U.S. 2012 Election

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of getting back on topic ...

It seems to me that President Obama faces two challenges:

1. The economy - exemplified by the unemployment numbers. I think April, May and June will be the key months, because I think Americans will be, relatively less concerned with economics and politics in the high summer months; if the economy is improving in April, May and June and if unemployment is falling - measurably, then President Obama will be able to run a "good news" campaign in the fall and he might be hard to beat. But if the economy and unemployment are worse in the spring than now then I think Obama will be fairly easy to defeat, if the GOP doesn't defeat itself in the primaries; and

2. Washington - Obama is now the "face" of Washington, more than John Boehner and harry Reid combined. Washington is dysfunctional, more so than the "founding fathers" intended (and they did intend to have an inefficient government) and Obama will be obliged to take a full, unfairly large share of the blame for that. Many Americans blame "Washington" for whatever they perceive to be wrong, to the extent that Obama = Washington then he will pay the price.

If Romney or an as yet unknown "outsider" (drafted in a brokered convention) is the GOP nominee then I think Obama is vulnerable, even if the economy is not too bad. If Gingrich is the nominee then I think Obama is going to be re-elected even if the US slips back into a recession. I think the Democrats will, literally, wipe the floor with Gingrich - Obama in a landslide.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of getting back on topic ...

... If Gingrich is the nominee then I think Obama is going to be re-elected even if the US slips back into a recession. I think the Democrats will, literally, wipe the floor with Gingrich - Obama in a landslide.

And here is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that explains why Gingrich is a loser:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/gingrichs-brand-of-conservatism-comes-under-attack/article2317272/

Gingrich’s brand of conservatism comes under attack

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

Washington— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2012

As Newt Gingrich harnesses the populist anger of the base to propel him past Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race, a growing chorus of powerful figures in the party is scrambling to break his stride before he runs away with the nomination.

Their fears about having Newt at the top of the ticket have less to do with the ex-Speaker’s legendary impulsiveness and indiscipline – as unsettling as they are – than his core political beliefs.

Newt, they charge, is simply no Conservative.

Indeed, someone who has spent more than three decades in Washington dreaming up ever more grandiose (his term) ideas about how to use the state to shape economic and social outcomes with taxpayer dollars hardly meets the American definition of a conservative.

How did someone so enamoured of government become the Tea Party favourite?

“He has found his key for the hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values,” R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor-in-chief of the right-wing American Spectator, writes in a scathing critique.

“Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do… He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.”

Mr. Romney himself embraced the “Newt is not conservative” line of attack in Thursday’s debate in Jacksonville, Fla., going after Mr. Gingrich for promising hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending at every campaign stop in early primary states.

Mr. Gingrich has pledged federal aid for a new veterans’ hospital in New Hampshire, an interstate highway in South Carolina and port expansions in Charleston and Jacksonville.

Those projects are plebian by Mr. Gingrich’s standards. So, he came up with the idea of a building a U.S. lunar colony by 2020. The pledge is aimed at residents of Florida’s so-called Space Coast, who have been reeling from recent cuts to NASA.

“Look, this idea of going state to state and promising what people want to hear, promising billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to make people happy, that’s what got us into the trouble we’re in now,” Mr. Romney said. “We’ve got to say no to this kind of spending.”

Mr. Gingrich defended his promises, even adding he would ante up federal money for a restoration project in Florida’s Everglades: “I thought we were a country where one of the purposes of candidates going around was to actually learn about the states they campaigned in, and actually be responsive to the needs of the states they campaigned in.”

How this squares with Mr. Gingrich’s depiction of himself as the “true Reagan conservative” in the race and Mr. Romney as the “timid Massachusetts moderate” baffles the right-wing intelligentsia.

Mr. Gingrich’s contention that he was Mr. Reagan’s comrade-in-arms in defeating communism has sparked ridicule. (Again on Thursday night, Mr. Gingrich said Nancy Reagan once told him that “Ronnie’s torch” was being passed to him.)

Of course, being a Reaganite and being a conservative are not the same thing. As a young congressman, Mr. Gingrich opposed Mr. Reagan’s expansion of the defence budget, which arguably made him more conservative than the icon of American conservatism.

The single reference to Mr. Gingrich in Mr. Reagan’s diaries – a telling indication of how prominently the then-future Speaker figured in the Gipper’s mind – is a charge that Mr. Gingrich’s ideas would “cripple our defence program.”

“Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism,” Elliott Abrams, an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration, writes in the National Review.

“Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.”

I doubt Gingrich can sustain any reasonable level of support until (and certainly not beyond) Super Tuesday.

So who is the rick ribbed conservative alternative to Romney? Santorum? Yes, certainly, but, again: Obama wins in a landslide, in my opinion. Ron Paul? I would actually love to see Ron Paul as President of the United States. He would shake things up - but the Congress, no matter which party controlled it, would reject almost all of his proposals, especially the sensible, useful ones. Dr. Paul, at 76, is 8 years ahead of his time - in the 2020 election, if the US gets two more terms of namby pamby government (Romney) or worse (Obama) then Ron Paul's prescriptions will be universally accepted.

 

[Haletown]

President Obama's legacy will be the first black President,most radical as far as agenda is concerned.He has packed his administration with radical environmentalists and anti-business activists. Twenty years ago I would have laughed off seeing a Manchurian candidate getting elected,now its reality.First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.

Bingo.

100% correct assessment.  The list of his appointments reads like the sign in sheet for the New Party, DSA and every eco greenie nutter organization in America.

Hope & Change  . . . is now Dope & Rage.

 

[TheHead]

Bingo.

100% correct assessment.  The list of his appointments reads like the sign in sheet for the New Party, DSA and every eco greenie nutter organization in America.

Hope & Change  . . . is now Dope & Rage.

Since Tomahawk failed to answer my question. What environmentalists and anti-business activists did he pack his administration with?

*Edited to fix spelling fail.

 

[Haletown]

Since Tomahawk failed to answer my question. What environmentalists and anti-business activists did he pack his administration with?

*Edited to fix spelling fail.

Let me do your homework for you  . . .  look up Vna Jones, then thses fools.

Obama appointments-DSA connected

The Obama administration has appointed several people with Democratic Socialists of America connections to key government positions.

    Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.

    David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations.

    Rosa Brooks Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.

    Carol Browner Energy Czar/Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

    Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign

    Samantha Power National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.

    Hilda Solis Secretary of Labor.

All of them are DSA types and the DSA is the front organization for American Marxism.

http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_DSA


Just scraping  the surface . . . 

 

[TheHead]

Thank you for the reply.  I'm going to take a look into this.

 

[Redeye]

I'll be honest. I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Van Jones. Then, I went an invested in ALCOA, because it looks like tinfoil sales are still brisk. His current interests, including trying to orient the US economy to create new competitive advantages, strikes me as inherently sensible. With very little media support he managed to publish and promote a book with a lot of ideas. Even if they're not necessarily perfect ideas, at least there are people still thinking of new things instead of dragging on with tired, discredited ones. The smear campaign launched against him shows me that the fringe right is scared of him, and that to me suggests that indeed he might have some ideas worth discussing.

If we're going to discuss the President, can we at least talk about things that aren't silly?

Let's talk rather about Mr. Campbell's point. Gingrich is unlikely to get the nomination, for a whole host of reasons, but frankly I suspect that he'd be the Democrat's preference, because Romney is a much more slick candidate. However, it's not hard to play some dirty pool to thrash Romney into the ground. I'd like to they won't stood to bringing up his religion, but it'll work. There's the tax issue. There's his laughable "self-deportation" comments on immigration. There's the fact that he can't credibly oppose President Obama on healthcare reform.

I'm intrigued by some of Ron Paul's positions. His foreign policy ideas would serve America well, but his economic and social policies need to be fully aired, because they'd likely alienate a lot of the younger voters to whom his other positions appeal. That's why Democrats are working hard to show those traits in full. I suspect they're doing it to put off a future threat from him, or from Rand Paul.

I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term. The real contest will be in the House and Senate. Those races, however, are hard to follow. I'm trying to figure out where the "swing districts" are to get an idea of how they may turn out.

Let me do your homework for you  . . .  look up Vna Jones, then thses fools.

Obama appointments-DSA connected

The Obama administration has appointed several people with Democratic Socialists of America connections to key government positions.

    Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.

    David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations.

    Rosa Brooks Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.

    Carol Browner Energy Czar/Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

    Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign

    Samantha Power National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.

    Hilda Solis Secretary of Labor.

All of them are DSA types and the DSA is the front organization for American Marxism.

http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_DSA


Just scraping  the surface . . .

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term ...

Be careful that you don't smoke that stuff when the meat heads are around ...

Despite your preferences the current polling shows a slight (2.3%) lead for Obama, and that's way down from the 6 or 7 point lead he had in early and mid 2011 ... there's a long way to go until November 2012, and remember Harold Wilson and weeks equalling long times in politics.

See also my comments about Obama and the economy in April, May and June - problems in Europe could sink him.

I think Romney has an even chance of beating Obama even if the economy improves ... I think the bloom is off that rose; I think Romney has a better than equal chance if the economy stagnates; and I think he is the odds on favourite if the unemployment rate rises again.


Edit: typo

 

[a_majoor]

Finally, a single graphic which encompasses the administration's economic failure:

http://blog.american.com/2012/01/romneys-economic-case-against-obama-all-in-one-chart/comment-page-1/#comment-83177

The economic chart that may doom the Obama presidency
By James Pethokoukis

January 27, 2012, 5:52 am
In his State of the Union response the other night, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels neatly summed up Mitt Romney’s (who has a roughly 90 percent chance of being the GOP nominee according to Intrade) economic case against President Barack Obama: “The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”

In other words, the Obama Recovery stinks. Even if today’s GDP report—for the fourth quarter of 2011—shows 3 percent growth or better, it would be just the fourth time that has happened since the economy began turning up in June 2009: 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010, and 3.8 percent in the second quarter of 2010. But no 3 percent-plus quarters since then.

The first nine quarters of the Reagan Recovery, by contrast, looked like this:  5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 7.1 percent, 3.9 percent, 3.3 percent, 3.8, percent, 3.4 percent. In fact, the Reagan Boom went from the first quarter of 1983 until the second quarter of 1986 without notching a sub-3 percent GDP quarter.

So, while the Reagan Recovery quickly made up for lost years of growth, not so much for the Obama Recovery, as this chart in today’s Wall Street Journal makes clear:

And few economists are expecting the Obama Recovery to take off anytime soon. The IMF predicts just 1.8 percent growth for 2012 (and that’s assuming no EU sovereign debt meltdown). And the Federal Reserve sees growth in the 2.2 percent to 2.7 percent range with unemployment around 8.2 percent to 8.5 percent. Ugh! (Interpolation; this is not the U3 or U6 unemployment rate which includes people who have stopped looking for work [U3=@11%] or people who are involuntarily underemployed [U6=@15%])

The WSJ offers two explanations for the anemic rebound:

Economists say the nature of the recession helps explain the slow recovery. Aftershocks from the financial crisis have left banks reluctant to lend, making it hard for companies, and especially start-ups, to get access to capital. The housing market, which has historically helped lead the economy out of recession, remains deeply depressed.

Many business leaders say they are also being held back by policy-related uncertainty, everything from the threat of new regulations and higher taxes to the fear that political gridlock could hamper the government’s ability to respond to a new crisis. Recent economic research has given some weight to those complaints. A study by a trio of academic economists found that policy uncertainty has risen in recent years, and that periods of uncertainty have in the past corresponded with rising unemployment and slowing growth. (Interpolation; the Capital Strike of 1937-38 should have provided clear evidence of the result of policy uncertainty)

Whichever explanation holds more weight with voters may go a long way toward deciding who’ll be America’s next president.

UPDATE: GDP came in at 2.8 percent, slightly worse than expected. Here is what JPMorgan says in a hot-off-the-presses report entitled: “Acceleration in GDP growth may be short-lived”:

Fourth quarter GDP growth was a disappointment. While the 2.8% annualized growth rate realized last quarter was the best in over a year and only a touch weaker than expectations, the composition of growth did not have favorable implications for future activity.

Real final sales advanced at only a 0.8% rate, meanwhile inventory-building contributed 1.9%-points to growth last quarter, a temporary boost that may weigh on production in the first half of this year. Consumption grew at a 2.0% rate, a touch less than expectations, and business fixed investment grew at an expansion-low 1.7% pace. Government consumption declined at a 4.7% rate, pulled down by a big drop in defense spending, and net exports shaved 0.1%-point off US growth last quarter. We are maintaining our outlook for 2.0% growth in 1Q12, but acknowledge that we will need to see more things go right than wrong in order to realize that forecast.

First prints of GDP don’t have a lot of information about the income side of the economy, but what news there was wasn’t great: real disposable personal income increased at only a 0.8% annual rate, after declining the prior two quarters. On a year-ago basis real disposable personal income declined 0.1%, the only decline ever recorded in a non-recession environment.

James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger for the American Enterprise Institute and an official CNBC Contributor. 

Previously, he was the the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. And before that, he was the business editor and economics columnist for U.S. News & World Report. Pethokoukis has written for many publications including The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, The Daily, USA Today, and Investor’s Business Daily. In addition, he has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, The McLaughlin Group, CNN, and Nightly Business Report on PBS. A graduate of Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism, Pethokoukis is a 2002 Jeopardy! champion.

 

[Haletown]

I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term.

Right . . because all of Obama's economic policies have worked out so well, the American economy is booming, the debt and deficit is under control,  Obamacare is extremely popular, almost no Americans use food stamps anymore, all his vaunted  green investments are working perfectly, the Volt is the most popular car in America,  GITMO is now a Club Med, he's stopped the deportations of Hispanics and his outreach to the Muslim world has been an extraordinary success.

Yup . . .  he's a shoe-in for that second term . . .  'cause he's the most successful and beloved POTUS in modern history.

 

[larry Strong]

:goodpost:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While we're being sarcastic...............


                                Dear Abby,

                                My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card
                                bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at
                                me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our
                                kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the
                                interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that
                                most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to
                                whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even
                                more. Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics
                                and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next
                                he's with Muslims.. Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before
                                anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's
                                just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

                                Signed,
                                Lost



                                Dear Lost,

                                Stop whining, Michelle. You're getting to live in the White House for free,
                                travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you.
                                You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with
                                the idiot for one more year!

                                Signed,
                                Abby

 

[cupper]

There has been an interesting undercurrent that has been only minimally reported on, but has really come to the forefront with this past presidential term.

For all of the hand wringing, debate, derision, vitriol that goes on during the presidential races, the Office of President is becoming less and less relevant.

A candidate may have a grandiose agenda, but the reality of the office is one of deminishing expectations due to political necessity. This is what we want, but this is what we can get.

The New Yorker is running an article in the latest edition that follows on this theme. The author had access to many memos generated within the administration which show how there really is a lack of power in the Oval Office. In memos setting out options on Health Care Reform, Regulation of the banking Industry and other items of note over the past three years, it shows that the reality is that the administration continually settled for the politically expedient options, knowing that they would only be able to get what they got, rather than what they really wanted.

But this is not limited to the current administration, historic analysis and commentary indicates that past presidents also learned the hard lesson of how the power of the President is more myth than reality.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza

 

[a_majoor]

I find that a bit difficult to believe Cupper.

Obamacare was created during the time when the Democrats had the House and Senate, as well as the Administration, and the process was still a gong show. The President essentially outsourced the process to Speaker Pelosi ("you have to pass the bill to see what is in it") and provided little leadership or guidance. The resulting gong show was crony capitalism and log rolling run amok because the President chose to vote "present".

The appointment of various "Czars" is a direct wielding of executive power, certainly not envisioned in the Constitution.

The new approach for this election year seems to simply attempt to run things by executive fiat (such as non recess recess appointments), which is certainly a huge extension of the concept of executive privilege or simply a power grab.

Perhaps the real issue for the preceived reduction of Presidential power is twofold:

1. The office of the President was never supposed to be all powerful anyway, the founders wrote the Constitution to deliberately limit the power of any singel branch of government. Expecting more is going against the fundamental division of powers doctrine.

2. The Local Knowledge Problem means that no central office, organization or single person can ever gain or process enough information to totally understand or control large systems. Even an office with vastly expanded powers (such as the Russian Presidency) which has the legal mechanisms to carry out direct rule simply cannot deal with the complex system that is Russia. The United States is perhaps the most complex social, economic and political system ever created, so the idea that the President or even the Federal Government can actually provide detailed governance to every person is simply impossible. Attempting to do so simply creates a series of cascading failures which expend political capital for no real gain.

This election will see huge changes downline as the political and social structure of the United states is changing. the politial elites may be able to hang on for one or two more cycles by exploiting their own client base, but after that...

 

[Redeye]

I find that a bit difficult to believe Cupper.

Obamacare was created during the time when the Democrats had the House and Senate, as well as the Administration, and the process was still a gong show. The President essentially outsourced the process to Speaker Pelosi ("you have to pass the bill to see what is in it") and provided little leadership or guidance. The resulting gong show was crony capitalism and log rolling run amok because the President chose to vote "present".

Party discipline as we understand it in Canada doesn't exist in the United States. Just to remind people who don't know it, the passing of the actual "Obamacare" Act required a whole host of compromises and horse trading to get some Democrats (the so-called "Blue Dogs") on side. It wasn't a matter of staying "Thou shalt vote...". Not only that, The GOP has used filibusters to require supermajorities to get anything through the Senate, which, I'd venture to guess, isn't what the founders actually intended.

The appointment of various "Czars" is a direct wielding of executive power, certainly not envisioned in the Constitution.

Stop. Seriously, stop. The concept of "Czars" is nothing new in the United States, and previous Republican presidents have appointed them. In greater numbers than President Obama. Despite what right wing blogs would like you to believe, the term "Czar" in this context is NOT new. They wield a very specific amount of executive power - NONE. They are advisors to the executive branch, which any student of American civics will immediately recognize has no power to pass legislation and extremely limited ability to do anything, as per the founders' vision of checks and balances. This is a ridiculous red herring.

The new approach for this election year seems to simply attempt to run things by executive fiat (such as non recess recess appointments), which is certainly a huge extension of the concept of executive privilege or simply a power grab.

Again, nonsense. The Senate sittings being used to attempt to qualify the Senate as not being in recess are sittings of about two minutes. The American public, when they are cognizant of the entire process, will not find any offense in the President getting things that need to be done, done.

Perhaps the real issue for the preceived reduction of Presidential power is twofold:

1. The office of the President was never supposed to be all powerful anyway, the founders wrote the Constitution to deliberately limit the power of any singel branch of government. Expecting more is going against the fundamental division of powers doctrine.

And it isn't. If it was, President Obama would be able to get on with what he actually believes to be the job of trying to fix what's wrong with the republic.

2. The Local Knowledge Problem means that no central office, organization or single person can ever gain or process enough information to totally understand or control large systems. Even an office with vastly expanded powers (such as the Russian Presidency) which has the legal mechanisms to carry out direct rule simply cannot deal with the complex system that is Russia. The United States is perhaps the most complex social, economic and political system ever created, so the idea that the President or even the Federal Government can actually provide detailed governance to every person is simply impossible. Attempting to do so simply creates a series of cascading failures which expend political capital for no real gain.

Everyone who believes this should consider, perhaps, moving to somewhere like Somalia. It shows how well this libertarian idea works. I saw on Twitter today a humourous quote: "Libertarianism works brilliantly... until you run out of bullets." Now, I'll happily say this is a crass generalization, but again, the idea that blaming the federal government for trying to do what the US Constitution specifically charges it to do (including promoting the general welfare etc etc) is rather a non-starter. The local knowledge problem isn't to be disregarded, but neither is it a reason to throw up everyone's hands and give up.

This election will see huge changes downline as the political and social structure of the United states is changing. the politial elites may be able to hang on for one or two more cycles by exploiting their own client base, but after that...

Maybe. That's all I can say. Maybe.

 

[Redeye]

Right . . because all of Obama's economic policies have worked out so well, the American economy is booming, the debt and deficit is under control,  Obamacare is extremely popular, almost no Americans use food stamps anymore, all his vaunted  green investments are working perfectly, the Volt is the most popular car in America,  GITMO is now a Club Med, he's stopped the deportations of Hispanics and his outreach to the Muslim world has been an extraordinary success.

Yup . . .  he's a shoe-in for that second term . . .  'cause he's the most successful and beloved POTUS in modern history.

The US economy created more jobs in 2011 than it has since 2005 as I recall. The debt and deficit isn't under control because of a paralyzed legislative arm that is totally unable to do anything at all. Things are bleak, but I have to wonder what sentiments are like, what the average American things about everything. The Volt is another stupid red herring and by the way, GM is back to being the top automaker in the world I read recently, Chrysler paid off its loans in full as I understand, and the auto sector is still providing a significant economic engine in much of the US. As for GITMO's prisons, I get why the President can't just wave a want and order them closed, and the emoprog left will keep whining about it while most of his base accepts it. As for the Muslim world, the idiotic idea of war with Iran just seems like a great way forward, doesn't it?

And as for his being a shoe-in for a second term, again, who's going to beat him? Gingrich? Not a chance. Romney might give him a run for his money, but still probably can't win. I don't think he's worried about finding new accommodations next January. There seems to be little need.

 

[a_majoor]

At least the Obama campaign is easy to understand:

 

[Haletown]

And as for his being a shoe-in for a second term, again, who's going to beat him? Gingrich?

Who?  The people of the United States of America who he is so royally screwing over in his blind pursuit of socialist equality or whatever mumbo-jumbo he reads off his teleprompter. 


I understand it is so hard to do the Hopey Changey thing anymore and all you can do now  is hold on to blind belief  in The One, but in those moments when doubt creeps in, here's some moral support for you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts

 

[Edward Campbell]

The main reason the US economy performed better in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2011 - and the ONLY reason GM is on top of the auto heap again - has nothing, not a damned thing, to do with Obama's policies: it was the fucking earthquake in Japan!

The stark problem facing the US is that the leadership (political, social, business and so on) cannot figure out how to create jobs. Americans no longer know how to produce what the world wants ...   No, that's not true: America produces many services the world wants and it still produces ideas that the world wants but Americans want and need to make things that the whole world wants ... and make those things better than the Germans can and cheaper than the Chinese do.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Americans want and need to make things that the whole world wants ... and make those things better than the Germans can and cheaper than the Chinese do.

Good luck to them, beating the Chinese that is.  I cannot see how they could do it cheaper, Yanks would not/could not work for those kind of wages.