Five reasons Obama will be re-elected

kerry says:

08:22am | 27/01/11

It may (or may not) be true that “Obama has the dedicated support of every US media channel save Fox News” but according to this report at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/fox-news-averaging-about-_n_220659.html, Fox Newsaverages the same audience as the others combined.

Tom says:

11:37am | 27/01/11

How about:
1. Obama gives brilliant speeches.
2. Obama gives brilliant speeches.
3. Obama gives brilliant speeches.
4. Obama gives brilliant speeches.
5. Obama gives brilliant speeches;
and
6. Voters are too stupid to see beyond that.

Peter Ansfield says:

12:13pm | 27/01/11

Tom
How about
Bush was a moron
Bush was a moron
Bush was a moron
Palin is an idiot
Palin is an idiot
Palin is an idiot
Takes a long time to fix all the things that were broken by the Bush and the other conservative morons?
Takes a long time to fix all the infrastructure and services neglected by Howard?
Voters understand this.

C Y O'Connor says:

01:10pm | 27/01/11

@Peter, sorry the Bush chanting doesn’t wash.

Carter (Democrat) enacted the Community Re-investment Act which caused the sub-prime crisis. In turn the sub-prime crisis led to a financial meltdown in America. Bush tried 18 times to control it and was stopped by the Democrats. Who are the morons then? Even our messiah, Barrack admitted this.

Try to understand what actually need fixing then ponder your little problem with reality.

Don’t know if Palin is an idiot, but if a syncophant like you says it often enough, you must be starting to believe it. You believe everything else you chant.

Ain’t vilification wonderful?

Eric says:

01:55pm | 27/01/11

Peter, “Blame Bush” didn’t work in 2010, and it’s unlikely to work in 2012. You may need to look for another tactic.

Brendan says:

08:05am | 27/01/11

A well thought out and balanced position. 

You have wonderfully teased apart the complex weave of social, economic and geo-political factors by which any elected leader is judged.

Now, if only I could take that bet…

Dave says:

09:00am | 27/01/11

Being American and having watched enough elections go by, I’ll take that bet.

Warren says:

09:30am | 27/01/11

@Brendan you star!

@Ryan you monkey!

cityboy of Sysney says:

09:50am | 27/01/11

Sarah Palin will be heartened to hear your ill-informed comments Ryan; you are practically soulmates; but hey, Australia has excellent mental health professionals who can take care of you!

Ryan says:

11:54am | 27/01/11

@cityboy of Sysney: yawn, boring, the low class insults are just showing your complete lack of intelligence and class.

Con Con says:

01:24pm | 27/01/11

Ryan
next time your in the US, try to spend some time away from the back clocks of Utah with your supremacist mates. You might get some perspective.

Ryan says:

06:33pm | 27/01/11

@Con Con: sorry to disappoint your racist view but no I am normally in California, San Diego to be exact and that is where I gleam my opinion from, the people there.

Paul says:

07:41pm | 27/01/11

@Ryan: “Gleam” your opinion?  Doesn’t matter how shiny it is, mate, it’s still daft.

Jacob says:

08:11pm | 27/01/11

cityboy aka con con

Tell us the people in the US you have spoken with who advise differently or the reference you reply upon or are we just relying on you jaded view?

Benrama says:

10:22pm | 27/01/11

Fight! Fight! Fight!

weoic says:

11:44pm | 27/01/11

haha LOL

It’s all that hope-lessness and no-change that KRudd and NObama have brought to the world.

Political leaders are selected - not elected
I wonder when people will ever wake up to this?

The Badger says:

08:43am | 28/01/11

yes timmie
believe everything you see online do you?
carefully managed marketing exercise under lab condition, not a real network under loaded conditions?
Try adding millions of consumers to the mix, Try adding a house with a family of 4, Mom’s doing the online banking, paying bills and having an HD look at her sisters new baby on skype. Dad’s streaming a pay TV sports event, daughter is updating her social network status and watching HD Youtube, Son is battling HD gremlins in the online Xbox. Now take that house and the one next to it and the one next to that, and the apartment block next door with the 100 apartments and the rest of the neighbourhood. Then run your speed test and if, just if your connection doesn’t drop out because of network congestion, or something coming between the line of sight to your cell site, or the weather, you send me your speed test results
Then we can talk.

Like I said timmie, wireless has it’s place within the NBN. You just don’t understand the technology

TimB says:

11:51am | 28/01/11

Hi Badger, been taking tips from your mate Acotrel have you?

Try clicking down there next time.

You also appear to have been watching Telstra’s internet ads a little too much.

You asked for an example, I gave it to you. These are commercial networks in place NOW. For you to now turn around and say “ahh its on the internet! its all lieeeees” shows you up for the blinkered party stooge you truly are.

Now I’ve done my bit. I’ve supported my position with proof (even if you’re too blinkered to accept it). How about you support your position. You know, your “Wireless is crap” stuff. Show me something concrete as to why it will not ever work. Something beyond your own one-eyed rhetoric.

The Badger says:

09:07am | 27/01/11

Timmie
For your future reference, wireless broadband is an integral part of the NBN.
Nobody is saying that wireless doesn’t have its place in the greater scheme of connectivity for the nation.
Not exactly sure what your point is or even if you have one. I just hope its not that you believe FTTH doesn’t have a place in a national broadband network?

Perhaps you would like to try again?

TimB says:

10:25am | 27/01/11

My point is that you and your NBN chums have decried large scale wireless tech time and time again. Now Obama is advocating it, so what’s your reaction?

And perhaps you’d like to clarify what YOUR point is Badger? Are we going to have FTTH AND a wireless network that covers 98% of the population like Obama is talking about for his country?

If that’s really what you’re saying, then it seems a bit like overkill don’t you think?

Maybe *you’d* like to try again? Or at least stop being disingenuous. That would be nice.

MarK says:

11:02am | 27/01/11

Hahahaha.

And so the qualifications begin.

“Nobody is saying that wireless doesn’t have its place in the greater scheme of connectivity for the nation. “

Glad you have finally caught up with the rest of us. Refreshing to see you admit it.

If you really cannot see what TimB’s point is I will spell it out for you. There is more one way to skin a cat. The project doesn’t necessarily have to be “done this way” and cost “this much”. There is inherent risk in a government doing what it is doing for which we will have to foot the bill if they stuff it. Given the NBN will duplicate a hell of a lot of infrastructure privately owned and built, essentially trashing a whole lot of capital invested, the lack of transparency and planning that is evident (or hidden) is terrifying when you consider the variables.

This is the ultimate result of the hubris of Rudd and Gillard who used and still use the “you do this or do nothing” as an excuse.

It is a joke. Perhaps you would like to try again Badger. Or qualify further. Or do whatever it is you do.

Also TimB the really important part about Obama’s speech is that he was going to get private enterprise to pay for it. Just help them along with it by government actions, not cash.

Interesting stuff indeed. In the US the government will not assume the risk of the build. Here, well hey, Gillard is happy to assume the risk - I guess we can raise a levy if needs be.

Tom says:

11:58am | 27/01/11

@Badger, congratulations, you are waking up. Abbott proposed wireless as a cost effective alternative to optical cable and you dills fell into line behind Conroy’s mantra that optical cable as the only way to go.

Now you are wanting to sneek out from under. Admit it Badger, you and your Labor mates were wrong. If Conroy had proposed that the network be made out of vegemite sandwiches, you would have been there cheering him on.

Suddenly, you are admitting Abbott was correct and your garrulous shop steward was just making noise for the sake of it.

Well done Badger and welcome to thinking people’s world.

The Badger says:

12:37pm | 27/01/11

Nice try boys.

Can’t speak for the “chums” you allude to timmie, but I never said wireless wasn’t part of the solution.
There have always been qualifications mark. Wireless works in some areas, but not others it’s not one size fits all and never have I said otherwise.  Get a grip and don’t put words into my mouth. Let’s not spend any money on the NBN infrastructure and let private investors do it. Yes mark because that works so well, particularly for the bush.

Tom, do try to keep up. wireless has always been part of the Labor NBN. To Abbott, it is the NBN. big difference.

I try to never argue with a fool (s).
Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference.
but in this case, I made an exception.

TimB says:

01:11pm | 27/01/11

“wireless has always been part of the Labor NBN. To Abbott, it is the NBN. big difference.”

And the point of my INITIAL post was that to Obama, wireless is the “ABN” (American Broadband Network). Whether by accident or design, you seem to have missed the point spectacularly. So I’ll quote it for you again:

“He set a goal of covering 98 percent Americans with 4G mobile broadband connections over the next five years”

98% of the United States. Fully wireless. Now tell me straight, without avoiding the question: What do you think of Obama’s plan?

Tom says:

01:29pm | 27/01/11

@Badger, I just love the smell of backflip in the morning.

The Badger says:

04:11pm | 27/01/11

Don’t know why I bother with you timmie your intelligence level is very low.
Where did Obama say wireless was the only solution for America?

What Obama is saying is that 98% of Americans will have wireless access for mobile applications. You do understand what mobile applications are don’t you? They are when you are mobile, that is away from your base.
Obama is not talking about an American version of the NBN,
You really don’t have a clue do you?

TimB says:

07:00pm | 27/01/11

Are you serious?

98% coverage on 4G technology. You know, that wireless tech capable of the same speeds as the NBN. The same technology that you write off as being not suitable for a largescale network. The one despite all your “expertise” on the subject, those silly boffins keep pouring money into. Hah! What do they know? If only they’d listen to you, right?

Meanwhile apparrently you’re only allowed to use wirless for “mobile applications”. You only use it when you’re “moving”. When you get home you just have to find a wall outlet to plug into instead. Never mind that you’re capable of accessing the same speeds without the need to hook into a wall. You’re no longer mobile! You aren’t allowed to use it now! You must use the second, fixed line [i[ uttely redundant network!

Honestly this would be funnier if it wasn’t for the fact that you actually believe eveything Conroy tells you.

The Badger says:

07:44pm | 27/01/11

yes timmie
fibre speeds from 4G networks
you live in lalaland.
Show me where consumers are getting these speeds. Maybe your mentor can help you look, you know who I mean.

You can’t, because they aren’t available.
join the ranks of your mates mark and northern steve who retreated under heavy fire.

Your credibility is further eroded. stick to politics
You don’t need any background just a bookmark to the liberal party website.
This tech stuff is beyond you.

TimB says:

08:58pm | 27/01/11

Quick Badger. Better tell Obama that he’s embarking on a white elephant. You’re so much more of an expert at this stuff than he is I’m sure he’ll weclome your advice.

Or you could take a trip to Scandanavia instead:

http://dailymobile.se/2009/12/15/teliasonera´s-4g-speed-test-looking-good/

Not quite 100 mbps but damn good by our current standards. Keep in mind this was a year ago, and as we all know technology evolves. Isn’t that what you tell us? That we have to use our imagination to envisage all the wonderful functions high-speed internet will bring?
Use that imagination now, and imagine wireless not stuck in the static state that you keep portaying it as being.

Adam says:

09:39am | 27/01/11

there is a transcript of the full speech on the Australians website for those interested

Grumpy says:

08:23am | 27/01/11

Health reform is only unpopular because of right-wing rhetoric. Some people wont accept help because they are suspicious of ulterior motives. Even when its the best thing for them. It doesn’t mean what he is doing isn’t the right thing to do. He has also announced the end to a very unpopular war, which will coincide with his election campaign. I believe he will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents the country has ever seen. Everyone seems to forget the mess that he was left with 9% unemployment and growing, debt in the trillions, two wars, Katrina, the financial sector, BP, corporate bail outs, the list goes on… no one could do a better job, or has the patience and the grace under fire to do better.

KH says:

08:24am | 27/01/11

Thats pretty sad, considering that around 100,000 people die every year because of their inability to access health care.  That is an enormous number of people.  There are also a lot of people shut out of insurance because of minor health problems, and a lot of people - and when I say a lot I mean several times our entire population - who really can’t afford to not have insurance.  I can’t understand what kind of ‘civilised’ society would think its OK to let that many people just endure illness and pain without any care.

TimB says:

09:15am | 27/01/11

@ Grumpy, theres a few issues with your statement. Just off the top of my head:

- BP spill happened in 2010
- Employment rate was 5.8 % in 2008 It didn’t jump to past 9% until 2009.
- The corporate bailouts also happened under Obama’s watch.

None of this was “mess that he was left with”, they happened DURING his Presidency.

And he’s announced the end to an unpopular war? Exactly timed to suit his re-election campaign? You don’t see a problem with this? Either the war is worth fighting or it isn’t. If it isn’t then he should end it now, not when it’s politically convenient.

Of course this assumes that it’s going to magically end when he says it will. Call me back when it actually happens.  He was going to close Guantanamo too, how’s that working out?

Jacob says:

09:20am | 27/01/11

Grumpy,

I am not playing it from a party political perspective.  I have no interest.  I do have a lot of US friends who I talk to, some on a daily basis.

This is a reflection of what they are saying.

Ryan’s comment above indicate that he also understands this to be true.  The massive debt etc. as I understand it is through the design of his own party, before his leadership.  He says he will end the war, this hasn’t happened, this can’t happen and I think both sides know this.  You can’t wipe a country off the face of the landscape and then leave it to the hands of those who you were fighting to begin with, nothing has changed.  They will stay until democracy is ensured.

KH,

From my persepective, a lot of Americans don’t share the same human welfare concerns for others.

PD says:

10:08am | 27/01/11

@Jacob, your position falls into the same ‘I can tell this from the Americans I talk to’ trap that Ryan does. Your sample of whatever size is not statistically valid, and we don’t even know if what they’re telling you are their real voting intentions or whether you’ve interpreted their comments correctly.

In other words, assertions like “I can predict the outcome of the election just from talking to people I know’ are worthless.

hot tub political machine says:

10:51am | 27/01/11

Unsuprisingly, the people we know who are Americans are not representative of Americans.

Grumpy says:

11:05am | 27/01/11

Obama declared the end of combat in Iraq last year, the war is already over. with troops to begin returning in 2012-2014.Americans will stay there probably forever. Like in south Korea.

no i dont see this as being coercive, or wait maybe it is, because everyone would think it was, but thats how smart he is you see, its reverse, reverse psychology…

As for the bailouts, they all began with bush in 2008. Obama gave a stimulus package and a package to GM. Bush on the other hand bailed out banks without pursuing legal action into how it happened or on management, he bailed out GM and Chrysler. Bush gave something like 1-2trillion in bailouts.

at the end of bush’s reign of terror unemployment was already close to 8%...but yea thats Obama’s fault.

Jacob says:

01:16pm | 27/01/11

PD,

The point of the site is to have discussions, not have emprically valuable statistics.  Are we supposed to raise an issue, go away for a month and come back with adequate survey response to satisfy your needs?

At least Ryan and I are providing ‘some’ perspective.

You come here criticise and offer nothing to the debate.  Is that useful at all?

PD says:

02:38pm | 27/01/11

Jacob, pricking balloons full of BS like yours is a valuable contribution to the discussion. I know a few people in the US too, and I read news and commentary from there, but I’d be a fool to say that’s any guide to Obama’s fortunes this far out. Not even the statistically valid polls are.

Tom says:

03:23pm | 27/01/11

@KH, “100,000 people die every year because of their inability to access health care” source please? I bet you are either misquoting or quoting some spiv who has a lot of money to gain by increasing government spending in the health sector.

In your “civilised society”, how many die from overdoses? How many die in car accidents? How many die in shootings, stabbings and bashings? How many suicide? You seem to know these things.

What is the overlap between these events and your purported “inability to access health care”?

The problem with people like you is that you know only one thing which is how to spend other people’s money.

Jacob says:

08:14pm | 27/01/11

PD,

I wasn’t aware you were the gate keeper of freedom of speech in the country.  Please kindly provide details of where we forward our contributions for your evaluation as to whether they meet your lofty standards prior to publication.

This site is full of jackasses.

James1 says:

10:12am | 27/01/11

I highly doubt that Obama, or whoever succeeds him, will be able to do anything about the deficit without first inflating their way out of their debt problem.  The Republicans like to talk fiscal responsibility, but GW Bush was just as fiscally irresponsible of Obama is, and it seems unlikely that this situation will change.  I worry for the futures of my American friends.  By comparison to their last two leaders, Ms Gillard’s government looks positively responsible.

AdamC says:

10:29am | 27/01/11

James1, devaluation will be part of the story, but I see benefit cuts and tax increases as necessary too. While Obama clearly isn’t resigned to tough medecine just yet, much of the rest of the American political class, Democrat and Republican, is getting the picture.

James1 says:

10:47am | 27/01/11

Personally, I hope there is some kind of partisan consensus on spending cuts and tax increases in the US, as that is the only way it will happen.  Tax increases in particular are electoral suicide in the US, and unless both parties have tax increases and austerity measures as part of their campaign platform, tax increases will not happen.  I hope you are right about the Democrats and Republican seeing the light.

The pessimist in me expects a large part of the burden will be borne by inflating their currency, and this will cause pain for pretty much everyone else in the world.  Either way, interesting times ahead.

hot tub political machine says:

09:00am | 27/01/11

To my mind its all about the Horatio Alger myth. Many Americans really do believe it - and things like universal health care get in the way of it.

Many Americans would rather live in a nation with out a safety net but where the “self-made man” can get rich quick, than live in a nation which protects the “unworthy”. It something that we really don’t get as Aussies but is a big part of their culture (it is still to my mind, a minority view - but it is a fair chunk of their society).

AdamC says:

09:09am | 27/01/11

Cloud Strife, there are a number of reasons Americans oppose healthcare reforms. I think the main ones are that a) universal or socialised medicine will put a huge strain on the Federal budget (even the more limited ‘Obamacare’ programs are hugely expensive) and b) bureaucrats will direct resources as they see fit, leading to treatment delays, lack of paitent choice etc.

I think you also need to keep in mind that there has never been a great public demand for a system of public healthcare in the States, unlike in countries like Canada and the UK. Instead, it has been an obsession of the ‘liberal’ elite in the Democratic Party. I think voters everywhere are often sceptical of expensive, ‘top down’ reform proposals.

iansand says:

09:16am | 27/01/11

I watched a Republican spokesthing on Fox a week or so ago in Los Angeles.  Basically, his line was that they agree with the need for reform of the health care system, but that Obamacare is creeping socialism.  The opposition is ideological.

James1 says:

10:15am | 27/01/11

To add to what Adam says, almost every American I know does not see access to doctors and hospitals as a basic human right, like we do in Australia, and most other Western countries.  They see it as a privilege to be earned.  All of their other attitudes stem from this perception.

AdamC says:

10:49am | 27/01/11

There seems to be some regurgitation of anti-American stereotyping here. In reality, most of the ideological (as against general or practical) opposition to Obamacare were based around a) being forced to pay for something, health insurance, whether people wanted it or not, b) whether government insurance plans should be able to compete with private-sector plans and c) whether the programs might lead to ‘death panels’, in which clinicians and bureaucrats decided whether people would continue to receive treatment. 

While foreign observers fixate themslevs on the lack of universal health coverage, the biggest problem with US healthcare is cost. However, it is not all bad - wait times for treatment are much shorter in the US than many other places, for example.

James1, I don’t agree that access to doctors and hospitals is a ‘basic human right’. (I think that must be your socialism coming out again.) But I do think there are some benefits to having a basic system of universal healthcare.

James1 says:

11:17am | 27/01/11

Perhaps I should clear out the reds under my bed, Adam…

hot tub political machine says:

12:13pm | 27/01/11

Ah yes those whacko socialist and their belief in universal health care, like say the Liberal party…..

James1 says:

12:44pm | 27/01/11

I know that was a joke, htpm, but in terms of the US political spectrum the Liberal Party is quite socialist.  The definitions of left and right vary greatly between Australia and the US.

hot tub political machine says:

01:00pm | 27/01/11

That’s kinda what I was trying to say J1. I reckon the vast majority of Punchers who like to throw socialist out as an insult don’t realise they live under a socialist government regardless of which party is in power.

James1 says:

01:30pm | 27/01/11

Some of my American friends call us socialists with an absolutely straight face, htpm.  In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, this has not increased since the ALP won the 2007 election.

Darin says:

03:37pm | 27/01/11

Most Americans, both Democrat and Republican, support health insurance reforms, such as removing annual coverage caps (a limit a company has to pay out in healthcare costs to a client in a single year), the removal of pre-existing conditions exemptions (when you change insurance company they can’t reject claims on conditions you had prior to joining them), and fully covering all ilnesses including full cancer treatments and mental health treatment.  There is partisan debate over the role of employer-funded health insurance vs individuals purchasing their own policies.

However, a lot of Americans do not like the idea of expanding government run programs such as Medicaid (originally for persons on low income or with chronic illnesses) to cover people who can potentially afford to purchase their own insurance, while paying for it by cutting Medicare (for the elderly). They object to having to work and pay for insurance themselves, and then being taxed extra to pay for someone else.

Others object to the huge cost involved in what has been passed at a time of rising deficits and when existing entitlement programs are escalating in cost with no plans to keep them in check. In a similar way, others object to the huge cost that has not been funded, particularly the costs it will impose on states who fund the main share of Medicaid programs, and that the bill included provisions such as employers having to submit a form to the IRS everytime they spent over $600 dollars, or that a significant revenue raiser was a tax on tanning salons.

Greg says:

05:23pm | 27/01/11

There is the ideological reason of being told what they have to do by the government, and the increasing socialism and loss of freedom.

But mainly they don’t want to be forced to pay for insurance against their will, especially when they know that a minority of taxpayers will have to subsidise the majority who either don’t pay anything or underpay.

Insurers will not be allowed to refuse coverage to those with pre-existing illnesses. Free healthcare also gets abused and overused because it is free.

Insurance premiums will skyrocket, but people will be forced to pay them as they turn into mandatory taxes. That’s why Americans are so against so-called “health care reforms”. They will make a bad situation even worse.

The real problem with the US health industry and the cause of its huge costs is litigation risk, and the associated malpractice insurance.

Insurance companies mandate second and third opinions and medical tests to reduce and spead risk, which increase costs. But whenever there is a lawsuit, the legal costs, settlements and damages awards are astronomical. The health industry has to absorb all of these costs.

There is a very simple solution which would fix most of the cost issues with the US health industry - pass a federal law which mandates that all punitive damages get paid to the government rather than the plaintiff.

With the windfall incentive gone, lawsuits would plummet, and the savings will pass directly to insurance premiums and health care costs. Patients would win. Doctors and nurses would win. People who aren’t ill but pay for health insurance would win. Even insurance companies would win. But lawyers would lose.

Of course, US congress (just like most legislatures) is stacked with lawyers, who would never pass such a law.

jk says:

11:20am | 27/01/11

Christ, what an arsehole…

Grumpy says:

08:50am | 27/01/11

Whats so hard to understand about this? He was saying that America needs the kind of innovation in technology as it had with the space race. Yea i guess that is pretty hard to understand…if you didn’t listen to the entire speech.

Original Zac says:

09:37am | 27/01/11

I wish ideological comments like these will re-elect the Weather Undergrounder.

TimB says:

10:04am | 27/01/11

Speaking of nutters….

Richard says:

05:07pm | 27/01/11

Ron Paul, perennial contender in the Republican primaries, is a real dark horse. He is pretty much the revered old grandfather of the Tea Party movement, whilst his decades of experience as a congressmen will ensure that establishment Republicans are not too scared off by his candidacy.

Obama has no chance to retain office, because imo hyper-inflation will cause the US$ to completely implode before the end of 2012, and the political fallout from such a huge catastrophe as this will be inescapable.

James1 says:

12:31pm | 27/01/11

Don’t worry about why the left don’t like Palin - they would never vote Repbulican anyway.

You need to focus on why conservatives and independents in the US don’t like Sarah Palin.

Zac says:

12:10am | 28/01/11

James1,

Gov. Palin who is dumb and a ignorant lady to the left with no Ivy degree = intelligence = 9% unemployment and to top it all a PRIVATE CITIZEN, is consistently polling at 45+% two years ahead of the election. What does that tell you? No wonder the Dumbcrats are fuming?

James1 says:

10:17am | 28/01/11

It tells me that you seem to think a lack of education makes a person intelligent, and that anti-intellectualism is rife in the US if she polls 45 percent, which she doesn’t right now (more like 30 percent after she tried to paint herself as a victim after the shootings in Arizona).  Conservative politics has a rich intellectual tradition, stretching back to Burke, Mill, and beyond.  We should not turn our backs on this to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  There are so many good, intelligent, educated candidates that the GOP does not need to resort to this shallow populist who relies on slogans (much like Obama) to get her point across.

Original Zac says:

01:29pm | 28/01/11

Where have I stated “lack of education makes a person intelligent” don’t put words in my mouth. Sarah Palin has a bachelors in Journalism but the elephant (that some how escapes your intellect) in the room is this, only the Ivy industry is considered intelligent. So any one out side this industry is labelled anti-intellectual. So take up this issue with the Bamic forces.
Whatever % (that too one poll) makes you happy will have no effect on her in the long term. She still polls above 45+. So watch out buddy. The so called intelligent and intolerant lefties attacked Gov. Palin and she defended herself, so that to you is “paint herself as a victim”. She is a power to be reckoned with, tell me other wise why would the Bamic forces attack her.

Ivy education will not make a person intelligent and will NOT solve a nations problems or challenges, Obama is a proof of that. All it is does is make a person educated with a ideological bend. Obama’s associations and belief systems should tell you that. The attacks I listed in my main comment and others examples of liberal hate against Gov. Palin should tell you it is the liberals who appeal to the lowest common denominator.

There are so many good, intelligent, educated candidates that the GOP does not need to resort to this shallow populist who relies on slogans (much like Obama) to get her point across.>>

It is the good, intelligent and educated - mainly democrats - that caused GFC, not the garbage collectors or train drivers. Gov. Palin is offering alternative policy’s, what’s wrong with that. It is a market place of ideas. Why fear? Then again did slogans - hopey/changey - help Obama secure the presidency, yes it did with the media’s help and skin colour.

Blazes says:

11:27am | 27/01/11

Exactly, Tommy - Obama is the classic case of the triumph of spin and empty rhetoric over substance and tough policy decisions. It will be his undoing in 2012.

James1 says:

11:46am | 27/01/11

Correct up to a point.  John McCain had substance, until he nominated his VP candidate…

AussieJazzman says:

04:06pm | 28/01/11

I think one of the biggest mistakes of the first two years of the Obama campaign was his handling of the health care bill.  The bill contained some very substantial provisions to lower the cost of health care to Americans and broaden the coverage they are offered.  However, these positive moves largely come into place beyond 2014, and the details of what they do was drowned out by nonsensical (but well-coordinated) screams of DEATH PANELS from the Right.  Assuming the Bill survives the constitutional challenge being launched at it, it should provide results over the long term.  The long term nature of those benefits is probably the biggest hurdle to widespread acceptance of the bill (despite the fact that most people support the measures in the bill when presented to them individually).

The other thing you overlook is how vicious the Republican primaries are going to be.  Whilst I agree with your assessment that Palin probably won’t win, the large and vocal minority who support her will attempt to tear to shreds anyone who dares criticise St Sarah.  The impact that this name-calling and intensely personal campaign will have on the willingness of independents to vote Republican will determine the chances of the eventual nominee.  The danger for the Republicans (keeping in mind I don’t want them to win) is that the conservative purists will drag the nominee to the right, or at least force them to attach a Sarah Palin-esque VP to the ticket.

James says:

03:16pm | 27/01/11

Excellent contribution. The last para is 100% spot on.There is nothing more damaging than to have someone in charge who can inflict great damage but on the surface looks the goods. He is all style, no substance.

Ziggy says:

03:20pm | 27/01/11

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc had nothing to do with the Republican Party - it was an all Democrat effort from start to woe. And they still don’t understand what they did! Really scary - and many democrats had their grubby littler fingers in that pie.

Greg says:

05:39pm | 27/01/11

The main cause of the GFC (phase one) was sub-prime loans. This was where people (mostly minorities) who could not afford to make their mortgage payments were given large loans anyway.

Why? Because the Democrats wanted to buy some extra votes from low income people, so they changed the laws to allow the banks to sell on more sub-prime loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The then Senator Obama voted for this. The banks gave loans to anybody with a pulse. There was a huge housing bubble, and then a huge collapse.

Of course the Republicans did nothing to stop all this, because the Democrats would have accused them of racism if they stopped minorities from buying houses and “achieving the American dream”.

There is no doubt that Bush was a disaster as a president. Worse than any who came before him. But Obama is worse again. In his state of the union speech yesterday, Obama said that he’ll add 75% to the nation’s official national debt - three times more than all the presidents who came before him put together (including Bush).

I think that ibast needs to put his tinfoil hat back on.

ibast says:

02:47pm | 27/01/11

I’ve taken to wearing an aluminium foil hat so they can’t read my mind.

hot tub political machine says:

02:58pm | 27/01/11

ibast I you nearly made me lose it at my work desk. Please try to be less funny.

Stop the illuminati says:

02:23pm | 28/01/11

You just wait ibast. We will defeat you secret commies, Obama will not win the next election.