Why Obama Will Be a One-Termer

4Jan/1013

Why Obama Will Be a One-Termer

It's true that a President's first term is the time when he's got an opportunity to effect the most change. In Obama's case, I don't think that a second term is an option.

Obama's made too many false promises, for instance that whopper about not raising taxes on the middle class. George Bush the First's "read my lips" statement really sunk him in his bid for a second term. And even though Obama still enjoys the backing of most of the MSM, and even though they have a vested interest in not having their failure to vet regurgitated in a few years, it's going to be impossible to keep that genie in the bottle.

Obama will have to debate, and there will be copious evidence of his bad faith to utilize against him. His favorables, which have been on a steep descent, will lose their floor after the 2010 elections, which, ACORN notwithstanding, will be a bloodbath for the Dems. My observation of the man makes me believe that he will not cede or share power gracefully. Hang on: it's going to be a bumpy ride.

As an aside, Obama's named a transgender appointee to Commerce. I knew Napolitano would land on her feet.

Thanks to Obi's Sister for the link.

Odora

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (13) Trackbacks (3) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Enoch_Root
January 4th, 2010 - 09:06

He is the worst. No doubt. A train-wreck.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Joe
January 4th, 2010 - 09:36

Obama could get reelected, even with his declining poll numbers now. What matters is who is running against him. A poor GOP pick and Obama will win.

I do not agree with everything said here, but she has a point. GOP gains in 2010 will make Obama more centrist and thus more electable.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- meep
  January 4th, 2010 - 09:53
  
  I agree.
  
  It’s not that Obama is a leftist, or not… it’s that he really hasn’t any legislative agenda. He’s never done any work as a politician. He’s not pragmatic, or doctrinaire, or anything. He’s not done any of the work.
  
  Has he set forth any specific legislation? He just wanted something, anything, labeled stimulus, labeled healthcare reform. It was Pelosi and Reid who directed all the bill-writing, did all the horse-trading. If Reid isn’t re-elected, and Pelosi is booted due to big losses, it doesn’t matter which party controls which house – even if the Dems are still in power, the leadership will by necessity be changed.
  
  I do agree that the perception of Obama will change once Nancy and Harry are out of the way.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
physics geek
January 4th, 2010 - 09:45

The GOP will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and nominate another McCain in 2012. Lindsey Graham would be ideal in that regard.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Enoch_Root
  January 4th, 2010 - 10:33
  
  Unfortunately, I agree. Although I think there is a lot to be said for both parties being pieces of chit. In fact, I hate both of them. The shame!
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
- Joe
  January 4th, 2010 - 13:16
  
  physics geek. John McCain was not the issue. Yeah, McCain made some big mistakes in running and had a crappy campaign but ultimately he lost because Obama was the “anyone but George Bush” alternative run by the opposition party (and the economy decided to melt down just before the election). Who could have avoided defeat to Obama in 2008? Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Because those were the only choices late in the primary process.
  
  So who would have been the great candidate to rally conservative principals and gotten victory? Because that person better be running in the primaries for the 2012 election.
  
  Lindsay Graham? Give me a break–that is a bad joke. Lindsay Graham should be challenged in the primaries for his senate seat.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
thor
January 4th, 2010 - 14:15

After you get punk-hammered in 2012 maybe it’ll occur to you that sitting in front of your computer all day thumbing through radical r-wingy websites with a autistic gleam in your eye leads to what they call real-world detachment.

The social and economic disaster that is the Republican party will continue to dissolve to a smaller and smaller minority.

Riddance.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Lazarus Long
  January 4th, 2010 - 16:45
  
  My advice to you, thor, is that you seek professional help. If you hve a job, many health plans have mental health support.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
January 4th, 2010 - 15:44

Is it just me or does it seem like Thor spend a lot time on the computer thumbing through wingnut sites than the average wingnut?

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Bob Reed
  January 4th, 2010 - 16:28
  
  Seems like that to me too, TSK9. But, you know, O! dawg is still acting on the “get in their face!” proclamation from last summer; and doesn’t realize that the only reaction he gets are sniggers, guffaws, and head shaking…
  
  What does it say about him that he lives in a cartoon universe built from necessary lies?
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Lazarus Long
    January 4th, 2010 - 16:46
    
    It says he’s crazy as a loon.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
- Ann R Kissed
  January 5th, 2010 - 01:15
  
  Is it just me, or r-topwhore, do you pop’m ups on you’emz r-nutzoid sites.
  
  Yeah.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
carin
January 4th, 2010 - 20:28

Honestly, it’s my IRL experiences that give me hope. People “out there” really, really aren’t happy with Obama.

Of course, my IRL experiences are limited to folks I work with, people at the gym, strangers in line at the grocery store … I suppose that’s not really too different from right-wing sites on the internet, right?

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )