Posts Tagged ‘election 2012’

We knew the Mosque issue was going to be all over the news.

Morning Joe has been a shield in front of the president all Morning vocally defending the president without hesitation on the NY Mosque issue.

But defense is not enough so they decided to counterattack, however Who they choose to attack says a lot about what they think.

This weekend on on Facebook Sarah Palin said this:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

A clear, lucid statement from one of the leading contenders if not THE leading contender for the Republican Nomination in 2012. A person who was on a National Ticket just 2 years ago.

Normally Sarah Palin means views and hits so naturally they would be injecting her whenever possible…

…but this statement would win votes, so we can’t have that.

Instead they are going after Newt Gingrich for saying it is like “putting a Swastika next to the Holocaust museum” (they don’t manage to quote him saying: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” too many people would get that), and are touting him both as a voice of intolerance and as the republican front runner.

Let’s cut to the chase. Newt Gingrich is no more going to be the Republican nominee in 2012 that I am. These people know this, but pretend otherwise.

This is simply political cover, cover for Obama’s statements and covering up Sarah Palin’s statements so a weak White House doesn’t have to respond.

Unimpeachable logic

Posted: August 12, 2010 by datechguy in elections, oddities
Tags: , , , ,

The “official” story as to why Biden was chosen for VP was that Michelle Obama didn’t want Hillery Clinton on the ticket and thanks to John McCain’s implosion (despite Sarah Palin’s best efforts) it turns out she wasn’t needed.

Now the talk is again of putting Clinton on the ticket in 2012 and Glenn Reynolds gives three reasons against. Can anyone explain why #3 would have been any less valid in 2008.

3. If Hillary is going to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office, would you want that to be your heartbeat?

I got no answer to that one.

Ezra looks at the trend lines on President Obama and thinks liberals are worrying needlessly:

But so far as the polls go, Obama is doing okay among the left. In fact, as the graph below shows (click on it for a larger version), his approval trends among Democrats, independents and the country mirror Ronald Reagan’s ratings among Republicans, independents and the country almost exactly.

Tell you what Ezra lets make a bet. I’m a little hard up but I’m confident enough to make this wager:

You say Obama’s poll lines mirror Reagan’s? Fine. I’ll pay you $500 for every state Regain lost (including DC) in 1984 that Obama wins in 2012. You pay me $500 for every state that Obama loses in 2012 that Reagan won in 1984.

Or if those odds are too long for your trend lines, How about I pay you $10 per electoral vote that Obama gets in 2012 over Reagan’s total in 1984 and you pay me $5 for every electoral vote under Reagan’s 1984 total Obama wins in 2012. I’m broke and unemployed but I don’t mind giving you odds.

How about it Ezra, wanna put your money where your graph is?

Update: If any of you other liberals want to put your money where your confidence is come pony up

That is the answer to her piece about one terms presidents.

Winning may not be the only thing, but in politics, it’s the thing that makes everything else possible.

That is actually a pretty solid statement and the next two are significant as well:

Being a one-term president is a badge of failure, not success, even if it comes by being true to your convictions.

Being a one-term president means that, for the next term, someone who rejects those convictions will be making the decisions that count. How can that be a good thing?

KingGold not withstanding she makes an important point (remember Polk didn’t run for re-election) you need both convictions and the willingness and ability to make your case to the American People to succeed in the White House. The fact that Polk comes to mind so quickly makes her case since when you have only a single exception to prove a rule false, it’s usually a pretty good general rule. (There is also Grover Cleveland who after losing due to following his convictions defeated the person who beat him four years later.) Her argument fails for a totally different reason; she is making the wrong case.

Susan thinks the problem is being so true to his convictions, that people are forgetting the second part of the equation here.

She is misreading these people, the leftists lionizing one term presidency are trying to make lemonade out of lemons.

The problem is not that president Obama doesn’t know how to make a case to the American People, he does, it’s that he has made his case for months and America has rejected it.

They have rejected it not because he didn’t make it properly, but because if you put dogfood on a cracker and call it Hors d’œuvres, no matter how you sell it, it’s still tastes like dogfood on a cracker.