39

The GOP’s battle against a fictional Obama

Obama is either a radical socialist who’s brought America to the brink or an incompetent buffoon. He can’t be both.


 

In my years as a political operative, we had one basic rule—know your opponent. Knowing your opponent is essential to developing an alternate narrative, exploiting your opponent’s weaknesses, and anticipating his or her countermoves. Republicans appear to have chosen to ignore the rule. After listening to months of debates among Republican candidates vying for the nomination, I have concluded they are running against the Obama they have created, not the real Obama.

The slow pace of the economic recovery has made Obama’s reelection uncertain at best. The aura of hope and change from the 2008 campaign is long gone. While Obama’s record is highly defensible, he remains, according to polls, vulnerable in the swing states. And yet, there is a growing sense that Obama’s chances of reelection are better now than they were last summer after the disastrous fiasco on the debt ceiling debate.

A lot of that has to do with the Republicans’ rhetoric about Obama. It is highly inflammatory and intensely personal in tone—but it is also almost entirely disconnected from the facts. Obama is often made out to be a radical socialist trying to impose a European-style welfare state on the U.S. But while he is widely depicted as a menacing figure, Republicans also say he is the weakest leader since Jimmy Carter. The premises are obviously contradictory—why worry about Obama if he is so completely unable to exercise his powers?

Republicans also say that his economic policies have brought the American economy to the brink of ruin, that he has brought record deficits and debt thereby creating a Greek-style menace to America’s future economic security. At the same time, Obama is reputedly weakening America’s military might while apologizing for the country’s greatness. For several years now, American conservatives have portrayed him as an apostle of famed community organizer Saul Allinsky, arguing that he is hiding an agenda aimed at subverting true American values. And who can forget the polemic around his birth certificate and the apparent need “to take our country back”? (Take the country back from whom, exactly?)

The painting of this picture of Obama started with Sarah Palin’s unsubstantiated assertions in the 2008 campaign. From there, the birther nonsense got a brief but thorough airing via Donald Trump’s silly flirtation with a presidential run, but the more systematic demonization of Obama has persisted thanks to Tea Party advocates and those candidates still competing in the GOP primary in Florida.

Yet Obama is not a radical, nor is he a socialist, and he does not go around the world apologizing for America. His signature healthcare reform package copied Mitt Romney’s model in Massachussetts, handing 50 million more customers to the private healthcare industry. This is not socialism. As for Saul Alinsky, he died when Obama was 11 and his book, “Rules for Radicals,” has been distributed among early advocates of the Tea Party by conservative groups like Freedom Works.

When Obama took office, he inherited a negative growth economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Once he assumed office and passed his job creation package, the economy began to grow again. It has created over 3 million private sector jobs in 3 years—more than were created during the eight years of George W.Bush’s Administration. A majority of economists, even conservative ones, agree that the stimulus measures prevented an economic contraction that could have been more disastrous than the Great Depression.

More than 2/3 of the increase of the national debt can be traced back to Bush-era policies, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the drug prescription program initiated under Bush. Obama supported the controversial TARP, but most of the money given to the financial sector has since been recuperated. The bailout of GM was a success and a leaner GM is back as the number one car maker in the world.

In national security, Obama and Hillary Clinton have registered some unquestionable successes: Americans are out of Iraq; al-Qaeda is severely depleted since the elimination of Osama bin Laden and many of his senior operatives; dictators like Mubarak and Gadhafi have been removed from power; and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. The defence budget under Obama has increased yearly.

My point is that the Obama the Republicans are campaigning to defeat is a fabrication; the GOP has grown disconnected from reality. Romney and Gingrich—possibly even Santorum—might be doing better if they offered a vision to counter the real Obama rather than the one they’ve created.


 
Filed under:

The GOP’s battle against a fictional Obama

  1. the Republicans should make their case because they have a good one . They just have a blind spot on Obama . He is the devil to them . I wonder why .Republicans should present an alternative and they will win .

  2. Partisans have always been willing to accept ludicrous and fictional claims about “the other side”. Most probably don’t even believe the claims in their heads, but accept them and propagate them. 

    Many Democrats believed that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, or that Bush was taking his cues from the Saudis (which is ridiculous because the invasion of Iraq meant that A. Iraq’s oil could be sold on world markets and B. it toppled a Sunni-dominated regime in favour of a Shiite dominated one). Alternately, Mearsheimer and Walt were able to make a lot of money on a book suggesting that the Israel lobby was behind the war on Iraq (which is not at all reflective of AIPAC’s lobbying strategy – there is an Israel lobby, but Iraq was not a major cause for it). 
    Or closer to home, how many Canadians believed that Stephen Harper had a hidden agenda to ban abortion and end public healthcare?

    • hosertohoosier is comparing apples with oranges . Bush did his tax cuts when he started a war, first time in recent that a war is declared and the people are told to shop  . He then fabricated a reason to go to a second war . And then like a `true liberal `, he brought in an unfunded universal program of prescription drugs . Then the financial meltdown hit and he seemed lost in what to do .He had no choice . Bush was not a creation of the Dems or conspiracy theories  .Dems supported Bush on the 2 wars if you know your history  Bush was responsible for his actions .
      Btw , CNN did a fact check and said Obama`s claim of 3 million jobs was true . Now I know that CNN is not Fox news …………..

      • 1. I took my data directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I even included a link.
        2. I fail to see where I defended the policies of the Bush administration (Bush was a bad president). I had a simple, limited point – that the left also skews reality because the problem is partisanship, not one of dumb right-wingers or dumb left-wingers. 

        In fact this conversation is a very good example of that. Look at all of the assumptions you have made about me, based solely on the evidence that I pointed out (in a different comment, incidentally) that both the DNC’s claim of 3.3 million jobs created by the stimulus, and Parisella’s comparison of Obama’s job creation (since the trough of the financial crisis) to that of Bush’s (over his two terms) is also misleading. 

        Simply because I question a claim – using factual evidence – must I also endorse everything that the Republican party stands for? This is precisely why misinformation is so prevalent in American politics (and increasingly Canadian politics). Factual claims are evaluated on the lean (and in some cases incorrect assessments of the lean) of the person they came from, not their veracity – and ultimately people end up talking past one another.

  3. I agree completely with the claim that the GOP has grown disconnected from reality. But that’s no excuse for Maclean’s to publish a rambling series of one-sided, pro-Democratic talking points that’s equally disconnected from reality. 

    To take just one issue that kinda kinda matters: while the US economy has “created 3 million private sector jobs,” that statistic is totally meaningless outside of the Democratic National Committee HQ, since it’s cold consolation to 23.7 million Americans who remain unemployed or underemployed as of year-end. Nor should it be much consolation, when “even liberal economists” agree that the Administration fell asleep at the wheel on the economy in mid-2009, believing and acting as all they needed to do to fix it was spend a few hundred billion and walk away.

    Only a drooling moron or a partisan drone would complain about “disconnection from reality” in the GOP on the one hand, and then pretend there aren’t enormous economic challenges that threaten the President’s re-election on the other. In this case, I suspect Mr. Parisella’s weakness is more about shameless cheerleading than anything else, but either way, please urge him to give us a little more independent thought and a little less boilerplate next time.

    • The 3 million jobs figure is a “real” number but it is an incredibly misleading one. The CBO estimated that the stimulus created between 500,000 and 3.3 million jobs. Taking the top of the estimate and ignoring the fiscal impact of trillions in deficit spending, or the impact of the stimulus on long-term growth (the CBO has suggested that this is negative) is certainly a case of very wishful thinking. 

      It also doesn’t address the question of whether that same money could have been used more effectively through other channels. A lot of Obama’s stimulus spending was targeted at items with a low multiplier effect (ie. types of spending that do not reverberate through the economy very much), and even a cursory glance at today’s reality, relative to the projections of Obama’s team (unemployment was supposed to be 6% by now) illustrates that the stimulus did not match their expectations. 

      • Parisella: “When Obama took office, he inherited a negative growth economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Once he assumed office and passed his job creation package, the economy began to grow again. It has created over 3 million private sector jobs in 3 years—more than were created during the eight years of George W.Bush’s Administration.”

        hosertohoosier: “The CBO estimated that the stimulus created between 500,000 and 3.3 million jobs. Taking the top of the estimate and ignoring the fiscal impact of trillions in deficit spending… is certainly a case of very wishful thinking”

        Is it wishful thinking? Because Parisella clearly says that the economy created 3M jobs, not the stimulus. I think you’ve slain a strawman here.

        • Parisella’s math is incredibly misleading. He is comparing two different things (here is the real data, by the way: 
          http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth ).

          1. Bush over his entire term
          2. Obama starting from the trough of employment (in Feb 2010)

          There are two possible “fair” comparisons. Bush vs. Obama for their entire first terms, or Bush vs. Obama from the troughs in employment resulting from the recessions both Presidents inherited.

          Change in employment over entire term
          Obama: -2,873,000 jobs (-2,573,000 if projections for Nov/Dec are right)
          Bush: -268,000 jobs
          Bush (both terms): +2,066,000

          Change in employment from trough:
          Obama: 2,354,000 (+300,000 if projections are correct)
          Bush: 4,712,000

          So yes, I confused Parisella’s 3 million figure to the Obama administrations claim about jobs created (which is also misleading). Perhaps the reason I did that is that Parisella’s 3 million is a made up number. 

          • For the love of god.

            Parisella’s point (and you know this) is not to haggle over where to set the goalposts, it’s that Republican rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

            Heck, if these numbers demonstrate anything, it’s that Republican fiscal policy is dangerous for the country. The efficiency of Obama’s stimulus, how to measure its success, how to compare to Bush, etc… these are completely dwarfed by the astonishing fiscal collapse that took place after 8 years of Republican policies.

          • you are so right about Republican disconnect .

          • All jobs created since the trough of the great recession were not created as a result of the stimulus. The best estimates, from the CBO, range from 500,000 to 3.3 million jobs created as a result of the stimulus ( see bullet point on the bottom of page 2: 
            http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12564/11-22-ARRA.pdf ). If reality lies at the lower side of that range, surely it could be argued that another form of stimulus might have been more effective.

            Moreover , the recovery from this crisis has been the slowest since the Great Depression ( 
            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/comparing-recessions-job-recovery/ ). Reasonable people – and not just hardliners – can find fault with Obama. And they can find areas of positive results too – TARP (which was orchestrated by both the Bush administration and the Obama team) has been largely successful, with most of the money paid back and bank failures starting to slow down. Later on you argue that the numbers suggest that there is something particularly bad about Republican economic policies. That may be true, but what policies specifically?

            If you are thinking about financial deregulation, much of that passed under Clinton’s watch:
            -In 1994 congress passed the Neal-Riegle bank branching act, allowing interstate bank branching. Clinton signed it.
            -In 1999 congress gutted the Glass Steagall regulations, ending the distinction between commercial and investment banking. Again, Clinton signed it. 
            -In 2000 congress passed the commodity futures modernization act, opening up vast new derivatives markets. Clinton signed it. 
            -regulation arguably increased under Bush’s watch, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act (although there was a technical decision about how to interpret leverage that enabled some institutions to extend leverage). 

            If you are thinking about deficits, while a case can be made against Bush, Obama isn’t any better on that front. Like Bush he has cut taxes (payroll taxes in his case), created new entitlements (eg. Obamacare), and engaged in foreign adventurism (eg. Libya). The deficit is higher than ever. 

            And there are elements of the housing crisis that clearly stemmed from the Democrats more than Republicans, such as the passage of the CRA, and the push for lax mortgage lending standards. 

            I think it is more useful to think outside the bounds of partisanship, but rather to talk about actual policies and their relative policy merits. The reality is that both Republicans and Democrats have screwed us, and it is our tendency towards partisan blinkers that have allowed us to let them continue to do so. 

          • “All jobs created since the trough of the great recession were not created as a result of the stimulus.”

            Wait – so now we’re back to talking about the stimulus? Remember, you’re the one who brought it up, and you’re the only one making claims about its relation to “reality.” Please review the preceding posts.

            ” the recovery from this crisis has been the slowest since the Great Depression…”

            Yup. They call it the Great Recession. It’s worldwide and it’s bad.

            ” Reasonable people – and not just hardliners – can find fault with Obama.”

            Yup.

            “TARP (which was orchestrated by both the Bush administration and the Obama team) has been largely successful”

            Yup. As have been Obama’s stimulus and the auto bailout. Still looking for a point here….

            “If you are thinking about financial deregulation, much of that passed under Clinton’s watch…”

            Sure. My biggest complaint about the Bush administration was lax enforcement of regulations still in effect.

            “If you are thinking about deficits, while a case can be made against Bush, Obama isn’t any better on that front”

            Ok. hogwash. Bush inherited a large budget surplus (along with a roaring economy). He then supported massive tax cuts for the wealthy and two simultaneous unfunded wars. From a deficit perspective, you could call those unforced errors. He then presided over a massive, obvious bubble in the housing and financial markets that drove up the stock market but put in place the spectacular crash near the end of his term.

            Obama inherited a seized financial system, a housing market in free-fall, an economy and job market in collapse, a failing auto sector and a $1.4 trillion deficit. All of these things were in place before he was sworn in.

            Gosh, and you want to play armchair quarterback. “Obama is no better than Bush” you claim. Give your head a shake. Bush ran the US into the ground despite endless advantages. Obama inherited Bush’s disaster, and a Republican party that ground the Senate (and Obama’s executive appointments!) to a halt for political gain during a national crisis.

            Seriously, you’re grousing about the CRA?!? You have the nerve to say “I think it is more useful to think outside the bounds of partisanship…” while parroting the same old tired Republican partisan bullsh*t. I guess all faults are equal, right? A trillion-dollar war of choice is just as bad as inefficiencies in an economic stimulus identified after the fact. A trillion-dollar tax cut for the wealthy is somehow equivalent to a bailout that saves the American auto industry and pays for itself. 

            Who can tell the difference when mistakes are made on both sides?!? “The reality is that both Republicans and Democrats have screwed us…” That might be more compelling if you weren’t turning yourself into a pretzel to equalize the blame and share with the Democrats.

            You even look at this graph: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490 and think “Wow, Obama looks a lot like Bush.” Are you out of your mind? Obama’s economic stimulus expires this year, while Bush’s policies devastate the US balance sheet for a generation! And Bush’s policies were made during the good times!

            If nothing else, please stop this ridiculous charade of non-partisanship. Your eyes are screwed shut, your fingers in your ears and you’re screaming “Obama’s fault tooooooo!” at the top of your lungs. The rest of us, here in the reality-based community, are ashamed of you.

          • It’s not letting me respond to you elsewhere – though it seems like we agree on most points, so you could be a little more civil. We disagree on the deficit, but I think you aren’t giving Bush the same out you gave Obama.

            1. The Deficit
            Bush also inherited a major financial crisis – the dot com bust. The dot com bust was different in that it hit securities, rather than banking, but certainly was a major crisis. Global stock market capitalization fell by half. 

            Expansionary fiscal policy (more spending/lower taxes) a loose monetary policy were macro-economically appropriate responses to that crisis. What is more, the deficit appeared to be converging towards a balance – by 2007 the deficit was $161 billion, or about 1% of GDP which was close to the historic norm. Bush is hardly an angel in terms of fiscal sobriety, and we would be better off if his deficits had been channeled towards more appropriate purposes.

            And yes the graph you pointed to makes me think Obama is a lot like Bush. Why? Because he failed to reverse those policies, despite a historically large majority in both houses, and a massive mandate from the American people in 2008. 

            2. Lax enforcement
            Lax enforcement of regulations on the books had little to do with the financial crisis. The problem is that a combination of deregulation in the 90’s and financial innovation since then meant that large areas of the market were operating without regulations. 

            For instance, credit default swaps allowed third parties (like AIG) to effectively insure investments against loss. As a result these securities were rated based on the third party’s investment rating, instead of the risk-level of the parties directly involved. As a result conservative investors like pension funds could pour money into high-risk, high return investments. The big problem was that AIG was not limited in its ability to take on swap contracts, and was highly vulnerable if they all failed simultaneously, as they did. 

            Similarly, credit ratings agencies – which are also largely unregulated – could have provided accurate ratings. However, they had incestuous relationships with a number of key firms, which they relied upon for subscription. 

            But the point is that both of these problems could not have been prevented by enforcement of the regulations on the books, because there weren’t any. 

            3. The CRA
            Just because somebody suggests the CRA played a role in the crisis, does not mean that they are hyper-partisan. I think you will enjoy life more, and learn more from others, if you stop making assumptions about people’s ideological or partisan background – instead listen to the content of what they say. 

            The CRA, passed in 1995, required banks with FDIC insurance to demonstrate that they were lending to lower income people. What this did was create competition between government sponsored enterprises (eg. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and private banks to cater to the same group of customers, with 4.5 trillion in CRA-approved loans. The only way to get enough people was to lower underwriting standards, taking on increasingly risky lenders. 

            Granted, I think the CRA (and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) played more of a supporting role. Without them you might have had a crisis originating in a different sector than real estate, because of the fundamental problem that derivatives trading allowed firms to act in ways that effectively over-leveraged themselves, while also obscuring the underlying reality of what was traded. 

          • Deficit: You’re steadfastly ignoring Bush’s two wars, and his tax cut for the rich. These things in total accounted for over $500B of the deficit in 2009. How can you talk about the deficit without addressing that? 

            And Bush v Obama: Of course Obama maintained a loose monetary policy, the country was in crisis. The difference is that Obama has tried, with mixed success, to end Bush policies that have been the largest long-term contributor to the deficit. 

            The Bush administration trashed the nation’s finances during good times, then handed over the keys to a broke and collapsing nation. You can complain about Obama’s management of multiple, simultaneous crises but it’s rank bullsh*t to equate the two administrations.

            BTW, no sane person would quote a $161B deficit for 2007 while knowing full well that Bush didn’t include the cost of his two wars in his deficit numbers.

            Lax enforcement: “both of these problems could not have been prevented by enforcement of the regulations on the books, because there weren’t any.”

            Here’s Bloomberg on the topic (the headline is “Feds Faulted for Lax Mortgage Regulation before Financial Crisis): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/fed-faulted-for-lax-mortgage-regulation-before-financial-crisis.html

            And here’s a summary of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the financial collapse: http://levin.senate.gov/senate/committees/investigations/

            Click “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis” and scroll down to “Hearing Two: The Role of Bank Regulators.”

            While I agree that more regulations are required, it is simply false to claim that there were no regulations that could have mitigated or avoided the crash.

            CRA: This tired old chestnut exists to blame government (or “liberals”) for the crash. It’s false. 

            50% of subprime loans were made by non-bank FIs. Another 30% were made by bank affiliates. Of the remaining 20%, covered by CRA, only a small fraction were high-rate (extra-risky) loans, a lower proportion were collateralized and they had a lower failure rate than the non-CRA 80%.

            A supporting role? Hardly. Says BusinessWeek: “Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.” You really need to read the whole thing: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

            “I think you will enjoy life more, and learn more from others, if you stop making assumptions about people’s ideological or partisan background – instead listen to the content of what they say.

            Spare me your sanctimony. Maybe you should broaden your sources.

    • Brian: “Only a drooling moron or a partisan drone would complain about “disconnection from reality” in the GOP on the one hand, and then pretend there aren’t enormous economic challenges that threaten the President’s re-election on the other.

      Parisella, above: “The slow pace of the economic recovery has made Obama’s reelection uncertain at best. The aura of hope and change from the 2008 campaign is long gone. While Obama’s record is highly defensible, he remains, according to polls, vulnerable in the swing states.”
      Brian: ” In this case, I suspect Mr. Parisella’s weakness is more about shameless cheerleading than anything else, but either way, please urge him to give us a little more independent thought and a little less boilerplate next time.”

      And I would ask that you read the article before posting a comment so completely disconnected from reality. Or maybe you just have a reflexive “harrumph!” reaction any time anyone says something positive about Obama.

      • And I’m not going to agree. Not least because I can say many things positive about Obama. In fact, I was cheering him on as a potential president long before he was even formally nominated as a candidate.

        But the purpose of a Canadian newsmagazine isn’t to say nice things about Obama. It’s to offer news, or insight. The column above meets neither standard. It’s a list of talking points, plain and simple; hell, even OBAMA is more critical of the state of the US economy than Parisella is in his obsequious defence of him.  And I stand by my point: if Parisella has the time to look up the Democratic National Committee’s BS stat on job creation, he’s got time to do more than to frame the state of the economy with sugar-coated statements about “the slow pace [slow? glacial!] of the recovery” and claims that “Obama’s record is highly defensible.”

        • Uh, ok. But this is a blog, first of all, and is supposed to be a place for less formal observations and writing than you’d find in the magazine.

          Second, Parisella’s thesis is that there is a disconnect between Republican rhetoric and reality. So he quotes Republican rhetoric and contrasts it with reality.

          You agree with the thesis (“I agree completely with the claim that the GOP has grown disconnected from reality.”), so how else should Parisella have illustrated that?

  4. Obummer is a radical socialist, therefore he is an incompetent buffoon. You can’t be one without the other. 

    • The Republcan strategy in a nutshell. Now try reading the article.

      • Probably can’t.

        • Racist!

          • I’m sure there’s a nice socialist program that will help you. You should count your lucky stars that there are many people in public education ready to help you with your literacy problems. It’s never too late!

          • Racist!

      • A socialist response rapped in a nutshell… probably thought of by someone else.

        • Another non-reader. I recommend the Repubs go back to the birth certificate issue – it’s a clear winner.

          • Another bed wetter. I recommend Demorats stick to imposing class warfare – it beats reality.

          • Hey – I can’t compete with Gingrich’s attack on Romney for being – wait for it – rich – and – wait, it gets even better – for being in the rich favoured 15% tax bracket.  Nobody else needs to engage in class warfare – the Republicans have it covered. 

  5. The US’s single biggest problem is the out of control deficit and largest debt in the history of mankind.  While eviscorating Bush’s deficits on the campaign trail, once in power he proceeded to grow them significantly.

    His solution to dealing with the soaring debt that threatens the stability of the American way of life?  Ramming through a massive new government entitlement program in Obamacare. 

     His “green jobs” agenda is beyond farcicle and potentially criminal.  We are learning the Solyndra is merely the tip of the iceburg as company after company upon receiving billions (that’s correct – billions) in taxpayer subsidies  – Solaryndra alone lost 500 million in taxpayer gauranteed loans – have gone under, succumbing to the reality that the “green industry” was an ideologically driven fiction rather than economically viable enterprises.  That the Solaryndra chief (and many like him) was a major Dem donor and visited the White house numerous times, should send chills down the spines of all Americans.  While throwing billions down the “green” wastebin, he actively thwarted real energy jobs, the killing of the Keystone pipeline just one of many examples.

    Far from healing racial divisions, he (or his surrogates) revive them at every opportunity to score unfair cheap political points, to such an extent that excercising one’s political right to question the sitting president is an inherent act or racism.

    And when confronted by a middle class overburdened by taxes that the massive leviathan government gulps up uncotrollably, his solution isn’t to reign in the the spending that feeds off such taxes, and hence to lower taxes, but points the finger to the “rich” as if they are to blame, demanding yet MORE taxes from that “bad” class, pitting American against American in the most crass form of class warfare not seen since the rise of the socialist revolutions of the past century.

    His policies are “defensible” you say?  What more of an example does one need of the depth of left leaning bias in our media today than this very post?

      • My biggest takeaway from that graph: wow Obama looks a lot like Bush.

  6. Obama is a Social Democrat. No matter how far left the current govt. happens to be, push it further left.

    Dr. Paul is the only GOP candidate with an alternate vision: liberty and prosperity.

  7. This comment was deleted.

    • What are the Republicans really saying about Obama that is true ?

      • That he’s a tax and spend Liberal who’s perpetrating class warfare and wants to punish those who succeed.

  8. Exactly the way I see it as well

  9. The only reason it even appears as though Obama has a chance of reelection is because the media is doing it’s best to keep him in it. Obamacare is a joke, the Fast and Furious scandal hasn’t even begun to hit the airwaves. 95% of Americans look at the job #s and think they’re all lies. His administration has been an absolute failure. Come voting day, I believe most Americans will be asking “what exactly has changed in the last 4 years?” And they’ll have a tough time coming up with any substantial answers.

    • So Newt or Mitt – who do you think can take him?

    • The only reason it appears as though Harper has a chance of reelection is because the media. Is doing its best to keep him in. The Crime Bill is a joke, the housing crash driven by bad financial policy hasn’t even begun to hit the airwaves. 95% of Canadians look at the budget numbers and think they’re all lies. His administration is an absolute failure. Come voting day I believe most Canadians will be asking “what exactly has changed in the last 4 years?”. And they’ll have a tough time coming up with substantial answers.

      Man, being a partisan is sooooo easy!

Sign in to comment.