Good points. Kind of funny / ironic than that your first post trying to point this out did so by referencing another character of the past who lived in a different world and a different time, no?
Maybe it was the most that could be passed. Obama could have still made it cystal clear how economists like Krugman who were yelling over and over that you could not say lose $3 trillion of private demand and try to replace it with only $800 billion of stimulus, ((approximatley go get the exact numbers rather than nitpick please) half of which was the very very low multiplier GOP tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama could have set the stage for another stimulus if the first one proved inadequate. Instead he went the route of proclaiming it a great victory and sufficient. Krugman also proclaimed over and over that this would create great political problems for Obama when the inadequately small stimulus did not really turn things around. Obama is to be faulted by only surrounding himself with conservative to mildly conservative economists. Just like he only surrounded himself with Bush retreads on foreign policy.
And as I've asked others who have made predictions like this can you tell me who will win the Superbowl in 2012? Two years is a very long time in politics again did you think that Clinton was doomed in 1994? Did you think that the Republicans had a permanent majority in 2004? I don't know if Obama will lose in 2012 but if I had to put money on it I would bet on Obama. Given the history in showdowns with Congress usually the first term president wins. See Clinton and Truman.
What you are missing is that Teddy Roosevelt's desire for regulation was considered radical relative to his standards. This is like saying that Mark Spitz wasn't that great of a swimming considering his times were vastly slower than any Olympic level swimmer today.
True he could've delivered his message better but I doubt waiving Krugman pieces around would convince Congressional Repubs and Blue Dogs to vote for more stimulus.
It is definitely looking likely with the Democrats seeming to be in denial. Obama and many Democrats still insist that it is the messaging and not the simple fact that Americans don't like his agenda. This just sets them up for another slaughter in two years.
In a post-election interview the other night, the reporter said that Americans wanted jobs not health care to be the primary focus. Then they asked him if he had it to do over again would he change his focus. Without hesitation, Obama's response was no. He would still make health care his #1 priority. That to me that says he's not listening (and stubborn). Sadly for us cutting taxes (the new rep push) is not going to create many jobs either. Funny that Reps and Dems both say it's the #1 issue but neither side is really doing anything about it. The both choose their own agenda.
It should come as no surprise that basso posts yet another false story. I can't believe that anyone here believes he cares. It doesn't bother him that the things he posts aren't true, aren't logical, are divisive, and often race baiting. It's fun to watch the crap he writes about in here get blown out of the water time after time. But he doesn't care about being accurate. Nobody who's wrong as much as he is would keep doing it.
really basso, honestly can you not see this is racist cartoonage, are you that blind, or obtuse, or didn't care please don't argue that its not racist becuase any idiot who's seen obama can tell it is
Because it uses chain mail information and some "vacation" trash talk that most people can see through?
