The Rage on the Left has begun. Obama is now in big trouble with his political base.

It seems as if Obama cannot please anyone or any group these days.

Many of his ardent supporters from the last election have come to the basic conclusion he is not proficient and he is not deserving of the high office he now commands.

Does he lack leadership abilities or competence? Is he arrogant and out of touch with America? Is he a pleaser first and foremost, rather than someone who cares about getting the job done? Does he not understand how the economy works? “‘Yes, we can!’ has devolved into ‘Hey, we might,’” Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times."

Said one once ardent Obama supporter: “I’m fed up with the president’s inability to stick up for the lofty goals he once articulated", when he was running for office.

Note: This review is a folow-up to an earlier excellent discussion that was started by Don Glock.

 

...and hopefully, this means people will begin to realize Obama isn't a leftist.

 

I respectfully disagee, Serfin' USA.

I believe in his heart of hearts he is truly a Leftist.

But he wants to be loved by everyone. This is why he is in so much trouble with the very vocal progressives among the Democratic party activists!

James Cessna

 

Who are the disillusioned leftists going to vote for - the Republican candidate? A few of them may stay home or vote for a fringe candidate, but most of the leftists will have to park their vote with President Obama.

 

I'm not so sure, skeptic-f.

They may decide to not vote at all!

"Now even liberals are trying to put their finger on what is wrong with President Barack Obama. Does he lack leadership abilities or competence? Is he arrogant and out of touch with America? Is he a pleaser first and foremost, rather than someone who cares about getting the job done? Does he not understand how the economy works? “‘Yes, we can!’ has devolved into ‘Hey, we might,’” Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times."

Most of us just wish he would stay at his work station long enough to come up with a credible and workable plan to solve our lingering economic problems.




Mr. President, 408,000 more Americas are out of work this week than last week and our core inflation rate has unexpectedly risen to 2.0%. Why are you going on vacation? Please, please stay in Washington and work on our economy!

 

It largely depends on how crazy the GOP candidate is.

If it looks like Obama might lose to a crazy candidate like Bachmann, then a lot of liberals will still vote for Obama.

If it looks like Obama will win anyway and/or is facing a relatively moderate GOP candidate like Romney, then a lot of liberals will vote third party.

It also depends on the state you're voting in. Because of our antiquated Electoral College, liberals voting in GOP-majority states don't have much inspiration to vote in presidential elections anyway, since the majority in a state takes all of its electoral votes (with only a few states like Nebraska as exceptions).

So, for example, I live in a swing state that still leans conservative (North Carolina). If it becomes obvious that the GOP will win my state anyway, then I have little reason to vote Obama or even vote at all for president.

At the most, voting for Nader would simply be a symbolic gesture.

 

That may be, but he doesn't represent the political center of the USA that's for sure.

 

Cramming Obamacare down our throats is what made him a leftist. Whatever else he did after that was just icing on the cake.

 

Probably not. With the way that the GOP has shifted so far to the right and the way that America in general has always been more conservative than its peers, I often wonder what the center here really is.

It also doesn't help that voter turnout is low enough to make it hard to really know what the center is. When only about 50% of the people vote, it makes you question the relevance of democracy here.

If selling your vote was allowed here (aside from lobbyism), then I'd imagine voter turnout would increase.... sadly.

 

Obamacare wasn't leftist at all. It was corporatist.

 

from the standpoint of the Leftist true believers the problem of Obama is he is an incompetent Leftist. additionally, the unrealistic expectations those who voted for him have caused more buyers remorse than there otherwise would be with the Left of center voters.

IMO in the end, on election day, Obama will carry the 20% of so of the likely voters who vote Leftward, his problem will be his losing the moderates who were his margin of victory in 2008. Additionally the Leftward 20% will not carry the enthusiasm to the polls which they did in 2008 so this will affect the down ballot races.

In the end, if the economy has not come roaring back, 2012 will be a huge Republican year : Presidency, Senate, House will all go GOP.

 

You can't wipe his stink off the Left.


_

 

I'm not sure why anyone would be a "true believer" that either party would actually represent leftism or rightism.

You can switch out your politicians, but they're all corporate pawns and special interest drones.

A lot of what's happened under Obama would have happened under McCain, for example. McCain would have passed multiple bank bailouts and would have likely entered Libya (if not stepped up the invasion). We'd probably have about the same troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some manner of stimulus package would have been passed.

Ron Paul is about the only GOP candidate who would significantly differ from the status quo if he was elected president. Obviously, he's not going to get the nomination, but whoever does will be beholden to corporate interests just like Obama and Bush.

The only real differences between candidates and parties are the special interests involved.

 

I guess that's one way of looking at it. I think it's more a matter of foolishly assuming that any candidate is truly outside of the beltway or is resistant to the corruption of Wall Street and K Street.

For the record though, I voted for Obama just under the assumption that he was the lesser of two evils.

There was no way I was gonna put Palin anywhere near the Oval Office.

 

ah, but see most political observers don't have your sense of sophisticated cynicism and they don't follow the money trail.

 

Ron Paul is an interesting conundrum. He preaches fiscal sanity, but he practices pork. I have no doubt that if Ron Paul were elected President, he would attempt to deviate from the status quo in certain areas, but mostly that would be in the foreign policy area. (where I am least comfortable with Paul). But Paul has never proven that he is able to move legislation thru the system, after 30 years. (name all the landmark legislation that he carried thru the House in all those years?) what would most likely happen if Paul were elected President, is he would become like Jimmy Carter in the late 70's. High flown rhetoric in the domestic arena, and no accomplishments. And on the foreign policy arena, I am afraid he would be more of a disaster than Obama or Carter. But on the upside, he would start a healthy debate about our monetary system and budgeting.

 

You are very corect, starbow.

Ron Paul lost my vote when he said he wants us to go back to the gold standard. It is true, this action would reign in unnecessary spending by the federal government, but it would also but the brakes on our economic growth!

 

James you are right, in fact the world economy is simply too large to accomodate any major nation going onto a gold standard. it would stop foreign trade in its tracks and grind the world economy into a deep depression.

I am not sure why the Paulistas have trouble understanding this, but they are consistent.

 

I agree, Serfin' USA.

However, Obama has proven to be not much better!

He doesn't seem to be at all concerned about what happens on the national scene these days!



"Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate."

 

spot on. Obama is reviled by socialists because of his actions.. and despised by the right because of his words. Despised by independant and clearminded for both.

 

From what I've read they almost DROOL for a worldwide economic depression, they would see it as "creative destruction" of the fiat dollar system.

But we see what happens when you add an economic depression with isolationist policy. You get World Wars.

 

This is only seriously a problem if Romney, Huntsman, or Paul (for some reason a lot of lefties love this paleo-conservative crank) gets elected (or Johnson, of course, whose only chance is if ONLY the left vote in the GOP primary).
As "outraged" as the left might be, they will be even more outraged by Bachmann or Perry.
They'll show up. Just like the right will show up for their "disappointing" candidate due to their insane hatred of Obama.

But it's just postering. The same people who think a primary challenge would help Obama by pushing him left (it wouldn't).

Not to mention, even if the left-wingers complaining didn't show up, enough moderates and independents would back Obama in the case of a race against Bachmann to more than make up for them.

But, yeah, if Romney wins, this will make things tough for Obama. That's why the administration considers Romney THE opponent.
It may just come down to timing at that point (whether the economy starts recovering naturally in 2012 or 2013).

 

I won't be voting for Barrack Obama this time around. He got my vote in 2008, but unless things change drastically between now and November 2012, I won't be voting for him again. However, my lack of vote will largely be irrelevant. I currently live in Illinois, and am moving to New York in about a week. So whether I am still an Illinois voter, or if I change to a New York voter, Obama will get my states electoral votes, no matter who I vote for. My vote would matter more if I was from a swing state, but I am not.


As far as the alternatives, I am not voting for any Republican, I know that. If there is a decent green party candidate(meaning some one better than McKinney), I will vote for them. If some other liberal 3rd party candidate runs, I may vote for them. Otherwise, I just won't vote.


PS. I agree with Java about Ron Paul. I don't understand why liberals like him either. I suppose it is to do with his anti-war, drug legalization, and anti-corporate stance. The problem is, those are only a few issues, and on other issues, he is in direct opposition to a liberal agenda. Not only that, but his solution to those problems is very strange. His solution is less regulation and tax cuts to change the anti-corporate positions of our government!! I imagine if that is anti-corporate, corporations are pretty happy with anti-corporate sentiment.

 

I think that you are correct. Certainly the Chinese economy and system which are built on sand and playing cards would collapse. I suspect that the Russian system would also collapse - and that sounds like a recipe for two expansionist powers on the march.

 

You are correct, SiliconMagician.

Here is a very interesting and worthwhile discussion of the gold standard.

"What do you do when you stand by principle and refuse to weaken your currency, but everyone else around you does and your exports are no longer competitive? This would surely happen if we went to the gold standard. By way of analogy, if you are a farmer and all the other farmers decide to sell their goods at half price, this allows you to buy their produce cheaply, but this only lasts as long as you have money. Once you run out of money, which you will quickly because you can't sell your goods (they are too expensive), then what do you do?"