http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/startling_puzzle_of_second_chance_cxxElURqa4qJcemaCaLjII
Startling puzzle of O’s second chance
- Last Updated: 7:45 AM, November 7, 2012
- Posted: 3:00 AM, November 7, 2012
Michael Goodwin
- he pulled unemployment from almost 10% to about 7.9
Go figure. I’ll always be proud of my country, but Obama’s victory defies political logic and economic reality.
- Regan had similar unemployment but the trend mattered.
It was a stunning personal triumph for a president who was ripe for a downfall.
Now comes the hard part. The presidency is a singular institution in our democracy, and Obama too often showed himself unable to bear its unique burdens in the last four years.
He set a partisan tone right out of the gate when, in a showdown over the stimulus, he rejected Republican ideas and declared, “I won.”
- by the standard, how would describle Mitch Michonnels statement that his only agenda is to make Obama one term president?
It was a moment of chest-thumping bravado that helped poison the well.
- Guess what, most voters still blame Bush for it? And actually, right so. Do you really believe that if Bush were in office during these four years we would be where we are now? The guy had bad economic record even before Great Recession.
His foreign policy is stuck between dithering and dishonesty, and, counter to his self-aggrandizing promises, the world doesn’t love us more because he is at the helm.
- depends what is the objective of the foreign policy. Is it the outcomes or the style? If he does it in a passive way, leads from behind, so be it! He killed Bin Laden without inviding any country with the help of Navy seals, deposed of Kadaffi without single injury / loss of life . In other words, if optics are bad, but he accomplishes his goals cheaply without loss of american life, so what? Isn't every single american live worth more than US looking strong and dominant?
- As of death of Ambassador Stevens - how about killing of Marines during Regan presidency? If we gave Regan a pass, why we cannot give Obama a pass?
The facts of the state of our union, then, do not explain last night’s results. Nor is it sufficient or fair to say Mitt Romney lost an election he should have won.
Yes, Romney made mistakes, chiefly being too timid for too long. But he proved to be a perfectly fine candidate down the stretch, performed brilliantly in the first debate and surged into the lead in many national polls.
- mind you, it was because of multiple lies and changes of positions. He did not offer that he will send everybody Christmas Card this year but if that was politically beneficially you can be sure he would have promised it!
But he could never put together a clear path to 270 electoral votes, coming tantalizingly close but failing to make the final sale in too many swing states.
- one word: demographics.
So give the devil his due.
- remember that it was republican party who demonized him: a lot of Republicans still believe he is Muslim and not born as American. So he is created "devil" ... on fox news network.
Obama wins a second term when gravity says he shouldn’t have. He campaigned from beginning to end with grit and more determination than message.
He and associated groups spent over $100 million in TV ads attacking Romney’s character and tenure at Bain Capital. But Obama did not win because he destroyed Romney or because a majority believes in his agenda. He won because enough voters still believe in him with a quasi religious fervor, making the actual content of many of his policies largely irrelevant to them.
- I think it is still better than Republicans supporting people who think that women have some magical way to stop becoming pregnant when rapped (see Tod Aikin), or that there is something like a "forceable rape" (see Paul Ryan). So maybe it is better to have faith in something than be ignorant facts and science. But ignorance may be a bliss so I do not blame people for it.
Strangely transfixed by his remote and haughty aura, they believe that, even without a real coherent economic plan, life will somehow get better for them if only they follow him.
- on the other hand, can you or anybody explain Romeny's economic plan? How his numbers added up? I understand that there are many scenarios, so let's discuss the best possibility that Romney though will be able to get?
For others, his “likability” edge made up for Romney’s advantage on the all-important economic issues. Life’s not fair, and the idea that likability trumps competence, in the Oval Office no less, strikes me as absurd, yet there it is in 21st century America.
- life is surely not fair, but in the same way Kerry lost to Bush in 2004: most people remember Kerry as flip-flopper without core who would not be strong enough to defend america. I think he was much superior candidae than Bush, true war Veteran and skilled politician. Well, you win some and you loose some. I think Bush in 2004 had a much bigger challenge with two wars and downward trend in the economy and yet he won.
- how do we know that Romney is competent? His campaign was worse than Obama's, especially he organization to get the votes, so in this respect in terms of managing large group of people, giving them direction, and motivating them, I think Obama was clearly more competent. And isn't it what we expect from the president?
Of course, Obama did have a message for those who feel left out of the American dream. He told them they had been cheated, that the nation was rigged against them and that he would soak the rich and redistribute their wealth. The first term proved he meant it, with a surge in disability benefits, food stamps, bailouts and class warfare, so we’re likely to get more of the same
- actually, increase in welfare benefits is cyclical and corresponds to recessions. It would have happened under any president. It is a valid question about the degree though.
It’s not a happy prospect or even a mandate, but we shall see if the president can work with the Republican House to change the nation’s course.
- so let's flip it - if Romney would win by a small margin, would that be a happy prospect and a mandate? These are the rules both candidates agreed upon, so now questioning them is quite pointless.
He rarely did in the first term, and that is a luxury he no longer enjoys. He now must be president instead of just running for the office.
The challenges are numerous and urgent. Our nation is treading water, at home and abroad. Decline is not inevitable, but neither is it a given that we will get our mojo back.
Despite his many talents, Obama showed no talent for uniting and moving the country forward in his first term. He gets another chance and, frankly, I would be surprised if he does much better this time.
Happily surprised, absolutely, but still surprised.
- I hope you know the saying: you need TWO to tango. So before blaming Obama, we need to ask if the other side was cooperative. Well, how many times House passed the same bill to repeal Obamacare? They knew it goes nowhere, they knew it will lead to nothing, and they never even condider compromise. I think it is exhibit one that House was so stuck that was steping on the toes of President Obama when they tried to dance political tango.
mgoodwin@nypost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment