The race for the GOP nomination has begun and the mainstream media is all hyped up because there is not a clear cut front-runner. The media would have us believe President Obama is unbeatable after the killing of bin Laden, from Newsweek:

But now, the killing of Osama bin Laden is changing this equation dramatically. Alleged Muslim Barack Obama did in two and a half years what Bush couldn’t do in seven and a half. It wasn’t just the result. The nature of the operation is still breathtaking, weeks later, and the risk Obama took, which he conveyed with masterful cool in his 60 Minutes interview, is mind-blowing (imagine if bin Laden hadn’t been there!). You can call the president who oversaw the operation many things, but weak isn’t one of them.

Yet here is the truth about the “bin Laden bounce,” from the National Journal:

 Obama’s bounce is smaller in magnitude and shorter in duration than the bumps enjoyed by other presidents over the past 70 years, according to a study by Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies. For example, George W. Bush received a 15-point bump after the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003 — a bounce that lasted seven weeks.

The poll also comes the same day as Gallup announced that three in four Americans “name some type of economic issue as the ‘most important problem’ facing the country today — the highest net mentions of the economy in two years. Those numbers, combined with Obama’s fleeting boost, suggest the economy remains — by far — the dominant issue of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Media hype aside, it is clear the President is going to have a tough fight for re-election. I hear some of you squawking about the “weakness” of the Republican contenders, but I remind you of 1992. The candidates, who were running for the Democrats, were considered to be second tier and no match for the presumably unbeatable President George H.W Bush. One of those was a “laughable,” promiscuous Governor, of a small southern state, who turned out to be one of the great politicians of our time. 

As things stand now there is a growing sense of ABO (anyone but Obama) and with a projected unemployment rate of at least 8.2%, I emphasize “at least,” the President cannot campaign for re-election with a “blame the previous guy” or “things where worse than I thought strategy.” Oh, it will work with his base, but heck, just saying “I killed bin Laden” will work with his base. Then again, maybe not. Check out this Saturday Night Live Skit, when they start taking shots like this at President Obama, you know he is in more trouble than the media would have us believe.


This entry was posted in media, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Unbeatable-Not

  1. olemike says:

    Obama is definitely beatable. Aside from killing Bin Laden, what are his notable accomplishments? The success of the healthcare package is debatable, his economic policies have not significantly changed the unemployment situation, he has not done much of what he said he would do when campaigning (that is good from my perspective), and he has no credible plan to reduce deficit spending and the national debt. He is extremely vulnerable to a good leader with a strong message. However, the question is, is there such a Republican? I hope we find one.

  2. RJ says:

    Considering the total mess that was heaped on his lap by Baby George, Obama has done an admirable job. Yes, he might be vulnerable to a good leader but from the field that is presently around I just don’t see one. It is strange to me how Republicans want to throw out all of the healthcare bill already passed. Do you think dropping people for made up “pre-existing conditions” is a good thing? There are good things about Obamacare as well as bad but at least he got something passed when GWB totally ignored the subject. I have yet to see anything from either party about actually reducing health care costs. For instance is it really necessary to pay a doctor $10,000 for a one hour procedure; is it really necessary to pay $30 for a tube of toothpaste in the hospital? Let’s come together with ideas to attack the areas of healthcare that will actually reduce costs and not just cutting back the benefits.

    • Bret Rickert says:

      There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the mess the country is in. Government involvement in the housing and lending market is a major reason. Obamacare is not the solution, I have a pre-existing condition and do not want government’s involvement in my health issues. The fact is the surgery I had and the therapy that followed would not be approved by the government now, so where would I be under Obamacare? Fortunately, my plan was granted a waiver and, for now, I do not have to worry about any changes. If you want to reduce costs, how about buying insurance across state lines, the increased competition will lower costs. Obamacare will increase costs and diminish quality.

  3. RJ says:

    Yeah, plenty of blame but no real solutions from anyone in Washington.
    As to Obamacare, your reply is very interesting. You say that your condition would not be covered by the passed healthcare bill but your private insurer covered it! I find it amazing that a private for-profit company will pay where Obamacare/Medicare wouldn’t? The bill that passed as far as I read it doesn’t mention any particular exclusions; that is supposed to be address by the new commission that was supposed to have started this month. But generally they say if it is covered by Medicare it will be covered by the new plan. Have they already excluded your condition right out of the gate?
    I personally am clinging to a thread waiting to turn 65 so I can get on Medicare. My pension plan is almost daily threatening to pull healthcare from my retirement benefits. If is does I have been told that IF I can get it private insurance will run more than $1800/month but mostly like it will be unavailable to me as I have had a previous heart attack.
    I don’t know if you would want to reveal your condition that is excluded but could you at least tell us of this benevolent private insurer that covers the condition that Medicare won’t. I would love to study them some.

    • Bret Rickert says:

      Here in lies your mistake. You are looking at it from only the insurance angle. The spinal surgery I had at the time was experimental, my insurance covered it because of my surgeon. They did give me problems with the physical therapy afterwards and only covered 50% of the anesthesia go figure. Now there would not be a doctor willing to do the surgery. Quit frankly, I would have been one of those people who the government would have given pain pills for instead of trying to fix the problem. Obama care looks strictly at cost because the government pays for it. Another example, the FDA approved a drug for breast cancer, I forget the name, It was an expensive drug, but it proved to extend the life of the patient by an average of 5 weeks. After Obama care passed, they revoked their approval siting cost effectiveness. If you think government health care works, look at Mass. There is 55 day waiting time to see a doctor.

  4. RJ says:

    So your circumstances relied on a benevolent doctor who fought the system. I am so happy you found one but should we leave it to everyone to find their own “special”doctor who is willing to do surgeries for below their going rate in order to get insurance covearage? I don’t have to look to Mass for an example of government health care. My wife has been on Medicare for six years now. The other day she found a insect bite and got into the doctor that same day. (It turned out to be nothing, thank heavens). She has had six major surgeries in the last six years and there was no waiting for any of them and nothing but minor expenses to us. In the mean time I had a mild heart attack that costs $40,000 of which I paid $15k of insurance deductibles. I can’t wait to get on a single payer healthcare via Medicare.
    I have read story after story about how the rest of the world just can’t understand why we insist on maintain our insanely over cost system while the rest of the industrialized world figured out how to control costs years ago.

  5. olemike says:

    The thing we all have to remember is that there is no free healthcare. Somebody always pays. If it is not you, it is someone else – your neighbor, your friends, your relatives, or some unknown rich person. Too often, people tend to forget that. The government has no money. It is only redistributing what we as citizens give it, willingly or not.

    • RJ says:

      Olemike, yeah you are right someone pays. It used to be the definition of insurance was that everyone pays and then when you are sick you collect. That has basically changed the last decade or so when the for-profit incentive came into prominence for private insurers.

      Bret, I checked up a little on the Mass thing and yes wait times, especially for non-critical stuff, has gone up but the primary reason is that there are now so many more people in the system who were once uninsured that the supply of doctors has not yet increased to meet the demand. As it has for Medicare that will stabilize over time.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        A couple of last points.

        1) My doctor was not some one who fought the system, quit the contrary he used the system. Since I was at a teaching hospital, he was able to make up his fee in other ways.

        2) Medicare in its current form cannot exist by the time I turn 65. This is a fact, the country cannot afford it. How long will doctors continue to participate as the government lowers their reimbursements?

        3) The doctor situation will not stabilize in Mass. As doctors are forced to take more patients at lower fees they will (and are) leaving the state. I know of a few doctors who are leaving to Canada to start private clinics as the Canadians back away from their universal health care and allow private clinics to open.

        Since you have been a good guest I will let you have the last word, unless I choose not to 🙂

  6. RJ says:

    Bert, Thanks for the lively discussions. It is nice to see that people can disagree on an amicable level. Now if we can just get those in Washington to listen once in a while instead of always yelling maybe something will change. Medicare has been around for 50 years and unless we let the politicians totally destroy it it will be there for another 50. Nothing ever stays the same so I agree that it might not be in its current form but it will be there. We simply cannot let our senior citizens after years of faithful service simple fend for themselves. We are a more passionate nation than that. At least I am praying that is the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s