Has Obama worn out his welcome? Democrats are starting to turn on him as well?

[capt278]

Re: "Republicans won't let it happen:" The last time the country has seen obstructionism and rancor at this heightened level was probably the 1850s.

 

Are you saying that the Repubs are the only ones obstructing and full of rancor? If so, you are delusional.

[All Tell]

Re: "Republicans won't let it happen:" The last time the country has seen obstructionism and rancor at this heightened level was probably the 1850s.

 

Yes you are that delusional. I don't remember GWB being welcomed with open arms by Dems after he was elected nor do I remember the Dems being particularly willing to "work with" Bush. Are you so in the bag for Obama and the left that you are willing to revise history to suit your needs?

[Run To State]

Are you saying that the Repubs are the only ones obstructing and full of rancor? If so, you are delusional.

I can answer that. Yes, that is what he/she believes. From radio to TV to general public to media to politicians, it's only one side causing all the problems as is evident from his/her posts.

[Twotoplace]

Yes you are that delusional. I don't remember GWB being welcomed with open arms by Dems after he was elected nor do I remember the Dems being particularly willing to "work with" Bush. Are you so in the bag for Obama and the left that you are willing to revise history to suit your needs?

"Delusional" is failing to acknowledge that (a) yes, obstructionism most definitely is a GOP tactic because (b) if you don't toe the line either Wayne LaPierre or Rand Paul and his Tea Party crowd will (1) oppose you in the next primary and (2) pump millions of bucks into your primary opponent's campaign.

 

Re: "... so in the bag for Obama ...": I proudly voted for Obama in '08, in '12 and will do so again in '16.

[All Tell]

Before you get to high on your moral horse let's look at the strange case of Joe Liberman. He was the Dems choice to run for VP in 2000. Then when he didn't "toe the line" regarding the Iraqi war he was opposed in the Democratic Senate primary in 2006 and lost to Ned Lamont. He was re-elected as an Independent while the support of the Democratic Party went to Lamont. Sure seems like the Dems have used the same tactic that you condemned in your previous post. And FYI Obama can't run again in 2016 but I'm sure you have already decided that you will vote for the Dem regardless. Way to be an informed and open minded voter. That's the definition of IN THE BAG.

Edited April 20, 2013 by All Tell

[bugatti]

Doesn't ever President generally wear out their welcome? Numbers show that most President's leave on a lot less favorable terms than when they take the White House. I do not believe the President is some kind of decedent of the devil on a Muslim crusade to bring down America like many believe, his vision is just pretty far reaching from traditional American culture and beliefs. I believe he has been used to controlling situations by being the "smartest person in the room" and people loving his personality and demeanor, but it has not translated like he fully believed it would with all Americans.

[Bluegrasscard]

I proudly voted for Obama in '08, in '12 and will do so again in '16.

 

So will the 22nd be changed legally or ignored or what?

[Twotoplace]

Before you get to high on your moral horse let's look at the strange case of Joe Liberman. He was the Dems choice to run for VP in 2000. Then when he didn't "toe the line" regarding the Iraqi war he was opposed in the Democratic Senate primary in 2006 and lost to Ned Lamont. He was re-elected as an Independent while the support of the Democratic Party went to Lamont. Sure seems like the Dems have used the same tactic that you condemned in your previous post. And FYI Obama can't run again in 2016 but I'm sure you have already decided that you will vote for the Dem regardless. Way to be an informed and open minded voter. That's the definition of IN THE BAG.

Actually, I've voted for more Republicans than Dems over the years, but it's a little hard to do so today, especially since the GOP has moved so far to the right. By the way, for those of you who want to read more about the 1850s vis-a-vis what's going on today, better do so fast. The Tea Party is now setting its sights on the Northern Kentucky libraries.

[Randy Parker]

I do not believe the President is some kind of decedent of the devil on a Muslim crusade to bring down America like many believe, his vision is just pretty far reaching from traditional American culture and beliefs. I believe he has been used to controlling situations by being the "smartest person in the room" and people loving his personality and demeanor, but it has not translated like he fully believed it would with all Americans.

 

Bingo.

[75center]

Re: "Republicans won't let it happen:" The last time the country has seen obstructionism and rancor at this heightened level was probably the 1850s.

 

You're kidding, right?

[75center]

As to the question in the thread title, I think many second term presidents have seen their plans pull apart from their party's goals. They do not need to worry about re-election so are more free to pursue courses they feel are right vs what will get them elected again.

[75center]

"Delusional" is failing to acknowledge that (a) yes, obstructionism most definitely is a GOP tactic because (b) if you don't toe the line either Wayne LaPierre or Rand Paul and his Tea Party crowd will (1) oppose you in the next primary and (2) pump millions of bucks into your primary opponent's campaign.

 

Re: "... so in the bag for Obama ...": I proudly voted for Obama in '08, in '12 and will do so again in '16.

 

You do recall "the party of no" being applied to the Democrats several years ago, right?

[Twotoplace]

You're kidding, right?

No. Not kidding. Fascinating decade in American history, the 1850s. Whig Party of the early 1850s, like the GOP today, was split in two factions. Whigs were smart. They scuttled the party, then the northern anti-slavery faction re-invented itself as the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint, the Republicans today might be wise to follow the example of the Whigs -- jettison the Tea Party, reorganize under a new name, then move more to the center and attract the 40% of American voters who consider themselves neither conservative nor liberal, but who mostly voted for Obama in '08 and '12.

[Twotoplace]

So will the 22nd be changed legally or ignored or what?

My apologies. The '16 reference was a baited hook ... a set-up to a joke that, on second thought, wouldn't fly here.

[Run To State]

Actually, I've voted for more Republicans than Dems over the years, but it's a little hard to do so today, especially since the GOP has moved so far to the right. By the way, for those of you who want to read more about the 1850s vis-a-vis what's going on today, better do so fast. The Tea Party is now setting its sights on the Northern Kentucky libraries.

This is how you get labeled one-sided. How in the world can you talk about the GOP moving so far to the right and totally ignore the fact the the Democrats have moved equally as far to the left? It makes no sense that you would vote Republican so often and quit because of how far right they moved and then vote for a party guilty of going the same thing in the opposite direction. I would think you would vote third party instead of Republican or Democrat.