LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS

THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


February 25, 2012

Obama Has Already Lost

By David Coughlin, AMERICAM THINKER

Barack Obama is a lame-duck president already, but he probably doesn’t realize it since he is surrounded by leftist zealots who insulate him from any contrary opinions and shielded by the partisan mainstream media. Obama’s popularity began falling right after his election, and the percentage disapproving has exceeded those approving steadily since 2009.

Each and every voting bloc that supported him in 2008 has eroded by at least 10 points — even the African-American voters, with independents and young voters dropping by over 30 points. Approval on major issues (economy, budget, deficit, employment, etc.) has also eroded, with disapproval exceeding approval ratings across the board.


Despite approval ratings lower than any president’s in recent history, the media push-polls are trying to sell us the idea that Obama is well liked and has a good chance to be re-elected, meanwhile ignoring any and all facts that do not support their partisan message. The good news is that there has been a mass awakening of the American people, who now realize that the mainstream media has a decided leftist tilt and that media polls can no longer be trusted.

Meanwhile, Democrats want us to believe that Obama has been a tremendous success. He promised to redistribute our wealth, and he has begun. He promised to transform our health care system, and he passed ObamaCare. He promised that his energy policies would dramatically increase energy costs, and they have. He promised to appoint justices who think like he does to the Supreme Court, and he has. He promised to pull American troops out of Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground, and he has. He made many promises that he is trying to keep, but we just didn’t listen closely enough or didn’t believe that he meant what he said. Now that American voters have finally woken up, their opinion is that they don’t like the country’s new direction and would like to repeal much of what Obama has done!
There’s been a running debate about whether we’re in a genuine economic recovery and how strong the recovery is. At the two-year mark, when every other postwar recession had been over or nearly over, this one is just now bottoming out. In other efforts to improve the economy, Obama has nationalized two car companies and exerted unprecedented control over financial institutions with continued fear over the nationalization of banks, and he is in the midst of nationalizing medicine and education. The administration is proud to have manipulated the unemployment rate to show progress, but Obama’s people have all the while ignored that millions have given up hope and dropped out completely from the employment market.
Obama, meanwhile, has been depending on the economy to makes its normal, natural V-shaped recovery, while doing everything he can to undermine and suppress that recovery. The economic crisis was caused, in large part, by excessive debt, so a big part of the solution should be to increase savings and pay down debt, creating the financial reserves to support a new expansion. Instead, Obama and congressional Democrats rapidly increased government debt with the giant “stimulus” bill, which wasted the better part of a trillion dollars. The United States’ credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in history. The political/economic issue that defines the Obama recovery is the fact that the federal government now operates without a budget. Without a budget, every major decision on federal spending, debt, and taxes has to be fought all over again in the political arena every few months, creating pervasive uncertainty. The current leadership, with President Obama first and foremost, is doing everything it can to create uncertainty on all of these issues.
The president knows he is in trouble, so he has given up leading the country and is now focused solely on campaigning for re-election. Obama has little chance of winning in November, but this does not stop the mainstream media from selling the message that he has a chance. Fortunately for them, many voters are uninformed and can still be influenced by the constant media spin.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 1:10 pm | 37 Comments »



37 Responses to Obama Has Already Lost

  1. Steve Smyser says:

    Also those in power control the computer/electronic voting machines with “back doors” so the results can (will) be manipulated. An opponent will have to have overwhelming numbers in order to overcome this situation.

  2. JohnB says:

    I’ll bet money with anyone here that Obama will be re-elected. The economy is actually improving for the first time in years and Mitt Romney is a really bad politician.

  3. Steven Belsky says:

    Imagine if Rick Santorum is nominated-that spell almost certain victory for Obama. Rick pisses off blacks,Latinos, Protestants, almost all women, , and most Jews. He comes across as a Catholic equivalent of a mullah.

  4. BlandOatmeal says:

    Obama’s popularity began falling right after his election, and the percentage disapproving has exceeded those approving steadily since 2009

    True. But BO’s standing has been improving steadily since October, 2011. It’s all about the economy, which hit a temporary low then (that will probably continue up to election time, seeing that these matters are in the hands of a few, pro-Obama, insiders like Bernanke). Obama has been leading the principal Republican candidates most of the year in the polls, and he has an excellent chance of pulling off the election. Oh, and have I mentioned it? He’s financed to the hilt.

  5. C.R. says:

    Barack Obama never did lead the country–because he is not a genuine leader; Barack Obama didn’t come to lead but rather to destroy the goodness of the American nation! The sooner B.O. is out of power the better!

  6. C.R. says:

    You’re an ignorant fool–you’re believing the lies of the left–B.O.’s standing has definitely not been improving!

  7. C.R. says:

    You are SO ignorant and foolish–if anyone comes off like a mullah–it would be Barack Hussein Obama and those of his ilk!

  8. C.R. says:

    Another ignorant comment! The economy is not improving–but rather it continues contracting–and it will continue contracting as long as Marxist Obamanomics are in place!

  9. C.R. says:

    This problem with voter fraud is nothing new in American politics; it was just as bad before electronic vote counting!

  10. Steven Belsky says:

    The republican candidates, to a man, promise to undue all of Obamas so called accomplishments. Goodie, does that mean that they will make Bin Laden alive again?? CR- tell me you are not serious.

  11. Steven Belsky says:

    I realize as a child and even today you hate chocolate milk, but isn’t that just a bit extreme?

  12. Yonatan says:

    Race comments, really? You can do better than that.

  13. Ken Besig, Israel says:

    Barack Obama prides himself on “leading from behind”, that is, never exposing himself to criticism.
    That strategy got him elected in 2008 but now that he has a record, and not a good one, he can’t “lead from behind”, he’ll have to take responsibility for his record.
    And by the way, everybody cheats in the voting booth, and it balances itself out.

  14. Dr. Moshe Israel says:

    The only record for the public to scrutinize in spite of the Mainstream Media manipulation is his ‘presidential’ record from 2008. It is terrible on every front, on the economy, on his foreign policy of appeasing dictatorial monsters, his embrace of the ‘muslim brotherhood’, etc. etc. Everything else is locked up. This Manchurian candidate is indeed scary!!!! Please for the US and the world’s sake, NOBAMA, in 2012 (democrats… ‘keep the ‘change’)

  15. marianne says:

    If obama is re-elected, the country will be destroyed. Mitt Romney is not a bad politician. He is the only one who actually knows how to make money instead of creating debt.

  16. Vinnie says:

    Obama’s record is terrible overall, and in a garden variety two-way race, I can’t see him winning, even against a weasel like Romney.

    I don’t think Obama has the balls to try to pull off a “Marcos” – i.e., declare a national emergency so as to suspend elections in order to stay in office indefinitely – and with so many Republican governors, I can’t see him being able to pull off the degree of voter fraud he’d need to win.

    The economy really isn’t getting better. The recent spike in oil/gas will see to that. Obama has run up more debt than any president in history besides Bush #43, and more debt in one term than any other president, period. Unemployment is still higher than when he took office. It is almost true that the U.S. credit rating got downgraded for the “first time in history” under Obama. There was one other time that happened: right after Pearl Harbor.

    The media backs Obama, but this is of less value than one might presume. Public distrust of the media is at an historic high. I call this the “Pravda effect”; you can only b.s. people for so long. The old USSR had complete control of the media, but they collapsed anyway. Media support of Obama will keep his polling numbers higher than they deserve to be, and the election closer than it ought to be, but this alone cannot save him.

    I live in a medium-sized midwestern metro area, and I can tell you that one sees very few pro-Obama bumper stickers around anymore. He carried this area handily four years ago, but people are most reluctant to defend him nowadays, even though the local newspaper is an outrageous liberal rag that kisses Obama’s arse nonstop.

    My big worry is that Ron Paul will run third party, fracture the Republican vote, and thus hand Obama the election anyway. I think Ron Paul will do this DELIBERATELY in order to screw Israel.

    I have it on good authority from a GOP worker in CA that the national GOP leadership has privately, but directly, warned Paul that if he runs third party, the GOP will run his son out of the Senate. This source believes Paul will heed this warning, but I warned him in reply that anti-Semitism is a very powerful motivating force that tends to extinguish rationality in the minds of the afflicted. I also think the kind of interests that support Obama in his quest to screw Israel will also encourage and support Paul for the same reasons.

    I find it very strange that Paul, who was rightly marginalized as a crackpot four years ago, is suddenly a “respectable” candidate today. The same media that carries water for Obama, even as they put other GOP candidates under a microscope, pretty much give Paul a pass. See the link below:

    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/

    The above comes from an obscure source, an African-American oriented news e-zine called “News One”. But, aside from a few unprofessional looking typos, it is credible journalism, replete with photos and quotes. Where is the national-level media on all of this??

    Except for an abortive interview on ABC, in which Paul simply lied and walked out, regarding his newsletters from the 90s, no one is reporting on any of this.

    Note for Steven Belsky:

    By the way, I think Santorum could beat Obama by a wider margin than Romney. Most of the groups you say Santorum “pisses off”, are segments that Obama would have anyway, and which Carter had in ’80. The only exception among those you list is Protestants, but I don’t agree with you there. I think the concept of Protestants voting against a devout Catholic for that reason went out with the election of 1960; I can tell you from direct, first-hand knowledge that Evangelicals just LOVE Santorum, and that is a potentially 60-million strong voting block. There are a lot of conservative women out there that will vote Santorum, believe me. Yes, Santorum makes Jews uneasy, but heck, we’re only 1.7% of the population anyway, THIS Jew supports Santorum, and many Jews are so disgusted with Obama over Israel, that, trust me, he ain’t getting the 78% he got last time. Yes, even if the GOP nominee is Santorum. I doubt that Obama will get better than 60% of Jews (he deserves ZERO), but even that would be historic by modern standards. The last Democrat since WW2 to get Jewish support on that level was Jimmy Carter against Reagan.

    A lot will revolve around voter turnout. Major segments that came out strong for Obama in ’08 – blacks, the collegiate vote, Latinos – are very disappointed in him from what I understand, and while not about to register GOP, are also a lot more likely to stay home. At the same time, given Obama’s record, a lot of other traditionally anti-Obama elements – to include Evangelicals – are going to be mobilized as never before to defeat him. Remember, voter turnout in ’08 was higher than average, but still only 65%; that leaves a lot of room for ah, “change” this time around.

    Unless Paul screws things up, I don’t see how Obama can win in 2012.

  17. bernard ross says:

    This comment from the author “The economic crisis was caused, in large part, by excessive debt, so a big part of the solution should be to increase savings and pay down debt, creating the financial reserves to support a new expansion.” I believe that this analysis is mistaken and does not take into account a serious structural problem caused by the massive export of jobs and capital to asia over a generation. None of the protagonists are dealing with this problem in any of their solutions. It is not business as usual which will then result in a recovery. Any “recovery” under present conditions will be a recovery to a lower standard of living which is what must happen if all your consumption products come from foreign. The American public knows that something is wrong that is not being discussed but cant put their finger on it because politicians are talking red herrings. Why? Because all parties colluded in this massive export of jobs and capital. The gut feeling among voters is that old solutions will not work which is why Obama might win in spite of himself. His path of trying to keep the titanic afloat is unfamiliar to americans however the other alternative presented of “tightening the belt” and cutting govt spending might not be purchased as a credible solution. America grew for decades because it won WWII and became the salesman to the world. America has now handed over on a silver platter this position to Asia. Giving a heavily subsidized Asia the right to sell in the US market may have been done to keep US labor costs down and US company profits high, even after they move out of the US and keep most of their real profits abroad. Economic suicide is something that the elite always prescribe for their subjects for their own profit. There are no real, honest or sincere solutions emanating from the mouths of the puppets who have been packaged and presented to the voter. A neat set of packages that appear to give a choice of a range of positions. However, strangely, none of the positions discuss the verboten, taboo real problems. The choices are clearly between Scylla and Charybdis and when the voter tires of this exercise they will return willingly to the shackles of their ignorance and their master’s voice.

  18. Clinton says:

    I am for Mitt Romney and will vote for Mitt Romney, but with that said I do agree with JohnB comment, I do think Obama is going to get relected tho I think it will be a close vote and Obama will win just barely it wont be a landslide, finally I dont agree with the above article Obama Has Already Lost in the AMERICAN THINKER.

  19. Clinton says:

    why will I vote for Mitt Romney and yet say Obama will win, when I vote it is the principle, I vote for people that I know dont have a chance of winning it is the principle behind my vote

  20. Vinnie says:

    Clinton,

    Well, I’ll bet you have more “principle” than Romney!

    Romney is one of the biggest flip-floppers ever. To me, he’s kind of a Republican version of Slick Willy, without the womanizing. He’s from the same Vietnam generation of self-serving hypocrites (like Willy, he was also a draft dodger). He’ll hold up his finger to the winds of public sentiment at the moment and act accordingly. He will not be a strong leader in the genuine sense, and will thus be vulnerable to manipulation, particularly where he is weak in terms of knowledge/experience, which is foreign policy.

    All that said, if Romney gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him, too. With his many faults, he’d still be a big improvement over Obama.

    Anyway, Clinton, don’t be such a pessimist. As long as Ron Paul can be kept at bay – which he allegedly (hopefully) will be by the GOP holding his son’s political career hostage – Obama is extremely vulnerable. In a two-way race, even against Romney, while I predict a relatively close popular vote, I am fairly confident of an electoral college landslide against Obama. In that scenario, I can’t see Obama carrying more than ten states, tops.

    The media b.s.’s us, and they b.s. themselves just as much. For example, somehow, I got a free subscription to Time Magazine (I’d never pay for that rag). But it is interesting from the standpoint of seeing how the Pravda-like media thinks. They are living in a fantasy land! A recent article on Obama’s foreign policy “achievements” (ha!) opened with an assertion to the effect that, “…It is not a question as to whether Obama is a good foreign policy president, but whether he’ll be a great foreign policy president…”

    I mean, who the heck really believes that garbage, outside of the White House, and the so-called “journalistic (and maybe academic) community”, cesspool that they are? Once a serious national campaign gets underway, the ammunition Obama’s opponent will have on foreign policy will be practically without limit.

    Which reminds me: I wouldn’t put too much credence in polls right now matching Obama head-to-head with this or that GOP nominee. It is far too early for such polls to have any meaning. Once the GOP nominee is established and both Obama and that person start a full-fledged campaign against each other, then such polls will be relevant. It will be July, at the earliest, before such polls will have any predictive value at all.

  21. Vinnie says:

    Bernard Ross:

    Agreed that the core problem is jobs. Yes, we had the undisputed lead for the first thirty years after WW2, then Japan and W. Europe (mostly Germany) recoverd and started competing with us, then we had less developed countries becoming more developed and offering cheap labor for many decent-quality products that used to be made here (e.g., Mexico, Indonesia), and then of course, there is China. All those jobs shipped overseas, plus the effect of automation (this is actually the biggest job killer), has left a huge part of our population, of modest educational/skill set means, unable to find employment where they have the opportunity to add enough value to some product such that they can command high enough wages to maintain the demand necessary to keep our economy where we are accustomed to be.

    There are no easy solutions to this. Obama wasted a lot of money on propping up public sector employees in order to ensure that segment voted for him. We still need to build up our infrastructure (where that money should have been spent). We need to develop our own energy resources, and tell the man-made global warming theologians where to stuff their nonsense; we also need to build a lot more nuke plants. We need to encourage more Americans to get vocational training to become skilled laborers and technicians, and stop wasting so much money and young peoples’ time sending them to college in order to get useless degrees. I think such measures will help, at least, but I can’t say that I have the “answer”, either.

    At the same time, by default, I don’t know that our situation is as dire as many say. Consider our competition: Europe? They’re going down the tubes faster than we are. Japan? Forget it. China seems to be the big rising power, but believe it or not, everybody, we STILL manufacture 40% more than they do (but you don’t see this on store shelves; this is in the form of larger capital goods). China is still very corrupt, with a lot of inefficient state-supported industries. They have enormous environmental problems, internal tensions at the elite level between technocratic capitalist types and Maoist hard-liners, and at the street level, between the ten or fifteen percent who live something like “middle class” lives and the rest who still live in dirt floor huts and still can’t get decent jobs.

    In other words, who is going to take our place? There don’t seem to be other actors on the world stage who are up to the task.

    You are right that no one in a position to do so is really “giving it to us straight”, but Obama’s policies have clearly failed, overall. I can’t see people voting for such obvious failure when given a choice, particularly after his opponent presumably has the list of such failures in front of voters’ faces 24/7 in their campaign ads, and when Obama is confronted by the same in future debates.

  22. ArnoldHarris says:

    If Romney wins the Michigan Republican primary, which is exactly what the highly-regarded Rasmussen Presidential Poll is projecting for him with a six-point lead over Santorum, and wins the Arizona primary with an even stronger lead, as is also projected, then I am certain Romney will win the Republican nomination.

    Real Clear Politics (RCP) has an interesting political analysis which shows that even with Romney losing some or even all the southern states, he will still win in the large population — and delegate rich — states whose primary elections shortly will follow. These include California and New York, along with more New England states, none of which whose Republican votes are dominated by the Tea Party type voters who now predominate in the southern states. And in any case, Gingrich is slated to win strongly in Georgia, with Santorum running a weak second spot there. The fact is that Gingrich, Santorum and Paul all in the same race, probably right up to the Republican convention, essentially means that none of the anti-Romney political forces can or will coalesce on any of the non-Romneys. Finally, the leadership of the Republican Party itself realizes that no Republican candidate other than Romney is likely to be able to take down an incumbent US president; because Romney is the only such candidate who has any serious hope of attracting a significant number of votes from the broad mass of centrist voters who in fact dominate the actual elections — just the opposite of the primary elections which are dominated by the left and right wings of the two major parties.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  23. Clinton says:

    Vinnie I disagree with you, I do think of all republicans Mitt Romney has the best chance to beat Obama but I think even with that Obama still wins, also I did not mention polls I am going by my gut instinct that Obama will be relected,

  24. A lot of good points, Vinnie. But I also am uneasy about Santorum, although he is perhaps the most admirable (from the little I know about all of them) of the Republican candidates on the personal level. I’m afraid the “Repub. Establishment” will push Romney through, but (even though I once swore I wouldn’t vote for him) I’m leaning toward Newt as the man who could turn this country back to sanity. Unfortunately, his previous personal life makes him an easy target…and this election, whatever else I know, we ALL know, will be NASTY.

  25. dweller says:

    “THIS Jew supports Santorum…”

    THIS one too.

    “…national GOP leadership has privately, but directly, warned Paul that if he runs third party, the GOP will run his son out of the Senate.”

    Interesting.

    That MAY be why Rand has been making noises about accepting a 2nd place slot on the bottom half of a Romney ticket. ???

  26. Oy Ted, my comment on Vinnie was a reply on Entry 7 (which is a fairly reasoned comment), not on Vinnie’s Entry 11. My reply doesn’t make much sense tacked on to the content of Vinnie’s second post.

  27. Vinnie says:

    Olivia,

    Hi there. Yes, I agree with you about Gingrich. I think that IF he got elected POTUS, he has the best combination of experience and knowledge to “get stuff done” in a positive sense. But that would be a very big IF. Anecdotally from what I hear myself, plus polling data from the primaries, indicates that women by and large HATE Gingrich. After all, he’s the poster child for every lyin’, cheatin’ scumbag they ever knew. If he got the nomination, I’d vote for him anyway, of course – I’m not voting for ‘family guy in chief’ – but one can’t win without the women’s vote, he wouldn’t get the women’s vote, and so he’s unelectable.

    What does that leave us with? Certainly not Paul. And Romney is a weasel.

    By process of elimination: Santorum. He ain’t perfect (who is?), but he’s the best we’ve got.

  28. Vinnie says:

    Dweller:

    Wow. I hadn’t heard that about Rand Paul. THAT is very interesting.

    I hope Romney isn’t such a spineless weasel that he’d let himself be bullied into taking that closet white supremacist clown onto his ticket.

  29. Vinnie says:

    Arnold,

    What you say makes sense in a conventional wisdom sort of way, and I don’t doubt the analysis that Romney will ultimately get the nomination. I’m supporting Santorum ‘cuz that’s who I prefer, and I really do think Santorum would stand a better chance against Obama, but I concede that Romney will likely get the nomination in the end.

    The reason I don’t buy the analyses that Romney is a better candidate against Obama: This is gut feeling – nothing scientific here – but I sense that Americans are looking for someone with strong convictions to contrast against Obama’s “convictions”, a real choice. Romney is such a flip-flopping weasel that Obama will easily target him as such. Americans will not warm to such a plastic, two-dimensional candidate, not the way they will to Santorum. Americans respect someone with strong convictions, even if they don’t agree with all their views.

    This election is in many ways analogous to the election of 1980. Santorum is the closest thing to Reagan we have. That’s what we need. A lot of people in 1980 dismissed Reagan as an ideologue who’d alienate many centrist voters, but those critics were proven wrong.

  30. ArnoldHarris says:

    One of the experienced American political commentators posted on Real Clear Politics said that in the end, the presidential campaign will be decided on the issues of economy and race. In other words: Is your pocketbook threatened by this particular president, and do you want to continue this wild experiment of “affirmative action” applied to the national leadership of the United States, not just with a black guy, but with a black guy widely known to have a combination of African and Indonesian Islam, a white-hating Afro-American Christian preacher, and a pair 1960s anarchist and leftist whites who pushed the lessons of Saul Alinsky over the edge into criminal activity. Also, no classmate who was supposed to have attended Columbia University with him seems ever to have seen him there.

    The probably sounds ugly, but Anglo-American politics always have been characterized by hypocrisy, with the obvious always present and mostly unspoken. After almost 78 years, I’ve sort of gotten used to American politics as they are, rather than pious hopes of what they ought to be.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  31. dweller says:

    “I hope Romney isn’t such a spineless weasel that he’d let himself be bullied into taking that closet white supremacist clown onto his ticket.”

    The son may not be quite the neo-confederationist (as in, Articles of _____) that the father is. Too soon to say.

    But it sure is curious that Ron Paul has been generally silent when it comes to criticising Romney.

    If there IS a deal flitting about in the shadows, this may just be a father’s attempt to shield his son’s political future from the liabilities of his [the father's] own ambitions. All the same though, it sure puts fresh wrinkles into the prune.

    As for Romney, a man on-the-make is always spineless.

    As I wrote recently to an acquaintance,

    “…Romney doesn’t want to cure America.

    He wants to get into America’s pants (to coin a phrase) — like a guy who will say anything to get the girl to take him to bed that first time.

    After the deed is done, of course, the blood will return to his brain — and his mood & perception may change.

    He wants it so bad he can taste it.

    I think his quest for the presidency is something he sees as — perhaps more than anything else — an obligation to his father, George: who had been moving steadily forward toward the [1968] nomination, until he was confronted about a remark he’d made the previous year (about Vietnam), “I was brainwashed.”

    That buried the elder Romney.

    And that may be why Mitt’s been gun-shy about anything that smacks of ‘swallowing ideology’.”

  32. dweller says:

    “Finally, the leadership of the Republican Party itself realizes that no Republican candidate other than Romney is likely to be able to take down an incumbent US president; because Romney is the only such candidate who has any serious hope of attracting a significant number of votes from the broad mass of centrist voters who in fact dominate the actual elections — just the opposite of the primary elections which are dominated by the left and right wings of the two major parties.”

    My money (what little there is of it) says you’re reading the GOP leadership wrong, Arnold.

    I don’t think their first priority is defeating the Demos.

    I think their first priority is retaining — in their own, hot little, country-club hands — the reins of control of the Party.

    I think from their perspective it’s preferable to risk an Obama second term to seeing the conservative base of their own party become the new GOP establishment.

    I think that they (justly) fear a hostile takeover of the Grand Old Party if a conservative Republican nominee wins in November.

    Romney?

    A recent Gallup-USA Today poll found that 75 percent of Americans believe Obamacare will make life worse for their families, and want it repealed.

    And the older the age group, the heavier the opposition.

    75 percent is one helluva figure.

    75 percent of all American kids agree that candy is good. Can’t think of much else that 3 out of 4 Americans agree on. . . .

    Obamacare is easily the strongest issue the GOP has going for it this time out.

    But if Romney gets the nod, the Repubs lose that issue.

    All BHO has to say is,
    — hey, I got the idea from YOU, Mitt; thanks for the inspiration.

    No other GOP candidate is a liability for the wielding of that weapon, only Romney.

    The Repub leadership can surely see this as clearly as anybody else can.

    The fact that they still want Romney should tell you where they’re at.

  33. Isaac says:

    Marianne says

    If obama is re-elected, the country will be destroyed

    Steven Belsky says

    Imagine if Rick Santorum is nominated-that spell almost certain victory for Obama. Rick pisses off blacks,Latinos, Protestants, almost all women, , and most Jews. He comes across as a Catholic equivalent of a mullah

    C.R. says

    Barack Obama never did lead the country–because he is not a genuine leader; Barack Obama didn’t come to lead but rather to destroy the goodness of the American nation!

    dweller says

    A recent Gallup-USA Today poll found that 75 percent of Americans believe Obamacare will make life worse for their families, and want it repealed

    Vinnie says

    The media backs Obama, but this is of less value than one might presume. Public distrust of the media is at an historic high. I call this the “Pravda effect”; you can only b.s. people for so long

    dweller also says

    Obamacare is easily the strongest issue the GOP has going for it this time out.
    But if Romney gets the nod, the Repubs lose that issue.
    All BHO has to say is,— hey, I got the idea from YOU, Mitt; thanks for the inspiration

    C.R. and dweller thoughts are also mine and I particularly feel that the issue of the very large evangelical voters combined with those who hate Obamacare will swing the vote against BHO. Also, a highly significant number or all of the ‘new poor’ since 2010 or earlier have seen throught BHOs fraud and the empty suit. They are not going to be fooled a second time. As vinnie says the public no longer believes the MSM. So, Obama is going to lose even if Romney is chosen despite the Obamacare plan that Romney follows. But, if Santorum is chosen, than Obama will draw an even smaller vote

  34. Again, you all have good points–Vinnie your reply to my reply made sense. BUT any candidate with a sense of humor has an edge. Unfortunately, Obama can pull out a sly sense of humor, he has a resonant voice, and he’s tall and slender. (But not handsome. Considering what the cartoonists did to Bush, I can’t believe what they haven’t done to Obama.) But the tall, slender, great voice part is enough for a lot of women, I am sorry to say. Newt can pull off the sense of humor but he is short and overweight and doesn’t have great timbre in his voice. Oy, why are such shallow matters so important in a political campaign? But they are real factors influencing WAY too large a percentage of the electorate, many of whom think they are voting for the “movie star in White House” candidate. Reagan, bless him, was not only a very smart man who could inspire and lead in the right policies, but he was also APPEALING and handsome and could turn a phrase to make us all grin. That all helped to make him electable. I think of the 3 still in the race, Newt is the best man to get the job done (turn the country back around) in the White House, but he loses not only on the personal history front but also on the movie star front. But then again, he can cut to the point with a statement that is not only pertinent but also amusing…and people do like to smile…

  35. dweller says:

    “Newt can pull off the sense of humor but he is short and overweight…”

    He’s no matinee idol, and is somewhat overweight, granted — but at 6.0,’ he’s no runt.

    “… Obama can pull out a sly sense of humor…”

    It tends to be more a cheap sense of humor more than a ‘sly’ one.

    And even that humor is accessible to him only if it’s scripted.

    Without writers — and a programmed tele-promp-ter — he’s lost.

    The man can’t think on his feet (he’s never had to) — as Gingrich surely can, in regard to both humor and any number of other things.

    Gingrich has possibly the most fertile political mind to appear on the American national scene in the past 100 years.

    If the two of them were ever put on the same stage, Gingrich would eat Obama for breakfast, pick his teeth with the splintered bones

    — and cough up a hairball twenty minutes later.

    Gingrich’s chief liability is perhaps less his personal history than his uneven temper.

    One man’s opinion.

  36. I think you’re right. (Wow, Newt is 6 foot tall? Guess I haven’t been paying attention to such statistics.)

  37. scottdnok says:

    A well struck hammer blow Dweller, nail head hit – dead center. Incredebly pessimistic but spot on.

Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 23,551
  • Last 7 days: 141,693
  • Last 30 days: 353,248
  • Online now: 73
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

  • Donetsk leaflet: Jews must register or face deportation (4)

    • mickeyobe: And so it goes. It never really ended. This is merely a...

    • Buzz of the Orient: Are they going to be required to wear a yellow star as...

    • CuriousAmerican: There is a debate if this is really a pro-Russian group, or...

    • CuriousAmerican: Jews should leave the Ukraine now. Leave Russia. Apparently,...

  • Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic (209)

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “I will not conform to your conditions nor your...

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “If you have a point to make, then make it in your...

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “No wonder there are so many sexual problems within...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “May I suggest Sweetie, that you read Thomas...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “You’re still making mistakes, Twinkie”...

  • Steve Goldberg: The Only Viable Option (25)

    • Ted Belman: CuriousAmerican Said: but at the same time, I can understand why...

    • CuriousAmerican: @ Ted Belman: Israel only blockades military significant...

    • Ted Belman: @ CuriousAmerican:Neither Goldberg nor I recommended...

    • CuriousAmerican: @ Ted Belman: Goldberg says they will go to Arab countries....

    • Ted Belman: A number of you have raised the question of...

  • European Jewry is Doing What Hitler Couldn’t (2)
  • Palestinians must come to the table for peace (3)

    • dove: Oh Dersch….you have been a Defense Lawyer for the wicked for far...

  • Obama Plans to Return Looted Jewish Artifacts To Iraq (43)
  • There is No Authentic Right in Israel (41)

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “The most revealing aspect of his character was his...

  • In the Middle East, Time to Move On (4)

    • CuriousAmerican: Among those principles should be: a Palestinian state in the...

Sponsor

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Site Membership



Google Site Search

Editor

    Ted Belman

    tbelman3-at-gmail.com

Mission

    News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

Polls

Will Israel attack Iran

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

RECOMMENDED BOOKS




Tolerism2

Iran islam

Sharing

mandate4

Daily Archives

April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Selected Israpundit Articles

Sponsors

Miscellaneous Info

    All Politic Sites