The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The Obama Administration & US Politics

Obama Administration crumbling! Spector out!

As the 2012 election is now over, Barack Obama has won a second term. Many wonder how his policies, his administration, and how the entire political arena, will change our future.

Postby greeney2 » Wed May 19, 2010 9:35 am

Another major Democratic loss to a Republican! This another indicator that the Democrates along with the Obama Administration, are floundering. Obama's affectiveness on both the war front, and the economic front is sinking, further and further.

Obama endorsements don't seem to help Democrats
Buzz up!429 votes Send
Email IM .Share
Facebook Twitter Delicious Digg Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks .Print .. Play Video ABC News – Bottom Line: Election Results and Liars
. Play Video Video:May Primaries To Midterm Elections CNBC .
Play Video Video:Voters' Voices Heard FOX News .
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Secret Service investigates Ala. Math teacher AP .
AP – Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., climbs into his car as he leaves his election party after delivering his concession …
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 19, 8:39 am ET
WASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama's hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement, raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter's loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama's influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

Of course, it's possible that Democrats will fare better than expected this fall. And there's only so much that any president can do to help other candidates, especially in a non-presidential election year.

Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.

"We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky's Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning's seat. Paul told CNN on Wednesday he'd relish Obama's campaigning on behalf of Democrat Jack Conway. Obama's agenda, Paul said, is "so far to the left, he's not popular in Kentucky."

Obama's track record also raises the question of whether he may be hurting candidates he supports by motivating his foes — such as tea party supporters — to vote. Though this month's AP-GfK Poll shows Americans split about evenly over how he's handling his job, those strongly disapproving outnumber people who strongly back him by 33 percent to 22 percent — not an enviable position for the president's party.

Sestak's victory over Specter is especially embarrassing, because he won by portraying himself and his supporters as being more faithful to the Democratic Party than were Specter and his backers — who included the president, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and other high-ranking party officials.

Creating another bruise for Obama and the Democratic establishment Tuesday, Sen. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff in Arkansas' Democratic senatorial primary. Obama supports her bid for a third term, but he is not as closely associated with her campaign as he was with Specter's.

In previous months, Obama's endorsements and campaign appearances weren't enough to save then-Gov. Jon Corzine's re-election bid in New Jersey, Creigh Deeds' run for governor in Virginia or Martha Coakley's campaign in Massachusetts to keep the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat in Democratic hands.

In fairness, Deeds was an underdog from the start, and Corzine brought many problems on himself. But the Coakley loss to Republican Scott Brown was excruciating. She once was considered a shoo-in, and her defeat restored the Republicans' ability to block Democratic bills with Senate filibusters.

Unlike the Corzine, Deeds and Coakley races, Obama made no late-campaign appearances for Specter. But it will be hard for the president to distance himself from Specter's career-ending loss.

Obama campaigned for Specter last September in Philadelphia, where he said, "I love Arlen Specter." Specter used the clip in recent TV ads. Obama also e-mailed his supporters on Specter's behalf, and he was the first person Specter thanked in his concession speech.

Vice President Joe Biden, a Pennsylvania native, made several appearances for Specter. Last week he told a Pittsburgh radio station, "Arlen is the Democratic candidate."

Moreover, Obama was central to an all-important deal with Specter that struck some Democratic voters as opportunistic at best.

Specter had been a Republican senator for 28 years, opposing countless Democratic bills and appointees even if he showed more independence than most lawmakers. Thirteen months ago, however, he concluded he could not win the GOP nomination for a sixth term against conservative Pat Toomey. He and top Democrats struck a deal.

Specter would become a Democrat, giving the party the crucial 60th Senate vote it needed to overcome Republican filibusters, which were frustrating the administration. In exchange, Obama, Biden, Rendell and the entire Democratic hierarchy agreed to support Specter's 2010 re-election, including efforts to clear his way to the party's nomination.

The losers in the deal were any longtime Democrats who aspired to the U.S. Senate. They essentially were told to step aside for an 80-year-old longtime Republican. Pennsylvania's Democratic voters were asked to concur.

Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral first elected to the House in 2006, refused to go along. He plugged away without help from the state or national party. A few weeks ago he trailed Specter by about 20 percentage points in polls of likely Democratic voters.

But Sestak caught fire in the closing days, partly through a TV ad showing Specter campaigning enthusiastically with then-President George W. Bush, who remains deeply unpopular with many Democratic primary voters.

In the past few weeks, the White House has played down Obama's role in the Tuesday primaries, and he spent Election Day in Ohio talking about the economy.

"At some point, you feel like we've done what we can do," senior White House adviser David Axelrod told The Associated Press in an interview. "We do have other stuff going on," he said.

Matt Bennett, a Democratic strategist and vice president of the group Third Way, said he doubts that Democratic lawmakers will panic over Obama's inability to help Specter to a victory.

"Presidents have coattails when their names are on the ballot," Bennett said, and that can't happen for Obama until 2012.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby BloodStone » Wed May 19, 2010 10:26 am

Pat Toomey would have wiped the floor with that ass clown. I am so glad as a PA resident that we finally ended Specter.
Obama used him and tossed him, just like he does with all his friends.He's really starting to be the kiss of death. I would be suprised if any of them actually let him come to help...If that's the kind of help he offers, I bet they will run from him like he has AIDS.

I was nice enough to send Specter a nice going away email... :mrgreen:

What a putz.



BloodStone...
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag.
User avatar
BloodStone
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: U.S.S.A

Postby qmark » Wed May 19, 2010 11:36 am

There were two big reasons for Arlen Specter losing which really don't have anything to do with Obama. First, Sestak ran a killer commercial here that showed Specter saying he switched parties so he could be re-elected. Secondly, there is no way he would win in November. There wouldn't be a single Republican that would vote for that traitor to his original party and most Democrats couldn't trust him.
Last edited by qmark on Wed May 19, 2010 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
qmark
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby qmark » Wed May 19, 2010 11:39 am

BloodStone wrote:Pat Toomey would have wiped the floor with that ass clown. I am so glad as a PA resident that we finally ended Specter.
Obama used him and tossed him, just like he does with all his friends.He's really starting to be the kiss of death. I would be suprised if any of them actually let him come to help...If that's the kind of help he offers, I bet they will run from him like he has AIDS.

I was nice enough to send Specter a nice going away email... :mrgreen:

What a putz.



BloodStone...


I would rather have seen Specter win because there was no way he would win in November. Sestak actually has a better shot to win in November. Toomey doesn't thrill me.
qmark
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby BloodStone » Wed May 19, 2010 11:54 am

Obama could have controlled Sestak, and told him to let Specter run, but he didn't.

And Specter may still run as an independent, If he does Toomey is a winner all the way. I still think Toomey will win either way.






BloodStone...
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag.
User avatar
BloodStone
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: U.S.S.A

Postby greeney2 » Wed May 19, 2010 2:49 pm

The message to Obama and indicator of him crumbling is first his approval rating is dropping and was lower than most Presidents in the first year ending, and mid term elections many Democrat seats are falling, as Congress has a lower rating than Bush ended up with.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquarian » Wed May 19, 2010 3:28 pm

Well, this was still a Democratic Primary. Either way, what this highlights is the schizophrenic nature of the U.S. political system. If Specter had remained Republican with that little "R" by his name, Obama wouldn't have endorsed him. The only reason why he received the support and backing of Obama is because Specter switched parties during a critical time of Republican disillusionment among the masses. Specter's phony "disappointment" at the extremism of the Republican Right is just that, phony and hypocritical. Specter, even with his "party switch" continued to support domestic wiretapping as long as it had the stamp-of-approval by a government-sanctioned "independent" group, along with the continued wars of aggression in the Middle-East. More so, he backed Bush in the first major bank bailout before Bush's end of tenure. It's all theatrics. He lost because people noticed his opportunism, I think.

In other news, Rand Paul's win against another Republican is being seen as a referendum in support of the Tea Party.

http://www.examiner.com/x-16044-Christi ... nomination
The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
User avatar
Aquarian
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby qmark » Wed May 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Aquarian wrote: along with the continued wars of aggression in the Middle-East.


I don't want to derail the thread but, you consider Afghanistan a war of aggression?
qmark
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquarian » Wed May 19, 2010 8:34 pm

Well, so as to not take away focus from the subject of the thread, I'll mention a little tidbit about this. I do think the US waged a war of aggression against Afghanistan for almost 30 years now. In 1970, Afghanistan was a rural, poor, moderate Muslim country with tons of inequalities but promising potentials. Even in the area of women, women were allowed to unveil, vote, and were entering the workforce at an exceeding rate (mostly as nurses and teachers). But the problem with Afghanistan was an economic one. Tribal, religious and political elites owned and managed over 75% of the land- that's less than 5% of the population owning the land and subsequently, the resources produced from that land, and the concentration of wealth that came along with it. By the late 70s, various progressive movements have galvanized enough rural support to lead a sort of domestic insurrection against the Elite (1979 rebellion). But because the U.S. was at a Cold War with the Soviet Union at the time, the U.S. was willing to sacrifice the interests and welfare of the Afghan people for purposes of geopolitical control, strategy and influence by leading a host of concerted efforts to infiltrate, interfere, and essentially, have a stranglehold of the country's political establishment, however corrupt it formerly was.

To counter the Soviets, the U.S. deliberately chose to give most of its support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater. According to journalist Tim Weiner, "[Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary', vicious', a fascist', definite dictatorship material." 10
The Mujahideen, while in power, killed or forced into exile most progressive-minded people, especially those suspected of being socialist or Marxist. Thus, the prospects of any progressive secular form of government in Afghanistan were eventually undermined. This continued after the Soviets left. Edmund McWilliams was sent to Afghanistan in 1989 as a semi-independent analyst of U.S. policy regarding the Afghan jihad. He discovered that as the Soviets left, Hekmatyar in allliance with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and other groups, moved to eliminate his rivals kidnapping, and murdering Afghan opposition members. 11

The U.S. was quick to provide weapons to the Mujahideen. By February 1980, the Washington Post reported that they were receiving arms coming from the U.S. government


http://www.glonbalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
User avatar
Aquarian
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby qmark » Thu May 20, 2010 7:16 am

The quote portion I remember. The first portion, not so much. In fact, I doubt its accuracy. The ONLY way Muslim women are allowed to be unveiled is through a completely secular government which I do not believe was the case.

Regardless, supplying weapons to whoever is not an act of aggression on your part. It is material aid to their act of aggression. However, that wasn't even true in this case as the USSR was clearly the aggressor. Our mistake was backing the particular idiots that we supported. It ultimately came back and bit us. They became the aggressor against us.
qmark
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Next

Return to The Obama Administration & US Politics

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests