What Obama will run on in the upcoming election

[Mr. Shaman]

Service Industries Grew in May for Fifth Month​

"Service industries in the U.S. expanded for a fifth month and factory orders rose, pointing to a broadening economic recovery that’s generating more jobs.

The Institute for Supply Management’s index of non-manufacturing businesses, which makes up almost 90 percent of the economy, held at 55.4 for a third month in May. Readings above 50 signal expan$ion. Bookings at factories rose 1.2 percent in April, a Commerce Department report showed.

Companies from Target Corp. to Deere & Co. are seeing a pickup in sales that indicates confidence is growing even as the European debt crisis roils financial markets. A government report tomorrow is likely to show employers added more than 500,000 jobs last month, leading to gains in incomes and spending that will help sustain the economic rebound as government support wanes.

“Finally we’re getting signals that job growth is picking up,” said Jonathan Basile, an economist at Credit Suisse in New York. “If we’re getting job growth it suggests further recovery in confidence and the likelihood that consumer spending continues to expand at a reasonable pace."

 

[boedicca]

Obama clued us all in at Carnegie Mellon yesterday - he's still running against Bush:

Touting positive signs of an economic recovery, he also tried to rally core Democratic voters ahead of the election by reminding them how angry they were at his predecessor, President George W. Bush - a key factor in what some analysts expect to be a base-turnout election.

"As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic argument they've been making for decades," Mr. Obama said. "We already know where their ideas led us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future."


Obama tells voters: Remember Bush - Washington Times

 

[Jarhead]

Obama originally ran against the selfishness of his own supporters and he will do it again.

He will find what decisions his supporters made that created pain for themselves and he will tell them he will never let people put them in a position to make that bad decision again.

Enough said.

 

[Nonelitist]

If Republicans are smart... they will attack Obama so relentlessly hard on his character, lies and record that he won't have a chance to get his message out about what he will run on.

This is a slamdunk for GOP if they do it right.

 

[rdean]

If Republicans are smart... they will attack Obama so relentlessly hard on his character, lies and record that he won't have a chance to get his message out about what he will run on.

This is a slamdunk for GOP if they do it right.

That's why they lost the first time.

To the right, "character assassination" is a good thing. But for their leaders, it doesn't matter. Republican leaders can do anything, lie about their military record, have affairs, steal, lie, go to lesbian bondage bars, none of that matters.

 

[Jarhead]

If Republicans are smart... they will attack Obama so relentlessly hard on his character, lies and record that he won't have a chance to get his message out about what he will run on.

This is a slamdunk for GOP if they do it right.

That's why they lost the first time.

To the right, "character assassination" is a good thing. But for their leaders, it doesn't matter. Republican leaders can do anything, lie about their military record, have affairs, steal, lie, go to lesbian bondage bars, none of that matters.

So just republican "leaders" do those things?

What are you, partisan or something like that?

And the fact that you refer to any politician as a leader is pathetic in my eyes.

 

[Nonelitist]

If Republicans are smart... they will attack Obama so relentlessly hard on his character, lies and record that he won't have a chance to get his message out about what he will run on.

This is a slamdunk for GOP if they do it right.

That's why they lost the first time.

To the right, "character assassination" is a good thing. But for their leaders, it doesn't matter. Republican leaders can do anything, lie about their military record, have affairs, steal, lie, go to lesbian bondage bars, none of that matters.

Not true. Mccain was scared to attack Obama. Not personal attacks, but attacks on his public lying and his record. Pretty easy. Most people already see it without effective commercials explaining his lies and record in all their horrifying detail.

 

[beowolfe]

1. First Administration to ever pass a comprehensive Healthcare Plan providing insurance to millions of Americans

2. Economic Recovery: Stock Market up 3500 points, GDP up three straight quarters, Employment figures back in positive territory, Housing up, interest rates low, inflation low

3. Advances in the war on terrorism: Alliance with Pakistan to drive out Al Qaida, drone attacks killing key leaders, AlQaida in total confusion

4. Most significant nuclear disarmament since Reagan

And thats just in 16 months.......Hows THAT Hopey Changey work'n for ya ????

Damn you are delusional.

1. Unconstitutional mandates.

2. Free market would have corrected itself if giventhe chance.

3. Keeping with Bush's foreign policies.

4. The "New Start" Treaty (2010) hasn't been ratified by either Russia or the US.

Obama had nothing to do with any of this.

• 
  Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) - 1963: Prohibited all testing of nuclear weapons except underground.
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - signed 1968, came into force 1970: An international treaty (currently with 189 member states) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty has three main pillars: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
  Interim Agreement on Offensive Arms (SALT I) - 1972: The Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a freeze in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) that they would deploy.
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) - 1972: The United States and Soviet Union could deploy ABM interceptors at two sites, each with up to 100 ground-based launchers for ABM interceptor missiles. In a 1974 Protocol, the US and Soviet Union agreed to only deploy an ABM system to one site.
  Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) - 1979: Replacing SALT I, SALT II limited both the Soviet Union and the United States to an equal number of ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers. Also placed limits on Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS).
  Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) - 1987: Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime.
  Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) - signed 1991, ratified 1994: Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers.
  Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II) - signed 1993, never put into force: START II was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia which attempted to commit each side to deploy no more than 3,000 to 3,500 warheads by December 2007 and also included a prohibition against deploying multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
  Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty) - signed 2002, into force 2003: A very loose treaty that is often criticized by arms control advocates for its ambiguity and lack of depth, Russia and the United States agreed to reduce their "strategic nuclear warheads" (a term that remain undefined in the treaty) to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - signed 1996, not yet in force: The CTBT is an international treaty (currently with 181 state signatures and 148 state ratifications) that bans all nuclear explosions in all environments. While the treaty is not in force, Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990 and the United States has not since 1992.[4]

Nuclear disarmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're calling him delusional!!!! HAHAHAHAHA.....that's like the pot calling the kettle black.....

 

[keee keee]

His great record!!!!! "FAILURE" everything he touches is a failure!!!!!! I bet he wishes he could just say present like he did in the state senate or miss the votes!!!!

 

[keee keee]

Here are a few he could run on!!!!
The last 4 years wasn't my fault it was George Bush's fault!!!!!He did it!!!!
It wasn't my fault I was on vacation or playing golf!!!!
Hope and change!!! the suckers fell for it last time, they are brain dead they elected an inexperienced empty suit in 2008.

 

[MarcATL]

LOL!!

The Republicans really are TOAST!

ROTFLMBAO!!!

 

[Cuyo]

If the recovery continues at half the trajectory it's on now, he won't have to say a word. Republicans might as well not even field a candidate!

 

[rdean]

What Obama will run on in the upcoming election

We know he won't be running on - "Drill Baby Drill".

Déjà vu

Where have I heard those words before?

 

[rdean]

If the recovery continues at half the trajectory it's on now, he won't have to say a word. Republicans might as well not even field a candidate!

After all the money and time they put into this candidate?

 

[Stainmaster]

LOL!!

The Republicans really are TOAST!

ROTFLMBAO!!!

Butter and jam?

 

[hortysir]

It's quite a hoot how Republicans insist the "free market would have corrected itself" to get us out of the recession. Yet, it was Republicans "tinkering" with that market that led us into a "great recession".

Obama makes a great analogy. After driving the car into a ditch, why give them the keys? So they can "finish" the job?

Isn't/wasn't the banking and finance committees headed, in the house and senate respectively, by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

Actually.....Corporate America's Knight-In-Shining-Armor was Phil Gramm....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0"][/ame]
......John McCain's FUTURE economic-adviser!!!!​

Great NON-Answer, rainbow warrior.

If you concentrated as hard on content as you do appearance, you might make a point one day

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think we won't know what Obama will run on until his first term is up. Speculation after he's been in office a year is pretty pointless.

 

[MarcATL]

I think we won't know what Obama will run on until his first term is up. Speculation after he's been in office a year is pretty pointless.

It's not too late to speculate that the Republicans really are TOAST though.

LOL!!!!

 

[hortysir]

I think we won't know what Obama will run on until his first term is up. Speculation after he's been in office a year is pretty pointless.

It's not too late to speculate that the Republicans really are TOAST though.

LOL!!!!

Like all the republicans we see getting embarrassed in primaries across America?

 

[Stainmaster]

I think we won't know what Obama will run on until his first term is up. Speculation after he's been in office a year is pretty pointless.

It's not too late to speculate that the Republicans really are TOAST though.

LOL!!!!

Excuse me. I know there is confusion on the political right, but who are all these people, or are they all the same politicos?

Please tell me are they the conservatives? The Republicans? The Neo-cons? The angry "W" group? The Tea Baggers, (or is it Tea Partiers, or does it matter). The sore loser racists? The Sarah Palin supporters. The friends of Rand Paul. The Rush Limbaugh listeners. Or, are they the enlightened Beck/Fox News bunch.

Why can't they settle on an identity, and hold their heads up high so we can see who leads this crowd?