President Obama: Doom on the Horizon

[PoliticalChic]

What's the premise of Charles Hurt's editorial? That America continues to be prejudiced and Obama did not deliver on improving race relations?

Forgive me, Bob for not welcoming you to the board.

Now, the premise that our President received a great deal of support in anticipation of a 'post racial' era of harmony....hopes that have, largely, been dashed.

Victor Davis Hanson says same much better than I.

"Weren't we supposed to enter a new age of tolerance with the election of President Barack Obama?

His half-black, half-white ancestry and broad support across racial lines suggested that at last Americans judged each other on the content of our characters — not the color of our skin or our tribal affiliations.
Instead, in just 18 months of the Obama administration, racial discord is growing and relations seem to have been set back a generation.
Black voters are galvanizing behind Obama at a time of rapidly falling support. White independents, in contrast, are leaving Obama in droves.

Why the escalation of racial tension in the supposed postracial age of Obama?

First, Obama's reputation as a racial healer was largely the creation of the media. In fact, Obama had a number of racially polarizing incidents that probably would have disqualified any other presidential candidate of the past 30 years.

Recently, Obama appealed to voters along exclusionary race and gender lines — not traditional political allegiances — when he called upon "the young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women, who powered our victory in 2008."

Yet the country passed the old white/black divide years ago. In a world of conservative Cubans and liberal whites, race is no longer necessarily a guide to politics.

The more the president appeals to his base in racial terms, the more his appointees identify themselves as members of a particular tribe, and the more political issues are framed by racial divisions, so all the more such racial obsession creates a backlash among the racially diverse American people.

Tragically, our president and a host of his supportAmerica has largely moved beyond race. ive special interests have not."
(emphasis mine throughout)

Thank you for the warm welcome.

The answer to Mr. Hanson’s question, “Weren't we supposed to enter a new age of tolerance with the election of President Barack Obama,” is no. We aren’t supposed to blame a US President for society’s deep-rooted prejudice and bigotry because (1) it is unfair and (2) it is not material to the criterion used to elect a president. We should judge Obama on his foreign policy and leadership on domestic initiatives, not on society’s inability to reconcile racism.

You are very welcome...

Now, to review, the premise is not whether you or I considered the race, or bi-racial nature of the candidate, or how same will ameliorate race relations...
but whether a sizable portion of the electorate felt that way.

I believe post #25 shows that that is the case.

And the same folks who considered race important, I assume you would agree- didn't anticipate a worsening of said relations...

Many, or most of those folks will no longer see President Obama as the anodyne.
Thus, the title of the thread.

 

[skookerasbil]

Talk about a litany of fAiL..............here was one from just about this time last summer.

One in a long long line of fcukk ups!!! Which one was more stinging than the next that cried, "We dont know what the fcukk were doing!!!' You be the judge.......................

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

OK s0n..........well, its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over 1 Trillion per.......getting damn close to 2 Trilliion!!!!!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The President was elected, not by the dyed-in-the-wool liberals, but rather with the good wishes of independents, who hoped for the well advertised 'post-racial presidency.'

As I recall, President Obama was elected not for some distant concept of post-racialism, but because America (including independent voters) were looking for change from the Bush presidency. During the months leading up to the presidential election, the economy took a severe turn for the worse, with unemployment increasing significantly. The nail in the coffin for McCain was when he declared that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' in mid-September 2008. This made him appear out of touch on the biggest issue of the election.

I have to disagree.

McCain never had a prayer of winning the election. Part of the reason was the screw ups of the Bush Administration, but Bush could have done everything right, and I don't think McCain could have won.

McCain is an ass that never should have been nominated in the first place.

Immie

McCain had a pretty good shot at winning the 2008 election. He was sold out by two things:

1. Iraq: One of the big differences between Obama and McCain was their stance on Iraq and whether to set a time table to withdraw. While McCain wasn't looking, Bush actually did negotiate a time table to withdraw taking the Iraq issue off the table.

2. The Economy: Voters vote for Democrats when the economy is bad, and Republicans when the economy is good. That's because voters want more government when the private sector struggles, and less government when the private sector is doing well. It also didn't help that McCain took several odd stances on the economy and made a rather desperate sounding gambit on the campaign trail.

I also think that McCain lost independents with Palin. I've talked to many independents that voted for Obama because of the messes Palin made in nearly every appearance.

On topic: If Obama looses the independent voters, he looses in 2012. That is a fact that's true no matter what candidate we're talking about. Partisan voters don't decide elections. Independents do.

I think that Obama is blowing that right now, but he has time to turn it around. I voted for Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2008. I can say right now that if the Republicans run a decent candidate in 2012, I'll be looking at voting "R". I've lost confidence in Obama's decision making skills and in his confidence as a leader at this point.

 

[Immanuel]

As I recall, President Obama was elected not for some distant concept of post-racialism, but because America (including independent voters) were looking for change from the Bush presidency. During the months leading up to the presidential election, the economy took a severe turn for the worse, with unemployment increasing significantly. The nail in the coffin for McCain was when he declared that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' in mid-September 2008. This made him appear out of touch on the biggest issue of the election.

I have to disagree.

McCain never had a prayer of winning the election. Part of the reason was the screw ups of the Bush Administration, but Bush could have done everything right, and I don't think McCain could have won.

McCain is an ass that never should have been nominated in the first place.

Immie

McCain had a pretty good shot at winning the 2008 election. He was sold out by two things:

1. Iraq: One of the big differences between Obama and McCain was their stance on Iraq and whether to set a time table to withdraw. While McCain wasn't looking, Bush actually did negotiate a time table to withdraw taking the Iraq issue off the table.

2. The Economy: Voters vote for Democrats when the economy is bad, and Republicans when the economy is good. That's because voters want more government when the private sector struggles, and less government when the private sector is doing well. It also didn't help that McCain took several odd stances on the economy and made a rather desperate sounding gambit on the campaign trail.

I also think that McCain lost independents with Palin. I've talked to many independents that voted for Obama because of the messes Palin made in nearly every appearance.

On topic: If Obama looses the independent voters, he looses in 2012. That is a fact that's true no matter what candidate we're talking about. Partisan voters don't decide elections. Independents do.

I think that Obama is blowing that right now, but he has time to turn it around. I voted for Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2008. I can say right now that if the Republicans run a decent candidate in 2012, I'll be looking at voting "R". I've lost confidence in Obama's decision making skills and in his confidence as a leader at this point.

Gotta disagree with you. McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

A decent candidate might win in 2012, but it won't be McCain.

Immie

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I have to disagree.

McCain never had a prayer of winning the election. Part of the reason was the screw ups of the Bush Administration, but Bush could have done everything right, and I don't think McCain could have won.

McCain is an ass that never should have been nominated in the first place.

Immie

McCain had a pretty good shot at winning the 2008 election. He was sold out by two things:

1. Iraq: One of the big differences between Obama and McCain was their stance on Iraq and whether to set a time table to withdraw. While McCain wasn't looking, Bush actually did negotiate a time table to withdraw taking the Iraq issue off the table.

2. The Economy: Voters vote for Democrats when the economy is bad, and Republicans when the economy is good. That's because voters want more government when the private sector struggles, and less government when the private sector is doing well. It also didn't help that McCain took several odd stances on the economy and made a rather desperate sounding gambit on the campaign trail.

I also think that McCain lost independents with Palin. I've talked to many independents that voted for Obama because of the messes Palin made in nearly every appearance.

On topic: If Obama looses the independent voters, he looses in 2012. That is a fact that's true no matter what candidate we're talking about. Partisan voters don't decide elections. Independents do.

I think that Obama is blowing that right now, but he has time to turn it around. I voted for Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2008. I can say right now that if the Republicans run a decent candidate in 2012, I'll be looking at voting "R". I've lost confidence in Obama's decision making skills and in his confidence as a leader at this point.

Gotta disagree with you. McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

A decent candidate might win in 2012, but it won't be McCain.

Immie

Obama didn't have a strong lock on the election until pretty late in the day. He was leading for sure, but there were many rallies by McCain that just didn't pan out. Obama's victory wasn't certain until mid to late October.

McCain could have won if he hadn't imploded at the end. Palin's selection was a big "F YOU!" to independents and moderates. His "Let's all go to Washington" ploy was a big "F YOU!" to Conservatives. And on top of that, Bush practically campaigned for Obama by embracing TARP and negotiating withdraw dates for Iraq.

2012 is very winnable for the GOP if they run a decent candidate. Decent Candidate means "Not Palin." If Mitt can get the nod, he'll probably walk to a victory against Obama.

 

[Immanuel]

McCain had a pretty good shot at winning the 2008 election. He was sold out by two things:

1. Iraq: One of the big differences between Obama and McCain was their stance on Iraq and whether to set a time table to withdraw. While McCain wasn't looking, Bush actually did negotiate a time table to withdraw taking the Iraq issue off the table.

2. The Economy: Voters vote for Democrats when the economy is bad, and Republicans when the economy is good. That's because voters want more government when the private sector struggles, and less government when the private sector is doing well. It also didn't help that McCain took several odd stances on the economy and made a rather desperate sounding gambit on the campaign trail.

I also think that McCain lost independents with Palin. I've talked to many independents that voted for Obama because of the messes Palin made in nearly every appearance.

On topic: If Obama looses the independent voters, he looses in 2012. That is a fact that's true no matter what candidate we're talking about. Partisan voters don't decide elections. Independents do.

I think that Obama is blowing that right now, but he has time to turn it around. I voted for Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2008. I can say right now that if the Republicans run a decent candidate in 2012, I'll be looking at voting "R". I've lost confidence in Obama's decision making skills and in his confidence as a leader at this point.

Gotta disagree with you. McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

A decent candidate might win in 2012, but it won't be McCain.

Immie

Obama didn't have a strong lock on the election until pretty late in the day. He was leading for sure, but there were many rallies by McCain that just didn't pan out. Obama's victory wasn't certain until mid to late October.

McCain could have won if he hadn't imploded at the end. Palin's selection was a big "F YOU!" to independents and moderates. His "Let's all go to Washington" ploy was a big "F YOU!" to Conservatives. And on top of that, Bush practically campaigned for Obama by embracing TARP and negotiating withdraw dates for Iraq.

2012 is very winnable for the GOP if they run a decent candidate. Decent Candidate means "Not Palin." If Mitt can get the nod, he'll probably walk to a victory against Obama.

I think you were just afraid to be certain of your victory.

I honestly do not believe that McCain had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. There was a lot of hype, but it was all talk. IMHO

Immie