Public unsettled on who should challenge Obama
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
55 Comments
Login to comment
0
bookowls
A poll conducted just this week on the presidential debate, clearly shows that the public wants either Ron Paul or Herman Cain!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/poll-who-won-tuesdays-gop-presidential-debate/
-3
JapanGal
I did not vote for him, but not for a Republican either. There are usually better choices in the independent category.
How many of the Wall Street Protesters do you think will not vote? I hope they all are registered.
0
paulinusa
IF the economy improves in 2012 the fickle "public" will most likely change their opinion and reelect of Pres. Obama, and by a wide margin considering this field of candidates.
-1
DS
The mess started long before Bush. The age of crony capitalism has been on us for a while, but it was will hidden when economic times were better.
I can't imagine anything better than a Romney/Obama debate. It would be a slaughter- a man with years of experience in business and commerce taking a career politician to the woodshed.
1
yabits
Willard isn't doing all that well against the "magnificent" minds [sic] of people like Bachmann and Perry.
The strategy to whip Willard was made plain when he had his butt handed to him in the attempt to unseat Ted Kennedy. The fact is that, as an executive of Bain Capital, Willard destroyed more jobs and lives than he ever created.
-1
Triumvere
DS & Yabits,
You are both wrong. Romney is doing great against the other Republicans, and would make a respectable opponent for Obama - who is no push-over. I, for one, would like to see those debates.
0
HumanTarget
Yabits, I like that you call him "Willard", I'm going to swipe that from you.
Willard is whithering away more and more as time passes. Did you see his OWS flip-flop video? He looks like a lunatic - he stutters, his hair is all crazy, and he's got this wildness in his eyes. Clearly, he was given an unexpected memo from his PR guys and wasn't handling it well. He's known in the Republican world for years and years of backpedaling and it's going to do him in again this time out. Willard Romney is out of this race.
On the other hand, Cain is clearly, unequivically, provably bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. Hence his wacky 999 plan where everyone pays more except the richest, who get a tax cut, and the budget gets slashed in half. Soon that farce, which the left has known about for some time, will circulate around the Right-wing blogosphere and he'll be down for the count too.
No need to even consider Bachmann and those other loonies, if they're even still in the race.
I would love to see Jon Huntsman take a last-second lead, but I don't see that happening. And, although I respect Ron Paul for his steadfast devotion to his platform, his hard libertarian policies are just too extreme even for most Republicans.
Rick Perry already got laughed out of the running, right?
I'll (reluctantly) vote for Obama, although I'd much rather vote for Dennis Kucinich.
-1
yabits
I don't either. Most Republicans are too far mentally gone, deluded, paranoid, etc. to ever see clearly enough.
2
DS
I love how political discussions so quickly devolve into childish name calling and personal attacks on those with the temerity to disagree.
Yabits, if someone were to say that "Most Democrats are too far gone, lazy and deluded socialists who only want to steal what they were too lazy to create", what would you think?
-1
SushiSake3
DS - " love how political discussions so quickly devolve into childish name calling and personal attacks on those with the temerity to disagree."
No you don't.
The GOP candidate situation is a debacle.
John Huntsman is the only credible, sensible and coherent GOP presidential candidate.
Which is precisely why barely any conservatives support him and why he's polling at near 0 percent:
Conservatives just can't identify with such alien characteristics.
-1
SushiSake3
Triumvere - "You are both wrong. Romney is doing great against the other Republicans, and would make a respectable opponent for Obama."
That would largely depend on whether he decides on the day that he is for the issue that he was vehemently against yesterday.
But I know that by "respectable opponent", you mean that Romney has Presidential Hair, and I would agree with you on that. :-)
0
SushiSake3
I'm betting that when the dust finally settles and conservative voters learn all they need to know about their representatives, they'll vote Obama. :-)
-2
bass4funk
Interesting, but the economy is being driven by President who is well....mentally gone, very deluded and paranoid towards anyone that doesn't follow him, lock and step to even remotely see things clearly.
@Yabits, I know you think this President is the closet thing to a living God, but I assure you that his days are totally numbered and while I am not underestimating your Presidents power in raising money being the smooth misguided, selfish brat that he is, I am not over-estimating him either! We all know for sure NObama is in trouble, to deny it would make you or anyone else look like a total Kool-aide drinker.
0
Riffraff
All the choices at this point are pi$$ poor. The US has no leaders with integrity or moral character in a position to, or willing to, run for POTUS. This leadership vacuum has developed from the locked in stone two party political system. Obama was chosen and installed by the democratic machine that saw a chance to put in place a puppet to rubber stamp their agenda. This was possible because GB had gone way too far right during his eight year reign. The two parties have become so polarized that there are no moderates that are electable under the current party’s dogma. Which party is the least dangerous? It is a question of the lesser of two evils, the Republicans win by a thin red line. If the current Democrat playbook is allowed to continue, the US may go so far into Socialism that it will become irreversible and we will become a nation of entitlement where the working one third are taxed to support the freeloading two thirds. Can’t happen you say? Well… Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland etc. are there now and they said the same thing. The current “occupy” movement would be the ideal mechanism to correct a “too far Right” swing, unfortunately their timing is bad and their message has been co-opted by the current Left politicians and will only serve to damage any momentum toward Center.
0
OldHawk
Really? A Rasmussen poll released on Monday had Cain ahead of Obama, 43% to 41%. Also, for the younger readers, I'd like to point out that the media and polls of the time claimed the Reagan-Mondale race was too close to call.
And how many was that? 0.0001%?
0
OldHawk
Fascinating. Say, did any other challenger ever do as well as Romney against Teddy? No, right? In fact, Teddy never had to bother with campaigning until Romney ran against him. Then he finally had to get off his drunk, fat (bleep) and actually run for re-election.
Sorry, only Democrats still buy black people.
Seriously though... I understand that Cain has been involved with Americans for Prosperity, a Kochs-funded group. I don't see why that's a problem, especially with people who vote for politicians funded by George "Black Wednesday" Soros without question or hesitation.
According to Leftists, so was John McCain. We'll pick our own nominees, thank you. Huntsman fell for the Global Warming alarmist myth, gave illegal aliens drivers licenses, and vetoed (or tried) a bill repealing in-state tuition for illegals. Conservatives would have problems with that record.
0
Alphaape
@yabits: I seem to recall you using words similar to that to describe me when I said that it will be a close fight for the president in the next election. You were telling me that the GOP could not put anyone up that would challenge him. I guess I was right after all reading this article.
The real worry that he has to fear is if the Dems put up another person as a primary challenger. If someone like Webb were to run, who is seen as a moderate Dem, Obama would not get the nomination. Looking at the confidence level that the Dems (and Reps) have in congress now, and looking at the recent loss of Weiner's seat to a Rep, and the losses from 2010, unless the DNC is full of just hard ideologues, they will probably want to cut their losses and back a more moderate nominee in order to be able to come back in 2014, and 2016.
But, I am sure as usual you will only reply with some petty childish remark, so I guess I will be standing by from the name calling from you. But do us all a favor, bring some solid discussion to the forum, and level the kindergarten playground stuff at home,
-2
SushiSake3
Oldhawk - "Huntsman fell for the Global Warming alarmist myth, gave illegal aliens drivers licenses, and vetoed (or tried) a bill repealing in-state tuition for illegals. Conservatives would have problems with that record."
That's probably because conservatives have a serious problem with reality.
At least they can rest assured that they can always fall back on their unproveable Big Guy In The Sky. :-)
-1
SushiSake3
Alphaape - "You were telling me that the GOP could not put anyone up that would challenge him. I guess I was right after all reading this article."
Helllo? Are you implying the GOP has a serious candidate?
Who?
The uncomfortable fact that politcal laughing stocks such as Ms. Bachman are even in the race shows just how low conservatives will go to look for a candidate.
The only half-serious candidate is Romney, but he flip flops on the issues almost as often as conservatives ignore or deny reality.
-1
SushiSake3
The problem with this bunch of GOP candidates, is that NONE of them besides Cain has any sort of strategy whatsoever to run America.
Opposing the president and saying "No" as many times as possible simply is not a strategy.
Americans seriously need to stop and ask themselves: What STRATEGY do these candidates have to fix the economy?
Here's the report card as of today:
Romney: Bash Obama and Perry Perry: Bash Obama and Romney Bachman: Continue making gaff after gaff after gaff then thank God Cain: 9-9-9. (At least he had the guts to put up a plan, even if it would make the rich even richer) Gingrich: Who cares? Santorum: Ditto.
Where. Is. The. Strategy and why vote for someone who doesn't have one??
0
Triumvere
Psah. Everybody already knows Romney is a phoney. We've had plenty of time to get over that.
But of course!
-1
Riffraff
The Dems do have a strategy,… unfortunately it is to raise taxes, spend more money, increase government size and reach, make everyone equally poor and dependant on a government handout. No I am not a hard over conservative; a balanced political ideology is what bestows the best chance for both personal and national prosperity. I AM all for keeping the Republicans out of my bedroom and the Democrat’s hand out of my wallet.
0
telecasterplayer
Since all of the republicans are completely worse than Obama, none of the above will beat him next year.
-1
SushiSake3
**The GOP and TP has a strategy too: **slash spending and cut state budgets (and subsequently jobs), and then expect tax money to magic up out of thin air when the jobs and the budgets they want to slash throw more people on the unemployment heap and reduce economic growth even further.
Of course, the beauty of all this is -* for the uber rich GOP/TP handlers* - is that a depressed economy pushes down wage demands and subsequently payrolls while simultaneously making millions of honest Americans willing to take any wage on offer just to get a job.
As payrolls go down, profits go up and America enters quasi-Third World status, and the dream of the uber rich GOP/TP handlers is realized - thanks to the votes of "patriotic" conservatives who think they know what's good for America!
At that point, conservatives will be able to pay themselves on the back for destroying their own economy - and futures - TWICE.
The Bottom Line
You can't just slash budgets left and right and expect growth to materialize out of the rubble.
In particular, cutting state budgets equates to slashing state jobs, which equates to slashing state revenues, which equates to slashing, closing and downsizing the domestic programs that millions of Americans (probably including YOUR mom and pop) depend on.
THIS is just one reason why the GOP/TP's 'slash-spending-at-all-costs' is a recipe for disaster.
Revenues must be generated from somehwere, and at present, the Right has no plan whatsoever to achieve this.
That's worth repeating: the Right has no plan whatsoever to generate revenues.
Obama and the Democrat's plan, albeit not perfect, at least incorporates a strategy to generate revenues, which makes it more credible and workable than anything the GOP/TP has thrown up to date.
0
Alphaape
@SushiSake3: Just looking at the article and reading the poles, evidently, even a not "serious candidate" can give the president a run for his money in 2012. If you say that there is not anyone who is viable, then are you saying that half of the Americans polled are not too bright to elect someone else other than the current Dem candidate.
I can see the groundwork being laid for a new version of BDS (Bush Derrangement Syndrome), with those who will use it if the Dems are not successful in 2012. I just wish that the Dems would put up other candidates to challenge so we can at least hear different sides to their positions. But I guess that is asking too much.
-1
HumanTarget
Oldhawk,
You're kidding, right? My guess is reason doesn't really appeal to you, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
Herman Cain has worked with AFP for years. AFP paid him. Mark Block is his campaign manager. The AFP advisory board came up with Cain's 999 plan. Cain was a nobody until a few weeks ago when he suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Now connect this with the Koch brothers' extremely unethical business practices. They run a company that illegally sells goods to Iran. They were convicted of stealing oil from public lands. Killed two teenagers in a pipeline explosion (admitted liability in court). In fact, they've settled in court for myriad violations. You can read the rest of these revelations in Bloomberg Markets if you're interested (I imagine you aren't).
Now connect Cain's anti-union, anti-regulation platform with his Koch brothers - with their copious violations of the law - backing, and what do you get? Bought politician.
-1
SushiSake3
Alphape - " If you say that there is not anyone who is viable, then are you saying that half of the Americans polled are not too bright"
I think millions around the globe would say 'Amen!' to that. :-)
0
sailwind
Alphape - " If you say that there is not anyone who is viable, then are you saying that half of the Americans polled are not too bright"
I think millions around the globe would say 'Amen!' to that. :-)
Must be the reason we voted in President Obama not being very bright and all.
0
Lieberman2012
Cuomo would be ok. Hillary too. Frankly, anybody would do.Obama is a disaster.
-2
HumanTarget
Kucinich 2012
0
Lieberman2012
Lieberman/Gore 2012. it has a nice ring to it.
-1
katamari_on_da_sea
Sadly, Americans seem to think they simply can't afford to pay more taxes when the fact is, you NEED to! Here in Australia the upper limit is 45% on income tax, which is only for people earning some 100k or so. Which may seem very high, but we also have good medicare, student loans for EVERYONE who's a citizen (indexed only to inflation!), and pretty good roads/services otherwise.
Point in case: I pay my taxes as well as $80/month in private health insurance. I am sitting here with a broken foot bone at the moment, and the cost of seeing my local doctor, seeing a specialist and getting a cast fitted was under $400 after rebates. I'm told in America it could be far more than that. Why ??? What on earth happened to you guys that you let medical care become an industry of great profit?
I even got 2 xrays in emergency which cost me nothing.
Stop the panic-merchants who say that government-funded healthcare will roooon 'Murica. It's a good system! I mean, it can't be any worse than what you've got....
As for these candidates, I know that America's medicare costs are disgustingly high, but why is that exactly? Because you let pharmo companies profiteer and gouge prices ? Surely some regulation could rein things in...
-1
Jared Norman
Hopefully evangelical Christians will stop hijacking the USGov someday
-1
yabits
You recall absolutely wrongly. You kept asserting that the Democrats were going to put up a challenger to President Obama and that it was going to be close fight for the Democratic nomination.
Of course, I kept saying you were delusional. And now you've completely changed your story to make it a GOP challenger.
There you go again.
1
unreconstructed
I don't know if Obama is much worried at this point. He is still Goldman Sachs' boy in the WH. The Big Money fat cats are still behind him.
"... Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago."
Washington Post Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam, Thursday, October 20, 4:32 AM
1
Alphaape
@yabits: It is taken for granted that there will be a GOP challenger, just common sense. You still think that the Dems are not going to put anyone from their party against Obama. Well, you keep saying how smart you and the rest of the non-GOP are, do you actually think that they will risk losing the White House with polling like it is now where just about any GOP candidate can give him a close fight? If they haven't leaned their history from 1980, when they stuck with Carther after Ted Kennedy gave him a good challenge in the primaries to only go down in flames against Reagan, then when they loose in 2012, they have no one to blame but themselves.
If that were to happen, non of the GOP candidates would win.
-3
yabits
Yes, but it is not common sense to say that the Dems will look for a challenger to President Obama. So why do you keep saying it?
Do you see how completely nonsensical you are here? Carter went down after Ted Kennedy challenged him. Would Ted Kennedy have fared better against Reagan? It's highly doubtful. So if there's any history to learn from here it is not to put up a challenger against your incumbent president and split the party and weaken the base of support.
Polls are not elections. Back in 1979, there were months of speculation and urging from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party before Ted Kennedy mounted his challenge to Carter. Today, there is none of that coming from the Democrats against President Obama. ZERO. NIL. Only the duped and deluded on the right-wing keep spouting that nonsense.
0
Serrano
"I'll ( reluctantly) vote for Obama"
Why would it be reluctantly? Isn't Obama a great president?
0
Molenir
I don't know what Yabits would say, but I'd say its a sadly accurate statement for many libs.
Wow thats amazing. Whats amazing about it? Its almost all completely fabricated. The amusing thing is, you're pushing the Koch brothers as this bastion of evil, but have no problem jumping into bed with Soros and other left wing profiteers. For everything the Koch brothers have really done, you can point to plenty of things Soros has done that are worse.
Perhaps because he's not a kool-aid drinker. He can see whats coming the same way most of us can. He can see that the only prayer the Dems have of holding the Presidency is to put up a real candidate. Someone who isn't immediately thought of as an incompetent, the way Obama is. Someone who hasn't destroyed the US economy, passed exceeding unpopular legislation, and decided to crush the free-market system, in favor of failed European policies.
I used to think he was the worst President in US history. Now I just think he's the most incompetent. Meaning he's managed to bring himself back up above Carter. My question isn't why wouldn't someone vote for him, but rather, why would anyone vote for him?
-1
yabits
I would think the statement came from a deluded and degraded mind. I mean, it's so easily proven to be unfounded.
After all, among the people we think of as being very creative -- mainly artists, writers and inventors -- we can find a great many liberals. Silicon Valley is a bastion of liberal values.
-2
yabits
Nobody really cares what you think about your president, Molenir.
-2
HumanTarget
Serrano,
I think I've told you this before, but liberal does not equal "Obama supporter". In fact, a growing number of liberals are increasingly disenfranchised with his pro-bank, pro-war policies and his ceaseless pandering to the right.
I will reluctantly vote for Obama because he's the best choice out of the bunch.
He lowered taxes, by the way. You didn't know that?
1
OldHawk
SushiSake:
So you're defending giving driver's licenses and in-state tuition breaks to illegal aliens? Fascinating.
Name a president of either party that has not professed their faith for the Christian God.
While you're at it, see if you can dig up any old posts of mine where I base my political stance on any religion.
"Not perfect"? Yeah, it worked so well the first time, eh?
Here's a little something Leftists don't understand about revenue: The U.S. does not have a VAT. Instead, we get taxes from transactions. Payroll taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. The closest we have to VAT's are property taxes on land/houses, and those few states or counties that make folks pay a tax based on the supposed value of their vehicle as part of their registration fees.
So how do we generate more revenue? (This is where Leftists run into a wall of cognitive dissonance.) Encourage more transactions. You don't do that by increasing the taxes leveled on each transaction. Increasing taxes is how you discourage the targeted behavior. "Sin taxes", anyone? Cigarette and liquor taxes? Any of that sound familiar? Cain has a plan that lowers taxes on all who work (except the rich, as his plan eliminates the payroll tax cap), which leaves more money in the hands of more people, which will encourage more transactions.
So, what's the Obama plan to generate revenue again?
2
OldHawk
HumanTarget:
Actually, Cain was a "nobody" until the televised debates started and the public got to hear him and his ideas. Oh, and Cain was one of the first to announce his candidacy of the GOP contenders running. So if you think he appeared "out of nowhere", then you weren't paying attention. I took notice the day he announced. Where were you, watching Olbermann?
But it's all the Kochs' doing? Haha, yeah, if you say so.
Okay, you might as well stop right there. You're going to vote for a president whose administration illegally sold weapons (not goods - weapons) to drug gangs in Mexico, leading to the death of at least one Border Patrol agent, and for what? An attempt to set up a backdoor attack on the 2nd Amendment. You've got no room to preach. Try peddling your manufactured sanctimony on someone else.
-2
HumanTarget
OldHawk,
Olbermann was off the air until pretty recently, so no, I was reading the news.
And you know as well as I do that it wasn't the Obama administration that sold those guns or even came up with the plan, it was the ATF. It was corruption within the ATF that made those deals possible, and the ATF has a history of pretty serious corruption going back to the mid 90s, so you can hardly call this an Obama phenomenon.
The Right will falsely connect practically anything to Obama, despite all he has done for your party, which is a lot.
And yes, the Koch brothers break laws frequently and pay politicians enormous sums of money to deregulate. You honsetly believe this is a coincidence?
-2
HumanTarget
oh, forgot to mention, the specific ATF operation in question, Project Gunrunner, had been ongoing since 2006. You knew that, right?
0
unreconstructed
He's back on! He has 46,000 viewers!
Mid - tier bloggers reach more people...
0
HumanTarget
unreconstructed,
Nice. I notice you have nothing constructive to say. Is this how you conduct yourself in real life? If so, I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, there's no disputing that Operation Gunrunner was in effect as early as 2006, and reports and internal ATF E-mails confirm that hundreds of guns that were "walked" across the Mexican border in 2006 went missing.
Oldhawk, where is your angry retort? By your logic, even one gun missing is too many, since it could potentially kill a border patrol officer, so is W. Bush not just as accountable as Obama, if not more so, given that Gunrunner was in effect for a longer duration of his presidency?
0
OldHawk
No argument about the corruption within the ATF.
However, under Project Gunrunner, straw buyers were apprehended before they returning or trafficking weapons back to Mexico. According to the unsubstantiated AP article that is likely the basis for your source(s), only a dozen weapons made it across the border, not the "hundreds" you claimed. Under Fast and Furious, which didn't start until after Obama took office, no attempt was made to prevent weapons from entering Mexico. In fact, that was the design of the plan. See the difference yet? No? Okay, here's another: Holder has contradicted himself on when he knew about F&F. Obama has contradicted at least one of Holder's versions. Gunrunner wasn't linked to Bush in such a manner, now was it?
So much for "there's no disputing"...
Now, what's the Obama plan to generate revenue again?
0
OldHawk
HumanTarget, since you were busy watching MSNBC, you probably didn't see this on C-SPAN:
http://youtu.be/-PNhYk9NuNc
0
HumanTarget
You're right. 200 guns were involved in the 2006 operation, only a few dozen of which went missing. But internal documents show contention between top ATF officials about whether to inform the US attorney about the botched operation in 2006. Clearly, the decision was made during Bush's presidency not to inform the US attorney, and clearly the blueprint for Fast and Furious was devised under Bush. So, I think I've pretty handily dismantled your "secret Obama conspiracy to take away our guns" angle. Did you know he's actually enacted or extended several laws favoring gun owners?
The Obama plan to generate revenue is to tax the rich, as part of his jobs plan that economists agree would be effective in stimulating the economy and creating jobs. In fact, many economists agree that the jobs plan is the only thing that might prevent another recession. I'm tired of posting the same links over and over for the right wingers to ignore, but if you're interested in the proof, you can find a link I provided maybe a week ago in my comment history.
0
OldHawk
A dozen, according to the AP articles I read, not a few dozen. You do like the AP as a news source, don't you?
But not by Bush, which is the sticking point here. Well, that and the fact that trying to track a dozen weapons (and then stopping when that didn't work) is vastly different from releasing over 2,000 weapons and not keeping track of them or arresting the straw buyers. Gunrunner was designed to trap straw buyers, and it worked. Fast & Furious was supposedly designed to track weapons to drug cartels in Mexico (something already proven to be a bad idea, but hey, they're Leftists and they're smarter than everybody else, right?) and boy, did it fail.
Really? Which ones, specifically? Were they minor bills attached to major legislation he wanted passed? Or were they state laws passed in "red" states in response to a far-left, anti-gun, Marxist being elected president?
Are these the same economists who supported the original stimulus plan? The one that has failed on a massive scale? Economists named Krugman, for example? Not the economists who recently won a Nobel Prize (you do still value the Nobel Prize, don't you?) for economics by proving Obama-esque Keynesian economic plans to be massive failures, right?
0
Deplore
I'm a conservative, but the only Republican candidate I like is John Huntsman, who I find intelligent, charismatic, and pragmatic. None of the others have the same intellect, or for that matter, resume. It's such a shame that Huntsman has failed to gain any traction.
0
Taka313
Deplore,
Huntsman is far too sane to gain any traction in this race. The GOP has doubled-down on crazy.
Taka
0
Serrano
Huntsman is supported by Jeb Bush Jr.
Back to top