I actually seems like Ryan is very likely at this point.
This will have two results:
1) Excite the conservative base.
2) Give the democrats an opportunity to hound the poisonous Ryan budget. It is perfect fodder for negative ads.
Ha! If I could only have kept my mouth shut for two more minutes...
It will excite the Conservative base, and provide plenty of fodder for Democrats. Isn't that about what happened last time with the Vice President slot?
I was about to query if that was possible, not just in the US but over here in the UK as well until I saw your last sentence.
Are there any specific reasons why campaigning has gotten so negative or is it just a sign of the times, and is it possible for the political environment to improve?
It's not all that negative.
At least we do not have the scary-**** of the 1800s Presidential elections going about.
That said, the biggest problem right now is the lack of faith from the common folks in the government that started in the 70s and has continued growing since. That distrust inflames society and political parties often try to harness said discontent and distrust. The Tea Party and the Republicans attempt to use it for their purposes is an example.
What's sad is that the Tea Party folks bought into the idea that Republicans are on their side. But then you got folks like Michelle Bachmann to remind everyone that the Tea Party folks are a strange, eclectic bunch.
LOL, never seen a presidential election decided in August. Also never seen a candidate put a nail in their own coffin for the race. When Mitt loses, Ryan will be blamed.
If the information about Romney's choice is correct--and let's remember, it isn't official until he goes up on stage and says it--then that is going to have major implications no matter which side manages to win the November election.
Imagine, for a moment, that Romney loses. The narrative that's been going in the media so far has essentially been that if Romney loses, Republicans will take it as a sign that he wasn't conservative enough, that they need to retrench along even more partisan lines, that they need to get their message out there with someone who is truly with them, and isn't some "Massachusetts liberal." It's hard to see how a Ryan choice would not undermine that narrative; if he's the VP candidate the race is going to become, at least in part, about his budget plan, and if the Romney campaign goes down the media will trumpet it as a rejection of Ryan's ideas too. How do conservatives make the case for more across-the-board conservative opposition if their Great White Hope loses?
On the other hand, if Romney/Ryan wins, what does that say about the future of the Democratic Party? On paper this should absolutely be a gift to them; the Ryan plan polls extremely poorly, it dismantles the Democratic programs that huge majorities actually like, and it plays right into their narrative about how the GOP is out of touch with normal families. If, despite all that, Romney/Ryan wins while trumpeting that plan... where does the Democratic Party go from here? What is the future of liberalism in this country if a ticket pledging to actively dismantle the welfare state is elected?
Either way, one thing is clear; Romney feels vulnerable right now, in the same way that McCain felt vulnerable this time in 2008; this is a hail-Mary, an attempt to reshape the fundamentals of the race halfway through. It means that the Romney camp is very afraid that, whatever the possible negative implications of this, that they're still--still!--more likely to lose in November without Ryan than with him. That isn't a message of confidence, and bodes ill for their chances; after all, Palin didn't turn out so well either, and neither have any of the VP choices who were selected with the idea that they'd be game-changers (cf. Bentson, Kemp, Ferraro).
Very interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What's sad is that the Tea Party folks bought into the idea that Republicans are on their side. But then you got folks like Michelle Bachmann to remind everyone that the Tea Party folks are a strange, eclectic bunch.
It's the populist bunch, I remember one of the OWS activists on this forum said that their whole movement has several different clusters as well. They're both populist movements, and I remain agnostic whether they're the "future" of the US politics. They're an echo of what will come, not what is to be.
I'd suggest the book, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s by Tyler Anbinder, and think of the Natavists as compared to the current crop of Anti-gay and Anti-Muslim populists that want limited government. The Know Nothings came before the GoP and were a part of the GoP, in a way the GoP has returned to its roots as conservatives.
Either way, one thing is clear; Romney feels vulnerable right now, in the same way that McCain felt vulnerable this time in 2008; this is a hail-Mary, an attempt to reshape the fundamentals of the race halfway through. It means that the Romney camp is very afraid that, whatever the possible negative implications of this, that they're still--still!--more likely to lose in November without Ryan than with him. That isn't a message of confidence, and bodes ill for their chances; after all, Palin didn't turn out so well either, and neither have any of the VP choices who were selected with the idea that they'd be game-changers (cf. Bentson, Kemp, Ferraro).
Very interesting.
I like Ryan's personality, but I do not like his policies. His plan is the Morgenthau Plan prior to the Marshall Plan. Simpson-Bowles is really the true blue print for how to begin, and Obama has yet to cling to it as a part of deficit reduction. Ryan isn't Cantor, and seems to be willing to actually raise some taxes but his view on "father Congress knows best" for the military is rather annoying. The military says fix the deficit and stop giving us things we don't ask for, and instead he wants to continue the sugar daddy approach to the military that "we may sometime in the future fall militarily behind China." After a while, I just say "so what if we're #2 with powerful allies, are people still going to screw with us or want a direct war?" I mean that was the whole strategy for the Founders, to try and not tick off any major powers but still keep national integrity much to the chagrin of Madison and the War of 1812 which may have been France had history been different.
I need to learn how to leave a bigger impression on people ;p
OWS had various camps within it that focused on different things even while the overall goal was reforming a broken system (or, in some groups, abolishing the system and rebuilding). Then there was the list of secondary stuff being talked about everything from government spying to bradley manning to monsanto.
I imagine that the Tea Party was a bit more fragmented before the co-option by Fox and the Koch brothers, though not as much since Liberal protests tend to be a bit more disparate anyway. We just can't seem to focus.
My biggest problem with the Ryan choice is that Ryan's economic plans attacked social security/Medicare.
Social Security/Medicare helps old people.
There are a lot of old people in this country. They also like to vote.
Seems dumb to choose Ryan. I don't see how it'll swing states in his favor, as the people who like Ryan, already are fine with Romney. The people who are on the fence about Romney, will likely think Ryan is too far right wing for them to be comfortable, and thus either not vote or do an unenthusiastic vote for Obama.
If true, I think Obama doubled his chances at winning this November. There will have to be a major mistake on his part for him to lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Ryan's plan never effected the people who were currently on Social Security/Medicare. But that never stopped the Democrats from trying to scare seniors that the evil GOP was out to take their Social Security/Medicare. They conveniently left out the fact that Ryan's plan would only effect people going on to Social Security/Medicare after it's passage. Not that it matters either way to me...I'm 31. By the time I'm old enough to collect SS, the program will likely be insolvent and no longer exist and all my tax money that went into the program, and is supposed to be paid back to me when I begin collecting, will just simply not exist anymore.
It was nothing more than a scare tactic, and it worked. But with Ryan as the potential VP, it could be a chance for him (and the Romney) campaign to set the record straight and paint the entire left wing as a group of fearmongers who were preying on the seniors by lying to them. And that is all it was - blatant lying by omission of the facts.
And I wouldn't be so sure about the bolded part. Historically, no President post-World War II has been reelected with unemployment above 7.2% or with a less than 50% approval rating. Obama has an 8.3% unemployment (and it's not falling rapidly like it was when Reagan was reelected with the 7.2%) and is below 50% approval. And even if you compare this economy, which is supposedly in the recovery following the recession, it is the worst economic recovery post-recession of the 11 recessions we've had since World War II. And, once again using historical data, the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Here we are coming out of a recession that was so bad we called it the Great Recession, and we're inching out of the grave when we should, by historical trends, be bounding out.
Obama has a lot going against him this election, which is exactly why you see him attacking Romney instead of flaunting his record - because his record is terrible.
And for the fourth time I've posted this challenge I request that you stop this "Obama is going to lose!" doomsaying until the most accurate election statistician of all time gives Romney above a 40% chance of winning. Since I posted this 2 months ago Romney has gone from having 38% to under 30%.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I'll stop posting the "doomsaying" as soon as Obama is no longer in any of the regions where Presidents have lost every reelection since World War II. That means lower than 7.2% unemployment and a greater than 50% approval rating. And I'm even leaving out the worst post-recession recovery of any of the 11 recessions we've had since World War II.
Obama is fighting against established historical trends that no President has overcome yet. 8.3% unemployment AND 47.3% approval do not spell a good chance at reelection. And come off the damned polls...polls also said Gore would win in 2000 and Kerry would win in 2004 - both by a sizable margin. Those polls worked out real well, didn't they?
It's funny. I'm putting up historical trends that no one has beaten since World War II...and your response is "Look at the polls!"
No, my response is look to the data the statistician has accumulated who accurately predicted 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 election with a 1.6% margin of error on the vote counts in each individual state as well as accurately predicted 90% of the midterm elections in 2010 with a model he himself admitted was probably insufficient for midterms all within 3% of the actual votes.
Polls are only a very small portion of it. I'm going to go with the math guy who is so well respected that his freaking homemade blog got picked up by one of the largest national media outlets because of its accuracy.
But please, continue being ignorant about what fivethirtyeight is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Am I to believe that an Angel of Serenity (a 7 drop mediocre reanimation target) is going to have the SAME value as a Hallowed Fountain? 15 bucks each? Sorry, not going to happen. Not now, not ever.
6 bucks for a Sphinx's Revelation? The value will tank by at least 50% as most of the spells of it's nature (post-Stroke).
In 3 months, say January 1st, it will be interesting to see how much you overpaid.
Obama has no record to really run on other then killing Osama.
And turning around an economy that was in free fall into growth in the worst economic situation since the 40s. Yeah, that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
So this "math guy" is predicting that Obama will win despite having an 8.3% unemployment rate and 47.2% approval rating - two areas that historically lead to lost reelection bids with 100% accuracy?
Historical trends say Obama will lose because unemployment is over 7.2% and his approval rating is below 50%. Some "math guy" says Obama will win despite historical trends. Sorry, but I'm going to side with the historical trends that have been 100% accurate so far in the 67 years and 16 Presidential elections since the end of WW2.
Call it ignorance if you want because I disagree with you. Since that is your answer to everything. "You don't agree with me?! But I'm smart! So you must be ignorant if you don't agree with me!" Believe your "math guy" all you want. I'm going to believe the 16 Presidential elections and 67 years worth of historical trends.
Because 16 elections is an absurdly small sample size relative to the accuracy of Nate Silver. Not to mention that the number of re-elections within that time period is under 16. And the number of times that those reelections occurred and the unemployment rate was above 7.2% is something I'm not even going to bother to find out because the number of election years (much less incumbent runs) in which the unemployment rate has been over 7.2% in the timeframe you've given is god damn 3[1] I trust the SUBSTANTIALLY larger sample size that represent's Nate Silver's accuracy over your 3 elections. 3 elections does not a sufficient sample size make. (76, 84, 92)
EDIT: I lied. I am going to figure this out. In 1972, Nixon won the Presidency. He did not run in 76. That means there is no historical basis of unemployment rate relative to the reelection of the incumbent in 1976 because the incumbent did not run for reelection. Therefore, irrelevant. In 1980 the Presidential winner was Ronald Reagan. In 1984 when the Unemployment rate was 7.5% Ronald Reagan WON reelection. Oops, looks like YOUR ****ING DATA PROVES YOU TO BE WRONG. Looks like 84 is out. As a matter of fact the only time you were right (the 92 election) was whenever Clinton beat Bush Sr.
1/3 of your election results is even relevant. And 1 out of 3 says the exact ****ing opposite of what you said. Stop your nonsense.
Oh...you mean the 1.2% growth that is only barely keeping us out of a double dip recession?
This is the absolute WORST recovery of any recession in the past 67 years. And, once again using historical trends (how dare I use history?!), the worst the recession and stronger the recovery. So with a recession as deep as this one was, we should be seeing 3% growth at a minimum. Probably more like 5%. But instead...we get a tepid 1.3% that barely keeps up with population growth.
Which so very few economists actually blame on Presidential leadership. But yeah, whatever. Globalization is awesome and deregulation is what we need. Not to mention that a) everyone and their proverbial mother knows what a gaffe the proposed economic policy of the Romney campaign was because all of the cited economists came out and said "hey That's the exact opposite of what our data says!" [2] b) the Paul plan, his VP, has the worst polling of anything in the entire campaign. Far worse than the (lol, you said polls are stupid) poll of Obama's approval rating.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
And turning around an economy that was in free fall into growth in the worst economic situation since the 40s. Yeah, that.
At the cost of 5 trillion more in debt. Gitmo is still open. We are still fighting pointless wars over seas. CEOs that drove companies into the ground got their bonuses paid by the tax payers and unemployment is still over 8%. Millions are being wasted cracking down on Medical Marijuana collectives that are in compliance of state laws. Obama is this generations Carter.
Am I to believe that an Angel of Serenity (a 7 drop mediocre reanimation target) is going to have the SAME value as a Hallowed Fountain? 15 bucks each? Sorry, not going to happen. Not now, not ever.
6 bucks for a Sphinx's Revelation? The value will tank by at least 50% as most of the spells of it's nature (post-Stroke).
In 3 months, say January 1st, it will be interesting to see how much you overpaid.
So Obama wasn't the next messiah and therefore he was an awful president and so.how Romney will be better? Just saying, a lot of that five trillion is due to the lost receipts from the recession. Also, I would rather have Obamas version of fighting wars, you know, the complete lack of an occupying force in Syria or Libya.
At the cost of 5 trillion more in debt. Gitmo is still open. We are still fighting pointless wars over seas. CEOs that drove companies into the ground got their bonuses paid by the tax payers and unemployment is still over 8%. Millions are being wasted cracking down on Medical Marijuana collectives that are in compliance of state laws. Obama is this generations Carter.
Wait, you're upset that Obama hasn't been able to close tax loopholes on corporations/raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy or end funding for several of our occupations despite attempts to do so?
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
At the cost of 5 trillion more in debt. Gitmo is still open. We are still fighting pointless wars over seas. CEOs that drove companies into the ground got their bonuses paid by the tax payers and unemployment is still over 8%. Millions are being wasted cracking down on Medical Marijuana collectives that are in compliance of state laws. Obama is this generations Carter.
This, plus the whole expansion of the surveillance state, seizing the ability to execute American citizens without trial, fighting for the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, and so on and so forth.
If the Republicans actually attacked Obama for real reasons, I might actually vote for them (well, not Romney), but they'd rather set up a false reality about the guy and hopelessly flail at this fake effigy. There's plenty of actual legitimate concerns with how Obama has governed. I guess the problem is....it's all stuff they themselves supported fervently under Bush and continue to support and they can't win an election by attacking themselves. So to the strawmen it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
As a democrat, me too. 3 months of hammering them on turning medicare into a voucher program? Yes please. Thanks for giving us Florida.
Romney has his own mathematically impossible proposals, why not throw Ryan's into the mix as well?
I actually seems like Ryan is very likely at this point.
This will have two results:
1) Excite the conservative base.
2) Give the democrats an opportunity to hound the poisonous Ryan budget. It is perfect fodder for negative ads.
It will excite the Conservative base, and provide plenty of fodder for Democrats. Isn't that about what happened last time with the Vice President slot?
It's not all that negative.
At least we do not have the scary-**** of the 1800s Presidential elections going about.
That said, the biggest problem right now is the lack of faith from the common folks in the government that started in the 70s and has continued growing since. That distrust inflames society and political parties often try to harness said discontent and distrust. The Tea Party and the Republicans attempt to use it for their purposes is an example.
What's sad is that the Tea Party folks bought into the idea that Republicans are on their side. But then you got folks like Michelle Bachmann to remind everyone that the Tea Party folks are a strange, eclectic bunch.
It's Ryan.
Prepare for a **** storm.
Imagine, for a moment, that Romney loses. The narrative that's been going in the media so far has essentially been that if Romney loses, Republicans will take it as a sign that he wasn't conservative enough, that they need to retrench along even more partisan lines, that they need to get their message out there with someone who is truly with them, and isn't some "Massachusetts liberal." It's hard to see how a Ryan choice would not undermine that narrative; if he's the VP candidate the race is going to become, at least in part, about his budget plan, and if the Romney campaign goes down the media will trumpet it as a rejection of Ryan's ideas too. How do conservatives make the case for more across-the-board conservative opposition if their Great White Hope loses?
On the other hand, if Romney/Ryan wins, what does that say about the future of the Democratic Party? On paper this should absolutely be a gift to them; the Ryan plan polls extremely poorly, it dismantles the Democratic programs that huge majorities actually like, and it plays right into their narrative about how the GOP is out of touch with normal families. If, despite all that, Romney/Ryan wins while trumpeting that plan... where does the Democratic Party go from here? What is the future of liberalism in this country if a ticket pledging to actively dismantle the welfare state is elected?
Either way, one thing is clear; Romney feels vulnerable right now, in the same way that McCain felt vulnerable this time in 2008; this is a hail-Mary, an attempt to reshape the fundamentals of the race halfway through. It means that the Romney camp is very afraid that, whatever the possible negative implications of this, that they're still--still!--more likely to lose in November without Ryan than with him. That isn't a message of confidence, and bodes ill for their chances; after all, Palin didn't turn out so well either, and neither have any of the VP choices who were selected with the idea that they'd be game-changers (cf. Bentson, Kemp, Ferraro).
Very interesting.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It's the populist bunch, I remember one of the OWS activists on this forum said that their whole movement has several different clusters as well. They're both populist movements, and I remain agnostic whether they're the "future" of the US politics. They're an echo of what will come, not what is to be.
I'd suggest the book, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s by Tyler Anbinder, and think of the Natavists as compared to the current crop of Anti-gay and Anti-Muslim populists that want limited government. The Know Nothings came before the GoP and were a part of the GoP, in a way the GoP has returned to its roots as conservatives.
I like Ryan's personality, but I do not like his policies. His plan is the Morgenthau Plan prior to the Marshall Plan. Simpson-Bowles is really the true blue print for how to begin, and Obama has yet to cling to it as a part of deficit reduction. Ryan isn't Cantor, and seems to be willing to actually raise some taxes but his view on "father Congress knows best" for the military is rather annoying. The military says fix the deficit and stop giving us things we don't ask for, and instead he wants to continue the sugar daddy approach to the military that "we may sometime in the future fall militarily behind China." After a while, I just say "so what if we're #2 with powerful allies, are people still going to screw with us or want a direct war?" I mean that was the whole strategy for the Founders, to try and not tick off any major powers but still keep national integrity much to the chagrin of Madison and the War of 1812 which may have been France had history been different.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
OWS had various camps within it that focused on different things even while the overall goal was reforming a broken system (or, in some groups, abolishing the system and rebuilding). Then there was the list of secondary stuff being talked about everything from government spying to bradley manning to monsanto.
I imagine that the Tea Party was a bit more fragmented before the co-option by Fox and the Koch brothers, though not as much since Liberal protests tend to be a bit more disparate anyway. We just can't seem to focus.
Social Security/Medicare helps old people.
There are a lot of old people in this country. They also like to vote.
Seems dumb to choose Ryan. I don't see how it'll swing states in his favor, as the people who like Ryan, already are fine with Romney. The people who are on the fence about Romney, will likely think Ryan is too far right wing for them to be comfortable, and thus either not vote or do an unenthusiastic vote for Obama.
If true, I think Obama doubled his chances at winning this November. There will have to be a major mistake on his part for him to lose.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
And for the fourth time I've posted this challenge I request that you stop this "Obama is going to lose!" doomsaying until the most accurate election statistician of all time gives Romney above a 40% chance of winning. Since I posted this 2 months ago Romney has gone from having 38% to under 30%.
Www.fivethirtyeight.com
No, my response is look to the data the statistician has accumulated who accurately predicted 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 election with a 1.6% margin of error on the vote counts in each individual state as well as accurately predicted 90% of the midterm elections in 2010 with a model he himself admitted was probably insufficient for midterms all within 3% of the actual votes.
Polls are only a very small portion of it. I'm going to go with the math guy who is so well respected that his freaking homemade blog got picked up by one of the largest national media outlets because of its accuracy.
But please, continue being ignorant about what fivethirtyeight is.
And turning around an economy that was in free fall into growth in the worst economic situation since the 40s. Yeah, that.
Because 16 elections is an absurdly small sample size relative to the accuracy of Nate Silver. Not to mention that the number of re-elections within that time period is under 16. And the number of times that those reelections occurred and the unemployment rate was above 7.2% is something I'm not even going to bother to find out because the number of election years (much less incumbent runs) in which the unemployment rate has been over 7.2% in the timeframe you've given is god damn 3[1] I trust the SUBSTANTIALLY larger sample size that represent's Nate Silver's accuracy over your 3 elections. 3 elections does not a sufficient sample size make. (76, 84, 92)
EDIT: I lied. I am going to figure this out. In 1972, Nixon won the Presidency. He did not run in 76. That means there is no historical basis of unemployment rate relative to the reelection of the incumbent in 1976 because the incumbent did not run for reelection. Therefore, irrelevant. In 1980 the Presidential winner was Ronald Reagan. In 1984 when the Unemployment rate was 7.5% Ronald Reagan WON reelection. Oops, looks like YOUR ****ING DATA PROVES YOU TO BE WRONG. Looks like 84 is out. As a matter of fact the only time you were right (the 92 election) was whenever Clinton beat Bush Sr.
1/3 of your election results is even relevant. And 1 out of 3 says the exact ****ing opposite of what you said. Stop your nonsense.
Which so very few economists actually blame on Presidential leadership. But yeah, whatever. Globalization is awesome and deregulation is what we need. Not to mention that a) everyone and their proverbial mother knows what a gaffe the proposed economic policy of the Romney campaign was because all of the cited economists came out and said "hey That's the exact opposite of what our data says!" [2] b) the Paul plan, his VP, has the worst polling of anything in the entire campaign. Far worse than the (lol, you said polls are stupid) poll of Obama's approval rating.
[1]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html/
[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/
At the cost of 5 trillion more in debt. Gitmo is still open. We are still fighting pointless wars over seas. CEOs that drove companies into the ground got their bonuses paid by the tax payers and unemployment is still over 8%. Millions are being wasted cracking down on Medical Marijuana collectives that are in compliance of state laws. Obama is this generations Carter.
Wait, you're upset that Obama hasn't been able to close tax loopholes on corporations/raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy or end funding for several of our occupations despite attempts to do so?
You're blaming the wrong ****ing party dude.
Also, Gitmo: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/22/107255/how-congress-helped-thwart-obamas.html
(How's that for a cheer :P)
This, plus the whole expansion of the surveillance state, seizing the ability to execute American citizens without trial, fighting for the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, and so on and so forth.
If the Republicans actually attacked Obama for real reasons, I might actually vote for them (well, not Romney), but they'd rather set up a false reality about the guy and hopelessly flail at this fake effigy. There's plenty of actual legitimate concerns with how Obama has governed. I guess the problem is....it's all stuff they themselves supported fervently under Bush and continue to support and they can't win an election by attacking themselves. So to the strawmen it is.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
I think it's probably the best pick he could've made, on-balance. I'm actually kinda surprised he agreed to do it.
Gonna shake things up for sure.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!