The Paddock

Nothing of what you said was based in fact. It was all opinion. One could easily argue that Al Gore and John Kerry were both more articulate and better "campaigners" than George W. Bush. One could argue that HW bush wins had Perot not gotten in the race.

All you discussed was your opinion.

In terms of what is going on today. It's as I predicted. It's an awful jobs report and everybody is focusing on that and not the convention. Most economists believe that as the debt cliff grows closer job creation will slow even more. Bernake will try to help by pumping MORE money into the fed but that won't effect jobs.

That's 8 million net new jobs in Reagan's economy. When you remove census hires there is virtually no new net jobs in the last 3+ years under obama.

Your numbers are accurate regarding what the campaigns, plus parties, plus friendly SuperPacs have on hand. Obama has spent more because Romney couldn't spend much of his until he got the nomination. They've raised roughly the same with the Dem's having a slight advantage and Obama, the candidate, having a huge edge over Romney the candidate.

You're so big on facts, it seems like you'd consult one every now and then.

It's hard to do anything when you are inept as a leader and you alienate folks from the get go. I just saw exceprts from Woodwards new book and it paints the annoited one as a petty, arrogant and ultimately incompetent leader. So w/that as the back drop, it's no wonder that we are where we are. When your first comment to the opposing party when they present an alternative to your proposal is "elections have consequences and I won" you are basically telling them to shove it! Yep, that's change we all can believe in! Leaders lead and this imbecile couldn't lead a group of 3rd graders to McDonalds to get a Happy Meal!

Cash on hand is what matters, not what you raise. Fundraising after citizens united is about how much your "team" has not what your "campaign" has. There are no lines of deliniation between the 3 (super pacs, parties, candidates) now. BTW, I disagree with citizens united.

The incident I sight below is supposedly in the book as well to frame the negotiating atmosphere that Obama had created w/House Republicans. And Hoptown is right, Obama and Boehner had reached a tentative framework then the Prez came back and asked for $400 billion more in revenue which was the deal breaker. So cocaine Barry and his dimwitted lib pals scuttled a very large deal all in the name of placating their base. Yep, that's real leadership!

By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

It's been wildly reported that Obama pulled the rug out from under Boehner. They reached an agreement. Both went back to sell to their folks. Obama came back after boehner had sold to his folks and changed the rules. Common sense says that Boehner walks away as he should have at that point.

We don't have a revenue problem in our country. We have a spending problem.

i agree with eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest but we already have the most progressive tax system in terms of proportion of taxes paid in the world.

Here are the exact #'s.

According to James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, the unemployment rate would be 11.2 per cent if the labour force participation rate had remained what it was when Obama took office in January 2009. The U.S. Labour Department also said that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in June and July than previously reported.

Just wondering how what Obama said is different from what Bush said days after the 2004 election, 'I have earned political capital and I intend to spend it' not exact quote but damn close

The only difference I see is that Obama won by a much larger popular vote percentage and electoral vote share in 2008 than Bush did in 2004. Not to mention he also had heavy majorities in the HoR and Senate

Did you even read the article about the Ohio ad buy? Anybody who understands politics knows that the opposing party usually dials back their campaign during the opposing campaigns convention.

Just wait.

Unemployment dropped to 8.1% not because we ADDED jobs but because nearly 400,000 people DROPPED off the roles looking for work. 92,000 hires doesn't even keep up with population growth. The US labor participation rate is at its lowest point in 30 years!! So regardless of how positively any lib wants to spin it, the jobs report for August was a debacle pure and simple.

Hey Carl, how do you know that the 4 advisors that were changed weren't the only 4 Bush would listen to? Lol