abolishing them means someone has to lead those agencies. You wouldn't be assuming control of them yourself, now, would you, Herr Gingrich?

8. "I may not get in as much golf as Obama, but I'll get in a lot more job creation." Really? A junior high school gym locker room slam on Obama for playing golf? I thought we were electing the president of the United States, not the president of a junior high classroom. Of course, the golfing thing is one of those right-wing hyperbole comments that was duly approved by the Joseph Goebbels School of Propaganda and Ministry of Truth. Conservatives didn't seem to care when George W. Bush was taking more vacation time than any other president in US history. Do you know who has taken second most vacation time? Why, the conservative patron saint Ronald Reagan, of course. Incidentally, the person most reviled by conservatives, Jimmy Carter, has taken the least vacation time of any president in history. So, Herr Gingrich, snarky comments about Obama's golfing seems inappropriate when your party is the one known for vacationing.

9. Gingrich proceeds to spend another 5 minutes blathering on about Obama's golfing and Obama's singing (calling Obama the "Entertainer in Chief"). This is what is known in academic circles as padding your speech with fluff. I bet Gingrich was eyeing the clock trying to burn minutes with useless rhetoric because flipping the calendar back to 2008 really isn't much of a political platform. You know what else, Mr. Gingrich? I threw away my 2008 calendar on January 1st, 2009. There's a reason that big ball drops in Times Square.

10. "Now, we will then immediately ... you know, I forgot my teleprompter ..." Wow, Mr. Gingrich. You're using internet and YouTube memes in a presidential speech? What's he going to say next? "Well, I would have won the election but then I took an arrow to the knee." C'mon, Gingrich (no "Mr." or even "Herr" anymore), a teleprompter joke? EVERY president uses a teleprompter, and before that, they had notes they read from (which is why old presidential footage always shows the president looking down a lot). Don't you realize you're setting yourself up for a massive retaliation? Because eventually YOU will have to use a teleprompter too. Then where will you be as you stand there looking like a hypocritical idiot? The only president who could memorize speeches was Richard M. Nixon. Even Abraham Lincoln read the Gettysburg Address from notes he kept in his stovepipe hat!

What else did he say he was going to do? Oh yeah ... immediately authorize the Keystone Pipeline just to thwart the Chinese, open the embassy in Jerusalem and recognize Israel (the US voted to recognize Israel in 1948, and to the best of my knowledge, the US never "unrecognized" Israel) ... and of course, there will be an executive order preventing American money being sent anywhere in the world to pay for abortion.

And finally, the self-inflicted knock-out blow that makes Gingrich a certified, Grade-A moron:

11. "Many of you may have noticed that the Obama administration has declared war on the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. I want you to know that on the very first day I will sign an executive order repealing every anti-religious act of the Obama administration."

Well, many of us have noticed that this ridiculous persecution complex the right-wingers have is a figment of their deluded imaginations. THAT much I've noticed. Even other conservatives have noticed that! Oh yeah, and when was this "war" declared? Congress has to vote on a declaration of war. When did that happen? Well ... it didn't. What Gingrich wants is to repeal EVERY anti-religious act. Not just the ones that MAY be wrong, ALL of them, without thought or examination. If it reins in religion, it has to go.

That way, we can have both Wall Street AND religion running amok in the United States. How's that for a recipe for disaster?

This reminds me of Rick Perry's monumentally stupid campaign ad found in the very first post on this thread. He, too, talked about "Obama's war on religion." What war? I keep asking that and I never get a response. I even went to Google to find out what Obama has done against religion ... and the ONLY hit that had anything to do with this was the Supreme Court ruling that insurers must include contraception in their coverage under prevention treatments. That's it! Period! You can search this yourself if anyone feels I'm wrong.

How can I say this any more clearly: There is no war against religion!

It amazes me just how effective right-wing propaganda actually is, and people are dumb enough to believe it.

But guess what else ... Gingrich talked about job creation, but never ONCE said what he was going to do to create them! That's right ... not one single word out of his mouth even hinted at a plan. There were lots of things that helped Wall Street and Big Business, things that help Canada and Israel, and things that help religious zealots. Where are those things that help average Americans? Wouldn't you think that, if Gingrich had a plan for - or even the intention of - helping average Americans, that would be the first thing he talked about?

America needs Obama to stay right where he is.





Link to video of Gingrich's speech

Shirina/Rock
              have you seen this? I thought it was looking quite good myself.


Last updated: January 26, 2012
Solid growth in business investment in 2011 will slow in 2012, as businesses show some caution in committing to putting money down on big-ticket items.

This spending by business — which comprises investment in buildings, equipment and software — will grow by 6% in 2012, after expanding by 8% in 2011. That’s not bad in an average year, but it's a disappointing pace after the steep fall of the Great Recession, which slashed such investment by 19%. Even after a 17% gain in 2010, business investment is still running behind the level reached in 2007.

Business spending of 6% in 2012 won't spur much hiring – growth of 10% a year or more will be needed. We expect the economy will add about 150,000 jobs a month in 2012, short of the 200,000 or so needed to sustainably lower the unemployment rate.
Some factors point to an improving business environment in 2012.

The recent infusion of capital into the European banking system eases concerns about a global financial crisis. And Congress seems to be moving toward a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, which would remove a cloud over consumer spending.

Orders for durable goods — those lasting three years or more — surged at the end of 2011 and finished up 10% for the year. The rise of 4.1% in November and 3% in December will continue at a somewhat slower pace in 2012, but one promising sign for overall economic growth is that buyers of durable goods are adding to their inventories, a signal that they see stronger demand ahead.




Dept. of Labour: Employment Data

Shirina wrote:I've just completed watching a speech by Gingrich outlining his first day as president. (words in quotes are the actual words spoken by Gingrich)

Link to video of Gingrich's speech

God What a speech that is. God help you all if he ever got near the White house.

The fact is the World need Obama to stay in office. as your Right Wingers are as mad as you could find.... Hell if one of them was to make it...you would be a war with Iran within hours in my view

Shirina....I am a Conservative here in the UK, but I have to admit your Republican Party scares me to death...they're almost like Americas version of the Taliban. I so hope Obama gets re-elected

blueturando wrote:Shirina....I am a Conservative here in the UK, but I have to admit your Republican Party scares me to death...they're almost like Americas version of the Taliban. I so hope Obama gets re-elected

Blue
I am with you 100% on this issue. I just cannot believe the Republican party could even believe that could ever win with this bunch of nuts they have running.
They are total mad Blue

The only reason why the Republicans are behaving as they are is because they, themselves, have drunk deeply from the propaganda well. The truth is that Obama has performed quite well given the circumstances under which he took office, but the propaganda will no doubt try to convince the American people otherwise. Part of the right-wing delusion in America is the belief that most of the people are on the side of right-wing extremism. They're not. The worst of them - Cain, Bachmann, and Perry - have fallen by the wayside, and the most liberal of the three remaining contenders is the one winning. Santorum is in last place, being the most extreme of the three. Romney is no Obama, but he's no Santorum, either.

I have said before to the average rank-and-file right-winger here in America: Franklin D. Roosevelt was the most liberal, progressive US president ever to be elected - and he was elected FOUR times! What's more, he wasn't elected by angry twenty-somethings with an entitlement mentality from Generation X. No ... he was elected four times by what we often call "The Greatest Generation." These are the folks who survived the Great Depression, Prohibition, Jim Crow, and were, at the time, fighting or supporting WWII. Some like to say that it was, in fact, the war that kept him in power for so long - except it wasn't. Roosevelt only ran in one wartime election. The first three were during the Great Depression.

Those that voted for him KNEW what it was like to be poor, to have nothing, and to be frightened of what their future might bring. They knew first hand the hardships of deprivation, and they wanted to make damn certain it never happened again.

In today's fat, opulent society, those who sit comfortably in their homes, a secure and well-paying job waiting for them in the morning, they are the ones who speak the loudest against Obama, socialism, progressivism, and tax money spent on safety nets like Welfare and NHS. They have no conception of history; those who voted for Roosevelt did, and so too do those who vote for Obama. Oh, Obama is no Roosevelt but neither is he a Joe McCarthy. Whenever I hear a right-winger screaming about "tyranny" over the government forcing us to use incandescent light bulbs, I think of Ann Frank, Sophie Scholl, and Count von Stauffenberg; I think of the hundreds who scrambled over the Berlin Wall to the Western world. I think of Nelson Mandella, I think of the girl buried up to her neck and stoned to death for falling in love with the wrong boy. I think of the Jewish Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto.

I don't think about light bulbs.

The conservatives are spoiled and petulant with an entitlement mentality all their own. If light bulb regulations are synonymous with tyranny, then God help us if America is ever forced to endure a real tyrant.

Shirina
       I am not just saying this for something to say...but this is one of the best summaries I have read for a lone time...I find your posts on the US a big help to fully understand what this election is about..its always hard to get a good view of the US elections over here. So thanks for taking the time to post it...I always enjoy your posts...not just saying that either...
STOX

Thank you, Stox.

Truth be told, I wish there were some American right-wingers here to offer up their side of things. From me, you're only getting one side of the story. There just aren't any right-wingers here offering up counter arguments. However, the things I do post about are actually things the Republican candidates are doing and saying - I've posted videos, speech transcripts and links to show that I'm not making anything up. I'm not even getting my opinions from second hand reports from media sources. I always go right to the horse's mouth. Even so, to truly understand US politics, you need a voice on both sides of the fence. Of course if there was, you'd see for yourself what I'm talking about - it would help my cause rather than hurt it.

What are they saying in Peoria this year?

"It won't play in."

.... Ask a silly question....

Barack Obama signed the NDAA bill .indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial. American citizens deserve better , the corporate machine just keeps on free wheeling , with more draconian laws brought in under the umbrella of " the war on terror" .My father worked for Ford motor company in 1959 in Cleveland Ohio , he crossed the water from the UK . He recalls that he would read his newspaper in the lunch break , and he was quite shocked how this was perceived by fellow workers, they looked at him as if he had two heads, it was just not the done thing , American Ford workers didn't read newspapers at work ha ha. This scenario brought up to date , 75% of Americans believe Iran is the major threat to the USA, the MSM force feed the government agenda 24/7. I was skeptical of Obama from the outset , black friends on this side of the pond were rejoicing , I was not , after witnessing the Bush years and Bush snr and Clinton , I did not share the world optimism , this has proven correct , I accept his hands are tied on many issues from the opposition of the house , BUT the elephant always in the room is corporate big money buying and owning everything, EVERYTHING. Something will happen , the capitalist model is outrageously busted , people across the globe are financially raped daily , yet they are waking up to the way the game is stacked against them . Watching the GOP race from this side of the pond , the vast amounts of money needed to compete is disgusting. Mit Romney is a billionaire , not millionaire , this is bore out by the tax he says he has paid, if you calculate it . Chinese workers will work for $17 dollars an hour , American workers $46 dollars minimum an hour ..........go figure , more people destined for the streets, the December employment figures were a fudge , they could be whatever way you wanted , Obama and co trumpeted that more people were back in employment , yeah he is seeking re election and there is a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

But the evidence in every day's newspaper reports of events in Africa and the Middle East betray that nothing helpful was learned from 9/11.

Policies are still formed on the principle that Might is Right.

RockOnBrother, I didn't fail to mention 9/11 , I chose not too. This info will shed light on my view of 9/11, I don't condone any loss of life, period.

The Sunday Herald article highlighted the following goals from the 2000 report, which it termed an "American grand strategy" and "blueprint of world domination":

The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The U.S. must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission"
The U.S. forces are "the cavalry on the new American frontier"
The report builds upon the 1992 draft document "Defense Planning Guidance," which claimed that the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"
Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power
Increasing military pressure on China: "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia" which will lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China"
"the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US"
The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: "New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"
Development of "world-wide command-and-control system" to contain dangerous regimes of North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3032147.stm

Hlello, Scarecrow:

The issue I take with your information is that one needs to analyze whether real events in the world actually match the goals set out in your article. I contend that they do not.

The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power:

Obama is in the process of pulling most of our troops out of the Middle East. If the US was following that plan, we would not only be keeping the troops we already have right where they are, we'd be sending more.

The U.S. must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission"

In order to do this, the US would have needed to substantially increase the size of its military. This has not happened. The draft was never implemented and the US was so short on soldiers that a number of controversial measures were put into place, such as "Stop-Loss," that required soldiers to extend the length of their tours by as much as a year. In addition, the F-22 Raptor, Commanche attack helicopter, the Zumwalt-class guilded missile destroyer, and the FF-X and CG-X projects, and the RGM-84D Harpoon IV multi-purpose cruise missile were all cancelled. During the 2000's, there was a wholesale decommissioning of ships - many of the Bunker Hill-class guided missile cruisers, many Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the bulk of the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates have been taken offline. US naval strength in terms of ship numbers is the lowest it has ever been since Jimmy Carter's presidency.

the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"

The US hasn't even tried to do this. Jobs are still being outsourced, and everything is made somewhere else. You should see the northeastern US - it looks like a factory graveyard. India, China, Indonesia, S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and other nations seem to be doing quite well. India now has the largest middle class in the world whereas America's is shrinking.

Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power

If the Saudis and Kuwaitis want to give the US permanent bases, that is their sovereign right. The US didn't bully its way into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Increasing military pressure on China: "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia"

What military pressure has been placed on China in the last 12 years since this plan was written? In fact, the number of carrier groups stationed in southeast Asia has actually decreased as the older non-nuclear carriers are decommissioned. I believe the USS Kitty Hawk was the last one to go.

"the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US

Considering some kid from Britain just recently hacked into the DOD's computer to hunt down UFO information, it would seem the US isn't doing much in this department, either. Also, retiring the entire space shuttle fleet without bothering to build a replacement doesn't bode well for "dominating space."

The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare

This is nothing new and has been around since the Cold War. Biological warfare in general has been around since rotting corpses were catapulted into an enemy castle in the hopes of spreading plague.

The point being, of course, is that Washington DC is filled with "think tanks" coming up with all kinds of plans, most of which never see the light of day. Since this document was written in 2000, the US has had 12 years to put this all in place yet the actual actions of the US seems to indicate that we're heading in the opposite direction. One has to compare plans with actions to see if there is any validity to it. I'm just not seeing it.

Can President Obama win?

Jeb Bush (not HIM, his brother) seems to think so. He has described the current quartet of Republican contenders as "A circular inward-facing firing squad."