As most readers of my columns know, I am no big fan of our President, Barack Obama. I voted for McCain, a vote that I cast knowing it had a snowflake's chance in hell of meaning anything, and it didn't. At the time, Obama was riding high on his rhetoric, his campaign pledges sounded great on the surface, but to me, these policies implied a dark direction for the future of the country, its economy and national security. For general election voters bowled over by the image of this smart, young, handsome candidate, implications of the policies espoused by Obama were merely glossed over by a supportive media refusing to ask any serious questions. Certainly, some voters knew that a President Obama would mean higher taxes for all, increased role of government and government spending, and a reliance on the international community for our security. "Some voters" being the key phrase in that prior sentence — the vast majority of voters don't take the time to really understand policies or their implications, especially when those policies are never deeply discussed (present company excluded of course).
Obama has now been in office since late January, and the media has had no choice but to discuss the implications of Obama's policies. While some of the policies Obama has forwarded have fallen with a legislative thud, others are downright scary. Thus far, it's hard to argue that the fledgling Obama administration has done much, if anything, right; unless you are a bona fide Kool-aid drinker. I wouldn't expect Obama to govern from the right. However, the direction in which he's taken the country is not in line with what I'd call a centrist, independent or even moderate Democrat view (full disclosure: I am center right, registered independent, though lately thinking of registering my disgust with the current administration by going Republican). As expected, Obama has been pretty clearly presiding over the country from a far left position. The only group which should be happy, liberals, is not satisfied that Obama has gone far enough on issues such as gay marriage, gun control and other liberal hot button issues. Of course, satisfied or not, liberals will stand by Obama because after all, (begin sarcasm) look at the mess he's inherited (end sarcasm). But liberals are a minority. The question is, now that we've been living in ObamAmerica for the last 5 months, if the election were held today, would Obama still win the presidency?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Christine Lakatos
"MSNBC's Maddow and Olbermann are in full-on spin mode": Oh my gosh -- spin mode is an understatement, Maddow and Olbermann are outright obnoxious!
2 - Dr Dreadful
"as for polling, ever since 2004, when the polls all showed Kerry beating Bush, until Bush won that is..."
Um, no. The polls had Kerry leading through the end of August and the party conventions. After that the lead swapped about a bit, but with Bush steadily gaining ground. By the time of the election, thanks in about equal measure to the Swift Boat Veterans and Kerry's clueless campaign, Bush had a small lead in most polls - though not enough for most pundits to call it either way. Which is just about how the election ended up turning out.
When the polls close to the last election showed Obama applying forceful toe energy to McCain's chair-communing appendage, there were a lot of objections along the lines that polls were unreliable. I disagree. Polls are a highly reliable weather gauge, as long as they are analyzed correctly and not cherry-picked or taken in isolation.
So if numerous polls show Obama's approval rating still to be high, you should probably accept that for what it is. It detracts nothing from your own disapproval.
He would still win if the election were held today, and I don't think it would make a great deal of difference who the GOP put up against him.
Frankly, I think much of your incredulity stems from failing to recognize that many people may not consider higher (?!) taxes, bigger government, increased spending and greater reliance on international military cooperation to be bad things.
3 - Bliffle
This is a pretty boring article. Just a recitation of rightist diatribes against Obama, with nothing new added, nor any interesting new way of viewing old items. It's a waste of time and attention. I suppose one would not expect better from OA.
I noticed this brag by OA:
"America is the greatest country in the history of mankind. Some might refer to me as the classic "obnoxious American," because I refuse to be ashamed of my country."
I would have agreed 20 or 30 years ago, but I've seen our relative position deteriorate, especially over the past 10-15 years. While we've been standing still the rest of the world is moving forward. We've been standing pat, apparently content to defend an old position while other countries are advancing.
And standing pat is very expensive.
We need new models of social organization, business operation, and political representation. But we seem to be doing nothing. Even Obamas proposals don't really represent anything new, mostly just re-hashes of past liberal policies, and pretty mild re-hashes at that.
And the "Obnoxious American" sobriquet was earned by loudmouth US tourists who would loudly brag about how superior some US product was compared to a foreign product, aimed directly at any nearby foreigners. It had nothing to do with shame, but rather with bragging and scorn of foreigners.
Those loudmouths didn't succeed in intimidating the foreigner, who typically became incensed and insulted rather than instructed, but it did make life harder for the next American that the foreigner met. So all you accomplished with bragging was to harm some innocent fellow American. How stupid.
4 - Arch Conservative
Hindsight is 20/20 and given that Obama is an economic neophyte hell bent on bankrupting the nation I think he'd get crushed in a landslide if American were given a choice to trade him in for Mitt Romney.
5 - The Obnoxious American
Bliffle,
Touched a nerve did I? Call me boring or any other names you'd like, or disparage my name, but it doesn't change the point of the article. If the election were held today, Obama would likely lose. Especially with news like this coming out.
Can you say buyers remorse?
6 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
I vividly remember the day of the election in 2004. My liberal co-workers were ecstatic of early Zogby exit polling that showed Kerry beating Bush. The next day I was laughing and they were horrified.
Let's not forget that the polls are always wildly pro-democrat by many points, there's ALWAYS a drop from the polls to the actual numbers. And always, it's the democrat that has the benefit.
There are acknowledged issues with weighting, "likely voter" classification, and other things that mess with the numbers to skew them in some favor. At the end of the day, the old twain saw still stands.
I believe these polls should be illegal. Isn't a daily barrrage of polls at least some form of voter intimidation? After all we wouldn't want to waste our vote voting for the loser, now would we?
7 - zingzing
yeah, archie, he wants to bankrupt the country he's in charge of. good strategy. where'd you come up with that? mitt romney! mitt romney! maybe he'll marry you (ok, that was crass).
oa--you REALLY think obama would lose? you're living in a fantasy world where he's not fixing bush's economic, military and international idiocy. he'd absolutely poop on anybody you right wing nutters could put up at this point. and i'm not saying that's a good thing, but your ideas have proven so useless, so backwards and so awful that you couldn't hope to get elected in a recession actually brought on by obama, much less a recession brought on by your own people.
8 - El Bicho
And what is the point of the article? Since you don't make the case for anyone running against Obama, your only argument is that you don't like his policies, and surely others must agree with you.
Bliffle is right. This is a boring repeat. The TV networks no to offer new programming in June, so put a little thought and effort into it next time.
9 - The Obnoxious American
El Bicho,
Obama would lose to "None of the above" right now. That I don't talk about who'd be running against him is irrelevant. He won because he got away without getting into details, and now that he has, he is losing his appeal quickly. That's the point of the article, it's all there if you read it.
10 - El Bicho
Just because you typed a lot doesn't mean you said anything. Like the Doc said Obama's approval numbers are still high today. We get that you wouldn't vote for him, but with no alternative, your point is rendered moot because Obama and his team have shown themselves to be skilled at running a campaign, so it's an incomplete question.
11 - Baritone
It's hard for me to understand how Obnox & Arch cling to their wishful thinking. Of course you and your ilk want desparately to believe that Obama would lose. But the fact is, that it's highly unlikely.
Obama has done nothing to date that would cause any massive "buyer's remorse." Most of the charges the right has made against Obama are nothing more than strawman arguments in the hopes that something, anything might stick. So far, nothing has.
I have been watching in bemusement the incredibly destructive gyrations the Reps have been going through since the election. There are certainly any number of intelligent and thoughtful Reps out there, but they seem to have elected to take to the hills or hybernate while every nut job in the party has come out of the wood work, found a camera and grabbed a microphone. There is not one voice of reason among them. It's actually embarrassing. If anyone thinks that any of them could make a meaningful challenge to Obama, they are just as nuts. You guys just don't get it.
You all want to go back to the the halcyon days - the days of Ike or more likely, Ronnie. Reagonomics has run its course and failed miserably. Take "trickle down" and shove it.
It's a far different world we live in than even as recently as the 1980s. Obama understands that. Apparently, you don't.
I can't predict success for Obama's plans. But it was more than clear that the direction we have been moving for the past several years was the wrong way. I truly hope those days are gone.
B
12 - Cannonshop
Arch Conservative: the answer to your question is "Yes". Obama's actions, choices, policies, and rhetoric reflect the majority of American Voters both real, and Fictional. Fact is, we've gotten the leadership we deserve, god help us all.
13 - Dave Nalle
Reagonomics has run its course and failed miserably. Take "trickle down" and shove it.
I hear this claptrap all the time from the left, but never anything to back it up. Reagan left us with an economic boom. Want to bet that Obama won't.
And Reagan faced a banking crisis which was arguably considerably worse than this one, and dealt with it far more effectively and responsibly.
I'm not even a big Reagan fan and these truths are obvious.
Dave
14 - Arch Conservative
A large part of what got Obama elected was animosity toward Bush but that is fading fast and will soon be replaced by animosity toward eight ball Barry.
Even half of the idiots that voted for him will eventually realize that he is full of shit and has no clue what he's doing.
"I can't predict success for Obama's plans. But it was more than clear that the direction we have been moving for the past several years was the wrong way. I truly hope those days are gone."
Yes those days are gone. For the worse. Obama has already spent what Bush spent in his entire eight years.
I'm not an economist but you don't need to be an economist to realize that when you're already deep in debt the solution isn't to pile on more debt. Obama, Pelosi et al are digging us into a hole so deep we may never be able to climb out. But I'm sure they have the brilliant ideas like cap and trade, taxing healthcare benefits, and a national sales tax that will save the day. PLEASE!
It seems like the only argument the Barry cultist will soon have left is "bush was bad for the economy." While that may be true that does not logically prove that Obama is good for the economy.
Obnox and I aren't clinging to anything. Obama is a totally incompetent political hack who only got elected because of the mainstream media being on his payroll, the bad taste in people's mouths from Iraq and the novelty of his skin color. That's it. And it won't happen again.
15 - Jordan Richardson
I looked through the whole article for one nugget of fact supporting Obnox's argument that Obama would lose if the election were held today. I found nothing. There was nothing to offset the approval ratings or the polls other than Obnox saying, basically, that he doesn't believe in polls. So...good? I get that he only believes in his own sense of things, but is that really all there is to it?
Am I missing something or is this article all conjecture and wishful thinking based on this continued idea that America's ruined?
Honestly. Do you need to have your diapers changed? Looks like you're carrying a full load.
16 - Jordan Richardson
I'm not an economist but you don't need to be an economist
In the other thread you said "I'm not a doctor but you don't need to be a doctor..."
Here's the thing, Arch: it helps. But you only listen to the experts that you agree with, yeah?
17 - Jeannie Danna
This is why I will continue to write for the culture section of this " on-line magazine?"(I hear this claptrap all the time from the left, but never anything to back it up. Reagan left us with an economic boom. Want to bet that Obama won't.) and you all wonder why there are only seven people who dare leave comments in the political threads here. I had to warn my family and friends to ignore the comments and call me at home instead. I don't see any comments from your families and friends either...
18 - M a rk
Foolish imo. Alternatively, you could point to counter arguments.
19 - Jordan Richardson
I'm beginning to think that what's truly foolish is going over the same basic points with the same basic seven or so people. We're all pretty much set in our ways, honestly, and most articles in this section are reduced to the same fundamental debates that go absolutely nowhere.
It gets tiring after a while and I don't blame Jeannie one bit for deciding to post elsewhere. It's not the least bit foolish to choose to do something better with one's time.
20 - The Obnoxious American
Jordan,
It's a speculative opinion piece. It's here to spark commentary and discussion. I'm talking about what I think events may be in the future. What possible facts could I point to, aside from Obama's horrid record thus far (which I have done ad nauseum in virtually every article I've written since January).
Here are the facts: Obama's policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck. Knowing this, would people really vote for him? On today's RCP, Dick Morris makes a similar point. But I guess he too needs his diapers changed eh?
Attack me, attack my article. But I'd like to see you really attack that premise, that were the election held today, Obama would still win. Do you really believe that to be true? I don't.
21 - Ma rk
You're probably correct, Jordan.
22 - Jordan Richardson
What possible facts could I point to
Approval ratings and their relevance, especially when your "speculation" isn't related to how you would vote but how the majority of people will vote. In order to speak for voters, you should probably do a little more than provide your own speculation and your own opinion.
Obama's policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck.
They suck according to you, yes. But not according to the majority of voters thus far. If/when they do, you'll have a case for Obama not being re-elected. Your article isn't titled "Why I Won't Vote Obama" or "Why Obama Sucks." It's titled "Would Obama Win Again" and you suggest he wouldn't.
As for the Dick Morris article, he says that it will "inevitably change." How so? In what way? Why? Again, all unclear statements bolstered more by personal political opinion by the diaper-wearing freak who once said that Hillary hid behind the "apron strings."
Do you really believe that to be true? I don't.
I don't know and I don't presume to know. Would I vote Obama? Nope. He's not "left" enough for me.
And if you believe that other people won't vote for Obama again, you have to go beyond "he sucks and I dislike his policies" and suggest why the MAJORITY of people agree with you!
Again, prove your premise or restate it properly.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Looking over the thread here, there are basically two kinds of responses: Those that agree with me, and those that are attacking me (and anyone who agrees with me) on a purely ad hominem basis. Why not address the premise? Is it above your pay grade, or is it hitting just a bit too close to home for your comfort?
From Btone's calling us nuts and saying that the GOP's resistance has been "destructive" (as if what the libs did for the last 8 years was honorable or something) to Jennie Deana's suggesting that since our families are not posting, that we are somehow oddballs, to Jordan's diaper humor, the absolute lack of any real response from those on the left says a lot about how right the article is.
Sure, if polls are to be believed, Obama is riding high. But I think we all know that polling numbers are questionable, do I really need to post links to articles that say that? You have Obama saying that America isn't a Christian nation, yet now he's saying America is one of the largest Muslim countries. Not to mention his now emphasizing his Muslim roots, when during the election he outright lied about that. His MASSIVE spending programs, cap and trade, EIT insincerity, blah blah blah blah, do you really think this gravy train will keep running? I see the wheels falling off quickly.
But, as I say in the article (had you read it), I could be wrong, perhaps the American majority really does favor all of this and if so, then that says a lot about the true future of this nation.
24 - The Obnoxious American
Jordan,
Your assumption is that America is mostly left leaning. But it isn't. Again as per the article, you have to look at why Obama was elected. It wasn't because of his policies, the implications of which were never discussed during the election. Instead it was due to a disgust with Bush. But now, Bush is gone.
Obama can only rely on his Bush foil for so long, and in this author's view, that time has already passed. This is Obama's presidency now and Obama's policies are not good for this country (piling debt on top of debt, relying on the UN, cuddling up to despots). While Americans may have been dissatisfied with Bush, they aren't, as a whole, socialists.
Obama's policies are now starting to come in clear as day now. Post partisanship and putting away childish things has been debunked. Instead of being proud of an election where race truly didn't matter, we are now seeing identity politics writ large. All of these things are a drag on Obama whether you or the media's polling want to admit it or not.
These are the FACTS that I pointed to in the article. Perhaps they aren't facty enough for your liking but that doesn't change anything.
25 - zingzing
oa: "Obama's policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck."
how so? you pretty much say this, but you rarely have anything "in any detail" to discuss. so do so.