Does Obama Face a 2012 Challenge In His Own Party?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, Sep 4, 2009.

  1. "Leading liberals are already thinking the unthinkable: Challenging President Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

    According to a report on the left-leaning Huffington Post website, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson, an African-American national columnist for The Washington Post, discussed just such a possibility Thursday night. Robinson said Obama needs to be careful how he handles the health care reform issue and the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

    This is being driven by the Huffington Post, Eugene Robinson, and Olbermann.
  2. I love how this dumb shit liberal Keith Olbermann says Obama has compromised on everything so far. Oh really???? Yeah, like he really compromised on that 700 BILLION DOLLAR waste of tax payer dollars, called a stimulus package. Olbermann and Obama actually have two things in common. They are both loads that should have been swallowed. :p
  3. Let me tell you as a liberal. This is possible. I worked for Obama because I was so tired of the Republican lies. I'm not sure if the public option is the best way to go but if there are Republicans against it, then it must be right because they have been wrong in everything else. If Obama compromises on the public option (NOT single payer), he is NOT getting my vote next time. Hillary will be an outstanding candidate and she will piss off the conservatives even more.
  4. Who is Keith Olbermann?
  5. Olbermanm, Robinsn and HuffPost ...

    The Holy Trinity .... nah

    The Three Horseman of the Apocalpyse ? ... nah...

    The Three Stooges .... BINGO!
  6. I see there are alot of Nobel Prize winning PHD economists here at ET. Thats nice.
  7. Now this is just classic. Obama sinks ten points in two months because of liberal policies and the left wants him to be even more liberal. The left reminds me of the passionate abortion defenders on the right except there is one major difference. The difference is that the left has highly emotional beliefs on many if not all issues. If the left sees Obama change his stance from idealistic to skeptical on even one part of an issue they will leave the camp in the millions. After all the evil conservatives are supposed to be skeptical about their idealistic plans because they are naturally bad people.

    Democrats relate and are elected by sharing first emotional impressions of issues. These impressions fall into the category of good and bad. There is nothing wrong with the simple thought process of good and bad because after all great things have been done with this thought process. Civil rights and slavery are a few things that come to mind when looking at the universal thought process of right and wrong. However democrats and true conservatives have a major difference. Both enter the first stage of good and bad however the democrats stay in that stage and a true conservative will go on to the second stage. A moderate will be in the first stage 95% of the time but only use the second stage when issues personally affect them such as reelection or this other important thing. Can somebody say healthcare? The second stage actually questions the impacts of the potential idealistic policies that derive from the original good or bad emotion. They question these idealistic policies because they have witnessed countless times in the past of idealistic policies failing horribly. The left ignores the history of idealistic policies so therefore they have no ability to gauge the future impacts of such idealistic plans. They have no past experiments. They don't have a map. They have no prior success. They just somehow think that people who work in the government will have the same humanistic motivations they do because they have been surrounded with like minded individuals.

    It is actually quite easy to tap into this thought process of the liberal. All you need is the simple ability of determining right from wrong.

    Do I think everyone should have healthcare? Yes of course people should have healthcare. I can't imagine life without it.

    Do they question any further? No.

    Is War good or bad? War is horrible! People die and many are injured. War is never necessary. War is in fact necessary to preserve freedom. Moderates felt after 9/11 that war was necessary but soon they started questioning how threatened this country really was after years of no attacks. Hence Bush's disapproval.

    Should drugs be legalized? Hell ya. My experiences with drugs have rocked and I was always responsible.

    Do they question any further? No

    What about illegals? There is nothing wrong with that. We did the same thing hundreds of years ago.

    Do they question any further? No.

    You see it is their first impression. They so passionately believe in this simple first impression that they can't even bring themselves to put their beliefs through a method of logic which brings skepticism and questions from both sides into the arena. If they in fact did question these idealistic policies then they would be questioning the intellect of themselves and the intellect of every single person who sculpted their own intellect. They have also been trained to be so emotionally affected by the problem that they can't let themselves question the idealistic policies. Think of it as a defensive mechanism. The right could be blamed partly for this problem because the left hears the right not only going through the skeptical questions one by one but they also hear the right yelling at them for not going through the questions as well. The left in order to keep their same emotional beliefs has to totally put the right and the middle on mute therefore causing further isolation and further delusion.

    The motto of the left isn't "Yes we can" or "Change". The motto is ignore those evil morally dysfunctional people who question our policies and our beliefs. Just...Listen...To...Us.
  8. Ricter


    The flap of a butterfly's wings would have driven his popularity down--it had no other direction to go. The only people left who could have raised it would not support him or his party with any facts before them, under any circumstances.

    Did not read any further, as I assume the rest of your argument follows from your opening.
  9. So you think the general public is starting to go against Obama because they are tired of him in such a way as being tired of Paris Hilton? Are you sure increasing opposition hasn't been caused by an inexperienced president attempting to change healthcare in significant ways? The general public has no trust in Obama when it comes to policy that affects them personally. Trust from the general public doesn't come from skin color or political ideology. It comes from past success.

    So what does this backlash really mean? It means that a large percentage of voters were uninformed about Obama's policies. If you could come up with an argument that doesn't have to do with butterflys and blaming the far right than I would be happy to listen.
  10. Such foolish statements and such a foolish point of view (except for denying Odumba a vote). I bet you were pleased with the republican support of illegal immigration, Bush's policies were the best thing that ever happened to you liberals . . .

    I am one conservative here who would rather see Hillary that Odumba, would even register democrat to vote in such a future primary.
    #10     Sep 7, 2009