The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Palin is actually playing this much better. She made an initial PR push, but has largely disappeared over the past couple of months. My advice to any Republican Presidential hopeful would be to stay low key until the 2010 election comes into focus. If it appears the Republicans can have a significant victory, go all out campaigning for them. If, however, the Republicans look stagnant or headed to another defeat, come out after the election as the savior for the party. I don't see much of any benefit to being high profile right now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Tossing out candidates for public consumption at this point is fruitless. We just elected a president. There's no need to start that whole process yet. Let's let the new president fail/succeed first. If Obama does do well over the next 4 years, there would probably be no need to even bother with a Republican candidate.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We just elected a president. There's no need to start that whole process yet. Let's let the new president fail/succeed first.

Im sorry, I was reminiscing on a previous page where you already we're judging success or failure. Please bring back the real MBBF.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im sorry, I was reminiscing on a previous page where you already we're judging success or failure. Please bring back the real MBBF.

Oh, we definitely are judging success or failure already. I just don't think there's any reason to stuff a new candidate in the public's face yet. I think I speak for most Missouri residents when I state I can only stand the onslaught of political TV ads for a few months every 4 years. We don't need to hear about future alternatives until at least the midterm elections as someone else mentioned.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Palin is actually playing this much better. She made an initial PR push, but has largely disappeared over the past couple of months. My advice to any Republican Presidential hopeful would be to stay low key until the 2010 election comes into focus. If it appears the Republicans can have a significant victory, go all out campaigning for them. If, however, the Republicans look stagnant or headed to another defeat, come out after the election as the savior for the party. I don't see much of any benefit to being high profile right now.

Palin is done. Doesn't matter what she does from here on out. She'll be able to have that percent of the country that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, abstinence education works, and so on, but nothing more. Republicans need to hope she doesn't get the nomination in 2012 as it would end in a landslide. Her Presidential aspirations ended when she embarassed herself on the national stage.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Oh, we definitely are judging success or failure already. I just don't think there's any reason to stuff a new candidate in the public's face yet. I think I speak for most Missouri residents when I state I can only stand the onslaught of political TV ads for a few months every 4 years. We don't need to hear about future alternatives until at least the midterm elections as someone else mentioned.

See, there you go, Flasch. Got your wish

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

See, there you go, Flasch. Got your wish

SI

I aim to please.

[Swaggs]

Palin and Jindal are both very, very young in terms of politics. I wouldn't write either of them off at this point, as they could each wait 20 years to run for president and still be a good bit younger than McCain was during this cycle.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Palin is done. Doesn't matter what she does from here on out. She'll be able to have that percent of the country that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, abstinence education works, and so on, but nothing more. Republicans need to hope she doesn't get the nomination in 2012 as it would end in a landslide. Her Presidential aspirations ended when she embarassed herself on the national stage.

I'd argue that being in a position to get the nomination is far from "done".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Palin and Jindal are both very, very young in terms of politics. I wouldn't write either of them off at this point, as they could each wait 20 years to run for president and still be a good bit younger than McCain was during this cycle.

Agreed 100%. Tho, there's something substantial to be gleaned that they will be very different as a "young, fresh" candidate as opposed to a "Senate/Government veteran" in terms of perception. Palin 2008 is a lot different than Palin 2028, provided the zombies haven't gotten us by then. McCain's a lot different guy in 2009 than he was in the 80s

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd argue that being in a position to get the nomination is far from "done".

To be President in this country you have to win over independents. She has set herself up to not be able to do that. Her winning the nomination is a worst case scenario for Republicans in 2012.

[JPhillips]

I'd agree she's unlikely to be President, but that hardly makes her irrelevant. Generally only three people get nominated for the presidency every two election cycles. If she's in a position to be one of those people she's by default important.

btw- Yes, I know there are other nominees, but I don't consider the Greens or Constitutionists as relevant.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

To be President in this country you have to win over independents. She has set herself up to not be able to do that. Her winning the nomination is a worst case scenario for Republicans in 2012.

Is that true for the GOP nomination? Will the religious, far-right voters start to realize that they'll have to give up/moderate on some issues in order to be able to win over those moderate/indy voters?

[flere-imsaho]

It's currently unclear if the right wing of the GOP is willing to act that tactically. Given their collective fawning over Limbaugh's recent CPAC appearance, I'd say no.

[RainMaker]

Each party has its fringe element that they need in the election. The goal is to cater to them here and there while giving off an impression that you are a moderate. In the end the fringe elements of the party are forced to vote for you because you're way better than the other guy, and you nab the majority of the independent voters.

Another problem Republicans run into is that they no longer hold the advantage in party identification. They used to under Bush in both elections, but that has dramatically shifted the last 4 years. So even if they get their whole base to show up, the Democrats still win. Palin can get every single die-hard conservative to show up in 2012 and she still loses without those moderate/independent votes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's currently unclear if the right wing of the GOP is willing to act that tactically. Given their collective fawning over Limbaugh's recent CPAC appearance, I'd say no.

I'm still astonished at the kind of power that man has.

First, he's an entertainer. These talk radio hosts are like the wrestling industry. They are the face and the other guys are the heels. The sad thing is that wrestling fans know it's fake, these listeners don't.

He's also a guy who hurts them. I truly believe he cost them the Senate in 2006 with his Michael J. Fox stunt. The country is growing real tired of the hate speech stuff on both sides and are turning against it. Getting up and attacking a popular President during this economic time might be red meat for conservatives, but it's a huge turnoff for independents. All he is doing is marginalizing the reach of his party and ensuring more years of irrelevancy for the party. The Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty era is over in politics. It's working against them now.

I say this all as an independent too. A guy who is fairly fiscally conservative on a lot of issues. Someone would like to see a real Republican party filled with good fiscal ideas. I think they are setting themselves up for a long journey through irrelevancy.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm still astonished at the kind of power that man has.

Why? He's written two Best Sellers. He has the highest rated talk show in the country. He basically took "talk radio" from its late night venue and made it mainstream. Agree with him or not, his show is entertaining to listen to and more times than not, a lot of his commentary is tongue-in-cheek. The reason he is so hated by the left is because they seem to be so easily tweaked and offended. The only time I've ever thought he stepped over the line was with his comments about Michael J. Fox "faking it", but he was dead accurate about stem cell advocates using Fox as a sympathy play toward voters.

First, he's an entertainer. These talk radio hosts are like the wrestling industry. They are the face and the other guys are the heels. The sad thing is that wrestling fans know it's fake, these listeners don't.

I think Limbaugh believes most what he talks about on his show. Apparently he strikes a cord with a pretty large audience too.

The Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty era is over in politics. It's working against them now

That remains to be seen. Limbaugh was deemed irrelevant and washed up after Clinton was elected, but his audience grew steadily all through the Clinton years.

I think if the economy continues to go south, Obama's honeymoon will be short-lived, even with some of his Obamaniacs. While most of the Dem talking heads seem to think this is a brilliant move (sic), I don't see it that way. To single out and attack Limbaugh is probably the best thing that could possibly happen to him under the circumstances. You can't buy that kind of publicity and Limbaugh is getting it for free...and people who have never listened to him will tune in just to see what all the fuss is about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Why? He's written two Best Sellers. He has the highest rated talk show in the country. He basically took "talk radio" from its late night venue and made it mainstream. Agree with him or not, his show is entertaining to listen to and more times than not, a lot of his commentary is tongue-in-cheek. The reason he is so hated by the left is because they seem to be so easily tweaked and offended. The only time I've ever thought he stepped over the line was with his comments about Michael J. Fox "faking it", but he was dead accurate about stem cell advocates using Fox as a sympathy play toward voters.

I'm talking with politicians. You had the head of the GOP groveling to him. We had a U.S. Senator begging for forgiveness. I guess it just doesn't put much faith in a party when they are bowing down and kissing the hand of a talking head on the radio. It's akin to seeing Jerry Jones get on the radio and apologize to Skip Bayless for criticizing him.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think Limbaugh believes most what he talks about on his show. Apparently he strikes a cord with a pretty large audience too.

I believe he does too. But he's going to present it as entertaining as he can. That's not always good for politics. Playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" may be funny parody, but it's probably not going to help the GOP get more votes.

Big difference in thinking a guy is a great entertainer and liking what he says and using him as the face of your party. I've listened to Howard Stern from time to time and like some of his political views, but I think it would be retarded for any party to use him as their mouthpiece.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That remains to be seen. Limbaugh was deemed irrelevant and washed up after Clinton was elected, but his audience grew steadily all through the Clinton years.

I think if the economy continues to go south, Obama's honeymoon will be short-lived, even with some of his Obamaniacs. While most of the Dem talking heads seem to think this is a brilliant move (sic), I don't see it that way. To single out and attack Limbaugh is probably the best thing that could possibly happen to him under the circumstances. You can't buy that kind of free publicity, and people who have never listened to him will tune in just to see what all the fuss is about.

It's not about Limbaugh per say, just his style. I think the turning of politics and government into a sport where it's my team vs your team is slowly getting played out. We are sick of each side constantly bashing each other. Sick of the crybaby antics. Sure the hate speech radio shows from both sides of the aisle will stay on and have its listeners, but I don't think it'll have the impact it used to.

I agree though that this is great for Limbaugh. It's also why you don't build your party around an entertainer. His goal isn't to attract new voters, it's to bring in a big rating. That percent who loves Limbaugh can cheer all they want about what he says and how the GOP bows down to him. But at the end of the day, it doesn't get them more votes or win them any elections.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty era is over in politics. It's working against them now.

The Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman Era is working out just great. The only difference between these cast of characters is party identification, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman Era is working out just great. The only difference between these cast of characters is party identification, right?

No, I could have said any of those names. They are all the same. We were talking about the GOP so I listed conservative hosts.

[Senator]

The GOP nominee is someone you have not even heard of yet.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Senator

The GOP nominee is someone you have not even heard of yet.

You do realize that you said the exact same thing prior to the 2008 election season?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm still astonished at the kind of power that man has.

First, he's an entertainer. These talk radio hosts are like the wrestling industry. They are the face and the other guys are the heels. The sad thing is that wrestling fans know it's fake, these listeners don't.

I thought this the last week, too, after seeing the Michael Steele and the senator, who it was escapes me at this moment, who both have had to formally apologize to Rush in the last couple of weeks. This isn't the playing politics "I'm clarifying something", it's the "I'm sorry I tried to disagree with you".

Your subsequent posts have explained it better than I could but I did want to second this.

Again, I don't see Jerry Jones apologizing to Jim Rome or Dan Patrick personally if he were to rant about the media. Maybe he goes on and apologizes to the fans for signing TO but not a personal apology to the host themselves for disagreeing.

Similarly, you don't see Harry Ried or Patrick Leahey going on record, calling out a particular member of the media like Olbermann and you sure as hell wouldn't see them apologizing. And that's from the pansy side of the aisle, not the gun toting, war hawk tough guys. Hell, could you see Michael Steele going and apologizing to Bill O'Reilly.

So why Rush? Why now? Why bother? I just don't get it.

SI

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You do realize that you said the exact same thing prior to the 2008 election season?

I said Democrat!!

And who knew Sarah Palin or predicted it. (She was the real nominee)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Senator

The GOP nominee is someone you have not even heard of yet.

Depends on what you mean 'heard of'. For instance, I was a big fan of Joe Biden in the Senate but, yeah, a lot of people hadn't 'heard of' him. If that's the level of field you're talking about, then, sure. It basically means it's not going to be McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Palin, or, um, I dunno Bush I. I'll take the "field" versus 5 people in the country in most bets

SI

[Senator]

I would as well.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

or, um, I dunno Bush...

Don't forget...Jeb is still out there.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Senator

I would as well.

But, my point is, there are more guys out there than that which people have "heard of". I could name a dozen GOP governors, some Senators, maybe a few from the House, a politico or two in exile, and a couple of big time mayors and there's a good chance it comes from that pool.

SI

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought this the last week, too, after seeing the Michael Steele and the senator, who it was escapes me at this moment, who both have had to formally apologize to Rush in the last couple of weeks. This isn't the playing politics "I'm clarifying something", it's the "I'm sorry I tried to disagree with you".

Your subsequent posts have explained it better than I could but I did want to second this.

Again, I don't see Jerry Jones apologizing to Jim Rome or Dan Patrick personally if he were to rant about the media. Maybe he goes on and apologizes to the fans for signing TO but not a personal apology to the host themselves for disagreeing.

Similarly, you don't see Harry Ried or Patrick Leahey going on record, calling out a particular member of the media like Olbermann and you sure as hell wouldn't see them apologizing. And that's from the pansy side of the aisle, not the gun toting, war hawk tough guys. Hell, could you see Michael Steele going and apologizing to Bill O'Reilly.

So why Rush? Why now? Why bother? I just don't get it.

SI

Because a bazillion of his listeners probably flooded Steele's office with calls and his apology was an "oh sh*t" response.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But, my point is, there are more guys out there than that which people have "heard of". I could name a dozen GOP governors, some Senators, maybe a few from the House, a politico or two in exile, and a couple of big time mayors and there's a good chance it comes from that pool.

SI

That is because you are an intelligent person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So why Rush? Why now? Why bother? I just don't get it.

I don't know who the Sen. you referenced was but in Steele's case it's because Rush is worth a hell of a lot more votes than he'll ever be, and that's even with me believing that the actual impact on anything beyond motivation with any of the hosts is pretty minimal.

When a relative unknown with iffy credibility to begin with decides to get in a pissing contest with someone that's pretty much an icon, the outcome was pretty predictable. That thing about dragons and ketchup comes to mind.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Senator

That is because you are an intelligent person.

I beg to differ

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think if the economy continues to go south, Obama's honeymoon will be short-lived, even with some of his Obamaniacs. While most of the Dem talking heads seem to think this is a brilliant move (sic), I don't see it that way. To single out and attack Limbaugh is probably the best thing that could possibly happen to him under the circumstances. You can't buy that kind of publicity and Limbaugh is getting it for free...and people who have never listened to him will tune in just to see what all the fuss is about.

Have you seen opinion polls on Rush? The more Republican = Limbaugh the better for Democrats.

[SFL Cat]

You might be interested in this article.

Do Americans Prefer Ayers and Wright to Limbaugh?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Have you seen opinion polls on Rush? The more Republican = Limbaugh the better for Democrats.

If that's actually where we are then we're fucked beyond repair as a nation & none of this stuff ultimately matters anyway, so what's really the difference in the end?

[JPhillips]

Gallup ran a poll released on Feb. 5 The key is the independents.

App/Disapp/No Opinion

Rep - 60/23/17
Dem - 6/63/31
Ind - 25/45/30

As long as Limbaugh = Republicans the Democrats will do fine.

It also shows the problem for Republicans. Limbaugh is toxic on an overall level, but he's extremely popular among the base. As long as Rush is in the news at all it's bad for Republicans.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't know who the Sen. you referenced was but in Steele's case it's because Rush is worth a hell of a lot more votes than he'll ever be, and that's even with me believing that the actual impact on anything beyond motivation with any of the hosts is pretty minimal.

When a relative unknown with iffy credibility to begin with decides to get in a pissing contest with someone that's pretty much an icon, the outcome was pretty predictable. That thing about dragons and ketchup comes to mind.

It wasn't a Senator, it was Congressman Gingrey from your state. Mark Sanford also apologized to him.

I'm going to argue that Rush doesn't bring in more votes than Steele. Well new votes anyway. Rush has the power to take votes away perhaps, but that's still debateable.

Rush's listeners are broken into two types. Those who agree with him and will vote Republican no matter what. And those who hate him and just need to hear what he says next. He's probably not going to convince those guys to change their vote anyway.

So sure his listeners can flood the phone lines at an office, but it's more of an annoyance than anything. It's not going to bring in more votes for a Republican because these guys aren't voting Democrat anyway. It's just preaching to the choir. Steele's job on the other hand is to bring in new voters to the party and win elections. Ultimately, he is more valuable in the end.

[SFL Cat]

That's a pretty large no opinion no. among independents.

[Flasch186]

yup but theirs a bigger number just to the left.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It wasn't a Senator, it was Congressman Gingrey from your state. Mark Sanford also apologized to him.

That's right, it was Sanford (governor) not a senator. I must have missed the incident with Gingrey (*heads off to wiki*)

SI

[larrymcg421]

Doesn't this all just mean that Rush will be the nominee in 2012?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So sure his listeners can flood the phone lines at an office, but it's more of an annoyance than anything. It's not going to bring in more votes for a Republican because these guys aren't voting Democrat anyway. It's just preaching to the choir. Steele's job on the other hand is to bring in new voters to the party and win elections. Ultimately, he is more valuable in the end.

That remains to be seen.

I would argue that the base of the Republican Party is waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, the type of candidate the GOP hasn't had since, well, Ronald Reagan.

On the campaign trail, only Dubyah has come close to emulating the themes and ideas that Reagan espoused IMO, and he defeated the hand-picked successor of the most popular Democratic president since JFK.

If the economy stays in the tank or growth is flat (and it is starting to look like that could be the case ... at least for the next couple of years) and/or Obama and the Democrats attempt too big a push toward socialism, then I'd say they are very vulnerable during the mid-terms and the next presidential election.

People don't like it when I compare the Obama presidency to Jimmy Carter's presidency, and it's still early, but the similarities are there.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The only time I've ever thought he stepped over the line was with his comments about Michael J. Fox "faking it", but he was dead accurate about stem cell advocates using Fox as a sympathy play toward voters.

Huh? Fox is THE stem cell advocate. He's not being used. He gave up his career for this cause. He runs an organization dedicated to Parkinson's research.

What happened here is that the conservatives couldn't play their Swift Boat or Willie Horton games with Fox and that frustrated them. That boiled over in Limbaugh's stupid comments.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

People don't like it when I compare the Obama presidency to Jimmy Carter's presidency, and it's still early, but the similarities are there.

But that's just because comparing Obama to any other president after less than two months is stupid.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That's a pretty large no opinion no. among independents.

Sure 45 % of independents dislike Rush, but the good news is thirty percent have no opinion. Palin/Limbaugh 2012 BITCHES!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That remains to be seen.

I would argue that the base of the Republican Party is waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, the type of candidate the GOP hasn't had since, well, Ronald Reagan.

On the campaign trail, only Dubyah has come close to emulating the themes and ideas that Reagan espoused IMO, and he defeated the hand-picked successor of the most popular Democratic president since JFK.

If the economy stays in the tank or growth is flat (and it is starting to look like that could be the case ... at least for the next couple of years) and/or Obama and the Democrats attempt too big a push toward socialism, then I'd say they are very vulnerable during the mid-terms and the next presidential election.

People don't like it when I compare the Obama presidency to Jimmy Carter's presidency, and it's still early, but the similarities are there.

The odd thing about the Reagan/Carter talk from the past is that Carter was much more conservative than he gets credit for and Reagan was more liberal than he gets credit for. Carter was more conservative then W. Much of the Carter hate has come after his Presidency and due to some of his humanitarian and foreign policy stances.

Carter's had his issues but it certainly doesn't mirror anything Obama has done so far. I also think it's far too early to be making any comparisions.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Much of the Carter hate has come after his Presidency and due to some of his humanitarian and foreign policy stances.

I'm not sure if this statement is accurate.

Views soften on 2 former presidents, CNN poll finds - CNN.com

Carter left the White House with a 31% approval rating and it was in the 60's according to this '07 article.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not sure if this statement is accurate.

Views soften on 2 former presidents, CNN poll finds - CNN.com

Carter left the White House with a 31% approval rating and it was in the 60's according to this '07 article.

Many didn't approve of him but it turned to hate years later. You can find tons of threads, blogs and so on calling for his arrest for treason and execution. Many others who call him every name in the book. I don't think he was this polarizing in the past.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Many didn't approve of him but it turned to hate years later. You can find tons of threads, blogs and so on calling for his arrest for treason and execution. Many others who call him every name in the book. I don't think he was this polarizing in the past.

I'll give you that. Threads and posts against Carter have been on the rise since 1980.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That remains to be seen.

I would argue that the base of the Republican Party is waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, the type of candidate the GOP hasn't had since, well, Ronald Reagan.

On the campaign trail, only Dubyah has come close to emulating the themes and ideas that Reagan espoused IMO, and he defeated the hand-picked successor of the most popular Democratic president since JFK.

If the economy stays in the tank or growth is flat (and it is starting to look like that could be the case ... at least for the next couple of years) and/or Obama and the Democrats attempt too big a push toward socialism, then I'd say they are very vulnerable during the mid-terms and the next presidential election.

People don't like it when I compare the Obama presidency to Jimmy Carter's presidency, and it's still early, but the similarities are there.

Jesus Christ, does the GOP know any better? Reagan was a brilliant politician (once in a lifetime), but if the GOP's entire strategy is to wait for another one, how realistic can it possibly be? I try reading RedState at least once a day, and it always fascinates me about the lack of pragmatism - apparently, the solution is to run a candidate who's even more right-of-center (which is when I see the ranting about Specter/Snowe etc, I want to laugh - do they actually believe any other Republican could hold those seats)? I mean, they constantly rail against moderate Republicans - would they prefer them as Moderate Democrat's instead? The entire thrust of the idiocy thus espoused is that even though Barack Obama got the greatest presidential mandate since Reagan, even though his approval ratings are sky-high, the solution is to run further to the right. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the GOP seems to espouse this.