I'm getting a lot more worried about Obama and his chances in 2012

[LeftyAndProud60]

Worst case scenario he loses. What the hell happens to the Health Care Bill? We'll have to depend on Republicans to implement this? I really think for the sake of this country a democrat needs to be in office till at least 2016 to make sure this is done right. That being said, it seems the media is determined to bring down Barack Obama. And BP isn't helping things. I really believe this oil spill could be the end of him. When I think about it the Federal Government has done a horrible job preventing oil from hitting the shore. They can't do anything to stop it from coming out of the ground, but it had to be more things they could've done to clean it up. It hurts to say, but I think that is an appropriate criticism of Obama. Then with the media piling on about his temperment makes it worse.

Is anyone else worried about the future?

And I'm sleepy, so hopefully some of this is clear.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Honestly?

Not worried in the least.

[DFLforever]

2. Get a good night's sleep. You'll feel more confident.

Imo , I think the president will be re-elected - easily.

[Hawkowl]

3. He's a shoe in....Just like Jimmy Carter after Nixon

I mean with Watergate and the oil embargo. The rethuglicans in complete disarray. I mean they only had joke candidates like that stupid clown of a B movie actor Reagan.

[depakid]

4. As the facts come out, the oil spill will indeed become a major problem

alongside the fact that the administration's gone out of its way to alienate most of its key constituencies- the very ones who put the boots on the ground come election time.

[lob1]

5. I think you could be right. Obama says he's running

the show, but I see BP running the show and spewing lie after lie that this administration does nothing to correct. Who's ass is Obama going to kick, and will it be in my lifetime? It's just talk, and not even very convincing.

I must add that I voted for Obama.

[LeftyAndProud60]

6. Not to mention the next problem is becoming clearer. BP is the next too big to fail. They go down

millions of pensions in Europe goes w/ them. Then that impacts Wall Street and our recovery. Orangeman will get his wish. Taxpayers will be burdened w/ this and who will get the blame? Barack Obama.

[DFLforever]

12. You've been listening to BP PR programming

Most large companies are heavily invested in by big pension funds. What makes BP so special? How about the suspicion that Obama is pushing down the share price of Bp so it can be taken over cheap by an American oil company? I read that today in a comments section at the Guardian among other gems such as Obama is so demanding and coercive he makes Chavez look reasonable.

I recommend the Guardian, especially their comments sections, to anyone who thinks the President is soft on BP. It's a antidote to American media.

[nsd]

7. Ridiculous.

Jobs -- that is what's important. Everything else is just noise and crack for the political junkies.

As long as the economy seems like it's healing by 2012, Obama will be fine. That's all people really care about.

I am going to say it flat out: the oil spill does not matter. Not even a little bit. I personally do not care about the oil spill. And I think my indifference is shared by most Americans. Unless you're a fisherman in Louisiana or own a resort on the Gulf Coast or something like that, the oil spill is just something you watch on TV or read about on the internet. It's not something that affects your life.

The state of the economy does affect the lives of most people. It's the economy, stupid. It's always the economy.

I'd bet the US economy will show signs of life by 2012. We won't be back to where we were, but the signs of healing will be there. And so I predict Obama wins easily.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. May I ask your age?

Just curious if you're in your 20s, 30s, older....

Your perspective, and lack of interest in this crisis that threatens to affect nearly everything with a domino effect, is very interesting. I wonder if it's an age thing.

:hi:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

40. Wow indeed. So the "oil spill does not matter," eh?

That has to be the most ignorant remark I have seen in a very long time.

I would also like to suggest to you that there are more important things in this world than the political fortunes of one man or party.

Time to think a little harder.

[Beacool]

44. Speak for yourself!!! I deeply care about it.

I am going to say it flat out: the oil spill does not matter. Not even a little bit. I personally do not care about the oil spill. And I think my indifference is shared by most Americans. Unless you're a fisherman in Louisiana or own a resort on the Gulf Coast or something like that, the oil spill is just something you watch on TV or read about on the internet. It's not something that affects your life.


;(

[wurlwynd]

48. I cannot believe the blindness - wake up

I lurk here a lot. Don't post much, but I have to respond to this. First of all only a fool can assign any blame for the oil spill to the current administration. That being said, thinking that the disaster will not affect all of us is the height of folly.

I will put aside the ecological ramifications because they make me just too sick at my stomach to contemplate. Lets just discuss the social and economic ones. If, by the virtue of the spill, the gulf becomes unfishable, what do you think will happen to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of fishermen and their families that live on the Gulf Coast? What of the other businesses that rely on that fish to survive? Restaurants may import product from other regions, but having extremely low margins to begin with that may just not be viable to many business models and may result in an unsustainable expense. So add restaurateurs to that list of people affected. Now, think of all the people that the fisherman and restaurateurs do business with every day. Can they keep their businesses afloat without the income generated from those patrons?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

This non-fictional scenario is setting the stage for a possible refugee migration from the Gulf Coast as people scramble to find new line of work before they are destroyed by poverty from lack of income. No person in their right mind will elect to stay in a place with no income , poisoned, and no hope for future income.

What will these people do for work? For homes? For FOOD?

Where will they go?

The blame for this, as I see it, lies squarely on the shoulders of BP. The current administration might be able to do more to assist in easing federal permit restrictions in affected areas for cleanups and engaging more private contractors to actively cleanup the mess, but wtf are they really supposed to do?

This is a gigantic shitstorm of a disaster, and only the first little drops have begun to fall.

Your little umbrella of 'I don't give a fuck' wont help you.

[lob1]

66. You should post more. You make sense.

[Godhumor]

55. I seriously doubt he'll have much difficulty in 2012

He's too well liked and the Republicans don't have a uniter in the bunch right now.

[treestar]

60. You are right about the economy

I remember hearing people in 1996 saying everything was great, so why not keep Clinton in office? Even impeachment didn't matter.

[Knight Hawk]

76. Florida 2012?

I live on the Gulf ,can see it as I type,just west of Tampa,Florida.Obama won Florida in 2008 and definitely needs it in 2012.The oil spill is already affecting business way down here.The state is already trending right .I do think it will hurt Obama if Florida is hurt big time by the spill.It may be misplaced anger and not fair but when are things fair?

[Ex Lurker]

90. tombstone this asshole, please n/t

[jobycom]

8. Nah, he's a lock.

I've got a lot of things to criticize Obama over, as do most people, but the bottom line will be that he has done what he could and been rather honest in the process, and things were screwed up to start with. People might complain about him, but when it comes down to a choice of him or the party that created the mess, most Americans are going to have an easy time making that decision.

[smalll]

10. Obama's got two terms --

control of the House, or the Senate? That's another issue. But Obama's got two terms, for just two reasons

1) If Presidents aren't total fuck-ups, they tend to get two terms

2) The Repubicans have NO-ONE ---
Palin's too lazy to study the breifing books,
And Romney = Masscare/Romneycare = Obamacare, which becomes inconvenient for a Republican challenger.

[saracat]

11. Dems rarely get second terms. Clinton and Roosevelt were exceptions.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. That's a bit misleading.

Here are the presidents since WWII:

FDR--reelected and died in office
Truman--took over and reelected
Eisenhower--reelected
JFK--died in office
Lyndon Johnson--took over and reelected
Nixon-reelected and resigned
Ford-took over and NOT reelected
Carter-NOT reelected
Reagan-reelected
Bush-NOT reelected
Clinton-reelected
Bush-reelected


So the only people who served and then weren't reelected were Carter, Ford and Bush. Not quite the same as you put it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. Even if you want to strictly to "reelected every time ran", JFK would have been reelected had he not

been killed. That's 3/6. You have six republicans and 2 were dumped. That's 4/6. That's not a significant difference.

[saracat]

18. There isn't any reason to believe Kennedy would have been

re-elected. He was barely elected,( and it is actually possible he wasn't due to the Daly machine. Nixon was going to fight it but didn't only because he knew he had also been squirrelly with the CA vote.) and there were grave concerns at the time about his re-election. My parents were very politically active at the time and I remember what they told me. My father and his brother also were friends of Jack Kennedy.My dad went to prep school with him. Everyone was really concerned about that election.It certainly was no lock. To indicate it was is revisionist history.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Kennedy had a 65% approval rating when he died and his whole term, his approval only fell below 60

once.

His problems with the election came from people alleging he had lack of experience. That would not have been an issue.

[saracat]

23. Sorry. That isn't correct. There were several issues.That was just one.

Even Johnson was worried. He was particularly worried about the South. The people who were actually there remember it differently. I spent part of one of my Dad's reunions talking to a Kennedy cousin about this, and he told me the same thing. I gotta go with their version. They were worried. I am not sdaying he woudn't have gotten reelected but it was not a guarantee by any means. That was one reason he went to Texas.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. JFK was looking foward to a battle with Goldwater and was building a Vietnam policy around an

expected 1964 victory. In addition, the Republican party was in disarray and facing a serious split between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockefeller republicans.

[saracat]

27. Believe as you like.It doesn't matter. No one can know. He died

He wasn't re-elected.

[saracat]

28. You may find this interesting. And BTW Kennedy was at 38% just before he died

according to a reporter at the time. This is a reporters recollection about the reason for the trip to Dallas.


"Only an acolyte of Governor Connally would try to paper over party disagreements, with the Governor taking the position he could solve all the internal strife.

But every other source on this, including those closet to JFK, have written that the effort was largely to end the Yarborough/Connally feud. For example the official history found at the Kennedy Library says,”JFK was aware that a feud among party leaders in Texas could jeopardize his chances of carrying the state in 1964, and one of his aims for the trip was to bring Democrats together.”

And, according to the Warren Commission Report, “As a political leader, the President wished to resolve the factional controversy with the Democratic Party in Texas before the election of 1964.”

In 1963 Conolly asked to be in charge of the trip and he was so designated. Barnes should know better than to try to assert that smoothing party conflict was not the main purpose of the visit.

Those of us who were around as young reporters or young political wannabees have clear memories on this.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. Nope. Gallup had him just under 60%. I have no idea where you got your "38%" number.

But it's wrong.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Kennedy

So yep, I was off by 7%. But you are off by 20%.

[saracat]

68. I got it from a reporter of the period but WaPO puts him at 30% in the last months of his Presidenc

He had a 60% overall but during those last months he was plummeting.

"Sept. 17, 1963 and Nov. 13, 1963 30% With approval ratings near sixty percent, Kennedy's worst was never very bad. His worst rating at 30 percent disapproval occurred twice in the last months of his presidency."


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

78. Did you read what you just posted? Thirty percent DISAPPROVAL not approval

[saracat]

67. This is from the Washington Post.The last months weren't good

Sept. 17, 1963 and Nov. 13, 1963 30% With approval ratings near sixty percent, Kennedy's worst was never very bad. His worst rating at 30 percent disapproval occurred twice in the last months of his presidency.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

79. "with approval ratings near 60 percent"

Yep

[saracat]

80. Delete

[Dan]

84. He was killed...

[suzie]

31. Kennedy would have been re-elected quite easily.

None of my family were friends with any Kennedy.

We were those working class Democrats who voted for Kennedy. But we did live in Texas, in 1963.

Kennedy would have been re-elected.

[saracat]

69. There was a real split in the democratric party and many democrats did leave. Kennedy went to

Dallas to unite the Dixiecrat conservatives and the liberals. He was at 30% approval rating! his election was not sure:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

[treestar]

62. That's absurd - he was immensely popular

If anything can be predicted of that which did not happen, JFK would have been re-elected.

[saracat]

72. He wasn't .He was at 30% and dropping in Sept and November of 1963.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

He was facing massive unrest with the Civil rights Movement and didn't dare promote Civil Rights legislation. The Democratic Party was fractured between the Dixiecrats and the Liberals. Kennedy went to dallas to try and unite the party.the South was very important to him.Remember Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.Kennedy's election was by no means a lock and he knew it. Bobby Kennedy was also almost universally hated at that time for the ruthless manner he handled being AG and the ties to the mafia he prosecuted as well as those who remembered Bobby's devotion to Joe McCarthy and his avid support of the red baiter. A little history goes a long way.

[suzie]

83. The Democratic Party in Texas, in which a candidate whose mentor was the Vice-President

(John Conally) had run against another candidate who was supported by the union vote (Don Yarborough) in a close election.

You had a candidate with deep ties to the oil business running against an East Texas New Deal liberal. Not exactly the scenario that you paint.

JFK was very disliked in Dallas, but not all over Texas.

[saracat]

16. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat reelected since Roosevelt.

http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/pres/trivia.htm

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Your stat is one of those that is selectively picked out to sound shocking but really isnt

Why?

Because Truman did serve two terms. He picked up a whole term from Roosevelt and won reelection. JFK was assassinated. Johnson served over a term. Jimmy Carter served 1 term. Then we had Clinton.

All of that aside, YOUR statement about Republicans getting reelected but Dems not does not hold water. The odds of being elected are STILL not significantly different for Republicans and Democrats.

[saracat]

19. You don't get credit for your predecessor's term.That isn't how historians judge it .

That isn't how it works. Look in any history book.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. People had had a full 4 years of Harry Truman as president when they reelected him.

Four years is enough time to decide whether you want to reelect a person or not. The people chose to reelect Truman.

The fact that you want to discount him in the "1 term" pile is rather unfair. He survived 4 years and got reelected. You want to hold him to a standard where he would have to survive 8 years and get reelected. By that measure, George W. Bush would not be reelected either.

[saracat]

24. This isn't my opinion.It is the way historians judge this. Argue with them.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. That seems to be kind of a cop out.

When people reelect someone, they are saying that the last four years have been tolerable enough that the individual deserves another four. In Truman's case, that is exactly what happened. He had only been VP for a little over 80 days and spent the rest of the time as president. He earned that election win.

[saracat]

29. Of course he did but he wasn't elected as "President " twice.

Al Gore( had his election been considered valid, as it should have been) would not have been considered a three term President because he served 8 years as VP. Johnson wasn't considered a two term president because he served out JFK's term. Life isn't fair. It just isn't figured that way. No one since Roosevelt, except for Clinton,has been elected to a second term as a Democratic President. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter that they died or didn't run. It is a fact that they were not re-elected. That is indisputable.I can't make up facts and make them count another way. As I say, argue with the historians.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

35. If it is for statistics in a trivia book, it doesn't matter why. But as for figuring out election

trends, it absolutely does matter why.

Your example of Al Gore is not accurate. Al Gore spent 0 days of 92-00 being president. Truman spent 4 years of 45-49 being president.

[saracat]

71. Facts are Facts whether trivia or not. You don't get your own set of facts

You argue Kennedy would have been reelected so choose to count it as a viable fact when he was at a 30% approval rating in Nov. 1963, and the Democratic Party was badly split between the liberals and the conservatives. We lost those conservatives. Remember Strom Thurmond was a Democrat!Kennedy was trying to unite the party and mend fences prior to the election. The South was very important to him.That was a reason he wasn't pushing for the Civil rights Act. He wouldn't dare sign it at that point. That was the reason he didn't send troops to the University of Mississippi when Meredith enrolled. He only sent Federal Marshals, though he was asked for troops. He always regretted that.Two people were killed. Kennedy saw George Wallace as a huge threat, and he was.

I have no idea whether Obama will be re-elected or not but at least use the real facts when trying to analyze.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

77. You read your chart wrong. 30% is the number that DISAPPROVES.

[saracat]

81. You are correct. I apologize . However that still does not ensure his reelection. We will never know

and there was in fact a big split in the Democratic Party. And Kennedy was in fact very nervous about the coming election.

[Laelth]

53. I agree--with your premise, your data, and your understanding of history.

JFK was barely elected, widely hated, and would have had a hard time being re-elected in 1964. Your premise (that post-Roosevelt Democrats don't get re-elected) seems to hold true, for the most part.

However, I think Obama will win in 2012. Clinton proved that the way to get re-elected as a post-Roosevelt Democrat is to not ruffle the feathers of big business. Obama seems bound and determined to do the same. Therefore, I conclude, he will be re-elected.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lamp_shade]

22. Worried? Oh really now. Hurts to say? Oh really now.

[dionysus]

47. yeah, right?

:rofl:

[muffin1]

32. It's way too early to predict what will happen

in November 2012. Hell, I was worried about the outcome of the 2008 election on election night.

[JohnnyLib2]

36. !!

:rofl:

No other comment; my crystal ball is in for repairs.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. +1 million

[impik]

34. Why are you worried? I thought the target of the left is to

primary him before 2012 and kick his sell-out butt back Chicago.

[Jennicut]

39. Oh come on. Clinton was in dire straits in 1994. Anyone not remember? And H.W. Bush once had a 90%

approval rating. Those here that want Obama re-elected will say he will be. Those that don't will say that he won't be. As for me, it is near impossible to predict the future. Because you never know what will happen. I will say Obama currently beats all the current contenders and has an approval rating that has been stable for months, despite a lot of very big problems going on.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. and Obama isn't exactly in dire straits

he's doing as well as other presidents around this time.

[Jennicut]

42. Better then Reagan, actually.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. yes

[RobinA]

54. Way Too Early

The minute that oil stops flowing into the sea the oil spill becomes ancient history in the voters' minds. Very few voters who aren't shrimp fishermen are going to vote the oil spill. Which really can't be blamed on Obama, even if you don't like how he's handling it. I never get the Katrina references, the only resemblance to Katrina is geographical. Obama probably knows that unless he does something REALLY stupid, his spill liability to voters is minimal. That's why he isn't doing a hell of a lot and isn't really even taking a strong position.

[saltpoint]

45. There's no practical rationale at the moment for anyone to challenge the

president from the left in his party or from the right, especially if that variable is joined to the sheer odds of defeating him for the nomination for re-election if he wants it in 2012.

A challenge within the party from the left would be no more successful than Kucinich's campaigns in 2004 and 2008, and likely less successful. A challenger from the Democratic right would do more to activate party county chairs who oversee the phone calling and door-knocking and envelope stuffing than it would to dissuade primary voters against Obama.

Over on the Puke ballot, I'm seeing no one and no ideas. The negatives on the GOP candidates are significant and they would have to claw each other's flesh to win nomination. The strongest candidate they could run is long dead -- Ronald Reagan -- and their current field is a pathetic scramble of nitwits, egomaniacs, and outright thieves.

The Baggers present another challenge to the GOP as well -- these people are angry and they aren't going to settle for anyone less than a raving maniac, so to accommodate the nutbags the "mainstream" Republicans have to present themselves as near-nutbags to win that demographic. I don't think it's going to work.

A current reading of the steaming entrails hints strongly at Obama's re-election.

[uponit7771]

46. BINGO!!!! But people here would rather whine and deride

[Dinger]

49. Just Keep Whistling . . .

past that graveyard.

[saltpoint]

50. The scenario is a coast-to-coast scene. There's a lot of landscape there.

If you're seeing a challenge to the president, let's hear who it is.

Kucinich? I don't think so.

Bayh? No.

And Obama's outpolling the "leading" Pukes as well.

[Dinger]

64. Well That's Fine

Let's see what happens. Regardless of what some people think, I am trying to keep an open mind, trying, not always successfully.

[HughMoran]

51. Where's the issue?

2-term Presidents

[Laelth]

52. I'm not worried. Obama will win.

His triangulation will be as effective as Clinton's. What makes me angry is that his triangulation will hurt the party and hurt working people, just like Clinton's did. Obama's win in 2012 will feel like a hollow victory.

Republicans couldn't pass NAFTA, but Clinton did. Bush II couldn't destroy Social Security, but Obama can, and he might. Clinton actually did reduce the size of the Federal Government by 5% whereas Bush expanded the government's size enormously. Now Obama is demanding 5% cuts in all discretionary, non-military spending. He's trying to be Clinton II.

I (and others) have said for some time that Clinton was the best Republican President that we have had since Eisenhower. Looks like Obama wants to challenge him for that title.

It's enough to make me sick.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BootinUp]

56. Anyone blaming Obama for the Oil Spill is an idiot

and chances are they would never have voted for Obama in 2012 and didn't in 2008 either. Stop worrying so much, at this point Obama has continued to navigate the political landscape masterfully. In other words, no one would have done any better, and his poll numbers are now in positive territory IIRC.

[Ex Lurker]

86. I'm not blaming him for the oil spill

but there are legitimate questions about the government's actions or lack thereof, in the following weeks, now months.

[Aramchek]

57. thanks for your concern, "Lefty"

[WeDidIt]

61. "Lefty" is always concerned

He expresses that concern in every thread he's ever started.

[WeDidIt]

58. Your concern is noted.

:eyes:

[treestar]

59. No hate to say it but the oil spill will be old news

Whatever happens in summer 2012 is all that matters. The voters have the attention span of gnats.

I call it way too early to worry or to be certain of victory.

[CakeGrrl]

63. Quit watching the MSM, for starters

Newsflash: Cable news is not necessary to sustain life. You can get by without hearing their corporate-influenced babble 24/7.

[okieinpain]

65. i agree kinda, I think he's admin is doing all it can. but their

pr of the spill has really sucked.

[golfguru]

70. Are you wearing a bullet-proof vest?

Get ready for a shoot-out.

[activa8tr]

73. Don't worry, Sarah Palin will help him win!

Chris Matthews is already predicting it.

And BESIDES.... who else do the Republicans have but Palin?

No one of any substance or that anyone cares about.

[Bryan]

74. I'm not. Who's going to beat him?

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Obama has risen to become one of the best campaigners of the modern era and will turn any and all comers into hamburger, the odds that his eventual opponent will have his or her act together seem awfully long.

Whoever gets the Republican nomination would have to be able to speak fluent teabag, be Establishment enough not to freak out the moneyed elements of the party, and still seem reasonable to independents in the middle, and that's a hat trick that I don't see any of the current mooted candidates being able to pull off. A dark horse may emerge in the next year or so who can do all that nimbly, but right now it doesn't look likely.

[backwoodsbob]

75. he is going to lose in 2012

this oilspill is going to be his undoing.

he makes a deal about SUMMONING the bp exec TWO MONTHS LATER?

[demtenjeep]

82. yes and much of the opposition is coming from this place

we are our own worse enemies

[Ex Lurker]

85. that's why we need a viable primary challenger

no law says Obama has to be the Democratic nominee in '12. If he's severely damaged goods by then, we may be in need of a different standard bearer. The GOP will have a hard time with their 'less government, drill baby drill' mantras IF there is a true Democrat in the race who will kick ass and take names. Most of the people recently turned off by Obama (apart from the right wingers who never liked him to begin with) are mad that he has done too little, not too much. They WANT to vote Democrat, if they have a candidate who will represent their principles.

I'd much prefer Obama have an epiphany and come out swinging for the next two years, but if that doesn't happen, I won't have any qualms about looking elsewhere.

[tinrobot]

87. BP will be over two years old come 2012

Six months is a lifetime in politics, so we're talking 4-5 lifetimes.

[Ex Lurker]

89. the Gulf region will still be dealing with this in 2012 and beyond

Realistically, LA, MS, AL will never vote for Obama anyway. But FL is up for grabs, and the main issue FL voters will judge Obama on is the oil spill.

It will also be a national issue. If BP declares bankruptcy and leaves the US taxpayer footing the bill for the cleanup, which also will be ongoing in 2012. Anybody who doesn't think the Gulf spill will be a huge campaign issue in the next presidential election is wearing blinders. The Republicans can point fingers, but they're the party of "drill baby drill,' so they don't have any moral authority. Obama and the Democrats can turn this into a winning issue, but they HAVE to get busy and DO something. Get BP under control, get a handle on the cleanup, and come up with a realistic energy policy would be a good start. Do I expect this to happen? Sadly, I don't.

[akbacchus_BC]

88. Can you please stop the negativity? President Obama is doing just

fine without your assholery! Aren't u tired of this shit... doom and gloom?

[LeftyAndProud60]

91. DAMN!!!!! I had no idea this topic got so many responses. I'm sure most of them are calling me names