Pretty cool.

The cover gets one thread, the article gets another.

Awesome article.

He must be right....afterall, he has won the Michael Moore Award.

I am the only one who speaks the truth. Listen to me, because everyone else in the world doesn't know what they are talking about! Buy my book!

Politics ≠ reality. It's more marketing and FUD than anything else.

Even if you disagree on the points, there is no getting around that Obama has been playing a long game and is the master of the rope-a-dope.

Ideal? Naw.

Acceptable given the circumstances? Yes.

Superior to all remaining alternatives from the minority party? Yes.

karnal: He must be right....afterall, he has won the Michael Moore Award.

Michael Moore won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush?

winterwhile: I love repeats

Your posts leave no question of this.

Part of me is bummed as all hell that this had to be done at all. Then part of me remembers that popular presidents take one issue and nail it to the wall, referring to it and it alone as a measure of their success. Obama, however, as this article eloquently put it, has gotten all manner of things done. This makes it difficult for the casual observer of politics to grasp his strategy, his motives, and his priorities. This is as much his weakness as it is his strength, and it will be interesting to see how he presents his record come campaign season. People don't want to hear you yammer about this and that. They want to hear you cudgel your opponent with his failing on issue A vs your success on issue A.

Only issue I can think of that meets the requirements for that kind of discussion is Bin Laden, which, while powerful emotionally charged, and impressive, isn't exactly primo election fodder. For one reason only, "How did that make our lives better?"

I'm tired of the GOP primary now. I thought it was gonna be Romney when the race started, and now voila, it's congealing into Romney. I'll be briefly interested again when he announces his veep, which will surely disappoint. What really fascinates me is wondering how Obama's going to run a campaign this go-round. His 50 state strategy was critical to his success in '08. But now he's got a few separate issues to handle simultaneously. He has to energize his base, and of course, 'de-energize' the opposition. The GOP it doing job B fairly well, but I think the eagerness to oust Obama will result in decent turnout no matter who the ticket is. Job A is by far the most difficult task to undertake. Should be fun to watch.

/Was that off prompt?
//I feel like that was off prompt.

The guy sure is brave to go out on a limb and predict the victory of an incumbent president with no primary challenge and a massive warchest. I wonder if that's ever happened before.

BeesNuts: Part of me is bummed as all hell that this had to be done at all. Then part of me remembers that popular presidents take one issue and nail it to the wall, referring to it and it alone as a measure of their success. Obama, however, as this article eloquently put it, has gotten all manner of things done. This makes it difficult for the casual observer of politics to grasp his strategy, his motives, and his priorities. This is as much his weakness as it is his strength, and it will be interesting to see how he presents his record come campaign season. People don't want to hear you yammer about this and that. They want to hear you cudgel your opponent with his failing on issue A vs your success on issue A.

Only issue I can think of that meets the requirements for that kind of discussion is Bin Laden, which, while powerful emotionally charged, and impressive, isn't exactly primo election fodder. For one reason only, "How did that make our lives better?"

I'm tired of the GOP primary now. I thought it was gonna be Romney when the race started, and now voila, it's congealing into Romney. I'll be briefly interested again when he announces his veep, which will surely disappoint. What really fascinates me is wondering how Obama's going to run a campaign this go-round. His 50 state strategy was critical to his success in '08. But now he's got a few separate issues to handle simultaneously. He has to energize his base, and of course, 'de-energize' the opposition. The GOP it doing job B fairly well, but I think the eagerness to oust Obama will result in decent turnout no matter who the ticket is. Job A is by far the most difficult task to undertake. Should be fun to watch.

/Was that off prompt?
//I feel like that was off prompt.

GOP turnout will be kneecapped by two factors: a candidate that they're not psyched about, and an improving economy.

I thought this was an excellent article, and spot on. Obama's clearly playing the long game; he's doing what he can, not what his base might want. And I've long figured that if you're pissing off both ends, you might be doing it right.

Case in Point: GAT's need to come in here and refute/defend Liberals. Not saying anything negative, of course, but he's my go-to Far Liberal on Fark.

Lost Thought 00: I am the only one who speaks the truth. Listen to me, because everyone else in the world doesn't know what they are talking about! Buy my book!

The article did have that tone, didn't it? On the other hand, it spent the better part of itself being factually accurate, so it's kind of a wash. Like that kid in trig who chimes up whenever anyone gets an identity wrong. "Come on! It's simple, tan²(u)? How do you not know this? My little brother knows that it's [1-cos(2u)]/[1+cos(2u)]. And he's 6. Read a book."

/Or, alternatively, like every post on the fark politics tab.

"i love repeats..... i hate obama...... best part.... forever"

It's a bit early to hit the sauce, winterwhile.

HotWingConspiracy: Even if you disagree on the points, there is no getting around that Obama has been playing a long game and is the master of the rope-a-dope.

yeah, looks like it is a real long game. Tank the economy, set up the next GOP President for failure and make sure that he can get re-elected in 2020 after losing in 2012 and 2016.

winterwhile: imontheinternet: The guy sure is brave to go out on a limb and predict the victory of an incumbent president with no primary challenge and a massive warchest. I wonder if that's ever happened before.

yea, with 3 Million out of work

best part.... forever

thats what you run on

People are unemployed because they want to be. They are lazy.

Jake Havechek: Welcome to Free Republic, America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives!

ObamaCare = RomneyCare = CommieCare. NO Romney! NO WAY!!

I put on my HAZMAT suit and went there. It actually says that. lulz.

"Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent."

tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, looks like it is a real long game. Tank the economy, set up the next GOP President for failure and make sure that he can get re-elected in 2020 after losing in 2012 and 2016.

And you expect Obama to be beaten by...who? The most intelligent competitor on the field is this guy:

What's the deal with winterwhile?

He literally posts the same thing in every politics tab. Isn't there a rule against spamming or something? I'm starting to think he isn't even a person, bu some kind of spam-bot or something.

If it is a person, though, my heart goes out to him. What a sad existence.

I LOVE REPEATS

EvilEgg: I disagree about the veep thing. It is almost certain he'll pick someone to bring in the derpers. That'll bring endless fun.

I'm thinking it'll be fun for about a week. I've been hearing Marco Rubio now for a while, and the most fun part of that for me is that it has the potential to torpedo Marco Rubio's political career. I think the selection process itself has massive potential, as there will undoubtedly be offers made and *refused* for that very reason, until the candidate (Romney) has to settle on someone who will bring in the derpers, but *badly*. While hilarious, it lacks the whole "I have no idea how this is going to play out" factor that I find fun about politics.

Edsel: GOP turnout will be kneecapped by two factors: a candidate that they're not psyched about, and an improving economy.

Likely. I think we'll be getting a better bead on how much of the GOP is motivated by the noise machine, racism, and FUD than we have in past elections. A sane, well balanced country, unbeholden to the two party mess we are, would re-elect Obama in a landslide. Hell, 20 years ago (if he weren't ... you know... blah...) he'd sail back into office with a mandate of nearly unprecedented proportion. By comparing GOP turnout in '04 to '08 to '12, I think we'll be able to suss out the 'crazy coefficient' of the party with decent accuracy.

/My only question there is how many moderates (IOW those who'll sit this one out) are actually left in that party.

tenpoundsofcheese: HotWingConspiracy: Even if you disagree on the points, there is no getting around that Obama has been playing a long game and is the master of the rope-a-dope.

yeah, looks like it is a real long game. Tank the economy, set up the next GOP President for failure and make sure that he can get re-elected in 2020 after losing in 2012 and 2016.

I hope you get the help you desperately need one day.

ignatius_crumbcake: Edsel: GOP turnout will be kneecapped by two factors: a candidate that they're not psyched about, and an improving economy.

Also: more of them die of old age every day.

Not only that, but wait until the ad blitz coming up that ties the GOP to Paul Ryan's plan to kill Medicare.

And we haven't even mentioned the social conservatives yet.

Can you guys just stop acknowledging that OBVIOUS troll? This thread is about 1/3 grey solely because of him and people thinking they should talk to him. It's like dogs barking at the rain.

tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, looks like it is a real long game. Tank the economy, set up the next GOP President for failure and make sure that he can get re-elected in 2020 after losing in 2012 and 2016.

Awww... you're trying so hard.

LasersHurt: Can you guys just stop acknowledging that OBVIOUS troll? This thread is about 1/3 grey solely because of him and people thinking they should talk to him. It's like dogs barking at the rain.

Makes you wonder who's the bigger asshole -- the trolls or their enablers.

GAT_00: I'm not as much on this one, but he has done very little that would piss off Wall Street. There has certainty not been any movement towards establishing new rules that would prevent another fiscal collapse.

The Consumer Protection Bureau. Wall St has bitterly and expensively fought ANY banking regulation, so the fact that the half-measures got passed is something of a miracle. And Obama has put teeth back into the SEC, which was systematically gutted under Clinton & Bush.

And we're moving towards Federal regulation of deritivites and similar instruments, which would keep us from suffering a repeat of the 2008 crisis, a repeat, frighteningly, which Wall St is very keen to see happen.

While I'm a big fan of Sullivan, I don't think this article will do very much.

It's full of facts, and facts are just too inconvenient these days. I'd much rather go with what my gut says

LasersHurt

Can you guys just stop acknowledging that OBVIOUS troll? This thread is about 1/3 grey solely because of him and people thinking they should talk to him. It's like dogs barking at the rain.

You should stop trying to manipulate the thread.....no good can come of it.

Buy my book!

Dwight_Yeast: GAT_00: I'm not as much on this one, but he has done very little that would piss off Wall Street. There has certainty not been any movement towards establishing new rules that would prevent another fiscal collapse.

The Consumer Protection Bureau. Wall St has bitterly and expensively fought ANY banking regulation, so the fact that the half-measures got passed is something of a miracle. And Obama has put teeth back into the SEC, which was systematically gutted under Clinton & Bush.

And we're moving towards Federal regulation of deritivites and similar instruments, which would keep us from suffering a repeat of the 2008 crisis, a repeat, frighteningly, which Wall St is very keen to see happen.

Dodd-Frank also, which Wall Street hates despite the fact that they were able to nerf it somewhat. They desperately want to see the Republicans come back into power.

Riche: At the same time he should have offered up Bush, Cheney, and other members of the last administration for trial in the ICC.

The US has not ratified the ICC treaty. Even if it had, it would not be the sole decision of the President to submit a US citizen for trial by that court.

Riche: Obama probably should have also vetoed any health care reform that didn't have a strong public option-- yes, what was passed into law was an improvement, but the half hearted fix that will be implemented still leaves thousands to die needlessly and only delays real reform for another generation or more.

He should have vetoed his signature domestic legislative achievement, after the prolonged struggle of getting it through a Democratic Congress?