Obama's challenge

  • Article by: The Economist
  • Updated: September 2, 2012 - 6:44 PM

Obama's first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks.

  • 14
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
demdisasterSep. 1, 12 6:14 PM

It is not obama's fault. It is the fault of those that voted for an unqualified and incompetent candidate. They voted for Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. Had Hillary been nominated and elected we would most likely have been well on the way to economic recovery and respect within the world. Why? Why did you people reject a seasoned, intelligent, talented and educated candidate for someone who could mutter "Hope and Change" as his platform, provide no details and had no past?

13
18
allhailfsmSep. 1, 12 6:49 PM

Pointing out that the GOP will do everything they can to continue to destroy Obama is hardly an argument for Romney. Romney has a simple plan for America, base on his business experience:

1. Harvest profit centers and sell them off... Privatize the postal Service, education, healthcare and military

2 Liquidate Assets. Sell off federal lands and mineral rights.

3. Reduce payroll by laying off personnel = shrink government by getting rid of public employees (teachers,firemen, policemen, postal workers,FDA inspectors etc )

4.Get rid of pension plans medicare, medicaid and social security to reduce overhead.

5 Provide dividends to key investors for continued support = massive tax cuts to the .0001%ers funding his campaign and buying congress.

For 25 years in international business they have ruined one company after another doing this. They don't build anything... just pick the bones clean and take the money and run.

19
12
pumiceSep. 1, 12 7:01 PM

From the article: "Worn down by the difficulties of office, the great reformer has become a cautious man, surrounded by an insular group of advisers." Exactly, Economist! Four years ago, President Obama spent most of his campaign time out in the fresh air with regular voters. Citizens United changed that--so far this year, he's spent most of his campaign time in the rarefied air of Big Money donors, far from the lives and concerns of ordinary voters. And to what end? Mitt Romney's going to win the money race.

We regular folk are sending in contributions of $3, maybe $10. Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand, has already contributed $50 million, including two ten-million-dollar contributions to Republican Super PACS. Adelson met with Paul Ryan four days after he was chosen to be Romney's running mate for what was characterized as a "finance event" ... definitely NOT a fundraiser. Charles and David Koch are planning to funnel $400 million into Republican coffers. Middle class small-businesspeople and workers can't match Big Money, but we've got the advantage of numbers. I'll cancel Adelson's vote. Who's got the Koch's?

17
11
pumiceSep. 1, 12 7:58 PM

Advice from the Economist: "First, a negative campaign may well fail." Tell us what you've done, Mr. President. And tell us what you're going to do. The Economist calls Paul Ryan a "fount of bold ideas." I think Paul Ryan's fount is simply Ayn Rand's Fountainhead redux--the triumph of individualism over collectivism. The choice is clear: "We built this" vs "We built this together."

"Second, ... a re-elected Obama will need the strength that comes from a convincing agenda." Tell us your agenda, Mr. President. Remember, there's strength in numbers.

And, third, it is not just Obama who needs a plan. America does, too. Exactly! You led us back from the brink of Great Depression II, but a Recovery takes hard work. Put us to work, Mr. President.

14
5
pdxtranSep. 1, 12 9:18 PM

The Economist is written by mostly young Thatcher-stye Conservatives in London. Of course they're going to be for Paul Ryan's budget. Their own Conservative Party has gone full-bore for austerity and privatization, and never mind that their economy has gone back into recession. The writers of the Economist are ideologues and are not swayed by little things like facts.

14
10
omnipresentSep. 2, 1212:09 AM

This Congress agreed before Day One to block, obstruct or otherwise make impossible anything Obama tried to do to aid the economy, then turned around and wholly blamed him for not getting more done. This same Congress placed thwarting Obama as a far higher priority than what was good for the country. This plan was formed even before he won the office and implemented across the board - even voting against their own former positions/policies. If it had Obama's support, they'd kill or block it. These fascists did not go to Washington to work with the other party to create solutions or even to govern; they went there to make sure nothing could get done. No other president in history has faced this all-out obstructionism and the country has paid a heavy price for this. It's unconscionable.

11
8
briechersSep. 2, 12 8:58 AM

The key to avoiding a depression was done by the Federal Reserve and TARP before the President took office...liquidity.

4
4
whallingSep. 2, 12 8:59 AM

Do not be led astray to think that Obama could do no harm as a lame duck for 4 years if the GOP controlled Congress. Obama has stated that he will "work around" Congress and has done so effectively, witness his recent executive order to remove the requirement for welfare recipients to do any work. He put his czars in place with no Congressional oversight to do his bidding "around Congress". He uses government departments to issue thousands of rules and regulations without Congress. He has basically shut down the coal industry with no Congressional involvement. The appointments of judges and committee members in many cases can be done without Congressional oversight. The point is, Obama can continue his socialization of America with or without a DFL Congress.

5
10
PrivateSep. 2, 1210:52 AM

I would have more respect for the author if the expression "lame duck" were used correctly. A lame duck is an officeholder who has been replaced by the voters but continues in office until the new one is sworn in. If Obama wins he won't be a lame duck but a president with a mandate to protect social security, Medicare, move the country toward universal health coverage and continue a successful foreign policy. His opponent is pretty much the opposite.

10
5
pumiceSep. 2, 1211:34 AM

Re: "If Obama wins he won't be a lame duck but a president with a mandate to protect social security, Medicare, move the country toward universal health coverage and continue a successful foreign policy." Sunday morning talk shows are focused on Mitt Romney's assertion that "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job [Barack Obama's] done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him." Your statement is the best response of all I've heard or read to Romney's intimation that the Electorate doesn't feel good about many, many Obama accomplishments. In addition, the majority of the Electorate share the economic and social principles which guide President Obama's actions and are proud of our reclaimed stature in the world.

7
6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT