Why would Obama want a second term, anyway?

[gonzomax]

@Marley23

Of course, Congress still has to worry about day-to-day politics and eventually the president becomes a lame duck. But the president’s position does change. And for the record, when I said fatigue, I meant the electorate gets tired of the president.
You mean candidates say one thing when they’re campaigning and have to deal with a different set of rules when they’re in office? I had no idea.

Not the point. I believe he has governed from the middle right his first term. I think he will change in his second.

[galveston]

@gonzomax

The prospect of a Republican president, house and senate, is terrifying. They would turn the country over to the wealthy and corporations. Obama ha to fight to save some degree of balance. If the Repubs keep up with publicly caving to the rich, the people may figure out they do not work for them. They may toss the bums out. I hope the people are not as stupid and as easily manipulated as the Repubs believe they are.

I keep hearing how the Pubs are the ones supporting the filthy rich in this country. Tell me then, how did Obama raise all those millions for his campaign? From poor people? Oh, maybe it was the Saudi’s.

Is George Soros filthy rich? You bet! Who did he support? Obama. (There may be a test later, so pay attention!)

[galveston]

@gonzomax

Not the point. I believe he has governed from the middle right his first term. I think he will change in his second.

Governed from the middle??? Hahahahahaah.

[Justin_Bailey]

@galveston

I keep hearing how the Pubs are the ones supporting the filthy rich in this country. Tell me then, how did Obama raise all those millions for his campaign? From poor people? Oh, maybe it was the Saudi’s.

Poor People? There’s no way to calculate that, but 45% of Obama’s funds came from donations of $200 or less. Four Myths of Obama's Money Machine - Newsweek

But Saudis? Definitely not… Obama's Troubling Internet Fund-Raising | Snopes.com

Did I pass? Or is the only correct answer not to play?

[Gyrate]

@Justin_Bailey

Poor People? There’s no way to calculate that, but 45% of Obama’s funds came from donations of $200 or less. Four Myths of Obama's Money Machine - Newsweek

But Saudis? Definitely not… Obama's Troubling Internet Fund-Raising | Snopes.com

Did I pass? Or is the only correct answer not to play?

The only correct answer is the one Glenn Beck tells you. That said, the filthy rich don’t seem to be funding the Republican candidates that much at the moment, at least not directly. They may be focussing their funds on Congressional races. Obama will probably get his second term but he’ll have a much more hostile Congress to deal with.

[Kozmik]

@Recovering_Republican

Let’s look at the recent ones.

Dubya Bush had the Iraq War go south, he had Katrina, he lost Congress and he capped it off with the Great Recession. He’d have been far more respected if he called it at one.

Bill Clinton had a bunch of petty scandals erupt in his second term, culminating in the Lewinsky Affair and impeachment.

Ronald Reagan had Iran Contra, and there were whispers about his senility.

Nixon, of course had Watergate, and didn’t even enjoy a full second term.

Of the recent United States Presidents listed with a second-term scandal, only one, a Democrat, had a scandal involving sex. Considering all of my options available, I’d take a second-term sex scandal over a second-term Republican scandal, any term.

Seriously.

That said, Clinton, with the longest post-World War II economic expansion, had the Lewinsky scandal; on the other hand, Obama, with the post-9/11 economic crisis (caused by George W. Bush), will probably not have a ‘Lewinsky scandal’. Just sayin’.

[Marley23]

@gonzomax

Not the point. I believe he has governed from the middle right his first term. I think he will change in his second.

That depends very much on Congress, I think.

[handsomeharry]

@CapnPitt

I think Marley makes a big point here. Theoretically, in the second term, you can do what you think is right without having to worry about your own electoral chances next time around because there is no next time around. You really should be able to push your own agenda harder when you don’t have that looming over your head. Of course, you don’t want to put the party in a bind, but it certainly beats putting yourself in a bind.

That’s sort of begging the question, tho, isn’t it? “You don’t work hard (in the first term) so you can have a chance to work hard (second term?)”
Best wishes,
hh

[Folacin]

@Kozmik

That said, Clinton, with the longest post-World War II economic expansion, had the Lewinsky scandal; on the other hand, Obama, with the post-9/11 economic crisis (caused by George W. Bush), will probably not have a ‘Lewinsky scandal’. Just sayin’.

Yeah, 'cause I really think I’d rather face Hillary in the face of a scandal then Michelle (plus, everyone knew Bill was a horndog - people were mostly surprised that he got that sloppy (hey - unintentional blue dress joke)).

[CapnPitt]

@handsomeharry

That’s sort of begging the question, tho, isn’t it? “You don’t work hard (in the first term) so you can have a chance to work hard (second term?)”
Best wishes,
hh

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear. You do work hard in the first term, but you’re under a different set of restraints. I think Obama would be a much tougher negotiator in a second term because he wouldn’t have to worry about having to woo independents to get elected again. In other words, I think he might finally act on some of the things that are wedge issues in a second term because he doesn’t have to worry about getting voted in again.

[Recovering_Republican]

@Marley23

This is obviously going to lead to a hijack. Everyone is instructed to deal with the original question rather than responding to this comment.

How can I hijack my own thread?

[Dahnlor]

You did it again.

[Ravenman]

@Recovering_Republican

Dubya Bush had the Iraq War go south, he had Katrina, he lost Congress and he capped it off with the Great Recession. He’d have been far more respected if he called it at one.

I don’t think the hypothetical event of the country letting out a deep sigh of relief had Bush left in 2004 is the same as Bush being respected. He had already led the country into a disastrous, unneeded war and recklessly handed out tax cuts to anyone with a pulse without any regard for the fiscal consequences. Well, I take that back: he also gave tax cuts to corporations, which have no pulse.

Bill Clinton had a bunch of petty scandals erupt in his second term, culminating in the Lewinsky Affair and impeachment.

He left office with the highest approval rating of any departing president since World War II. Deal with it.

Ronald Reagan had Iran Contra, and there were whispers about his senility.

Nixon, of course had Watergate, and didn’t even enjoy a full second term.

Maybe Republicans shouldn’t run for two terms. FDR did a bang up job after his reelections.