Now you’re not just moving the goalposts, you’re changing the game.
I need only read this, which is short and not at all hard to understand, to know that the Federal Reserve is a useful institution.
And how did that question get into this?! Is anybody, even Paul, running on an abolish-the-Fed platform?!
If Newt is the Republican nominee, neither side wins. Him having to debate Obama simply means America loses more slowly.
No, he doesn’t. He has a PhD, but Mr. I Love and Understand America More Than Anyone studied Belgian educational influences in the Congo.
Obama has not shown himself to be any good at debates - neither in the primaries nor in the general elections. I don’t know how good Gingrich is, but from the looks of it Obama is not a particularly heavy debate opponent.
The election is another matter. Obama has the baggage of a sagging economy but he still has mainstream media with him so I think he can still win it.
In order to show himself to be good at debates, he would need a worthy opponent. Right now he’s like those college football teams that have undefeated seasons but still don’t get into the championships because they’re playing weak teams.
Obama was 3-0 vs McCain in 2008 as measured by CNN opinion polls and expert consensus. Opinion polls put Obama in the mid 60’s in the debates.
McCain was no slouch either. He is far more experienced in Congress than Newt and just as feisty. Gingrich will be dirtier though - no question.
Disclosure - I supported McCain in 2000 over Gore and Bush.
This sentiment seems a bit odd to me.
-
How do you define mainstream media?
-
By what method have you determined that the mainstream media are ‘with him’, and what does it mean for them to be with him?
-
Do you really believe the mainstream media being with him is a strong enough factor to swing the election in Obama’s favor by any significance?
I know my questions sound contentious. I don’t mean them to be. Your post just kind of struck me, so perhaps a little elaboration from you would help me to understand your thought process.
Thanks
Newt will quote Obama when he said that he will be held accountable and have the economy cleaned up within 3 years. Obama will back track and back pedal and try to qualify what he said or meant. Newt wins the debate. He can keep bringing it up as many times as he wants in all 3 of the debates, and everyone will say, “even Obama told us not to re-elect him if things weren’t better within 3 years!”
The economy IS “cleaned up”.
+900 basis point improvement in GDP
+450 on the S&P 500 Index - best ever for any President
32 consecutive months of private sector job growth
inflation nearly dead at 2% CPI
interest rates near lows at 4%
largest US monthly exports ever at $180 billion in October
taxes at lows in terms of % GDP
earnings of S&P 500 best ever $102
Banks are back to safe balance sheets
in other words…
Only robust job growth is lacking.
-
The big networks
-
Just my general impression of how the news is treated by the networks, YMMV. Of course, you will always have Fox as a detractor but this has been a constant ever since so I discount it.
-
Yup. Worked well enough during the 2008 elections so that he got elected despite his lack of experience and accomplishments beyond getting elected.
Mwahahaha!!! This is funny!!! 
And 100% factual.
I think the problem with convincing people of this is that the economy got so bad, so quickly in 2008 (shrinking at a 7% annualized rate) that the slow, grinding recovery has lasted much longer than the original fall did, and people never really internalized just how bad things were at the end of 2008. Obama’s record gets evaluated relative to, say, 2007, rather than January 19, 2009.
Thanks for responding.
Re: 1 - Got it. Thanks
Re: 2 - So, if I may, your impression is if something egregious occurs as a result of a decision made by Obama or one of his proxies in his administration, the mainstream media doesn’t report it? Reports it, but downplays its significance? Reports it, but attributes the cause falsely (i.e., deflects to someone or some thing else)? Reports it, but sugar-coats it? Reports it, but spins it as a positive? Or??
Re: 3 - He did get elected despite a lack of experience and accomplishments relevant to the job, true. However, I’m not sure how you get from there to ‘the mainstream media was a significant factor in Obama being elected’.
Who says it isn’t? It’s just not indicative of anything beyond the fact that the US is recovering from a recession and a joblessness that hasn’t been seen since the Great Depression.
But that’s only because McCain was running with the economy as his baggage. This time, it’s the other way around.
Pretty much a combination of the ones you’ve mentioned.
For one, he didn’t have to attack when the mainstream media was doing it all for him. He could “stay above the fray” and was constantly being praised for doing so. This without the media mentioning that they are the ones doing the attacking. To be fair, Fox News is doing the same, but it’s just one among many networks that to me were solidly behind Obama.
Now, I don’t know if that could still be done, but the power to do it is still there.
So under the previous administration, we got into this terrible recession, and under the current administration, we’re recovering from it, and this is somehow “baggage” for the current President?
Thay might generally be true, but in this particular instance, Obama will be on the defensive, as he is the incumbent. And Newt knows his shit. He’s like a freakin encyclopedia of the the politics of the last thirty years. Obama will be bitched slap. and he isn’t as good dealing with the down and the factual issues as he is on the stump speechifying. There, he has mad skills.