The 2012 Election Is Not About Obama's Record

[blackhawk]

Only in your twisted Reality is the Challenger suppose to "come our way ahead right out of the Gate" This Election has never been a sure thing for anyone, Its going to be extremely Close, and any moron, on either side saying different is just plain wrong.

So why are so many RWers stating on this board and elsewhere that Obama's sure to lose?

Have you noticed that? Hmmmmm....!?!?!?

For the same reason so many left wingers here and elsewhere are saying Obama is a slam dunk for reelection they are party partisans. Unless something really drastic happens in the next couple of months this will be a very close election.

 

[The Gadfly]

By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record

What you mean is, you HOPE it's not about Obama's record, because if it becomes about THAT, Obama is finished!

 

[thereisnospoon]

As required by law, President Obama submits a budget to Congress each year. It isn't his fault if they're not passed.

NOTE: Unlike Bush - President Obama's budgets include war costs.

It's not his fault....How much longer are you lefties going to play this whiny song.
This president refuses to offer a budget that is viable.
Oh, he'll float a trial balloon that he KNOWS will not pass, sure.
Obama has never been serious about proposing a budget because it is politically expedient to NOT propose a budget. When there is no budget Obama gets to blame the GOP. He then uses this to enhance himself in his non-stop campaigning.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's about his record and the economy.

 

[Politico]

That is the dumbest paragraph I have read in a long time. Seriously I feel a little dumber after reading it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Only in your twisted Reality is the Challenger suppose to "come our way ahead right out of the Gate" This Election has never been a sure thing for anyone, Its going to be extremely Close, and any moron, on either side saying different is just plain wrong.

So why are so many RWers stating on this board and elsewhere that Obama's sure to lose?

Have you noticed that? Hmmmmm....!?!?!?

Any different from the rabids on the left saying that Romney is sure to lose?

But you have us reasonable people out here who take reality like it is... that this is a close race that is going to come down to 1 or 2 swing states.. and a lot is going to come to the plate over the next couple months that is going to show us how the states of FLA, OH, WIS, NC, VA, and COL go... if OH has a swing to the REP side, Obama best worry.. if it stays in favor of Obama, Romney best worry

 

[Lakhota]

What budget has Reid passed? He hasnt under Bush or Obama, why is that you think?

It has to also clear the House. The House just passed Paul Ryan's budget - but not Obama's.

Lakhota, I didnt say Congress, I said the Senate. Reid has NOT PASSED a budget the entire Obama term, IN THE SENATE. Yes and then since the house passed one, it would go to reconcilliation, I get all that, but the house is the only group getting stuff done. Harry Reid is worried about tax returns and not running the fucking governement.

Either you're retarded or you think I am. The House is passing nothing but crazy shit that isn't going anywhere in the Senate - and Boner knows that up front before it even comes up for House vote. The Boner/Teabagger House would never pass an Obama/Harry Reid budget - and Boner and Harry Reid both know that. Sooo, what's the point...

 

[Lakhota]

Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

DETAILS: Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

 

[Lakhota]

Total outlays in recent budget submissions

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Papageorgio]

By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record

You are right, because if the Dems want everyone to go on Obama's record, he'd be done, at least the writer know that much.

 

[Claudette]

Barry can't run on his record because it sucks and he knows it.

Why do you think his folks are talking about the dog on the roof, Bain and Romneys tax returns??

If Barry had a glowing record thats what he would be talking about. He doesn't and he knows it. Hence all the bs being thrown about Romney.

I expect the kitchen sink to make an appearance any minute.

 

[editec]

If the election was about THE RECORD, Obama would be fine.

The election is really about the SOUL OF AMERICA, so we all ought to be somewhat concerned.

 

[Stephanie]

what a friggen disgusting article

but it's from ALTEREREDWORLD....what do you expect...

the op is just as friggen disgusting

this is the kind of crap they dump all over this board

pathetic

 

[Mac1958]

.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy...

Holy crap.

.

 

[Zxereus]

Only in your twisted Reality is the Challenger suppose to "come our way ahead right out of the Gate" This Election has never been a sure thing for anyone, Its going to be extremely Close, and any moron, on either side saying different is just plain wrong.

So why are so many RWers stating on this board and elsewhere that Obama's sure to lose?

Have you noticed that? Hmmmmm....!?!?!?

When you consider the state of the economy, and throw in historical facts, it's easy to see why anyone would believe the incumbent has no chance.
Now of course we live in a much different America today.
In the past, Obama would have no chance, but today we are so divided and so entrenched in our views, that anything could happen.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Can the RWers in here answer this one, simple question:

Why hasn't Mittens come out the gate leaps and bounds AHEAD of Obama in the polls?

If this election is such a shoe-in, if Obama has been doing so badly, Mittens should be LEAPS and BOUNDS AHEAD of Obama.

Why has Mint Raw Money been spending TWICE the amount of money on his campaign than Obama has been just to maintain a steady SECOND place?

What's really going on?

can i ask you a question Marc?......can i disagree with the President without being called a racist?.....i have asked this to 3 different "Lefties" today who claimed that is the reason people dont like Obama.....and of course neither one of them had enough character to actually answer the question.....how about you?......

To people such as Marc, NO YOU MAY NOT....Question Obama and they will use the race card in attempt to silence you.
It is an utter and complete waste of time trying to convince a racial conspiracy theorist that others not of his skin color are not racist.
To people like Marc, there is a racist under every bed and behind every door.

well he is the 4th "lefty" i have asked that question .....no answers from any of them.....this pussy Lakunta starts a thread about it even but did not answer when i asked him in yet another thread about this.....why can they just give me their politically correct answer and be done with it....

 

[Zoom-boing]

Harry ... they did answer. Their silence screams "NO!, if you disagree with Obama on anything it is not because you disagree with Obama it is because he is black. You are a racist!".

For supposedly being the 'party of tolerance, equality and all' they sure are awfully hung up on the color of someone's skin.

 

[Lakhota]

Obama has a good record.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama has a good record.

On what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the election was about THE RECORD, Obama would be fine.

The election is really about the SOUL OF AMERICA, so we all ought to be somewhat concerned.

Great why isn't obama running hard on his record why isn't he pointing out how good obamatax is?