I said he'd win because we the people can be bought, but we can't be had.
Republicans have no one to blame but themselves--------negativity, obstruction, dimunition of the "little man", exclusionary party prejudice, emphasis on the almighty $, and the abject failure to get anything done for the last 4 years.
What has been gained has been gained by the Democrats in spite of the hard-core mean-spirited souls of Republicans. I would hope that, for once, the Republicans put the American people and their needs , for once, ahead of bitter , party predjudice which will only tear us further down. I hope the Republicans, who are after all employed by us, will get to work and get our economy in a better place.
Americans have just shown that they don't take to intimidation and power politics-------its over. We can move on now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarol,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we will have four more years, and probably at least four more trillion. If so, it will have ended up as a pyrrhic victory, no?
You are entitled to your views, but the one-sidedness is sad, laughably sad. It almost sounds like the 'democrats good', 'republicans bad' is a pre-emptive blame game.
Go ahead. Move on.
Jean
It takes more than 4 years to make change------the first 2 years are taken up with building the cabinet, working with Congress and getting the feel of the job. Obama had a LOT of work to do just to keep this country from sinking under the Bush legacy. Just when a person is about to BECOME a real leader, another election is upon us.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of friends who are Republicans and they get it, they understand that the GOP is out of touch at best and obstructionist at worst. The GOP is NOT happy with Romney, not one bit.
Is one sidedness more sad for Dems than Republicans? I think not, its sad on all sides when there is NO compromise for the good of the country.
Carol,
DeleteI'm sorry to say that your first paragraph sounds like a retroactive excuse, or else a rationalization. It takes that long for someone ot BECOME a leader? If you hold to that, I don't see how you can find that acceptable.
The rest of your post? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exactly ring with anything close to 'a plague on both their houses'.
Crow away while you're on cloud 9. We'll see what happens, huh?
Jean
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/06/paul-ryan-had-the-least-to-lose-on-election-night/1687899/
DeletePaul Ryan loses vice presidential bid, keeps House seat
Paul would make a wonderful house majority leader.
GOP 232 DEM 191
1773-2009
Carol,
DeleteI hope your medicare survives the 700 billion removed from it to support the PPACA. I hope you still collect your SS as the system is broke and pulling from the general fund as contributions are lower than payouts. Hope you can afford food, gas at the end of the next 4 years.
Brought to you by the Obama administration.
Happy days are here again.
ReplyDeleteDow down 242.90
Hang onto your 401K Carol.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DJIA
Old story, buy the rumor, sell the fact. Are you new at this?
DeleteHey Max,
DeleteCalled the attorney this AM. Will be in total shut down by the end of this month.
You won't be the only person in shutdown mode Lou. As for all those people in medicare. Medicare will be completely replaced by ObamaCare. That way they can hide the fact that Medicare is bankrupt.
DeleteBy the way, the three major stock indexes are moving in almost perfect lockstep. Makes you wonder who walked up the market.
louman,
DeleteIf that's in reference to you business, I'm very sorry to hear that. Best of luck to you, sir.
Jean
I remember reading your promise Lou, and I'm sorry to hear you are shutting it down.
DeleteMax,
DeleteNo choice as I'm unwilling to bet more of my earnings on the president changing the direction of his regulations and his EPA.
Everyone loses. The people that worked for me wanted to come back as they made more. The government loses the Federal income taxes the state loses as they lose the state income tax.
All in all, pretty short sighted for incompetent government workers trying to do what they thing is best instead of what is right.
Not to mention, California was most difficult to deal with. When doing a fiber project in California they required an American Indian be on payroll in case we ran across any artifacts. The humorous thing is we were pulling fiber into existing conduit, not 1 shovel of dirt was turned. That little adventure cost me 50K.
Thanks but no thanks.
Thanks for the thought Jean, I've prepared well for this decision.
DeleteBest luck in your Biz.
Lou
Lou, it would have been better to have selected a time of your choosing for retirement; the bright side is that the roses do smell sweeter when you off load your business. I have been there and done that although to be fair I sold at the very top and got a good return for something which cost me nothing but time and enterprise to create.
ReplyDeleteOf interest is that here yesterday the AUST stock index shot up like a sky rocket the minute the call was for O as the winner and stayed there until the market closed. DOW JONES last night (our time) closed about 250 down. What sort of mad house are we living in?
Cheers from Aussie
My company was a service company providing management services, labor to companies. Nothing to sell really, now is a good time.
DeleteThe markets are a bit volatile and so many factors are affecting the direction. I don't see it getting better for at least the short term here.
I endeavor to persevere.
As I've posted on MW numerous times before, "Anybody But Bush" didn't work for the Dems in '04, "Anybody But Obama" wasn't going to work for the Pubs in '12. As Mick and Kingston have both pointed out, the Pubs needed to come up with a platform that was more than "Obama Sucks". They largely failed to do so. Again, my father, a lifelong Pub and not an Obama fan at all, referred to Romney as "the Republican John Kerry". I think he nailed it.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a whole bunch of reasons why things went the way they did but I ultimately think that it comes down to the Republican Party, specifically the rigid right wing of the Party.
They were the reason the Pubs lost a Senate seat in blood-red Indiana, why there was a huge gap in support with women, Hispanics, Blacks, gays, oh, and non-million/billionaires - basically anyone that wasn't an old, white male. Romney, who I truly believe is a Moderate at his core, was a victim of the inflexible Intolerant Right as much as anything else.
Now, just like in '08 & '06, all the talking heads are talking about how the Republicans need to do some soul-searching or risk drifting into electoral relevance. Well, I doubt that, but I do think this election has opened the door for a comeback for sane, rational, moderate Republicans to come back and lead the Party. Demographic reality demands it.
Look for A-Teamers like Christie, Rubio, Hutchinson, Barber, Steele, and maybe Jeb Bush to make more noise in 2016.
There are some very good republicans and Democrats who would do the country well as president. The question to ask, why would anyone in their right mind submit to the pain of the media today. Hence we have the candidates of today, it all about ego.
DeleteRubio seems a bit young, but would make a great Veep choice. Jeb Bush I like, but sadly I think the left would successfully kill him because of his name, no? Christie would have been OK but personally, it struck me as a bit reprehensible when he overdid his thanking of the Obama for at best, merely doing his job, which actually seems to have fallen a bit short.
DeleteJean
Jean,
DeleteAs I have said before, I love Christie. He just gave O his due and what may seem like to profuse praise may just have been appreciation for the help his devastated state received. Christie's love for Jersey is obvious, his pain----palpable for the people of New Jersey.
I do NOT think the left, or the Dems, could overcome Jeb Bush. Jeb is NOT George------Jeb is a real person who could connect with people. There are those who might support him in spite of the heinous shennanigans of his brother. If there is enough time and distance between administrations-------Jeb might just be the one in 2016---------if we get to 2016.
louman,
ReplyDeleteego did NOT win this election for O but it may have COST Romney the election. Romney, with all his wealth had it all BUT the Presidency of the US. If he had stuck to his guns, if he had been not so easily swayed by his advisors, so held up by the Teas, and if he had been himself ---------- he could have won. After all, the margin was slim. He let a lot of people down including those who tried to mold him into an extreme right winger.
Any individual who lets others define who they are cannot lead. Obama is Obama is Obama----------he came across as more connected and more genuine. He did not need someone to define who he is. Two term Presidents are relatively rare and the headwinds for Obama were stiff--------but he made it. He is a leader now.
Perhaps if he would have responded to the hate campaign launched by the dems in June the outcome would have been different. He chose not to respond in kind and to the hate from the Obama campaign.
DeleteThe trashing of a successful career and the jobs saved. No mention of the companies saved and turned into a stronger company able to compete.
Did Romney go after Obama on his lack of a past history, no he took the high road with no mention of Obama's past yet Obama and hid henchmen trash his child hood.
To bad you can't say the best man won because the best man walked away and we got the hatemonger in chief.
Could Romney have fixed the problems we are faced with today, probably not but stood a better chance that Obama as proven in the last 4 years.
And yes Obama is president for now. Hopefully we will be a viable country in 4 years to elect a true leader.
lou,
DeleteWell said, sir. I would only add that i founf it stupidly incomprehensible, and almost appallingly, that Romney had to waste time and effort running against some of the other fools in the republican primaries. But certainly the MSM loved it, and at times seemed intent on feeding the flames to extend the circus.
Jean
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(Sorry, I had to delete to correct typos )
DeleteCarol,
The foolish extremists in the republican weren't goig to go away. I found it very unfortunate that Romney had to stoop a little to put the opponents away, and for the life of me will never be able to understand the time it took to eliminate that fool from Pennsylvania. I don't know how many times I wanted to scream that Romney as a moderate would be much more able to appeal to moderate democrats and independents, and oust The Pandering Fool from the WH. So reality was just the way it was, yes? Something many on the left continue to fail to admit.
Obama came a cross as more genuine and more connected? Well, he did win. With nothing more to offer up after starting his first four years with a virtually empty experience section in his resume, and a laughable 20-page glossy pamphlet.
A very good seller of not one, but two bottles of snake oil, made easier by appealing to customers who couldn't read the label because their heads were buried in sand, huh?
Shrug. You got what you and the majority asked for. The rest of us will simply have to endure. Care to wager who the culprit(s) will be if things do not markedly improve?
Jean
Lou nails it. The June hate campaign was not answered aggresively enough. That assinine commercial about the guy whose wife died from cancer should have been incinerated. The fraud and tax evasion charges were ludicrous and should have been clearly refuted.
DeleteI didn't realize how limited Romney's campaign fund usage was before he secured the nomination. Obviously that was when Obama attacked. But even afterwards he left these questions alone.
And Benghazi? Hello?
Taking the high road only works when the electorate can recognize the difference between the high and the low.
Carol
ReplyDeleteTwo term presidents are relatively rare?
Tell that to Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson,Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Washington, Truman, Rossevelt. And now Obama.
And don't forget our 3 termer, FDR.
That's 16 compared to those 12 not re-elected:
Adams, VanBuren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanon, Hayes, Harrison, Taft, Hoover,Carter, Bush, Adams.
Those who died in office or were assasinated are in a different category.
You should carefully re-consider your remark.
Carol Lew and Teri, three of my friends on the same page and Jean also quickly becoming a friend. You debate the result from your various perspectives and Teri gives us a history lesson.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the interest here should be in the history lesson as the recent result needs a while to settle in the minds of the protagonists to produce good debate!
As we all know, Washington set the trend for two terms and the 22nd amendment formalized the position nearly two centuries later!
It is difficult to be objective and many instances can be found to refute my contention but have not, in general, the two termers left the nation a stronger and better place than the one termers?
Of the two termers.world events have often diminished or enhanced their presidencies. Woodrow Wilson is considered a failure by many for his governance during WW1 and FDR (a three termer) is considered successful by most for his conduct of domestic affairs and WW2
There are of course some notables in the list of those who died in office. Lincoln (? the greatest of them all) and Garfield had, I believe, the potential to achieve greatness. Kennedy I believe had achieved greatness at the time of his death.
This leaves Hamilton,the potentially greatest of them all but for an accident of birth and poor choice of parents.
Cheers from Aussie
The entire Democratic populace would disagree with your statement that two termers leave the country in a better place.
DeleteHavn't you learned yet---Bush caused everything bad to happen--and he had two terms to do it in.
teri.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes fail to understand when an American is "joshing: I suspect you are doing so with your post above. Surely you do not suggest Democratic supporters have forgotten FDR, Truman and Kennedy. All should remember the Bush dynasty; it may not be finished yet. In his defense however, GW did have a difficult task, 9/11 changed the psyche of America when what was called an act of war was perpetrated on the sacred shore. Only once since the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine has the Continental homeland been attacked. Time now perhaps to try a little togetherness, we have seen the result of antagonism from both sides for almost a decade.
Kingston,
Delete'Time now to try a little togetherness'
Stay tuned on that. We'll see who is going to be expected to do the trying, yes?
Jean
Jean and Teri
DeleteThank you and are you not being a little cynical? / The election is over and if both sides continue to polarize the debate then you will have more of the same. Your present ills belong to both camps. Bush felt compelled to act as he did; the people would have rebelled if he had done otherwise after 9/11. Obama inherited a fiscal debit of about 10 trillion and the GFC as well. I suggest you’re Pres acted in a way he considered best for the people and in fact there has been a partial recovery. Neither Party has a mortgage on wisdom and your system is designed to get the best out of all those elected to public office. Why not try to rub along together and thereby encourage the congress to do the same.
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
DeleteNo, actually I'm a lot cynical. And I do assign responsibility for our mess to both parties. My caution on staying tuned? My cynicism again. We'll see how 'halfway' meeting halfway turns out to be.
Jean
Compromise?
DeleteCompromise in the case of the fiscal cliff and the debt is just kicking the can down the road. Either go over the cliff into recession and begin a real recovery of continue down this road to bankruptcy?
A choice our politicians will make which is continue down the road to financial disaster, 18 trillion next stop.
And no one in Washington cares.
K,
I would disagree with your statement:
Pres acted in a way he considered best for the people and in fact there has been a partial recovery
To date the president has acted in a partisan way pandering to his base, not all American people. Partial recovery?
The market perhaps, 23 million people looking for work, 47 million on food stamps, 70 million on Medicaid is not a recovery.
No Kingston. I am referring to the Dem mantra that George Bush was to blame for everything bad. We heard it trumpeted endlessly while Bush was in office and all through Obama's first term.
ReplyDeleteDems could not state two term presidents left the country stronger and better as long as Bush is a two term president.
Point taken teri, it is what it is now--------- and what it is is Obama's.
ReplyDeleteHis alone now. History will bear witness to the efficacy of his leadership, his politics, his SCOTUS, his programs, his debt management.
While I do not believe his election to a second term was by any means, a mandate, I do believe those who voted for him felt he had the strength to persevere and move us forward.
I have a good feeling about our ability to recover-----I have been one of the most vocal of gloom and doomers, but now I see a glimmer of hope--------------
We have a president of the United States who just ran a reelection campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces. And it worked.
DeleteHaving said that, his plan is what? A little detail would be great. Raise the taxes on the wealthy so he can hire teachers, policemen and firemen. Having found that on his campaign website, how will that create jobs?
I would be thrilled if he could pay off the 6 trillion in debt he has run up since taking office soon to be 18.4 trillion with the next raise in the debt limit. Any idea how he will eve balance the budget? Any idea how he will get 20 million Americans off food stamps?
I see nothing positive in the nest 4 years except more spending, more debt and government dependency.
No, Carol, he cannot claim a mandate with 25% of eligible voters electing him. Truly the president of the minority. Apathy is a terrible thing.
Great.
ReplyDeleteA glimmer of hope that we will recover.
What is it?
The market sell off?
The new job losses announced by numerous companies?
Europe's continued instability/
What exactly?
Maybe this is one of those 'you had to be there' things, Kingston.
ReplyDeletePerhaps politics is still fairly gentlemanly/gentlewomanly in your part of the world.
Much of Obama's campaign was focused on attacking Romney, not statements about his own past record or his current/future plans. That gets real old. Romney was called a liar and a felon based on innuendo about his tax returns etc. Don't you think the IRS would have weighed in if there was really something wrong with his tax returns?
The emotionally overwrought and misleading ad about the man blaming Romney for his wife's death from cancer was absurd.
And yet, Carol, for one sees a glimmer of hope in these results. We are still waiting for her to come down from Cloud 9 and tell us what that glimmer might be.
The president of the United States has just run a re-election campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces.
DeleteA repeat to cover the true flavor of the Obama campaign.
Teri and Lou.
ReplyDeleteTeri in comparison I guess we are a little more polite in our political campaigns. However there is a school of thought who is appalled by the way the Australian parties are beginning to ape their American counterparts. We of course do not have the huge budget advertising and we are not as sophisticated in our ground planning and demographic identification.
This leads me into the reply to Lew and the rest of your post.
Surely your comments would not be forthcoming if Pres Obama had lost the election? I would respectfully suggest that as long as neither party is convicted of breaching the laws of the land then you accept the decision. It was after all made by the majority of the electors (who could bother to vote) and by a huge majority of the Electoral College votes.
I can see a major flaw in your system which makes it difficult to accept the decision; such a small percentage of the total population can be bothered to cast a vote. Of course there will be disenchantment not only by the losing side and their supporters but the abstainers, too indifferent to vote will join any form of dissent simply to demonstrate their ignorance.
We have compulsory voting and public funding of elections, although private fundraising is permitted.
Cheers from Aussie
We do need to revisit our election laws. With voter turnout pathetic at best, less than 25% of the population elects a president, compulsory voting should be looked at seriously. If they can mandate a tax for not buying healthcare, they could easily do the same for voting. Neither party would agree to that arrangement.
DeletePublic funding should be the only financing for elections with a 3 or 6 month election cycle. The last election cycle was started at the conclusion of the 2008 election. The issue we see here is the current administration could be accused of buying the election with tax payer dollars. We have doubled the number of people on food stamps, doubled the number of people on disability, doubled the number of people on medicaid. Over a trillion a year is spent on welfare in the US.
The question of the year which no one wants to address is how do you get all the people off assistance added in the last 2 years.
As a side not my comments stand no matter who would have been elected. This was by far the most disgusting campaign run by any candidate. With the election over there was some home that Obama would become the president of all the people of the US. That was promptly dashed with the comments after the election. Obama's threat to veto any bill that doesn't include a tax increase on the wealthy is clearly partisan. That set the stage for Obama to be the president of the Democratic party and not America.
Compromise is when 2 sides negotiate and come up with a solution that works for both parties. Obama has clearly put a stake in the ground. A great way to start a new term.
As Oscar Wilde said: to elect such a man once may be regarded as a misfortune, but to elect him twice looks like carelessness. (Or, rather, criminal negligence.)
DeleteThe size of our government is out of control and needs to be reduced in size to get the budget under control. Probably never happen.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1788 that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” “A government bureau,” added Ronald Reagan, “is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”
So grows our government.
In closing, on Tuesday, America took another giant leap away both from its revolutionary mission and from the classical liberalism that it has successfully incubated for so long.
DeleteA sad day for America. The selfish desire from the individual demanding more and unwilling to pay for it, will surely in time destroy this nation.
lou,
DeleteI really hate to say I think you got the right of it.
Jean