What makes the lunch free when somebody has got to go around and collect it?
Well, you can’t have everything. But, we somehow, somewhere, got these free brains we can use to make labor-saving machinery and stuff.
You’re really reaching.
As a progressive, I don’t want to primary Barack Obama because he has done some very good things and would, I believe, do more good things with a more progressive Congress.
I don’t tend to blame the obstructed for the obstructionism of political foes.
I find this point of view more effective than ‘lesson-teaching’ by reducing the number of people in power who might agree with the points of view that I have. YMMV.
Well, what are the prospects of winning that in 2012? The Pubs seem to think they have a good shot at taking the Senate, and I haven’t yet heard any pundit predict they’ll lose the House.
**There is not much “we’ll see” about it; the 2 wars we’ve been enbroiled in for a decade are OVER…our people are coming home or already here. He inherited a very messy and complex situtaion and, imo, has acted to extract us responsibly from the quagmire, as he pledged to do.
And he has done a great deal (or again, TRIED to do a great deal in the face of opposition) to further the cause of the working person and consumer rights and the regulation of Wall St. Why do you think the Corporate Right opposes him to the degree they do? Because THEY realize the impact of what he has done and is trying to do on the bottom line of their base. For Christ’s sake, they won’t even FUND or allow anyone to be APPOINTED to head his consumer protection program, THAT is how much they fear its impact. And they are dead-set on repealing the health insurance reforms, moderate as they are, because they strike at the CORE of a system which enriches the few at the expense of the many. Only the “whiney” progressives seem to discount his efforts.
Glad you will be voting for him in spite of your reservations; a grudging vote is still a vote. ** 
Assuming progressives did want to primary Obama, well, who would bell the cat? What Dem has a shot of challenging Obama from his left and, if not having a serious chance of beating him, coming close enough to hurt?
Howard Dean? Not that I think he would want to or would be stupid enough to think he could win if he tried. But if he did I think he’d be able to pick up enough support amongst Dems to, while not win, at least not be ignored. As opposed to say, Kucinich, who even if he ran I don’t think would be taken seriously enough that Obama would even have to acknowledge him to win.
[quote=“drewtwo99, post:91, topic:606831”]
For those of you who are saying Obama has done a great job, blah blah blah, think to yourselves…
**I base my opinion on this on the facts and numbers, not personal, partisan “blah, blah, blah.” Jesus, even the Wall St. Journal (not known for its liberal bias) regularly publishes the chart of private sector job growth from 2007 on…it’s a literal upper-case letter V, with the left, downward sloping side in RED for the last year of the Bush administration and the right, UPWARD sloping side in BLUE for the Obama term so far. More private sector jobs created in 2010 ALONE than in all 8 YEARS of the Bush administration, almost 2 years of consecutive private sector job growth, bin Laden, Ghadaffi and several other terrorist king-pins brought down without a war, democracy breaking out all over the Arab world, no more allowing health insurance companies to “cherry-pick” who they cover or place arbitrary limits on coverage or exclude those with pre-existing conditions (all factors in why my late husband of 23 years died of a genetic condition at 45 w/o health insurance and w/o having been able to get the care he needed to extend his life), etc… YEAH, I think he’s done a pretty damn decent job, all things considered. **
What do you think Boehner and McConnell think about Obama? Do you think they see him as a strong president? Or do you think that they thank their lucky stars every day that he beat Clinton and is one of the most easily steam-rolled presidents in history.
**I think that Obama is playing chess and they are playing checkers. Honestly. My 19 yr old son, a chess player himself, put it best when he (in response to that characterization) said, “He’s playing chess and they’re playing DODGEBALL!” :smack:
Every time they hold us hostage to their demands, everytime he CONCEDES to one of those demands in order to protect a vital interest (extensions of the Bush tax cuts to the top 3% in exchange for health care for the 9/11 first responders and an extension of UE benefits for the long-term unemployed, for instance, or the most recent payroll tax showdown) HE wins and THEY lose in the eyes of the American people. He is FORCING them to show themselves for what they are and reveal clearly who and what they represent; backing them into a corner they then find it impossible to extricate themselves from without losing something.
I know his approach and strategy may seem incomprehensibly complex and even inept to many (and he MAY, indeed, be giving the American people too much credit in this regard, by gambling they will grasp the obvious) but I do think that he HAS said strategy and is not simply bumbling around and/or conceding things to bullies without a longer-term strategy in mind.
Observe that the approval rating for Congress (since the mid-terms which put Republicans in control of the House) are at their lowest EVER in the history of the polling. Observe that Boehner’s rating has fallen as low as the low 30’s, while Obama’s has remained relatively high for a President at his point in his first term in the low to high 40’s. Observe the recent polls which show Obama garnering over 80% of the Democratic vote, 30% of the Independent vote, and even 3% of the REPUBLICAN vote among likely voters. Meanwhile, the GOP can’t even agree on a viable nominee, with the highest polling candidate currently at 25%.
History will judge Obama’s Presidency, when all is said and done, and I predict it will do so much more kindly than it has many.
**
What lesson do you suppose you can teach the Republicans? If they were capable of learning they would not BE Republicans. Obama and some moderate Dems are at least teachable. So you teach where you can.
I say we draft Matt Damon.
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows an actor is more qualified to be President than a Constitutional scholar. (No offence to actors…I am one and know many).
BTW, Damon is one of those whiney progressives I was talking about. I’d say his sentence should be 4 to 8 more years of Republican rule, but then the REST of us would have to suffer, too. :dubious:
If the Pubbies can elect Reagan, we can elect Damon. It’s not like the President governs all by his lonesome. And Damon is handsome, a good speaker and progressive, name recognition all over the place. Plus he played a super cool US spy in the movies. That should get us some Fox voters right there. So stop YOUR whining.
Yea, but do you really want to deal with the Affleck Vice Presidency that would surely come along with it.
Economics is concerned with goods that have exchange value. This is like answering a math question by writing an essay on Finnegans Wake.
:rolleyes:
Yup. Thousands, if not millions, of Republican doctors, lawyers, businessmen, engineers, scholars, etc. All simply incapable of learning. That must be the case. Obviously anyone that disagrees with your radical agenda is stupid.
Or maybe not.
:rolleyes:
Ah yes, the “smarter ones”, who think like you.
With such attitudes it’s certainly not surprising that blacks voted for Obama over Hillary Clinton by margins(90-10) usually only found in elections in dictatorships.
I’m sorry that the ignorant negroes don’t all think like you and don’t seem to know what’s best for them.
His approval rating among blacks is around 85-90%.
That’s absurdly high and frankly as high as it can realistically ever go.
Frankly, I think most blacks have a more realistic outlook on exactly what he can accomplish than do most whites.
I’m sorry but that shows a really shocking level of ignorance as to what Reagan’s credentials were.
He was hardly just “an actor” when he ran for President.
For a period of around ten years IIRC, he was the head of the SAG, one of the largest unions in California, had then taken a job as spokesman for GE where he traveled around the country honing his ability to give speeches, and, after several years of this, served as the Governor of California, one of the largest states in country for two terms.
Also, he spent 12 years, between 1964 and 1976 to build himself up as the leader of the Conservative wing of the Republican party.
Matt Damon, whom I do like and who’s politics I largely agree with, is certainly a better actor than Reagan, is only slightly less good looking has done none of that.
Now, if he gets out of acting and pursues a career in politics, maybe 15 to 20 years down the line he could make a legitimate run for the Presidency after a couple of terms in the Senate, but now or even within the near future?..Please.
There’s usually one staring back at me when I look in the mirror.
Hard-nosed realist.