When will Barry stop ........

campaining and begin acting like a President. His raw raw, attack them mentality is so un-Presidential. So the question is, when is he going to stop this and allow his underlings to do this type of mudslinging or is he going to stop.

He's not doing anything new. All Presidents use the bully pulpit. (The term 'bully pulpit' was coined by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, btw.)

"Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary for U.S. President George W. Bush, wrote in his 2008 memoir What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception that the Bush White House suffered from a "permanent campaign" mentality, and that policy decisions were inextricably interwoven with politics."


The answer to your question is; never. Why would he stop when it is working? Especially since every President in your lifetime has done it.

In your obviously bias opinion, BTW so you think he should continue to follow in Bush's example, hmmmmm.

The teleprompter makes him do it...

I'm sorry, you just can't have an intelligent conversation when Longermonger is around. As you can see he is full of Pelosi and has drank the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid. So stick around for some more personal attacks but few facts to back them up.
FYI Teddy Roosevelt, though a Republican, was also a Progressive who believed in forced sterlization just as Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger were.

whos barry is that barry white cause me like his songs

While I disagree politically with LM, I do agree with his "why stop when it's working" explanation. However, in the Bamster's case, the more he's on the road with his bullshit pulpit trying to push an idea or agenda, the more people reject the idea. So I say, keep going out there - why stop when it's working (for the GOP).

I think the people who are really wondering this are Democrat congressmen. They, I'm sure, are wondering how much longer they are expected to take this ride along with Obama. Yesterday's letter supporting Israel (signed by dozens of Democrats) is indicative that they are very wary of Obama's continued tactics (in this case, humiliating Israel's head of state).

When Obama came to MO a few weeks ago, Democrat politicians suddenly had hair appointments, and trips to the dentist to make, rather than be seen next to him.

Obama will probably get re-elected...remember he decided not to use public financing and essentially had infinite money...and he will again. But his own party knows they are getting hammered, and I think they are sincerely asking dirt dog's question just as much as any republican. The congressional campaigns essentially start now - and they are going to be asked to take a ride down the immigration reform highway, while they really just want to hide in a bunker right about now.

Obama will probably get re-elected...remember he decided not to use public financing and essentially had infinite money...and he will again. But his own party knows they are getting hammered, and I think they are sincerely asking dirt dog's question just as much as any republican. The congressional campaigns essentially start now - and they are going to be asked to take a ride down the immigration reform highway, while they really just want to hide in a bunker right about now. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

I will politely disagree with your analysis of the Bamster's chances of re-election. According to the story (below), support of the Bamster and Democrats among the "angry white man" voting bloc has declined to levels below that of 1994, when the first Republican Revolution occurred.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...tegory=OPINION

...support of the Bamster and Democrats among the "angry white man" voting bloc has declined to levels below that of 1994, when the first Republican Revolution occurred. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Was this during Clinton's first or second term?

Was this during Clinton's first or second term? Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Since the election did not take place until 1994, and Clinton's first term was 1993-1997, it would have been during his first term. Clinton's rebound occurred when the Republicans took over both houses of Congress and pushed through the welfare changes that turned the economy around in 1996, along with Clinton's bashing of Newt Gingrich during the budget battle in 2005-2006, plus the fact that Bob Dull was a lousy candidate (just like John McCain, it was "his turn" to run).

The President has plenty of time to turn the poll numbers around. Bush the 1st turned his positive numbers negative in less than this time. As to permanent campaign mode, I think that is something we will continue to see for the rest of our lives. No matter which party is in power.

If the GOP does gain seats in the coming elections, and I will admit they may, will they gain enough to become a majority? History says no. No party has gained or lost as many seats as would be needed to do that in one election.

If the GOP is to stand a chance in 2012 they will have to field a viable candidate. Someone who can win the states that McCain lost in. We've seen the candidates that are out there. Who is the most likely to win? Romney wants it bad, you can see it in his eyes. But do enough independents and Republicans trust a Mormon to run things? I would tend to doubt it unless the economy tanks even worse. Then all bets are off. Surely Palin will not even run. I think she wants to be a celebrity more than she wants the responsibility of office. What she seems to want, in my opinion, is to be Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. So I don't think it will be her. Ron Paul? I do believe he's got some good ideas, for a Republican, but is he extreme enough for the GOP of today? I don't believe he is so it probably won't be him. McCain? Please. Huckabee? Not unless he starts losing weight. He's getting fat again and no way is a morbidly obese man going to be elected President. Besides, he isn't a very good presidential campaigner. If he was, he would have beaten McCain.

It seems to me that the GOP needs to find a Presidential candidate now and start pushing and preparing him, or they don't have a chance. As far as Congress, they may make gains in 2010, depending on if the economy worsens or gets better, and if the majority of Americans blame them for the problems in Washington. If those things happen, then maybe they have a shot in 2012 of getting close to the majority in one house.

Fritz, I knew it was Clinton's first term. My point is that the poll you mentioned doesn't mean a hill of beans.

As far as the economy improving under Clinton, it had MUCH more to do with a balanced budget than with welfare reform. Do you honestly think that welfare reform made that much of an economic impact on this country? I want your honest opinion, or some facts, not your political opinion. It also had to do with fictitious revenues being made up by many of the tech companies. This led to the tech stock's bubble bursting. Also, well times were strong under Clinton, the tax increases are what caused us to have a balanced budget and in some years a surplus. Those were great times. The national debt could have been paid down nearly half if Bush didn't spend so much. The "tax-and-spend" Democrats saw the sense of a balanced budget, while the "fiscally conservative" Republican party does not.

Question, if the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives, how come so much of the national debt occurs under Republicans in the last 30 years? Check out the following tables:

National Debt 1950-1999

National Debt 2000-2009

Yea, I failed to see the conection between welfare reform and an improved economy. I wonder if Romney has a chance of being nominated, much less elected because the religious right would distrust a Mormon as much as a supposed Muslim. When Kennedy was president, the RR distrusted him because he was a catholic. Don't think they can rally around a candidate unless they fit their specific mould. Sara Palin seems to be their candidate of choice, but I think her negatives are far to high to win a general election. As far as Obama getting elected again, I think it all boils down to jobs, jobs, jobs. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think there's a pubic hairs difference between a Dem or a Rep politician. The all cater to the people with money and could care less about what's good for the country.

Fritz, I knew it was Clinton's first term. My point is that the poll you mentioned doesn't mean a hill of beans.

As far as the economy improving under Clinton, it had MUCH more to do with a balanced budget than with welfare reform. Do you honestly think that welfare reform made that much of an economic impact on this country? I want your honest opinion, or some facts, not your political opinion. It also had to do with fictitious revenues being made up by many of the tech companies. This led to the tech stock's bubble bursting. Also, well times were strong under Clinton, the tax increases are what caused us to have a balanced budget and in some years a surplus. Those were great times. The national debt could have been paid down nearly half if Bush didn't spend so much. The "tax-and-spend" Democrats saw the sense of a balanced budget, while the "fiscally conservative" Republican party does not.

Question, if the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives, how come so much of the national debt occurs under Republicans in the last 30 years? Check out the following tables:

National Debt 1950-1999

National Debt 2000-2009 Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

I didn't mention a balanced budget because there wasn't a balanced budget and hasn't been a balanced budget since the 1930s. And as far as the poll I mentioned not meaning a "hill of beans", you obviously didn't read the article which mentioned that the Bamster was the first Democratic presidential candidate in 30 years that obtained a true majority of the presidential vote, primarily due to the "angry white man" demographic voting for the Bamster in larger numbers, and that support in this voting bloc now showing its disapproval in numbers that rival the upheval in 1994.

IMHO - a swing of 50 seats in the House, similar to 1994, is doable and would give the GOP the majority. All the GOP would need to win the Senate is 10 seats - which is also doable due to several Dem senators in vulnerable positions or retiring to an open competition (Reid - NV, Dorgan - ND, Lincoln - AR, Spector - PA to name just four). A swing to have veto-proof majorities in both houses (2/3 of each house) or the 60 seat majority for a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is impossible - that would take two election cycles and help from a strong GOP candidate in 2012 to unseat the Bamster. But 10 months is a long time in politics - much less 2 years, 10 months.