Barack Obama's accomplishments:
- Killed Osama
- Brought democracy to totalitarian Libya
- Ended war in Iraq
- Ended DADT
- And....wait....what the....boosted employment?!?!
Now that Ron Paul's election chances have diminished and Mitt Shmomney will likely represent the GOP, the chances of beating Obama are are disappearing. Especially since it is believed that the economy and employment are headed in the right direction. Or are they?
"If the size of the U.S. labor force was as large as it was when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.9 percent. But since so many people have gotten discouraged and stopped looking for work– and thus disappeared by government statisticians — the jobless number has been artificially depressed. A better gauge of the jobs picture is the broader U-6 rate, which includes part-timers who would rather have full-time jobs. It stands at a whopping 15.2 percent. "-(Drewmusings)
Basically, I'm fearing that the ignorant voters from 2008 will vote again for Obama based on a bunch of bullshit. The accomplishments of the above list are either not accomplishments at all or they occured based on circumstances that Obama had nothing to do with. He'll spin it to his benefit though.
Other than killing Osama I don't see how any of those things listed could be considered a success. Iraq is now a wasted war as it looks like Iran is and will continue to gain influence in that country. An American precence should have been maintained. In Libya America fought a war for terrorist. (I had some recent articles on these topics and can't find them.) And the ending of DADT will have a lasting negative impact on the military. (Look at the wiki leak Bradley Manning and his sexual orientation and how this influenced him to leak the information.)
ReplyDeleteThe economy is in the tank and I have read in several articles that the economy is expected to be slowing down latter this year.
If Romney is nominated, I won't vote for him. If America reelects Obama then we deserve what is coming our way. The fact that his approval ratings are around 50% and he has a chance of being reelected says a lot about the state of the American electorate and the long term prospects for our Nation.
Romney, though nowhere near ideal, controlled by a Republican Congress and fear of Tea Party revolt will be a vast improvement over Obama. I do believe he would be very competitive versus Obama and certainly more competitive than any of the other front runners in the GOP primaries (I don't include Perry as a front runner at this point).
ReplyDeleteObama has no record of any success outside of, as you both say, getting Osama. He'll fall by his record. Maybe. I don't know.
I support our work in Libya, though I don't at all support the way Obama went about doing it. I don't care what the Libyans do with their new choices particularly, I just care that Kaddafi is dead. As Saddam is. As, as you have already pointed out, Osama is. Mission Accomplished.
I don't believe our nation building efforts in Iraq are wasted, though I agree that cost/benefit-wise it's not an obvious plus. But, just because something is hard doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because something doesn't work out doesn't mean it didn't need to be attempted. Of all the newly-liberated Arab states, Iraq is the only one with a real democracy. I agree that there is real danger it won't last, but that's not our problem. We gave them a shot. Yes, we should have ended up with basing there. That's Obama's failure, not a failure of our efforts in Iraq as a whole.
I think the problem now for Republicans is that the economy will slowly improve, in spite of Obama, and as you say, stupid Americans will vote for him, because, hey, 8% unemployment is an improvement over 9%!
But, there are many things Republicans and Romney can bludgeon Obama with. But one we can't and that is why I don't support Romney: Obama's most dangerous 'success' is Obamacare and Romney can't say a damn thing about it. Why are Republicans such idiots? Why do we let irrelevent things like debates be our prime way of deciding candidates? I don't get it. Perry would be our nominee and would be a good one but for his miserable performance in debates.
Oh well. Still somewhat optimistic.
For the Ron Paul supporters this seems to be a real sea change:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/
Ron Paul now polls within the margin of error against Obama and trounces him among independents. My previous maxim of "whoever can be beat Obama" could possibly be filled by Paul? Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, he definitely shows a sea change in competing theories within the conservative movement. As the current Pro-Paul youth age cohort matures and begins to creep in size against our parents Republican party, we're probably going to see more Liberty based issues dominating the Republican lexicon.
Also, I clapped when I saw this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/ron-paul-defends-corrupt-accusation-15314229?tab=9482931§ion=2808950&playlist=2808979
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
ReplyDeleteThis is where Romney's interests will lie. Keeping with the status quo of big banks and lobbying interests.
If Iran ends up in control of Iraq, then I would qualify the Iraq war as a wasted one. If that happens then America will have fought a war for our enemy Iran by defeating its rival.
ReplyDeleteI don't see what the point is in replacing Obama with someone that won't try to change the direction that America is going and has the same stance on some of the most transformative issues-- the role of government in health care, man-made global warming, and cap and trade-- of our time that will fundamentally transform our nation and the charcter of our people by turning our nation into a centrally- planned economy. I liked some of what he said about wanting to make this an American century, but I can't support him based on his stance on those transformative issues.
I have been trying to figure out Ron Paul's foreign policy views and it does seem that he does have some good points, but I don't see how his foreign policy could be implemented. If every nation ascribed to free markets and freedom in general and chose not to have some world communist revolution--America interving in Iran bringing the Sha to power to counteract the communist influence-- or bring about a world caliphate--Islamic exterminism, then America wouldn't need to be engaged in world affairs. I do think that America's recent foreing policy in the Middle East will not end up advancing America's long term interests. Overall on Ron Paul, I think Paul's brand of libertarianism is like communism in the respect that such a system would only work if human nature was not as it is: if "men were angels" we won't need government and if men could be turned into worker bees or ants then communism might work.