Obama: the man has been in permanent campaign mode from the day he took office

[Emoryoid]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-campaign.html

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'

PUBLISHED: 07:41 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 April 2012

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.
Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.
The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1tSzlZOCG

[Emoryoid]

The amount of campaigning he has engaged in is stunning when compared to other presidents. If retaining power is that important to Obama, that in and of itself is very scary IMO.

[linux]

Yeah I can see how it is freaky-creepy to have a president that campaigns 24/7 vs older presidents that campaign 80% of 24/7

[austintx71]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-campaign.html

You gonna take the word of a bunch of gawddam Euuuuuuropeeeeeeeans????

[FCHorn]

You gonna take the word of a bunch of gawddam Euuuuuuropeeeeeeeans????

The European press does a better job than our $#@!ty press....

[carrera]

I blame citizen united for the need for even more fund raising. Blame libertarians.

[Grammer Police]

Can we stop being so negative? Please?

Emeryoid, post something positive. Pick something, anything you like about your preferred presidential candidate. Post about that.

It's very easy to say "Obama did something $#@!ty!" Also very easy to say "Bush did something $#@!ty!"

This is how we always end up choosing between the better of two terribles. $#@! that $#@!. Find something you like. Champion it.

[gecko]

Cut him some slack.....it's the only thing he does well. Can't govern worth a $#@!.

[Emoryoid]

Can we stop being so negative? Please?

Emeryoid, post something positive. Pick something, anything you like about your preferred presidential candidate. Post about that.

It's very easy to say "Obama did something $#@!ty!" Also very easy to say "Bush did something $#@!ty!"

This is how we always end up choosing between the better of two terribles. $#@! that $#@!. Find something you like. Champion it.

I suppose we could sit in a circle and sing Kum Ba Yah.

[NotActuallyALonghorn]

Well do you want him trying to push legislation?

[FondrenRoad]

The Daily Mail is shaggy's newspaper of record.

[YoLaDu]

Did the Mitt Romney and GOP SuperPACs suspend fundraising the last 3 years? No, they ramped up.

Obama is going to keep up; if he doesn't, he concedes a huge competitive advantage.

If Romney wins the WhiteHouse he will have to do the same thing during his term. Sorry state of affairs.

[Staboned]

its just reelection. no one is governing. that much is obvious for years now. its isn't just an obama thing. its a american government thing trending in the wrong direction.

[Mizzou415]

its just reelection. no one is governing. that much is obvious for years now. its isn't just an obama thing. its a american government thing trending in the wrong direction.

Yup. He was being campaigned against from Day One and has been campaigning since Day One. Tough to say which is the chicken and which is the egg but the result is problematic.

[OnBoard]

Yup. He was being campaigned against from Day One and has been campaigning since Day One. Tough to say which is the chicken and which is the egg but the result is problematic.

Well, at least if he's on the campaign trail (making promises and deflecting blame) he can't be in the oval office thinking up new ways to plunge the country deeper into debt..



Not enough experience, should not have been elected, on the job training is for McDonalds Fry cooks not POTUS

[Blank]

Yeah I can see how it is freaky-creepy to have a president that campaigns 24/7 vs older presidents that campaign 80% of 24/7

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr (sic) 57 in 2004. [/B]

4 is not 80% of 124.

0 is not 80% of 124.

19 is not 80% of 124.

14 is not 80% of 124.

57 is not 80% of 124.

And since you seem to have trouble with 2+2, March 6th is not the end of the 2012 campaign, not even close.

[austintx71]

Or he could be playing golf.

[Grammer Police]

I suppose we could sit in a circle and sing Kum Ba Yah.

The reason you won't champion something you agree with is because problems are infinitely easier to bitch about than to solve.

Take a stand. Be correct.

[Mizzou415]

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr (sic) 57 in 2004. [/B]

4 is not 80% of 124.

0 is not 80% of 124.

19 is not 80% of 124.

14 is not 80% of 124.

57 is not 80% of 124.

And since you seem to have trouble with 2+2, March 6th is not the end of the 2012 campaign, not even close.

Using the numbers in your post + the numbers here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...paign-spending, gives us:

[washparkhorn]

Using the numbers in your post + the numbers here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...paign-spending, gives us:

[Michael Knight]

That's weird, I figured citizens united could only help the problem

[DigglerontheHoof]

All I know is if this was a Republican president, all participants in this current "discussion" would take the opposite stance. Such partisan $#@!ing bull$#@!....continue on, $#@!s.

[Emoryoid]

And Toby Harnden, the "reporter" is a partisan hack that feeds emroid's bias....


Including such "reporting" as the following articles:



























emorid outdid himself finding a partisan hack to quote on this guy....

Wrong as usual. The question is not whether the writer has political leanings. What the hell ... more than half the people in America have political leanings. No Jose, the question is whether the statistics he cites are true. Do you refute that Obama statistically has had more re-election fundraisers than his five predecessors combined? Its a simple question.

The messenger may be partisan ... I don't know, I never heard of the person. But that is irrelevant. No, the real question is whether the information presented is true. Cite me reliable statistics that show otherwise or STFU.

[Emoryoid]

The reason you won't champion something you agree with is because problems are infinitely easier to bitch about than to solve.

Take a stand. Be correct.

The solution is we need a President and leaders in Congress who are from the private sector, not career politicians. They need to understand how the economy works. They need to understand that regulations are necessary, but the fewer we can get by with the better because regulating commerce can result in our having a competitive disadvantage. They should understand the need to keep taxes low, and that doing so is essential to economic growth. They need to understand that the key to our economic problems is growth, and the best way to secure growth is to keep the government off business' back as much as reasonably possible. They need to understand that debt is pushing us off a fiscal cliff and the way to get our debt under control is to minimize waste and cut spending. That is also done by reforming entitlements and eliminating non-essental agencies and eliminate as much as possible duplication. As to unearned entitlements (e.g., medicaid, welfare, food stamps) those need to be kept at a minimum and go only to those who absolutely must have them. We cannot afford to give free rides anymore, not when we have a $16 trillion debt and an economy that is creeping along at a snails pace. Compassionate government spending only for the truly needy. In sum, we need a much smaller federal government because the sheer size of that government is strangling our economy and we need leaders who understand this.

Obama's way of looking at the world politically is through the prism that the federal government is the answer to all our ills. That is why he has to go. I am most undone that Romney is the R's nominee. So far, he has demonstrated himself to be a big government guy as well. But this is what we have. It will not be Paul or anyone else. It will be one of these two men. That means we just have one chance here of avoiding becoming Greece. That is, that Mr. Romney will have a revelation and, if he is elected, turn decidedly toward a smaller government philosophy. It has to be Romney because there is absolutely no way Obama will ever pivot in that direction; Obama is too rigid a left wing ideologue.

We have seen politicians pivot in the past. Clinton pivoted to the right and that produced tremendous positive economic results. Romney is a smart man, clearly. So he knows that he has to govern from the position of a smaller federal government. Romney has to know that such a move is absolutely essential if our country is to again prosper and thrive economically. For this reason, I'd say the chances are 50/50 that Romney, should he be elected, will take steps to substantially reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Those odds are not a lock, but at least they are way better than the zero percent chance Obama will move towards a smaller government philosophy.

[Gil Bang]

If romney were really "a smart man", would he believe in magic undies?

[Grammer Police]

The solution is we need a President and leaders in Congress who are from the private sector, not career politicians.

What we need are honest people who won't sell us out nor mortgage our future. You might find more people from that mold in the private sector -- but it depends on which sector of the private sector.

[Emoryoid]

If romney were really "a smart man", would he believe in magic undies?

Smart enough to start his own multibillion dollar business business. I personally know no one that smart. Yes the underwear thing is not my cup of tea either. But then again I also disagree with some denominations (e.g., Lutheran) that believe the communion elements actually turn into the blood and body of Jesus. Doesn't mean I ridicule those denominations; I just disagree with them is all.