UPDATE:
Gallup's last three nights of interviewing of adults, conducted Sept. 4 to 6, shows Obama with a 52 percent approval rating, the highest approval percentage reported for Obama on the Gallup tracking poll since May 2011, just after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Last night was a rousing end to a week filled with energized speakers who illustrated the huge differences between the parties and the two men running for the presidency.
Starting with Gabriel Giffords' emotion-packed Pledge of Allegiance and continuing on to John Kerry's scathing indictment of the least experienced foreign policy team in decades to run for the presidency; Joe Biden's talk-from-the-heart testimony to the man he's closely worked with for four years and knows better than all the speakers [except, of course, Michelle]; and finally the climax speech-of-the night by Presidetn Obama, last night was an electrifying end to a week where the Democrats all got their mojo on and were not shy about telling America why President Obama deserves another four years.
This morning's unemployment report showed a drop from 8.3% to 8.1%, but the jobs added report wasn't robust. Whether this will dampen the enthusiasm coming out of the Democratic convention remains to be seen. Still, the jobs added is positive, not negative; and if the Republicans had cooperated with the Democrats, it's a good bet things would be much better. We need to keep this in mind as we head into the final months of this election season: The Republican Party deliberately sabotaged the American people's chance of a better recovery in order to deny President Obama's re-election. They have admitted publicly that was their goal; they have admitted publicly that they hope to make voting more difficult so that Romney can win.
There are fundamental differences between the two candidates: Mr. Romney and the GOP believe government is never the solution to any problem and that government is always the problem; Mr. Obama and the Democrats believe that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Highlights from President Obama's speech:
“Now, our friends at the Republican convention were more than happy to talk about everything they think is wrong with America, but they didn’t have much to say about how they’d make it right. They want your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan. And that’s because all they have to offer is the same prescription they’ve had for the last thirty years: “Have a surplus? Try a tax cut.” “Deficit too high? Try another.” “Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning!”"
“So now we face a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly. After all, you don’t call Russia our number one enemy – and not al Qaeda – unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War time warp. You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally. My opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq, and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan. I have, and I will. And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”
"A freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense."
"Yes, our path is harder but it leads to a better place."
"While I'm proud of what we've achieved together, I'm far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, 'I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.' "
16 comments:
The speech was boilerplate "government is the answer" rhetoric. Typical of statist groupthink mentality.
Delivery of said speech earns high marks however.
You obviously did not listen to Mr. Obama's speech.
He made it very clear that government ISN'T the answer to everything.
So you either didn't listen to the speech, or you're deliberately ignoring the parts of it where he talked about people needing to help themselves whenever they can.
Shaw, the jobs report was very much less than robust... if people had not quit looking for work, we would have seen a big spike...
And from all reports, Pres. Obama was aware of this last night as his Econ Advisors get the report a day early.
His speech was alright, and most reviews were in the middle, excepting Charles Krauthammer on the right who hates all things left, and Chris Matthews, who loves all things left.
As you said, it is on to the debates.
Depending on the formats, we'll see how the candidates stack up mano a mano...
As for the election, maybe Skud, or Silver can give a reasonable argument for how Romney winds the swing states needed to get to 270.
I'd like to see some real thinking on that beyond the typical Obama is bad stuff.
What states that went for Obama in 2008 look like they will go the other way in 2012?
The arithmetic just isn't adding up. Once you get past Indiana, it doesn't look good.
Is it possible we will see a president reelected with a lower popular vote but a larger electoral vote?
I'm pretty sure this will be a very close election in the popular vote, but Mr. Obama's electoral votes still look good.
I understand the Romney campaign has pulled out of Penn. and Mich. [Romney's home state], and yes, Indiana will not be in Mr. Obama's column this election.
This post-convention "bump" business is meaningless.
The next big test for the candidates is the debates.
Those will define more clearly the differences in how the two parties will be able to get America moving forward again.
We would be in a much better position had the GOP not deliberately obstructed everything President Obama tried to do.
He was willing to compromise--and the Dems were livid with him for that--but the GOP would have none of it for fear Mr. Obama would suceed.
News is that Ohio is not looking good either... How can Romney get there if he loses Penn, Mich, and Ohio?
He'd almost have to sweep every other battleground state... pretty unlikely...
I posted this on my FB status: "Funny that Clinton went off script for most of his speech and didn't use teleprompters to tell the truth while Republicans used them to tell lies."
And this: "Can't help but compare the crowd shots at the DNC to those in Tampa. Instead of a sea of white with a few symbolic African Americans, aka tokens, a few bought Latinos, there is real diversity: men and women of ALL shades, of ALL ages, of ALL races, of ALL faiths or not, of ALL economic backgrounds - students, housewives, farmers, factory workers, businessmen and women, teachers, firemen, veterans, etc. This is what it's ALL about."
I should add: The delegates at the DNC look happy.
Here's an interesting piece in the WaTimes, of all places, about how the extremists are chasing Republicans out of the party:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/3/extremists-chase-some-republicans-toward-obama/
I don't think Obama's speech was his greatest by any means but what I noticed was a more reflective, more cautious, more mature man -- things that can only come from experience and the wisdom to recognize it.
Shaw, I listened, intently. There are, shall we say, such things as body language and listening for the words behind the words so to speak. I think you call it "code."
I did the latter. Sorry to say in my not so humble considered opinion the President lost an opportunity to unite a country. What he accomplished was to unite the already the already united as it were.
It will be a rather grueling couple of months ahead methinks...
What will the left say if Romney wins the popular by a razor thin margin but Obama wins the electoral?
I remember 2000 well.
Not that it really matters...
"Shaw, I listened, intently. There are, shall we say, such things as body language and listening for the words behind the words so to speak. I think you call it 'code.' "
You haven't given any example of this so-called "body language" and "code" that you claim was there. You have said repeatedly that you dislike both parties' candidates, but you trash Mr. Obama more often. IOW, your opinion is wholly subjective. You listened with a closed mind.
And if Romney wins by a razor thin popular vote margin and loses handily by an electoral vote?
We follow the law, that's what happens.
And the GOP will have to swallow the bitter pill they made the Dems swallow in 2000.
Leslie, I read that this morning. Very good observations. The Democratic Party is the party of inclusion. And why any woman would belong to the GOP, a party that believes in state-forced pregnancies and vaginal probes, and had a leading politician, Santorum, say that birth control is "just wrong," mystifies me.
Is it some sort of Stockholm Syndrome going on there with the GOP women?
Dave,
I haven't see the most recent Ohio numbers. But if what you say is really happening, yes, it will be a tough uphill fight for Mr. Romney to get to 270.
Romney doesn't think the troops are important.
If Obama had said these words the righties would be calling for his impeachment:
Asked by a friendly news outlet why he didn't bother praising our troops in his speech, Romney responded:
"When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important."
Wrong answer. You thank the f**king troops. They are not a laundry list. And while Romney might not think they are important, they kind of are.
@ Shaw... you have obviously not read my post on the new neo facist rEpublican party and RomneySkull . So until you do your subjective opinion will remain under advisement.
Obama gets 9% bump in polls after convention.
Good post, but I have to disagree with one part: "Romney and the GOP believe government is never the solution to any problem and that government is always the problem . . ."
Not really. When oil companies talk poor mouth and send armies of $350,000/year and up lobbyists forth to militate for continued depletion allowances, more and bigger tax loopholes and other means of being paid to do their already obscenely profitable business, Republicans have no problem whatsoever with government being at their service.
(Imagine Roy Orbison singing two choruses of his hit, "Anything You Want, You Got It" here.)
Exxon Mobile racks up the biggest profits of any business ever in 2009, then not only doesn't pay a cent in taxes but gets a rebate of hundreds of millions on the tax it didn't pay. Romney, Ryan, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Big Oil, etc., say more power to 'em or say nothing at all.
However, let Bill the barber with a two-chair shop or Sammy who sells hot dogs and burgers from a food truck seek a fairer break — something short of outright usury — on student loans so their kids can get a college education without going into debt for 20 years, and Republicans lapse into paroxysms of apoplexy.
"Oh, the despoiled humanity! These parents want something for nothing. Their kids will surely become lifelong passive wards of the state!"
Got an anti-missile missile system to sell for hundreds of billions? See Uncle Sugar, at least when a president like that noted fiscal conservative, George W. Bush, is president. The damned thing doesn't have to work. The Pentagon doesn't have to want it or recommend buying it. Much of Congress can be climbing the walls screaming this is sheer stupidity. Countries that are supposed to be friends and allies can get really bent out of shape when the president unilaterally announces he wants to put it in one country to the consternation of the other, neighboring, country. All that is supposed to be OK. Hey, what's going to become of companies that develop anti-missile missile systems that don't work if Uncle Sugar doesn't spend a few hundred billion to give them a sweet deal now and then, right?
But what's not OK, in conservative Republicans' view, is spending a few million a year to see to it that kids in poor neighborhoods, from poor families, can get a decent breakfast before school, a good lunch at noon, and maybe even free sandwiches and milk at a park or school playground during summer, whether they can pay for those meals or not. Too big a risk of those kids growing up believing the world owes them nourishment, ya know. Too big a risk of coddling no-account parents, ya know. That's what's most important, never mind whether the kids go hungry, don't do as well in school, are subject to more health problems, etc. Those parents must be compelled to get out and hustle at whatever if they don't want their kids going hungry. And if the parents can't or won't get out and hustle? Well, it's too bad about those kids but there's a conservative principle involved.
And besides, Republicans need to find ways to economize to keep Sheldon Adelson's taxes low so he can create more jobs in Macau — and donate $100 million to his Republican presidential candidate of choice again in 2016.
"What will the left say if Romney wins the popular by a razor thin margin but Obama wins the electoral?"
Congratulations, Mr. President. Glad your bid for a second term didn't fall prey to our pro-Republican Supreme Court.
S.W.A.,
All good points.
Of course we know GOPers love government to be the solution when it solves problems the 1% has.
Then there's that pesky report about how Mitt Romney went to the government for money to help save his private business.
I wonder how many Republicans know that and embrace Romney's colossal hypocrisy?
"I wonder how many Republicans know that and embrace Romney's colossal hypocrisy?"
I expect the number is roughly equal to the number who want to know that.
Post a Comment