Obama's $1 billion bid for 2012

[svenshoegazer]

This is like a big slap in the worlds face. A $1 billion slap and then some flaunting.. Don't get me wrong I voted for Obama in 08 and I am liberal as they come. But this campaign gold amount is uncalled for and just sickening to me. After Japan's Earthquake, the Tsunami and the potential nuclear disaster, the Middle East crisis, killing of UN Workers, US evolved in 3 wars he would be just a bit conservative on his 2012 bid. That money could so help out with other things then elect Obama as President or anyone else really. I think my vote is going to Ron Paul this year I really don't think he will flaunt $1 billion dollars just to be President of the US in the faces of need and dispair of the World and the US too.

[Wookietim]

This is like a big slap in the worlds face. A $1 billion slap and then some flaunting.. Don't get me wrong I voted for Obama in 08 and I am liberal as they come. But this campaign gold amount is uncalled for and just sickening to me. After Japan's Earthquake, the Tsunami and the potential nuclear disaster, the Middle East crisis, killing of UN Workers, US evolved in 3 wars he would be just a bit conservative on his 2012 bid. That money could so help out with other things then elect Obama as President or anyone else really. I think my vote is going to Ron Paul this year I really don't think he will flaunt $1 billion dollars just to be President of the US in the faces of need and dispair of the World and the US too.

Well, for one thing, that is simply the amount Obama thinks he can raise for reelection - not the amount he has. For another, if you ant to vote for a weird little gnome that thinks that the rich ought to ride horses decorated with the pelts of the poor, go ahead... personally I will still vote for Obama. After all, I'd rather have a president I agree with 75% of the time than a president that I agree with exactly 0% of the time...

[svenshoegazer]

Well, for one thing, that is simply the amount Obama thinks he can raise for reelection - not the amount he has. For another, if you ant to vote for a weird little gnome that thinks that the rich ought to ride horses decorated with the pelts of the poor, go ahead... personally I will still vote for Obama. After all, I'd rather have a president I agree with 75% of the time than a president that I agree with exactly 0% of the time...

I didn't word that post right I guess. I do know that he doesn't have that amount on hand and it is just a campaign gold. But it is still very uncalled for I think, in the wake of things happening now and for the future.

Edited April 5, 2011 by svenshoegazer

[Wookietim]

I didn't word that post right I guess. I do know that he doesn't have that amount on hand and it is just a campaign gold. But it is still very uncalled for I think, in the wake of things happening now and for the future.

The sad thing about American politics is that the poor (or even middle class) can't really run for office. It takes a rich man to even have a chance at Congress anymore... And for president, with all of the campaigning that has to be done across the country, the price is even higher.

Really, all Obama is guilty of here is the realization of that sad fact in 21st century politics.

For a short while I thought that perhaps the internet would level the playing field a bit... maybe allow people to build real grass roots campaigns. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening since the more money that is spent on creating a slick website with content constantly updating (By a paid staff of professional writers) seems to get more hits than the real websites. And the problem anyone running for office has is that there will be a vocal contingent of detractors that will try to spread FUD about them on a constant basis...

Obama has to contend with Fox News and the Tea Party - two organizations that have quite a bit of money to spread that FUD. Take a look at what those two organizations did to the HCR Bill - they took something that actually helped tens of millions of people and convinced a large segment of the population that it would lead to roving death panels and Obama personally killing grandmothers. How can one rebut that without spending copious amounts of money? I mean, really... if we had a country that was interested in facts, then we'd have a country in which people could run for president on a much lower amount of money. But as it is, we have a country that engages more in political image destruction than in really discussing facts...

[svenshoegazer]

oops...I really wouldn't help out much either if I voted for Ron Paul "this year"

Edited April 5, 2011 by svenshoegazer

[The Silver Thong]

There really should be a limit as to what a candidate can spend campaigning as it should be about quality not quantity. Judge them on what they say not how many times they can afford to say it.

[svenshoegazer]

The sad thing about American politics is that the poor (or even middle class) can't really run for office. It takes a rich man to even have a chance at Congress anymore... And for president, with all of the campaigning that has to be done across the country, the price is even higher.

Really, all Obama is guilty of here is the realization of that sad fact in 21st century politics.

For a short while I thought that perhaps the internet would level the playing field a bit... maybe allow people to build real grass roots campaigns. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening since the more money that is spent on creating a slick website with content constantly updating (By a paid staff of professional writers) seems to get more hits than the real websites. And the problem anyone running for office has is that there will be a vocal contingent of detractors that will try to spread FUD about them on a constant basis...

Obama has to contend with Fox News and the Tea Party - two organizations that have quite a bit of money to spread that FUD. Take a look at what those two organizations did to the HCR Bill - they took something that actually helped tens of millions of people and convinced a large segment of the population that it would lead to roving death panels and Obama personally killing grandmothers. How can one rebut that without spending copious amounts of money? I mean, really... if we had a country that was interested in facts, then we'd have a country in which people could run for president on a much lower amount of money. But as it is, we have a country that engages more in political image destruction than in really discussing facts...

All very good points. Just seems he is adding more fuel to the fire of Tea Parters and other conversative types though with this campaign gold. And people like me (leftes) as well with getting the US into this new war in Libya but ignoring all the other citizens getting killed in other Middle Eastern Countries. I know we can't be the World's Sherriff but we need to either help all in a balanced way or just step away if we can't..Other wise it looks like we are only helping countries we have "interests" in.

[svenshoegazer]

There really should be a limit as to what a candidate can spend campaigning as it should be about quality not quantity. Judge them on what they say not how many times they can afford to say it.

So very true!!! Well spoken SilverT!

[Wookietim]

All very good points. Just seems he is adding more fuel to the fire of Tea Parters and other conversative types though with this campaign gold. And people like me (leftes) as well with getting the US into this new war in Libya but ignoring all the other citizens getting killed in other Middle Eastern Countries. I know we can't be the World's Sherriff but we need to either help all in a balanced way or just step away if we can't..Other wise it looks like we are only helping countries we have "interests" in.

Well, I agree with you on all of that... I am pretty ambivalent about what we are doing in Libya to be honest. On the one hand I really really really do not want a third war. We can't afford it (Financially, diplomatically, or otherwise). But on the other hand we do seem to be limiting our activities there much more than Bush did in Iraq or Afghanistan and we really can't just look the other way when someone like Ghadafi starts opening fire on his own people...

The thing is that no matter who the president is they are not going to make all of the people happy all of the time. It will never happen. I tend to agree with what Obama does roughly 75% of the time... which is a lot higher than I have agreed with anyone since Clinton, so I'm actually pretty happy with Obama. The Tea Party and Fox News and the GOP try to blow a lot of things out of proportion when they can because, well, that is their job. Heck, Fox News makes money by doing that. And the GOP does it to try to get votes. The Tea Party... Well, they seem to me to be just sheep being led by Fox and the GOP's exaggerations (I hate to call them that but it's the truth).

Every president has his detractors. The problem right now is that the detractors, while small in number overall, have really big megaphones to scream into...

[ohio traveler]

This is like a big slap in the worlds face. A $1 billion slap and then some flaunting.. Don't get me wrong I voted for Obama in 08 and I am liberal as they come. But this campaign gold amount is uncalled for and just sickening to me. After Japan's Earthquake, the Tsunami and the potential nuclear disaster, the Middle East crisis, killing of UN Workers, US evolved in 3 wars he would be just a bit conservative on his 2012 bid. That money could so help out with other things then elect Obama as President or anyone else really. I think my vote is going to Ron Paul this year I really don't think he will flaunt $1 billion dollars just to be President of the US in the faces of need and dispair of the World and the US too.

Dennis Kucinich sounds like your man then. Since you're a lib.

( Except he definitely falls into that " weird little gnome " catagory that Wookietim spoke of )

[Wookietim]

Dennis Kucinich sounds like your man then. Since you're a lib.

( Except he definitely falls into that " weird little gnome " catagory that Wookietim spoke of )

Kucinich is actually a great guy... I really like his politics... and for a weird little gnome, he has a smoking hot wife...

[ohio traveler]

Kucinich is actually a great guy... I really like his politics... and for a weird little gnome, he has a smoking hot wife...

Yes. That he does.

[svenshoegazer]

Well, I agree with you on all of that... I am pretty ambivalent about what we are doing in Libya to be honest. On the one hand I really really really do not want a third war. We can't afford it (Financially, diplomatically, or otherwise). But on the other hand we do seem to be limiting our activities there much more than Bush did in Iraq or Afghanistan and we really can't just look the other way when someone like Ghadafi starts opening fire on his own people...

The thing is that no matter who the president is they are not going to make all of the people happy all of the time. It will never happen. I tend to agree with what Obama does roughly 75% of the time... which is a lot higher than I have agreed with anyone since Clinton, so I'm actually pretty happy with Obama. The Tea Party and Fox News and the GOP try to blow a lot of things out of proportion when they can because, well, that is their job. Heck, Fox News makes money by doing that. And the GOP does it to try to get votes. The Tea Party... Well, they seem to me to be just sheep being led by Fox and the GOP's exaggerations (I hate to call them that but it's the truth).

Every president has his detractors. The problem right now is that the detractors, while small in number overall, have really big megaphones to scream into...

I did agree with Obama on almost everything before Libya, he trully lost me there. And also how we are handling the Japanese Crisis as well..we are just standing back and watching (so it seems). So with Libya though the big question is...Are we there to kill one and save a million or make $ millions???

But I agree with you on what you say about the GOP, FOX and the Tea Parters.

[svenshoegazer]

Dennis Kucinich sounds like your man then. Since you're a lib.

( Except he definitely falls into that " weird little gnome " catagory that Wookietim spoke of )

Oh forgot about Kucinich and his Hot Wife..is he running in 2012 though??

[Wookietim]

I did agree with Obama on almost everything before Libya, he trully lost me there. And also how we are handling the Japanese Crisis as well..we are just standing back and watching (so it seems). So with Libya though the big question is...Are we there to kill one and save a million or make $ millions???

But I agree with you on what you say about the GOP, FOX and the Tea Parters.

Well, when it comes to Libya it seems we have sort of stayed out of putting troops on the ground and are limiting our involvement to air strikes... which is a good idea. The one area that the US has unquestioned superiority is in the military tech we have in the air - Clinton knew that which is why he tended to use it a lot more than Bush (Who seemed to favor ground troops). And like I said - morally and ethically we couldn't look the other way when Ghadafi was opening fire on his own people, those people were crying out to us and our allies in Europe were urging us to stop Ghadafi... That would have been wrong. Perhaps the same can be said about the other countries in the area, but as far as I have heard they aren't exactly asking us to help either (Unlike Libya).

And as for Japan.. Beyond sending help (And the US has sent help in the form of equipment to help with the reactor as well as supplies for those displaced by the catastrophes) there isn't much we can do beyond what Japan is already doing. They have a serious problem but sending more people to get in the way of their handling of it really won't help all that much. After all, to be entirely honest, they know much more about these reactors than we do, so we aren't exactly in a position to help them in that way.

[ohio traveler]

Oh forgot about Kucinich and his Hot Wife..is he running in 2012 though??

Not sure. I'm guessing that he probably will though.

I don't share most of his positions on the issues ( Some though )

But I give the guy credit. He seems to stand up for what he believes in and holds to it.

[Wookietim]

Not sure. I'm guessing that he probably will though.

I don't share most of his positions on the issues ( Some though )

But I give the guy credit. He seems to stand up for what he believes in and holds to it.

To be honest I don't think we will see too many other people running on the Democratic ticket this time other than Obama... It's the GOP field that is going to see people running. I think we can count Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Pawlenty tossing their hats in. I suspect that Palin might try the waters. I keep hearing about Thule running.

To be honest, Romney is the closest they have to a moderate and he really has no chance (The GOP will never nominate him because of one word : "Mormon"). Palin has no chance unless she get's her wish and splits the Tea Party off from the GOP and turns it into her own little political cult (It's obvious she wants that). Pawlenty and Thule are already marred by what the GOP has done since the last elections added with the fact that they don't have well enough recognized names. Huckabee... well, all that has to be done with him is remind people that this christian religious guy compared sick humans to wrecked cars and burned down houses (Things to be simply abandoned) and his hopes disappear... Ron paul... Let's face it, Ron Paul is a Tea Party type darling but has never and will never catch on with the mainstream US voter...

[The Silver Thong]

I did agree with Obama on almost everything before Libya, he trully lost me there. And also how we are handling the Japanese Crisis as well..we are just standing back and watching (so it seems). So with Libya though the big question is...Are we there to kill one and save a million or make $ millions???

But I agree with you on what you say about the GOP, FOX and the Tea Parters.

Libya put Obama behind the eight ball and staying a bit back and letting others take the reigns was his best option. I'm a bit p***ed that Canada got the job because now it the crap hit's the fan who gets the heat however it could also be good for all party's. Libya the US and Canada if this comes out as a true humanitarian mission to aid the over through of a dictator. With CIA on the ground though it may come back to hurt Obama. It's a crap shoot imo.

As far as the GOP,Fox and the tea party goes, they are there own worst enemy.

[danielost]

This is like a big slap in the worlds face. A $1 billion slap and then some flaunting.. Don't get me wrong I voted for Obama in 08 and I am liberal as they come. But this campaign gold amount is uncalled for and just sickening to me. After Japan's Earthquake, the Tsunami and the potential nuclear disaster, the Middle East crisis, killing of UN Workers, US evolved in 3 wars he would be just a bit conservative on his 2012 bid. That money could so help out with other things then elect Obama as President or anyone else really. I think my vote is going to Ron Paul this year I really don't think he will flaunt $1 billion dollars just to be President of the US in the faces of need and dispair of the World and the US too.

we are talking about a job that pays 600,000 a year that means a max pay of 4.8 million. does anyone see anything wrong with spending 500 million or more for that job.

[supervike]

we are talking about a job that pays 600,000 a year that means a max pay of 4.8 million. does anyone see anything wrong with spending 500 million or more for that job.

I think it's only 400,000 for President, per year. So a max of 3.2 million.

But yeah, the rationale is the same.

[The Silver Thong]

we are talking about a job that pays 600,000 a year that means a max pay of 4.8 million. does anyone see anything wrong with spending 500 million or more for that job.

Not really when the president does not work for the people but the private sector. AKA the elite that control who dictates there will on the people.

[KRS_One]

The argument that "We're spending money on X when it should be going to Y" is a logical fallacy.

Just because a large sum of money is being spent on this item does not indicate that less money is instead going to Japan/whatever.

This is like making an argument that "A smart man shouldn't have become a scientist because he could have been a doctor and cured the sick instead!" or "Why do researchers waste time studying traffic paterns in large cities when they could be researching CANCER?!"

Because effort or resources are extended towards one goal does not equivocally mean they cannot be extended simultaneously towards another or even that they should.

[+DieChecker]

To be honest I don't think we will see too many other people running on the Democratic ticket this time other than Obama... It's the GOP field that is going to see people running. I think we can count Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Pawlenty tossing their hats in. I suspect that Palin might try the waters. I keep hearing about Thule running.

To be honest, Romney is the closest they have to a moderate and he really has no chance (The GOP will never nominate him because of one word : "Mormon"). Palin has no chance unless she get's her wish and splits the Tea Party off from the GOP and turns it into her own little political cult (It's obvious she wants that). Pawlenty and Thule are already marred by what the GOP has done since the last elections added with the fact that they don't have well enough recognized names. Huckabee... well, all that has to be done with him is remind people that this christian religious guy compared sick humans to wrecked cars and burned down houses (Things to be simply abandoned) and his hopes disappear... Ron paul... Let's face it, Ron Paul is a Tea Party type darling but has never and will never catch on with the mainstream US voter...

That is right. Un-electable. Just like Obama after the "Clinging to their Guns and Religion' Speech. Un-electable.

Name recognition is not so important as a clean record. Who had heard of Barak Obama in 2006? A handful of senior Democrats is all.