Quantcast

Newsweek Cover Story: "Hit the Road Barack - Why we need a new president."

Ken 2012/08/22 22:34:39

Newsweek

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT






Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has
broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to
prosperity is our only hope.


I
was a good loser four years ago.
“In the grand scheme of history,” I
wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president
, “four decades
is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has
gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis
of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge
this as a cause for great rejoicing.”


Despite
having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged
his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool,
hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign
organization.


Yet
the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who
was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has
delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.


In
his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but
to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads
and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our
commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its
rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s
quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools
and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”
Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those
bold pledges is pitiful.



In
an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the
private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock
market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration
Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3
million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering
3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability
insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being
concealed.


In
his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president
envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6
percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8
percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3
percent this year.


Unemployment
was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this
year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped
more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals
received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.


Welcome
to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a
taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a
household where at least one member receives some type of government
benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes,
the other half receiving the benefits.



And
all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were
promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was
supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than
66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP.
These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The
ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from
165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from
the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only
Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.


Not
only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009,
but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term
gap between spending and revenue.


His
much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health
programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10
percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social
Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25
years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all
federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over
the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on
course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is
bound to reduce growth even further.



And
even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent
estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal
government liabilities and the net present value of future federal
revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is
$222 trillion.


The
president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance
of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his
predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street,
or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.


There’s
some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to
happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can
legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past
four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive
branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has
been greatest.







On
paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina
Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner,
and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was
wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to
advise him.


According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men,
Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re
really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in
charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness
on key economic issues].”
On issue after issue, according to Suskind,
Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that
argument and then have him make a decision,”
Summers told Orszag,
“because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.”
(I have heard similar
things said off the record by key participants in the president’s
interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)


This
problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency
of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government
in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president
proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who
wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political
pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and
Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of
excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators
create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It
eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.


It
is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central
problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial
leverage—have not been addressed.


Today
a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for
three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United
States.
Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short
of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords
governing bank capital adequacy.




And
then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S.
system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the
system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers
retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation,
the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many
Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability
insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.


Ironically,
the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all
Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president
himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic
nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it
was she who really forced the bill through Congress.


Pelosicare
was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a
minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why
Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another
fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not
add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on
Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA
will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.



The
president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a
bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,
headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former
Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its
recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in
added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand
bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some
miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax
cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic,
across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net
effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.


The
failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four
years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the
U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times
faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International
Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the
United States.







Meanwhile,
the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in
the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the
world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.


For
me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the
implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a
coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature
award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make
touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he
was not George W. Bush.


In
Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate
hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need
to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another
... The United States does not seek to contain China ... On the
contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of
strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach
had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including
risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the
vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.


His
Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to
ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional
revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a
greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum
... I’ve come here ... to seek a new beginning between the United
States and Muslims around the world, one based ... upon the truth that
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”


Believing
it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed
the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave
the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in
Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to
catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries
and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests.
Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.


In
the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic
ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria.
In Libya he was
cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways,
exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back
and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a
foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what
seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had
nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern
allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.


“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times
in February 2011
. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two
years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them
factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil?
None.”


Remarkably
the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the
public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of
political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau
of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone
casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media
would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way.
Yet
somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused
of committing “war crimes.”


The
real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially
crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone
strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon
counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means
in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan
too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder
what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation
building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back
into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.



America
under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement.
Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe
that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading
superpower or eventually will.


It
is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative”
since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection
is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you
didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest
achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden
Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even
(bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention
anything comparable that his administration has achieved.


Now
Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes
more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the
past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan,
Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul
Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful
of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.







. . .He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era
veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate
Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington
who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

. . . .

It
remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the
radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public
mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to
49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down
from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in
the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and
comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul
Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk
choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms
Ryan proposes.



But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out.
This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive
against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him
out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for
this country.


Mitt
Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But
he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination.
He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in
the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly
lacked four years ago.
(If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a
few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might
understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right
now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the
first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not
duck the challenges America faces.


The
voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling,
solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some
American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even
higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.


Or
they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four
years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of
debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national
security.


I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.


I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • bye 2012/09/09 20:18:30
    bye
    +1
    It's simple he sucks.
  • JessDeCristo 2012/09/09 14:04:20
    JessDeCristo
    +1
    Amen brodar, Amen !
  • nails 2012/08/23 22:52:13
    nails
    +1
    It just boggles my mind why anybody,except for those who adore him,"his inter- crowd",need
    any explanation why he's no good at all.For them or for us who know quite well his intentions and his end plan is for us all.They need to be shaken awake.God help us.
  • pizzaman7 2012/08/23 22:11:33
    pizzaman7
    +2
    You didn't build this country Barry !

    you didn t build this

    you didn t build this

    you didn t build this
  • Al C. 2012/08/23 11:33:47
  • mwg0735 2012/08/23 10:55:00
  • Soup Man 2012/08/23 03:13:52
  • bye Soup Man 2012/09/09 20:19:20
    bye
    +2
    Ohhh good one!
  • Kiosk Kid 2012/08/23 00:04:12
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    • “Concerns about over-regulation are the highest we’ve seen in the past year, with 42% of small businesses citing it as a major concern and 52% citing regulations as the top threat to their business, increasing 9 percentage points since last June."

    • "What do concerns about regulations and policies mean for small businesses? Stalled growth. 80% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation, and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. Nearly three-out-of-four (73%) of small businesses surveyed cite the recent health care law as an obstacle to growing their business and hiring more employees.”

    Do small businesses support Obama's policies?

    "Sixteen percent of small businesses approve of the job President Obama is doing."
    http://www.uschambersmallbusi...

    "Communist Party USA supports Barack Obama"

    "The National Board of the CPUSA considers it imperative to give its full support to the most progressive wing of U.S. imperialism through support for Barack Obama.

    http://cpusanationalboard.blo...

    Therefore, small businesses are fighting Obama and the Communist Party USA supports Obama.
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/08/23 03:59:23
    Ken
    +3
    Quote from the link you gave to U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "What do concerns about regulations and policies mean for small businesses? Stalled growth. 80% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation, and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. Nearly three-out-of-four (73%) of small businesses surveyed cite the recent health care law as an obstacle to growing their business and hiring more employees."
  • Prairie Wind 2012/08/22 23:48:56
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/08/22 23:30:22
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +4
    Great article, Ken, thanks for the post....................

    The article is very long, but it can be summed up with these two paragraphs (for
    those who don't want to read the whole article):

    "The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling,
    solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some
    American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even
    higher debt—and real geopolitical decline."

    Or

    "they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four
    years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of
    debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national
    security."

    That is the choice Americans have in November, and is well stated by Niall Ferguson.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/22 23:02:35
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +6
    Obama is out to destroy America, we MUST vote him out!
  • firelooker 2012/08/22 23:02:24
    firelooker
    +7
    I wasn't a good loser 4 yrs ago I said it then and I'll say it again voting for Obama means destroying this country
  • 56lady☆POTL JLA BTO-t- BCRA... 2012/08/22 23:02:18
    56lady☆POTL JLA BTO-t- BCRA-F's
    +8
    Obama must GO!!!
  • abubincrazy 2012/08/22 22:59:17
    abubincrazy
    +5
    Excellent article.
    I disagree with some of his versions of events, but he has the guts to admit what a disaster Obama has been, and will be, for America.
  • ken 2012/08/22 22:47:30
    ken
    +7
    For a party that's running on a platform that Republicans are waging a war on women, Democrats sure proved they don't want a woman in charge. They stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton and pulled the race card on Bill Clinton, of all people. Say what you will about Republicans, but Democrats wrote the book on lying, cheating, stealing and hypocrisy. It's my great hope that we have a change of presidents in a few short months. We simply cannot afford another four years of Obama.
  • firelooker ken 2012/08/22 23:06:46
    firelooker
    +3
    The Dems lie and cheat every chance they get then accuse the GOP of doing it. When was the last time you heard a conservative vote for bigger gov't Then say they are the party of the people. The left is interested only in bigger gov't which gives them more power. Obama rails agaoinst rich people while he's as rich as the richest conservative, what a hypocrite!
  • ken firelooker 2012/08/22 23:09:11
    ken
    +2
    Some of the richest characters in Congress are Democrats. I bet they use every deduction and loophole available to them. They wrote the book on hypocrisy and intolerance.
  • firelooker ken 2012/08/22 23:11:29
  • Ken firelooker 2012/08/23 04:01:09
    Ken
    +1
    They've all learned "The Alinsky Way," the title of Hillary Clinton's college thesis!
  • firelooker Ken 2012/08/23 17:13:52
    firelooker
    +1
    I agree they're all a bunch of socialist elites, who think they can turn this country into a socialist/communist republic with them in charge and everything will be hunky dory. They disregard the facts that everywhere it's been tried it failed including here in the original colonies. Jamestown tried it but it failed because not everybody contributed to the food supply, some took w/o contributing.
  • bye Ken 2012/09/09 20:20:53
    bye
    +1
    Ohhhh I didn't know that good catch I'll remember that when she runs!
  • Ken bye 2012/09/09 21:41:28 (edited)
    Ken
    Hillary is just as much an Alinsky follower as Obama - Alinsky actually offered her a job when she got her degree! She has actually described herself as a "turn-of-the-century progressive", just like the Fascist Woodrow Wilson.

    This was her statement when she denied being a "liberal" and said she was a progressive: " "I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

    "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

    "So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

    Actually those early 20th century progressives, e.g. Woodrow Wilson, were all about government power, not individual rights - Wilson brought the nation closer to Fascism than any president since, until Barack Obama. Wilson had nothing but disdain for the Constitution's limits on federal power and for it's checks and balances t...
    Hillary is just as much an Alinsky follower as Obama - Alinsky actually offered her a job when she got her degree! She has actually described herself as a "turn-of-the-century progressive", just like the Fascist Woodrow Wilson.

    This was her statement when she denied being a "liberal" and said she was a progressive: " "I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

    "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

    "So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

    Actually those early 20th century progressives, e.g. Woodrow Wilson, were all about government power, not individual rights - Wilson brought the nation closer to Fascism than any president since, until Barack Obama. Wilson had nothing but disdain for the Constitution's limits on federal power and for it's checks and balances that limited his own power. He also segregated the military as well as federal civil service, and favored eugenics as a way to control the "coloreds." Any person who knows their history should be ashamed to call themselves a progressive.
    (more)
  • bye Ken 2012/09/10 02:23:17
    bye
    +1
    I didn't like her. I didn't trust her, she's a double billing lawyer, not a good thing and she's a lousy sec of state. So I would never have voted for her.
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/22 23:33:50
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +3
    You got that exactly right........ It is why I left the Democratic Party when the DNC, DRC and
    the party elders manipulated the primaries and paid off super delegates to vote for
    'the One'. I said at the time that this would destroy the Democrat party, and it took
    only a few years..............
  • ken No nons... 2012/08/22 23:38:53
    ken
    +1
    Hillary took a bribe to roll over and Bill didn't say a thing. What a pack of losers, right on up to their POS leader. The great pretender turned out to be even worse than I predicted, and I'm a real pessimist about that kind of thing.
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/22 23:52:20
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +1
    How do you know that? I don't believe it. What was the bribe?
  • ken No nons... 2012/08/22 23:55:19
    ken
    Secretary of State. Pretty lucrative job, don't ya think?
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/23 02:40:08
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +1
    She was offered that after she got out............. She stayed until the last
    primary had been run. What did her in was 0bama's $750million campaign
    fund and the buying of Super Delegates.......... They also made
    threats against some like John Lewis, who eventually switched from
    Hillary to 0bama.........and Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who was threatened,
    didn't change and ended up having a "heart death" while driving her car
    back in her home district in 0hio......................

    I loved Stephanie Tubbs Jones.......what a happy spirit she had.




    There have been rumors that WJC received threats against Chelsea, and
    quite frankly I wouldn't it past these Chicago gangsters. Two black
    gay members of Rev. Wrights were murdered, in separate incidents, shortly
    after 0bama announced his candidacy.
  • ken No nons... 2012/08/23 20:48:57
    ken
    +3
    She could have put up a pretty good fight at the convention but chose to slink away quietly and do as she was told. I'm disgusted by her actions and blame her for a big part of the damage Obama has caused. After Obama beats Romney, I'll be blaming him almost as much as her and the other Obama supporters.
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/23 22:10:21
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +2
    Whatever......... I watched her wage a battle against all odds and
    had the utmost respect for her. She stayed in until the primaries were
    over and the RNC had given votes to 0bama that she had won
    in both Michigan, where he took his name off the ballot, and in
    Florida where he broke the rules by running ads in Florida which
    were banned. That was back then........ lots of things have happened
    since figure into the situation now.
  • ken No nons... 2012/08/23 22:21:23
    ken
    I went to see her when she came to Austin and was very impressed with many of the things she said. What sticks in my craw is her promise to take it to the floor of the convention. Didn't happen. BTW, she won Texas but a convoluted caucus system gave Texas to Obama. Democrats really seem to hate women, despite whatever their claims may be.
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/23 22:37:58
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +2
    A friend of mind went to Texas to work for her there, and reported
    that although she won the primary, he won the crooked caucus,
    and got more delegates than she did.............

    The Caucuses which ACORN/SEIU corrupted won the primary for
    him.............. along with the DNC/DRC






    She fought as hard as she could for as long as she could........the
    Super Delegates made it impossible for her to win. And
    many of them were bought off or threatened into supporting 0bama.
    I was with her all the way, and left the party I had always been
    loyal to after seeing them manipulate the primaries to give 0bama
    the nomination......... I haven't looked back.
  • ken No nons... 2012/08/23 22:48:37
    ken
    +2
    I've always been an independent voter and never vote a straight party ticket or align myself with any party. This will be the first time though, that I don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican for president. I can't in good conscience vote for either one of the major party candidates. Neither one cares about the average hard working American citizen.
  • No nons... ken 2012/08/23 23:07:08
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +1
    Last time I didn't vote for McCain or 0bama because I thought 0bama was going to walk away with the election. ...... this time
    I will vote for Anyone but 0bama......it is that important.
    I had always voted a Democrat POTUS, but locally, I had
    always been an Independent.
  • Ken ken 2012/08/24 18:18:34
    Ken
    +2
    What was it with that combined caucus/primary in Texas in 2008? Hillary beat him in the primary but he stole the delegates at the caucuses. That's a reason I don't like caucuses - they aren't democratic IMHO.
  • ken Ken 2012/08/25 13:57:32
    ken
    +1
    That's the way the Democrats do things here in Texas. They really are a crooked bunch of scoundrels.
  • Ken ken 2012/08/25 16:49:20
    Ken
    +1
    That's the way they do things everywhere. You can bet they are counting on the illegal alien vote, which is why they are so dead-set against voter photo IDs.

    Democrat congressional candidate Francine Busby in San Diego County during 2006 campaign, speaking through an interpreter to a group of illegals:
  • bye ken 2012/09/09 20:21:28
    bye
    +1
    Yeah she was sooo qualified gack!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/22 18:34:17

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals