Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, January 7, 2012

Obama strength highlights need for GOP gains in Congress

January 7, 2012

Advertisement

This week’s Iowa caucuses kicked off the “for-real” battle to choose the GOP nominee to defeat President Obama in November’s presidential election. Millions of dollars were spent by GOP hopefuls and their various PAC organizations to win support in the caucuses, and even more millions will be spent in the upcoming New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida primary elections.

It is reported those favoring Mitt Romney spent more than $3.3 million in Iowa on ads attacking former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was effective because Gingrich entered the Iowa contest as a strong contender to be one of the top vote-getters. As it turned out, he ended up fourth behind Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

The availability of money may indeed determine the GOP nominee to battle Obama — not the knowledge, character, vision, experience and leadership qualities of those seeking their party’s nomination.

If the availability of money is, indeed, the most critical factor in winning this nation’s — and perhaps the world’s — most important political office, it looks like Obama enjoys a huge advantage.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama had more money than he and his advisers knew how to spend. The John McCain campaign almost ran out of money two or three times and had to make significant cutbacks in its efforts.

It is reported the Obama bank account is likely to top $1 billion this year, the largest of any political war chest in U.S. history. He also has a vast number of volunteers who worked for him in his first presidential bid, and many of these workers, plus thousands of new volunteers, have been recruited for this year’s battle.

Some months ago, with the nation’s high unemployment numbers (which really are understated due to millions of Americans having given up looking for jobs), the housing crisis, the ever-escalating national debt, the growing role of the federal government in our daily lives and many other discouraging factors, such as trying to pit class against class, many Republicans were optimistic about their election prospects. They thought Obama was vulnerable and that chances looked favorable for a Republican to move into the White House.

Now, only 10 months before the election, those who had been thinking this way are starting to sober up. If they haven’t, they should.

The 2012 presidential election will indeed be the most costly ever (and it is obvious what money can buy), and it will be a mean, rough-and-tumble, divisive campaign, which will not be good for the country.

A great deal will be at stake, as was true in the 2008 election, when Obama said he intended to make “fundamental changes” in this country. He has followed through on this pledge, and there is greater government control of this nation than at any time other than during World War II. Even then there were not the controls we have today on so many of our daily activities.

Obama will oversee a well-orchestrated campaign with unlimited fiscal support and he is likely to use his office to make “executive” decisions to help him win voter support.

No matter the economic conditions leading up to Election Day, Obama will lead a tough, take-no-prisoners campaign, and no matter who leads the GOP effort, it will be a tight race.

This being the case, it becomes more obvious Republicans strategists must make every effort to hold onto the GOP majority in the U.S. House and win enough elections to gain a majority in the U.S. Senate.

If Obama should win another four years in the White House, and if Democrats were able to hold on to the Senate and either win the House or narrow the Republican majority, there would be no stopping Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally” change this country and place it on a fast track to becoming a welfare and socialistic state.

He will stop at nothing to achieve his goals for the country. Look what he did this week in defying the U.S. Constitution by making several “recess appointments.” A president has the power to make recess appointments, but the Congress must actually be in recess. The Senate was not in recess, due to a strategy used in the past by both the GOP and Democrats, but Obama, in his usual arrogant manner, did what he wanted to do regardless of the Constitution or Congress.

Consider what he would be free to do if he was in the White House and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

With the strong possibility Obama could win re-election, it is imperative the GOP strengthen its efforts to hold onto the House and win control of the Senate. Otherwise, the consequences for this country and the freedom its citizens enjoy will be in jeopardy.

Comments

Bill321 2 years, 8 months ago

Imagine what the Muslim Kenyan from Mars would do if he could sweet-talk your wife alone for five minutes.

This nation needs to be changed "fundamentally," whether you agree or not.

Conservative deregulation practically destroyed the world's economy, and no, you don't deserve another chance.

Reagan and a Republican Senate tripled the national debt. When you see Obama do the same, then start complaining.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 8 months ago

Obama already has, many times over. Do you know anything about what Obamacare will cost once it fully kicks in? If Obamacare isn't repealed, our country will move from the brink of bankruptcy to the actual realization of same.

Romney-Rubio in 2012.

0

scott3460 2 years, 8 months ago

Will it rival george bush's hand outs to the military and pharmaceutical welfare moochers?

0

coloradoan 2 years, 8 months ago

What you conveniently forget is that the price of oil hit $147 per barrel in early to mid 2008 - while Bush was in office. That's when gas at the pump went over $4.00 per gallon in many locations.

0

colreader 2 years, 8 months ago

Anybody with Rubio in 2012!!!

0

cowboy 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 8 months ago

Excellent editorial. All American patriots must urge their fellow Americans to vote responsibly and rid us of the scourge of Obama and his liberal Democrat cronies in 2012.

0

scott3460 2 years, 8 months ago

Most of today's self-proclaimed right wing "patriots" hold some pretty whacko views, so let's hope they end up having to support the soulless Mitt Romney.

0

scott3460 2 years, 8 months ago

Or you spew your sad point of view in the media you control and misuse to advance your political agenda.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 8 months ago

Now that's funny Scottie. Totally wrong but very funny

0

grimpeur 2 years, 8 months ago

"...there is greater government control of this nation than at any time other than during World War II..."

Examples, please? Anything to compare to the fascist policies of "homeland security" established in the aughts?

Good thing for the eternal amateur who authored this that the column isn't fact-checked. Perhaps he should read the news every once in a while.

What a waste of column inches.

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

Uh...did you actually READ the Heritage Foundation report you cited?

Read things like "The cost totals for FY 2009 were the highest in 17 years, and the second-highest cost total ever recorded. Although the majority of the cost was attributable to actions under George W. Bush..." (Note: the highest total costs were under George H.W. Bush...hmmm.)

Or "The regulations adopted so far by the Obama Administration constitute only a small fraction of regulations on the Administration's agenda." In other words, only a small number of regulations have actually gone into effect and, therefore, are actually costing us anything.

The fact is that this Heritage report does NOT blame Obama in an indiscriminate, nonfactual way...unlike a certain Saturday Column writer.

(As an aside, I wish it also discussed the number of jobs those regulations CREATE...a highly significant figure...but, hey, we can't have everything.)

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 2 years, 8 months ago

Oh.. but not having regulations has worked out SO well (i.e. banking/mortgage, environmental, and big business)...NOT!

0

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Just a small point - nobody has "unlimited" financial support - money is a finite commodity.

0

camper 2 years, 8 months ago

More Republicans in Congress will translate to more obstructionism (assuming President Obama is re-elected).

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

Heck, if Romney is elected there will probably be more Republican obstructionism...at least from the tea party loons.

0

camper 2 years, 8 months ago

I don't consider the reckless regard displayed during the debt ceiling crisis, nor the fight against the jobs bill, or all of the flip-flopping (that the GOP supported before Obama) as being accountable to the American people.

I am a Democrat at this time ,but hey, if a Republican took office I'd want the US to succeed. Economics and the well being of all. The same as I was during the Bush and Reagan administrations

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 8 months ago

Now we know Mr. Simons' take on the 2008 election. The embattled forces of freedom must defeat the well-monied, evil forces of socialism.

Read a book or even your own newspaper, Mr. Simons.

Your Saturday morning cartoon version of American politics is divorced from reality and firmly entrenched in right wing ideology.

Your use of the word "socialistic" alone betrays your ideological viewpoint.

There is much for a conservative to disagree with Obama about. Calling him a socialist and pitting the struggle in Saturday morning cartoon terms debases you and conservative ideas.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 8 months ago

Total Recess Appointments By President:

Reagan: 30.375

Bush I: 19.25

Clinton: 17.375

Bush II: 21.375

Obama: 9.67

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/?mobile=nc

Dolph makes the point that technically, Obama was wrong to make his appointments when congress was not officially in session, but I would counter that when the Republicans are "in session" they are not actually "in session" and you cannot fire them.

0

Richard Payton 2 years, 8 months ago

Pure trash talk saying Obama is making this country into a welfare and socialistic state. This country is borrowing money from China at an alarming rate which takes the approval of both parties.

0

jackpot 2 years, 8 months ago

"If Obama should win another four years in the White House, and if Democrats were able to hold on to the Senate and either win the House or narrow the Republican majority, there would be no stopping Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally” change this country and place it on a fast track to becoming a welfare and socialistic state." Didn't the Democrats have control of both houses of congress and the White house from 2009 till 2011? Look at the changes made then.

0

woodscolt 2 years, 8 months ago

What a strategy: Republicans screw this country up so much that no one can fix it in one term so the only smart thing to do is put the republicans back in power so they can resume their carnage.

"Look what he did this week in defying the U.S. Constitution by making several “recess appointments.” spews the dolphster

The arrogant republicans have obstructed Obama's appointees and denied the american people consumer protection while while congress is in session. When they arent't in session, they try to pretend they are not so they can continue to obstruct the american peoples best interests.

You gotta be kidding, these guys are lying out their a$$ , about not being in recess when they know damn well they are in recess. Great, just what we need is a bunch of liars running this country. When do we believe them and when do we not believe them. Fire them and end this shell game.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 8 months ago

The case is being made over and over again that the Republicans have chased away their best and brightest and this new crowd that represents them is unfit for public office.

Like cheap bottle rockets, we continue to watch these candidates crash and burn and we will see the same with Santorum.

It is sad to watch.

Obama is not the best prepared person to ever lead our country, but he is not so bad either. Once the economy picks up steam we will see how well he deals with the national debt and once we get rid of the Tea Party fanatics perhaps we can get a better functioning Congress to work on developing solutions that actually help our country.

0

woodscolt 2 years, 8 months ago

its all good brother math just let it all hang out there brother thats it just let it flow that a boy brother math just let it flow, let it flow.

0

Kate Rogge 2 years, 8 months ago

I am so bone tired of these 'conservatives than more patriotic than everybody else' rants. As Americans we all share in our American history, name, constitution, and flag. My family, whose members were and are Republican, Democrat, and independent, religious and irreligious, has fought and died alongside your own family and those of our neighbors to protect and preserve America and its constitution. It's our country, sir, not just yours.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 8 months ago

Dear Speaker O'Neal,

Thank you for your generous gift of wisdom.

How could we ever have doubted you.

0

grimpeur 2 years, 8 months ago

Another drunken Saturday column. Is this a cut and paste from Bachmann and Perry propaganda? Reads like it, right down to the grasp on reality, the factless charges, the cognitive dissonance, and the baseless use of terms like "socialism" and "arrogant" to describe the relatively moderate initiatives of Obama.

The Rs in Congress deserve to have their butts kicked, and to have the reasonable efforts of Obama's admin shoved down their throats. They've gotten plenty of compromise from the President, who has goverened without resorting to the fear-mongering, lies, and faux patriotism of Bush II.

The author is the one who needs to sober up. Especially on Saturday mornings. The gratuitous use of teabaggers' buzzwords--without any examples to support his opinion--works on the simple-minded right-wing liberals the author hopes to persuade. Too bad he doesn't use his platform for more constructive work instead of the sort of useless pablum we can read in any number of other partisan cesspools of text. If the author wants his favorites in office in a year, he and others will have to learn to construct coherent ideas using the facts, not drive-by blabberings like today's column.

It is expected that this will not happen.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, scary that Obama is building a record campaign bank account through millions of individual donations from citizens.

Makes one think we live in a democracy of citizens instead of a corporate oligarchy.

For shame, Mr. President.

0

woodscolt 2 years, 8 months ago

its all good brother math just let it all hang out there brother thats it just let it flow that a boy brother math just let it flow, let it flow.

0

ljwhirled 2 years, 8 months ago

If Citizen Dolph is so concerned with this problem, then I feel it is his patriotic duty to donate $100,000,000 to get a new president elected.

As a member of the 1%, Dolph and family cashed out of their cable company for nearly $160,000,000 last year. They could easily give $100,000,000 to a republican candidate to ensure victory.

Why won't they do this? What is wrong with pledging their lives and their fortunes to our freedoms? Did Dolph even serve in the military? Did his family sacrifice their children to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nope.

Just another rich, spoiled, self serving one-percenter.

Why is it that second and third generation one-percenters always talk about "free markets".

Born on third base and thinks he hit a home run.

0

ljwhirled 2 years, 8 months ago

It turns out that Mr. Simons served in the Marines beginning in 1951.

I stand corrected - and my level of respect for Mr. Simons was just increased a notch.

It is one thing for kid from a rural family who has no other choice to serve. In some ways he has to.

It is another thing for someone who doesn't need the money to serve. That is an execution of duty and the payment of a debt of honor.

Hats off to an old marine.

P.S. I still hate Dolph's politics and think he is way out of touch with the common man, but an ex-marine deserves respect in public discourse.

0

Carol Bowen 2 years, 8 months ago

There are other statistics to get a more complete picture of employment. See jobs available and positions filled. All of them are showing improvement this month. This cannot be interpreted as a trend yet.

Doesn't it bother anyone that money is important to buy votes?

0

camper 2 years, 8 months ago

" He has followed through on this pledge, and there is greater government control of this nation than at any time other than during World War II. Even then there were not the controls we have today on so many of our daily activities."

How so? Oh I suppose one small example may be the health care reform and insurance exchange which actually was a Republican Compromise. And the mandate? Maybe.

In reality, the biggest changes in our daily lives is coming from non-governmental sources like the advancement of FaceBook and Twitter. The continuing conglomeration of multi-national corporations, the outsourcing of jobs, the shrinkage of rural communities, the outsourcing of jobs, the continuing decline of manufacturing, the continuing shift from an industry mfg country to a service oriented country, unemployment.

This has had the biggest impact on our daily lives.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 8 months ago

"Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally” change this country and place it on a fast track to becoming a welfare and socialistic state"

The above quoted phrase from the editorial tells you everything one needs to know in evaluating the quality of the editor's opinion.

Sadly, political debate in our country has declined to such an extent that baseless name-calling has supplanted rational discourse and debate, especially on the republican side. Calling Obama a "socialist" is a page right out of the tea party playbook and is akin to one four-year-old calling another a "stinky butt." Obama may be many things, including a gross disappointment, but he is certainly no socialist.

Obama has amassed the largest war chest in U.S,. history, quickly approaching a billion dollars. Most of those contributions come from big money donors. Is the writer suggesting that the wealthy among us have turned into flaming socialists? Now that's a laugh.

Such baseless and groundless name calling and slander demonstrates that the writer has no basis for a substantive critique of our current president, or is intellectually incapable of formulating such a critique.

I am amazed this dimwit who heads the World Company didn't grind the business down into bankruptcy long ago. I guess that fact simply proves the point that one does not have to be especially intelligent to make a lot of money.

0

Gregory Newman 2 years, 8 months ago

This Nation loses $60 billion a year from corporations not paying taxes and then another 100 billion a year because of the NAFTA/GATT trade agreement that was negotiated by George H.W. Bush and Carla Hill but signed by President Clinton. Ouch!

At the 1992 Presidential Debate, between Daddy Bush, Clinton and Ross Perot a question was asked from a man in the audience about the danger of NAFTA/GATT that both Bush and Clinton agreed was good for this Nation.

I watched that debate and I’m not an economist but I immediately knew that it would destroy our salary structure. I also listened to all the media pundits that called Ross Perot an “idiot” and often a “Bozo.” But Ross Perot was right the trade agreement was unfair and conducive only to China and Mexico.

Yet, he also said that the only way that those jobs will return; if the wages in China or Mexico meet somewhere half way with ours with no environmental laws and no health care and no unions.

Now therefore, you have no job because of Bill Clinton not President Obama and he also said that those jobs are not coming back.

So therefore, 95% of you have allowed your anxiety to be unjustly angry with President Obama because you expected a “Savior” instead of a President.

It has been obvious to me that a great many of you occupiers don’t understand how government operates. Congress passes laws not the President. The President will have an agenda but it is Congress that passes the agenda that becomes law and remember they want him to fail.

He could repeal all of those controls but he has sense enough to know that American corporations have signed contracts with multi-national corporations under the W.T.O. which is the World Trade Organization. NAFTA/GATT is under the umbrella of the W.T.O. which both is under sovereign control of the United Nations.

Now these controls; the Garn-St. Germaine Depository Institution Act, “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” and NAFTA/GATT are forms of redistributions of wealth and none of these has President Obama’s name attached and these can be considered as socialist policies because you and I have to pay the tax on the subsidy, like for an example TARP. (Troubled Asset Relief Program) All $700 Billion of it.

No way will this President risk his life to pull the plug on those aforementioned contracts? If he does I could picture him leaving the White House then board Air Force One and then I see this giant fireball of an explosion. You don’t think so?

Well on June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation but then on November 22, 1963 in Dallas?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.