CPT Predictions Ten Years Ago - The People's Agenda for Change - Part 1

Over ten years ago I wrote the following article pointing out what was wrong in America.  At the time Hillary was leading Obama in the polls for the 2008 Presidential election.  Little has changed since.  Part 2 follows this story.  What do you think?

January 24, 2008

“WE THE PEOPLE!”

Part 1 – What’s Missing in the Campaign?

There is an old saying in politics, probably first stated by Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Ben Franklin or Mark Twain, that goes, “progress is nice, but change is its motivator.” Well change is certainly the motivator in this years presidential campaign marathon. Every candidate from both parties as well as the independents are shouting they are the person of change to lead America into the next debacle, or is it decade?

It does not matter if those very candidates have spent 20-30 years building the same institutional bureaucracies that are the targets of the change mongers; they still claim to be the poster boy or girl for change in America. Good for them. Even the most ardent of anti-change personalities can come to an epiphany and suddenly, and quite dramatically see the light.

Just ask Scrooge from Dickens Christmas Carol or St. Paul after his roadside encounter with the angel. If a tight-fisted miser and a bigoted tax collector can become celebrated heroes then a few well-worn politicians can probably do the same. So I give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent. But so far I give them a failing grade in terms of action.

I mean if you are going to be the poster boy or girl for anything don’t you think we should be told what your agenda for change might entail? Substance for change is in short supply in a campaign already inundated in political blabber, name calling and nonsense.

There is an opportunity for a quantum leap in American politics this election whether it is the election of the first Black American, the first Woman, the first mayor (actually two chances for the first mayor), the first Mormon, the first POW, the first rock guitar player (and second native of Hope, Arkansas), the first former first lady, and even the first person with $400 hair cuts.

However, when it comes to substance in their agendas for change not a single politician has come forward first. Change is a really big deal if the candidates are not blatant hypocrites so where is the wealth of new ideas, new programs, new directions, and new policies that are inherent in any agenda for change? Missing in action I guess.

That said, we are going to save them a fortune in research and inject something foreign to most campaigns called common sense by giving them the agenda for change so sorely lacking in their current rhetoric. We are going to give them a mission for change, an agenda for change, and a justification for change so desperately needed by the public.

First, look at the substantial achievements in bringing about change associated with our presidents of the 20th century. There were not many I am sorry to say. But they did include Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, Ronald Reagan and his New Federalism, and, well, hummmm, I guess that is about it.

I can’t seem to rationalize the Clinton Capers or Bush Bushwhacking the English Language as major changes although they did result in comic relief for the masses. John Kennedy would have joined the list of three had he lived long enough but none of his agenda for change was implemented during his lifetime. So there you have it, just three presidents in the last 100 years makes the A list.

Roosevelt’s New Deal pulled us out of the devastating grasp of the great depression with a social agenda never before seen in the USA. Johnson moved us further into the liberal world with his Great Society that implemented the Civil Rights laws and introduced a bevy of social programs. Reagan then brought the pendulum back to the conservative view with his New Federalism anti-big government and anti-Soviet Union agenda. The presidents were astonishingly successful in their agenda for change.

Now comes the current crop of wanna be presidents shouting “change” in every speech and sound bite, well at least when they aren’t shouting at each other, but somehow not offering us any ideas for the change they hold so dearly. So we are going to help them succeed. This series will identify the mission, agenda, Ten Commandments and policy changes needed to bring about the changes most needed by Joe Six Pack and the average American.

Part 2 in this series will focus on the targets for change, those institutional bureaucracies whether in government, the non-profit or corporate worlds that have outlived their usefulness or are in need of dramatic change to contribute to our society and world. Part 3 will identify the ways to fix these targets if they can be fixed or replace them if needed to insure that the first and only agenda in America is “We The People”.

Eisenhower - Reagan - Romney - are we ready for a peacemaker?

.

Just after the war to end all wars, World War II, America needed a break, a time to rest, a moment in time when we focused on rebuilding our nation and not saving the world.  To accomplish that the public turned to someone who was not a typical politician, was not partisan and believed in America before political party.

They elected 63 year old Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

Later when the American public was fed up with Viet Nam, student riots, civil rights riots, and the capture of 58 Americans in the Iranian revolution once again we longed for a time of peace and prosperity.

They elected 70 year old Ronald Reagan in 1980 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

As we near the 2016 presidential election once again Americans are tired of the decades long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world dependence on America, and a tragic economic collapse and painfully long recovery.

If history repeats itself and the latest polls indicate there is a high probability, then the American public will elect the 70 year old Mitt Romney and will get 8 years of peace and prosperity.

Americans long for peace and prosperity.  They long for an end to vicious partisan bickering in our capitol.  They are fed up with the Democrats blaming the Republicans and Republicans blaming the Democrats for everything that doesn't happen in Washington.

They long for a fair minded, proven, successful individual who has achieved success not as a politician but as a businessman, as a champion for non-profit causes, as a genuine family man and someone who can actually talk to the other political party members.

We long for someone not beholden to the special interests and lobbyists who control Washington, our politicians and our government.  Of all the potential candidates for 2016 only Mitt Romney meets the criteria.

He was battle tested in the most vicious and unethical presidential campaign in history.  Over a billion dollars was spent to destroy him and his career and looking back, the American public pretty well recognizes they made a serious mistake in electing Obama.

Mitt Romney handled the quagmire with dignity, class and a commitment to family and religious values not apparent in his opposition.  He handled defeat with grace recognizing that in spite of the tremendous political mudslinging and the avalanche of money on the part of Obama, not to mention he was the sitting president with the resources of the entire federal government at his disposal, Romney only lost by 3.9%.

Only about 58% of the registered voters turned out they were so fed up by politics.  If 1.96% more had turned out and voted for Romney he would have been president.  But Divine Providence surely had other things in mind like giving Obama a chance to govern and he has pretty much squandered that opportunity.

Since Obama is persona non grata to even Democrats who are running from association with him, he is most likely a non-factor for the rest of his term and could be more liability than asset to any Democrat running.

Now Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat aspirant to the presidency, having declared the Clinton legacy right to the Oval Office, has blocked any Democrat from even exploring the waters.  In fact her recent book tour meant to pave the way for her coronation back fired and Hillary has already lost 15% of her favorability rating this year.

But the delusional left continue to make hay of her power.  So let's look at the real numbers and not the rarefied raging of the left.

In the New Hampshire poll this week, that state being one of the first major tests for presidential hopefuls, Hillary led good old Joe, Biden that is, 59% - 14%.  That doesn't say much for Obama's sidekick and the Clinton groupies declared her the winner of the primary, the nomination and the vote for president although we are still 2 1/2 years away.

Of course after the run of bad luck the liberals experienced with the CHOSEN ONE Barack Obama, whose popularity is in a freefall since he is caught in a time warp and still running against George Bush in a presidential campaign back in 2008 rather than governing the nation he was elected to represent, so the fickle left bank has put their money behind Hillary.

They forget she is no more left than her husband wild Bill whose political platform was what ever was necessary to look like he was doing something and avoiding impeachment.  His major accomplishments came out of the Republican playbook and he, like Obama and his wife, long ago sold out to Goldman Sachs and that dastardly gang from Wall Street.

English betting odds for president

The really revealing data in the poll came when Democrats were asked who they would vote for if the primary election were held today.

In January, Clinton brought in 73% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.

But, in Thursday's survey, only 13% of Democratic respondents says they've definitely made up their minds about 2016, and 77% said they're still trying to decide.

So Hillary has been on the national scene in Democrats face since 1992, was First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator, presidential candidate and then Secretary of State and only 13% of Democrats have made up their minds about who they will support?

Polls can be interpreted many ways but when 77% of the Democrats don't know who they want as candidate at this late stage in her career, the mythical Clinton stranglehold on the Democrat party seems to be fading in the mists of reality.

On the Republican side there are a number of good candidate bunched together.  But maybe the public does not think they are ready to be president yet.  Republican voters in New Hampshire have anything but a clear-cut GOP nominee in mind.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads other potential GOP White House contenders at 19%. He's followed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 14% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 11%. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tie in the poll at 8%.

And then there is the Romney factor.  More and more voters are starting to realize the country might have been better served by Mitt Romney than Barack Obama.  Certainly there was no question of the vastly superior Romney experience and credentials.  And the latest poll in New Hampshire shows just how powerful the only non-candidate for president is at this time.

The poll shows that if Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, decides to take another stab at the Republican nomination, he would start with a big lead over the rest of the field.

New Hampshire is the second stop on the presidential nomination calendar and hosts the first-in-the-nation primary.

But if Mr. Romney changes his mind and decides to run again, 39 percent of likely primary voters said they would vote for him, with Mr. Christie and Mr. Paul tying in a distance second with 7 percent.

Not only does Romney offer all the strengths Obama lacked like leadership, the ability to work with Democrats when he was governor of Democrat controlled Massachusetts, a real religious foundation, a strong family life, but he is a genuinely nice person, something rare in politics today.

I sense a mighty movement to draft Romney and elect him as the next Eisenhower/Reagan peacemaker who will restore prestige to the office of president, will return class to politics and regain faith in our foreign affairs from the rest of the disheartened world.

. 

Obama Beats Bush, Nixon and Carter as Worst Modern Day President since World War II

.

POLL: Obama Worst Modern-Day President

By Colin Campbell 

AP

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, according to a plurality of voters in a new poll published Wednesday.

The Quinnipiac University survey found 33% of American voters named Obama as the worst while 28% named his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement.

Richard Nixon, whose presidency ended in scandal, received only 13% of the vote and Jimmy Carter scored 8%. None of the remaining eight presidents received more than 3%.

Asked about the 2012 presidential race, 45% of respondents said the country would be better off if the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, had won. Slightly less — 38% — said the country would be worse off under a President Romney.

"Would Mitt have been a better fit?" Malloy asked. "More voters in hindsight say yes."

[MORE SPIN ON POLL!]

U.S. poll: more voters see Obama as worst president in modern times

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two years into President Barack Obama's second term, more voters say they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of everything from the economy to foreign policy, giving him the worst marks of any modern U.S. president, a poll on Wednesday said.

In a survey of 1,446 registered voters, 33 percent said Obama was the worst president since World War Two, while 28 percent pointed to his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the worst, the poll by Quinnipiac University found.

Voters were split over which of the two most recent presidents has done a better job with 39 percent saying Obama has been a better president than Bush and, 40 percent saying Obama is worse.

Most voters said Ronald Reagan, who served two terms in the 1980s, was the best president since 1945, the survey showed.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling unit.

While Obama's job approval rating has inched higher to 40 percent, up from 38 percent in December, more voters gave him largely negative marks in key areas: the economy, foreign policy, healthcare and terrorism, according to the poll.

On the environment, 50 percent gave Obama positive marks.

The telephone survey, taken June 24 to June 30, had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Bill Trott)


[EVEN MORE MEDIA SPIN]

Obama's Terrible Approval Numbers Are Terrible

By Abby Ohlheiser 14 hours ago

When asked a question often discussed with dread at family Thanksgiving dinners, a plurality of voters —  33 percent — believe President Obama (or "Nobummer," amirite?) is the worst president since World War II. In second place on the same question was George W. Bush with 28 percent. These are the numbers you will read in several headlines today. The thing is, the "worst president since World War Two" results aren't really the worst numbers for the president in the Quinnipiac poll from which they're drawn. 

Related Stories

• Obama is the worst president in 70 years, says America The Week (RSS)
• Obama Worst President Since World War II: Poll The Fiscal Times
• U.S. poll: more voters see Obama as worst president in modern times Reuters
• Obama's abysmal new poll numbers: Is his presidency 'over'? The Week (RSS)
• Devastating New Poll Shows Americans Believe Obama Can No Longer Lead the Country The Fiscal Times

Let's address the headlines first. In the Quinnipiac poll, Obama finds himself among a handful of post-war presidents who garner polarizing reactions from voters. Those presidents, roughly, are Kennedy, Reagan, and the three most recent: Obama, Clinton, and George W. Bush. When asked to choose the best post-war president, for instance, Ronald Reagan snagged 35 percent of voters. But 18 percent thought it was Kennedy. Clinton took 18 percent of voters, and 8 percent think it's Obama, putting him in fourth place. (George W. Bush, for what it's worth, had just 1 percent of voters on this question).

If you look at the political breakdown by party of who is saying Obama is the worst, it falls strongly along party lines, with a little bit of help from independents: 63 percent of Republicans chose Obama, while 54 percent of Democrats said George W. Bush. Independents voted "for" both:  23 percent said George W. Bush was the worst, while 36 percent chose Obama. On a similar question directly comparing Bush and Obama, the expected partisan divide is even stronger:

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 - 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 - 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 - 7 percent and independent voters say 41 - 31 percent. Democrats say 78 - 4 percent that he is better. 

So the core group of voters strongly opposed to everything Obama does think he's a bad president, and the people who voted for him have a more positive opinion of the job he's doing. That's not a surprise. 

Obama's Terrible Approval Numbers Are Terrible

Which brings us to the number that's arguably the actual worst thing in the poll for Obama: "American voters say 54 - 44 percent that the Obama Administration is not competent running the government." Politico's Mike Allen agreed, flagging that number as of most concern to the White House this morning. This is the second recent poll to give the president or his administration a bad rating on a "competency" question: an earlier NBC/WSJ poll found that just half of Americans believe Obama is a competent leader of the federal government.

Although the poll marked a slight uptick in his overall approval rating to 40 percent, the president didn't fare too well when respondents were asked to rate his performance on a bunch of crucial issues:

• Voters were 40 - 55 percent against his handling of the economy;
• They also were negative on his foreign policy, 37 - 57 percent. And on the related issue of terrorism? 44 - 51 percent. 
• Same goes for healthcare: 40 - 58 percent against. 
• He did better on the environment, with 50 percent of voters approving and 40  percent against.

Then again, basically no one else in government right now is doing so well in the polls, either.

This article was originally published at http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/obamas-terrible-approval-numbers-are-terrible/373832/

.

The Obama Report Card - It's time to correct our mistakes

.

Save a few billion dollars and fix what is broken - Romney in 2016

I doubt many people, Democrats in particular, want to review the consequences of having elected Barack Obama to the presidency the last two elections.  First there were the empty promises whose failure was blamed on Bush even though the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate the last two years Bush was president and the first two years under Obama.

Blaming Bush for what had to be approved by Congress is just plain hypocritical yet what did happen is we got ourselves into an economic quagmire the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression.

Still, it was obvious to candidate Obama in 2008 that we were in the midst of an economic catastrophe and if elected he would have to get us through the mess.  So he spent a billion dollars on his campaign and won with 52.9 percent of the vote, a mandate in the eyes of the Main Street media.

Now I admit I don't understand Ivy League math anymore than I understand voodoo economics but I do know a little about numbers and I know if just 4 tenths of 1% of the vote had voted for McCain instead of Obama then McCain would have been president.  Since when was less than 1% a mandate?

So we got Obama and soon it became obvious the promises of hope, deficit reductions, withdrawal from wars, working together, serving all Americans, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo prison and re-establishing America's prominence in the world were nothing more than typical campaign promises, empty promises at that.

Obama did bail out General Motors (who benefited from that?) and the banks but about 7 million people still are not working nearly 6 years later and no fat cat crooks are in jail.  He also gave us ObamaCare, which he personally guaranteed would lower the cost of health care, lower the cost of insurance premiums, let you keep your old doctor and let you keep your health insurance.

Thanks to his health care program he got re-elected in 2012, this time with just 51.1% of the vote after spending yet another billion dollars in his campaign.  Two billion dollars spent by Obama in just two campaigns could have fed a lot of hungry children and met the health care needs of a lot of refugees from his failed foreign policy.

Once again his Main Street media called it a mandate and a vindication of ObamaCare since there was absolutely nothing else to show for the first four years and by now the national debt had more than doubled since Bush left office.

The Obama 2012 people's mandate shrunk in half from 2008 and now a change of just 2 tenths of 1% of the vote would have made Mitt Romney president. 

As for his 2008 promises, he did pass health care reform but everything else remained as it was before he got into office.  Oh he did end the war in Iraq if you called leaving thousands of Americans behind ending anything and now more Iraq civilians than ever are being killed in sectarian violence.

As for the glorious ObamaCare promises, so far, none of those promises have come true.  Oh yes, and the national debt has now soared to over $17 trillion and Obama has no intention of fixing our future.

He ran on the platform that he had experience but I think we realize now that being a community organizer and part time state and federal senator does not substitute for real, hands on experience in the big jobs, the tough decisions and the ability to bring people together.

Ironically he also treated his opponent Mitt Romney mockingly and with derision when Mitt said Putin was a danger to our foreign policy and Obama scolded him that the Cold War was over and Russia being a threat to anyone ended in the 1980's.

In hindsight Obama might have been a little less arrogant as Russia has blocked his every move on Syria, Iran and North Korea not to mention destabilizing Europe as he stole Crimea from the Ukraine and has amassed troops on the border of the Ukraine as we await his next move.  Some paper tiger that Putin and again Romney was right but I hear no apology from the Obama camp.

  

This year he will lose control of both the House and Senate and it will take Hollywood spin the likes of which we haven't seen since the Clinton administration to hear what kind of mandate he has for his last two years in office, spin like I didn't inhale or I didn't really have sex.

What America needs is a Reagan type with real world experience, a demonstrated ability to work with both political parties, experience running a real office and organization, maturity in respecting all nations and peoples of the world, common sense, and is not enamored with the Hollywood crowd.  We need a break from politics and politicians.  Peace, stability, real hope, and integrity are sorely lacking in Washington but Romney just might be able to deliver them.

Oh my gosh, isn't that the choice we had in 2012 when 2 tenths of one percent too many of the people believed the Obama health care promises and re-elected him.  As I recall, Mitt Romney offered all those alternatives to the young, hip and confident candidate Obama.

If we only valued experience more than flash, maturity more than stubbornness, compassion more than partisanship and integrity more than expediency think how different things might be right now.

There are a host of good Republican candidates poised to run for president in 2016 but with Obama a sitting, lame duck president and his hands tied by a GOP congress you can bet the partisan rhetoric will be turned up even higher than right now.

Do we really want to spend billions trying to decide who should be president when we already vetted one candidate who survived the Obama onslaught and the media manipulation, was every bit the gentleman we sorely miss, has proven he can work with people of both parties for the public good, and even got health care right when he implemented it in Massachusetts?

Mitt Romney is still out there and time and again he has answered the call to public service whether in state or federal government or the Olympics.  He doesn't need to spend a billion dollars to tell you who he is.  He does know how to fix the economy, implement health care, and gain the respect of foreign nations.  Finally, he would have a great group of young and aspiring Republican governors and members of congress to bring into his administration.

Think about it.  It's never too late to admit a mistake and correct it.

. 

Obama Democrat Pit Bulls Called Off - Romney wins Dog World

.

I'll be doggone - Axelrod underestimates Obama's taste for dogs

In a shocking political turnaround that could easily swing the rest of the western world into Romney's corner, it seems those Democrat pit bulls Axelrod and Wasserman-Shultz, bit off a little more than they could chew.

For weeks the Obama surrogates have worked the compliant national media into story after story about how Romney drove to Canada with his dog on the roof.  Only a goof ball would think a dog would rather be in the car with five little boys, but that was the Obama campaign strategy.

Well, as always the truth finally comes out in politics and the truth was rather hard to swallow, even to the Chicago boys.

Romney might like his dog on the roof, but Obama seems to have liked his dog for dinner.  It seems the liberal media forgot to check Obama's own best selling book for his own vulnerabilities regarding dogs.

If they had, they would have noticed Obama talked about, well, eating dog in Indonesia which seems to be a bit more extreme than Romney's dog riding in a car carrier on the roof.

As the Obama campaign team continues to fumble the ball on issue after issue and talking point after talking point the Obama White House is beginning to look more like a fraternity party than presidency.

Their attempts to paint Obama as the chosen one or messiah fall apart every time the media takes the time to fact check the White House.  Too bad the lame street media didn't even bother vetting Obama in 2008, they were too busy drooling, or we might have known a lot more about our president.

For example, yes, the same guy (Obama) who says Republicans were the ones who declared war on women does not allow women to golf or play basketball with him.

Maybe the Obama slogan should be "I am what I say, not what I am."  Then truth might prevail.

Leave the dogs alone, they still have a reputation for loyalty and honesty.

.