10 Reasons Why Obama is in Meltdown

The sad part is that you can only find open and honest articles like that in foreign newspapers.  The American MSM will not touch their golden boy.

I wonder when/if realization will (ever) set in? When exactly does self-preservation kick in? Or will they continue to deteriorate into irrelevance? 

It's probably the first installment in a series of articles. Really, that's just scratching the surface of Obammy's ineptitude.

Since we do still some what live in a capitalist society they'll (ie MSM) eventually have to acknowledge conservatives since all things being said most people are a little to the right of the middle on the political spectrum and so advertising revenue would increase if they target this audience.  Unless they (ie MSM) are waiting for the bailout.

I'm not totally for Republicans getting elected.  I want fiscal Constitutional Conservatives to be.

Anthony, don't you remember the drama this started the last time you said that (ie the bold part) 

I like the comment that happened to be at the top:

That's pretty much how I see it.

The neocons were widely condemned by the left and right, but George Bush's administration had some major foreign policy successes (Israel and Arabs talked, civil wars ended in Liberia and southern Sudan, liberation of Iraq, east-European countries showing extreme loyalty to the US, United Kingdom supporting the US with man power and diplomatically; the list goes on and on).

However, I don't see an alternative to Obama. Republicans will likely run Sarah Palin against him, still not realising that moderates and liberals simply won't vote for her and those Republicans who have a very good standing among liberals are increasingly trying to become Palin-like because Republicans think that winning a primary is close to winning the election when in reality winning a primary is for all practical purposes the opposite of winning the election.

What the Democrats pulled off, a candidate who was both a favourite in primaries and in the elections, is only possible with major support by the media. Republicans don't have such corporate support.

What happened in the US was mainly the left's fault. They were all so sure that everything Bush did was wrong (and racist) that they didn't notice that for eight years they had a moderate administration that really did stand exactly between the right and the left.

With Bush's engagement in Africa he did more for civil rights than any President since Lincoln and with a democratic government in Iraq Bush did more for peace in the middle east than even Bill Clinton (who really did excellent work on that issue).

 

I'd like to know what your definition of "neocon" is Leauki. Some define it as big spending Bush era, 'compassionate conservatism" Ron Paul coined the term and he and his followers are  big opponents of Israel. They all went as far to boo Mike Pence when he vowed support for the Jewish state. So the word neocon holds some code for  most of the people who use it.

I'm old enough to remember Carter. Americans were ready to vote for Mickey Mouse at the end of his first term. I suspect the current President will get the same treatment after his disastrously failed and economically devastating term. I can't think of one good thing Obama has done for America. Can anyone name a good thing Obama has done? (crickets chirping).

I don't know what "compassionate conservatism" is, but I define as "neocon" ("neo-conservative") those who stand in the tradition of Irving Kristol, who coined the term.

Ron Paul is pretty much the opposite of a neocon. And I don't think I ever let anybody doubt about my position regarding the Crazy Uncle and the Paulians.

Neo-conservatism, as I see it, is application of traditional values to the modern world while realising which of those values aren't.

The spirit of neo-conservatism:

"The trouble with traditional American conservatism is that it lacks a naturally cheerful, optimistic disposition. Not only does it lack one, it regards signs of one as evidence of unsoundness, irresponsibility."

"I have observed over the years that the unanticipated consequences of social action are always more important, and usually less agreeable, than the intended consequences."

"An intellectual may be defined as a man who speaks with general authority about a subject on which he has no particular competence."

"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions -- it only guarantees equality of opportunity."

"The liberal paradigm of regulation and license has led to a society where an 18-year-old girl has the right to public fornication in a pornographic movie -- but only if she is paid the minimum wage."

"It is ironic to watch the churches, including large sections of my own religion, surrendering to the spirit of modernity at the very moment when modernity itself is undergoing a kind of spiritual collapse."

"Young people, especially, are looking for religion so desperately that they are inventing new ones. They should not have to invent new ones; the old religions are pretty good."

(All quotes by Irving Kristol.)

Basically it's an ideology that uses traditional values and a strong military to protect modernity. I believe (and neo-cons believe) that the rights of homosexuals are best defended by a US marine with traditional values, for the simple reason that those who claim to be progressive won't defend our freedoms.



Well, in defence of Obama, he has increased aid to Israel. But he seems to be more willing to help Israel prepare for war than to speak up before there is a need for war. And that worries me greatly.

And so far Obama has been a lot better than Carter.

I have a specific bone to pick with Carter because he allowed Iran to fall to the enemy. Carter didn't realise the immense importance of the Iranian monarchy to the world and we have all paid for that stupidity. Smart Europeans speak of American arrogance and claim to find it among politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But in reality it was Jimmy Carter who was so arrogant and so convinced that nothing outside America is of any importance that he didn't realise what everybody knew before and after his administration, that Iran is important.

Basically neo-cons are those right-wing politicians who have done the correct thing often enough to be considered part of the Jewish conspiracy by intellectual idiots.

 

Ideally you are correct.  However, we see what is happening already.  They are not acknowledging anything.  They are merely going out of business.  In other words, they are the blind faithful.  The ultimate damage of their betrayal of trust will be a completely polarized press - with one side reporting the conservative view and the other reporting the liberal view.  And the only people that will be informed are those that have to sift through both views to get at the truth.

 

One quick definition of neo-conservatism might be this: It's an alliance of the anti-communist left with the anti-fascist right.

Neo-conservatives are socialists hostile to the Sovet-Union and China and capitalists hostile to fascism and segregation.

 

Harry Truman set a standard that will never be broken in this country - the Buck Stops here.  But in reality, the president can propose, cajole, pontificate, or excoriate congress about domestic issues,  But Congress has the first and last word on that.  So a president's legacy falls heavily on his performance on Foreign issues.  In that Bush did well, and Obama has failed miserably.

However, whomever these mythical Neocons are can try all they want to to "revitalize" Bush's reputation.  Most conservatives however will be content to forget the mistakes of the Bush president as they are eclipsed by the boners of Obama, and build towards the future to get us out of this mess.

Sidebar - Do the English really spell Tsunami without the T?

LOL - you do say the darnedest things at times.  Carer failed in 2 areas of government - Foreign and leadership.  Obama has failed in all.  And in only 2 years to boot.

Never before heard of the spelling.

 

I doubt she runs, unless something drastically changes.

The Democrats are scared to death, to the point of being in favor of many things the Republicans and Conservatives are. they are willing to go against the President in order to save their butts at this point. Obama seems to not have much concern as I assume since he will still be President for a few more years after these elections he will simply spend the next few years blaming the Republicans or Conservatives for his failures as they control the House and possibly (not sure of this yet) the Senate. This will be the moment when Democrats will blame Congress and the Senate for everything they blamed Bush for before and they will completely ignore the fact that Democrats were in charge even before Obama came along and ran for President. What will be even more interesting is how the Democrats will not accept the whole "we got this mess from the previous Congress and Senate" bit that Republicans are likely to throw around and will instead argue that it's now in the Republicans hand so they are now responsible after they win in the 2010 elections.

They have a word for that.  It is called hypocrisy, and they are hypocrites.

So who will run?

I think moderates now want a conservative candidate, and by "conservative" I mean "normal"; something in the general Bill Clinton - George H. W. Bush - Ronald Reagan region. Someone who will run the economy as it used to be done but is totally open to gay marriage and other new causes. And it seems to me like Americans want a somewhat stronger foreign policy than current.

 

I don't believe we'll know until the first or second quarter of next year. Why announce early so the Democrats can use their favorite "return to the Bush policy" syndrome and attempt to drum that into the voters heads. Palin is doing a good job as a moving target. Like her or not (and I know you don't) people are getting fed up with the mindless bashing of her, so it could only help.

As for a candidate "totally open to gay marriages and other new causes"... this is irrelevant. The people don't want pandering, they want jobs. I haven's seen a plethora of rainbow flags on the tea party footage. IMO the majority of people are tired of special interests seeking additional rights. I'm not sure if what you speak of polls in the top ten among conservatives. These things, as far as president goes, amounts to lip service to appease core voters, as this administration demonstrates. It is the farthest thing from the average Joe's mind in this economy. I doubt that many of the folks concern by gay issues will cross party lines anyway, as they traditionally vote to the left. It would seem a big risk to a conservative, in an attempt to capture a non-traditional voting block with promises they have minimal control over, to isolate more solid supporters that are concerned with jobs and the debt.

I believe both left and right are fed up with the foreign policy. Burnt out after almost 10 years of war (more if you count the failings in the 90's to respond to the threat when it was more manageable). But yes I think people want to feel like the gov. knows what they are doing and not being lead by the nose by every despot that pops their head up.

Job, economy, debt... that is the three main things the challenger needs to focus on with a good plan.

LOL - Sorry, Reagan does not belong with the others.  I hope we get a Reagan II, but as Nitro indicates, we will not know for almost a year.

Let's see who rises to the top.  Any speculation is simply a crap shoot at this point.

Nitro, they need to be open, otherwise liberals won't vote for them. Liberals will happily vote for a candidate who is against gay marriage (like Obama), but they won't vote for one whom they they cannot present to their friends as an "open-minded" candidate.

Guy, Reagan belongs with them. They are a list of real-world presidents pre-George W. Bush. I am not saying they are the same, just that they all fit into the general type of normal candidate people will want after Obama. Whatever his shortcomings, Bill Clinton knew what was going on in the world.

 

Perfect.

I believe Newt Gingrich is running.  He can say that he helped balance the budget since he was the majority leader when there came a surplus as well, for its funny how every says Clinton balanced the budget. Don't get me wrong, Clinton did do his part.

I think the Democrates will have some opposition on their side as well.  The problem is that its never good if one party controls everything, which could happen if the Democrats lose the house.  The 2000s have been essentially almost that. 

I hope one of the parties divides to stop this monster known as the two party system.  If there was ever a monopoly it is this. 

Leauki, gay marriage is not that big of an issue.  Its only made to seem like a big issue.  Probably less than 10% of the population is gay and that's a very liberal number (I've read that number some where).  I haven't had time to respond to your email, but I will, LORD willing.

Nitro, you forgot the border up there which falls under immigration mostly illegal immigration.  Unless you think it'll be resolved by 2012.

You'd have to show me proof that any liberal will vote for a conservative to begin with (not to be confused with Democrats). Liberals make up about 20% of the population. Liberals want more spending on programs and entitlements, why vote for someone that would put an end to that? Perhaps there are some liberals against gay marriage (I would believe those would be rare), but as I said the key is jobs, and who the majority of folks believe can deliver that. I just don't feel that gay marriages will snap the economy back, so it is not a pressing election issue for anyone but the activists. The best that could occur would be for liberals (and progressives) to stay home on election day, as many conservatives did in 2008. Conservatives were angry about the Republicans shift away to progressiveness. The left didn't seem to like it much either, considering how much they still blame Bush. I guess they are only happy when they are the ones spending out of control.

True, I didn't mention the boarder directly, but I view that issue as an economic one. The cost of doing nothing is huge. I am aware that the left wants to make it a race issue. I'll stick to it being economic with national security overtones. Jobs are still #1 IMO. Conservatives usually put more emphasis on matters of national security, independents a bit less, and liberals almost nil.

Newt Gingrich is not terrible. I think he managed to keep his reputation as it was in the 90s, which is now a good thing.

 

You misunderstand. Gay marriage was never a big issue and I am not saying that it is. Being "open" towards gay marriage is a big issue to liberals. Liberals are very much into words. That's why they can vote for an anti-gay-marriage President. But they will not vote for a "closed-minded" anti-gay-marriage President because that would feel wrong.

Liberals certainly prefer Obama over Dick Cheney or Mrs Bush (both of whom came out in favour of gay marriage). So gay marriage is not a major issue for them, at least not in elections.

However, liberals do need an "open" President, someone who they reasonably (in their world) can claim is nearly in favour of gay marriage and only holds back because evil Christians would not vote for him if he came out (in favour).

Bill Clinton was such a candidate. Even Ronald Reagan would qualify. And so would Mitt Romney and a few Republicans.