Liberals fret: Is Obama bored? Does he even want a second term?

[Steelie]

Good Day,

http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberals-fret-i...

The author may have a point...

Steelie

[Gville Jim]

After Wednesday's debate, one wouldnt think that Obama cares about a second term.
He is famous now, in his own mind, he doesnt need a second term.

[Diggs]

I think a lot is being made of a poor debate showing. Obama obviously didn't take this first debate seriously, probably because he feels he'll win by a landslide and the people who will vote for him don't watch these debates anyway.

I don't think it's a matter of not wanting a second term. He definitely wants that. It's more a matter of the same old arrogant Obama feeling he doesn't have to work for the American people. Might I even say he feels "entitled" to his second term?

[Lauren Boring]

I think he wants it but incumbent disadvantage is you still have some of your schedule at the mercy of presiding.

[Diggs]

Lauren Boring wrote:

I think he wants it but incumbent disadvantage is you still have some of your schedule at the mercy of presiding.

Yea ... like Beonce and Jay Z parties,'The View' guest spots, golf ... oh mercy :)

One thing is sure, Obama hasn't let any of his presidential duties, most notably security briefings, get in the way of his campaigning and partying.

Hey, maybe O-Dog was just hungover from one of those $400 bottles of ripple, or maybe he was reliving his youthful days of cocaine and pot the night before.

[radell]

Diggs wrote:

I think a lot is being made of a poor debate showing. Obama obviously didn't take this first debate seriously, probably because he feels he'll win by a landslide and the people who will vote for him don't watch these debates anyway.
I don't think it's a matter of not wanting a second term. He definitely wants that. It's more a matter of the same old arrogant Obama feeling he doesn't have to work for the American people. Might I even say he feels "entitled" to his second term?

You "might say" anything you please. But that doesn't make it true, or insightful.

[Diggs]

radell wrote:

<quoted text>You "might say" anything you please. But that doesn't make it true, or insightful.

LOL ... I might even say that you seem a bit "thin skinned" over my post.

[radell]

Diggs wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL ... I might even say that you seem a bit "thin skinned" over my post.

"thin skinned" implies offense taken. I took no offense over your remarks. Still going for insightful? missed.

[Diggs]

radell wrote:

<quoted text>"thin skinned" implies offense taken. I took no offense over your remarks. Still going for insightful? missed.

You mentioned insightful, not me. I was going for obvious - and nailed it.

How about you practice what you preach and offer up something insightful.

[Lauren Boring]

Diggs wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea ... like Beonce and Jay Z parties,'The View' guest spots, golf ... oh mercy :)
One thing is sure, Obama hasn't let any of his presidential duties, most notably security briefings, get in the way of his campaigning and partying.
Hey, maybe O-Dog was just hungover from one of those $400 bottles of ripple, or maybe he was reliving his youthful days of cocaine and pot the night before.

I think fundraising is on both candidates' plates. But the president also has his job to do.

[Mark]

Lauren Boring wrote:

<quoted text>
I think fundraising is on both candidates' plates. But the president also has his job to do.

he does it so well he will be voted out in 22 days. All he has done has been fundraising and running for reelection, except for his expensive vacations since he was elected

[Diggs]

Lauren Boring wrote:

<quoted text>
I think fundraising is on both candidates' plates. But the president also has his job to do.

If Obama were half the president he promised in '08 he wouldn't have to be campaigning so hard in 2012. In all aspects this election should have been a walk-thru for Obama. He should be touting a deficit reduced in half. He should be able to point to the tens of thousands of troops who were returned home and the closing of GITMO. He should be able to point to a plethora of new Middle Eastern allies. He should be able to hold up hundreds of millions of jobs created and a clear economic recovery. He should be able to show us a transparent administration and a cleaned-up government, a booming green energy industry, and a thriving middle class.

Instead, Obama has presided over just one landmark law being passed with only democrat support, the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), a law so controversial and widely unpopular that he seldom even refers to it because most Americans would rather it be revoked. He's added over 5 trillion to our deficit and gotten even further invested in the Middle East war on terrorism. He hasn't created enough jobs to match the number of Americans coming into the job market. Our economy is still barely limping along. We've had our credit rating downgraded. We are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe on two fronts and our reputation among our enemies is even more weak.

You're right, the president does have a job to do aside from campaigning. When exactly are Obama's supporters going to demand he start?

[Lauren Boring]

He started before he was officially president. W pulled him into the Bank mess before Obama was sworn in. The percentage of the deficit increase is less than any Republican going back to Reagan, and Your W lost a huge surplus as well. At least he created jobs which is more than W or Romney did since 2000.

[Diggs]

Lauren Boring wrote:

He started before he was officially president. W pulled him into the Bank mess before Obama was sworn in. The percentage of the deficit increase is less than any Republican going back to Reagan, and Your W lost a huge surplus as well. At least he created jobs which is more than W or Romney did since 2000.

Bush's spending stretched over two terms while Obama has had less than 4 years to tally up over 5 trillion, more than any president in that amount of time in history, so you'd better check you percentage figures again.

By the way, maybe it slipped your mind, but Obama also promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term, not add to it by historic amounts. He also promised to end the wars and bring our troops home. He failed on both counts. We've also crested the 2,000 American soldier death tally under Obama.

Fact is, Obama sounds more like that W guy you liberals threw tantrums and tore your clothes over. The only difference is he calls himself a liberal, so instead of protesting and whining you'll cast another vote for W Jr. and attack the people who point it out to you.

[Really]

Lauren Boring wrote:

He started before he was officially president. W pulled him into the Bank mess before Obama was sworn in. The percentage of the deficit increase is less than any Republican going back to Reagan, and Your W lost a huge surplus as well. At least he created jobs which is more than W or Romney did since 2000.

I just love revisionist history. there was ZERO surplus because your other hero, Billy Clinton, robbed from the Social Security trust fund to say he had a surplus. Figures don't lie, liars figure. Something Obama and his "fuzzy math" is extremely good at and people seem to believe him.

[Gville Jim]

Diggs wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush's spending stretched over two terms while Obama has had less than 4 years to tally up over 5 trillion, more than any president in that amount of time in history, so you'd better check you percentage figures again.
By the way, maybe it slipped your mind, but Obama also promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term, not add to it by historic amounts. He also promised to end the wars and bring our troops home. He failed on both counts. We've also crested the 2,000 American soldier death tally under Obama.
Fact is, Obama sounds more like that W guy you liberals threw tantrums and tore your clothes over. The only difference is he calls himself a liberal, so instead of protesting and whining you'll cast another vote for W Jr. and attack the people who point it out to you.

^^ well said ^^