One would only need to look at the title of Liz Peek's latest Fiscal Times article to conclude that it could go down as one of the most ridiculous articles of the year. It's so ridiculous, after reading the title, one would likely have to double-check the source to make certain it wasn't written by someone at the satire site, The Onion. The title of the article is, "Obama's Massive Failure Has Delivered Trump's Success." Oh, it gets better... Let's take a closer, more in-depth look, shall we?
Ms. Peek starts her article with this:
"No president in our country's history has been more concerned about his legacy than has Barack Obama. How ironic that people might someday best remember our first African-American Commander in Chief for having inspired the candidacy of Donald Trump."
Right, because all preceding presidents didn't care one iota about their legacies.
All presidents before entering the Oval Office: "I want to be the greatest president in this country's history!"
All presidents following their inauguration: "I don't really care much about whether or not I'm seen as the best or worst president in our nation's history."
Riiight... What else do you have for us, Ms. Peek?
"Six years of Obama forcing unpopular policies down Americans' throats; six years of lies and misdeeds by unaccountable bureaucrats; six years of lame growth and resulting wage suppression; six years of appeasing our enemies and facing down our friends; six years of dividing the country - they have all taken their toll."
Care to elaborate, Ms. Peek? No offense, but this sounds like a fortune from an uber-conservative Chinese restaurant: "Unpopular things have been done and said over the past several years. Thanks, Obama."
Also, are you really going to go there with regard to economic growth? President George W. Bush, a Republican, left office handing the worst recession since the Great Depression to President Obama. The current president has helped us stave off another depression and lead us to recovery. So do you really want to go there with your claims of "lame growth" and "wage suppression" under the current president? Even if one wanted to describe the growth under President Obama as "lame," lame growth is a hell of a lot better than what we saw under President Bush.
Then she has the gall to criticize President Obama's decisions on foreign policy? Again, President Bush lied us into two incredibly costly wars, where we wasted trillions of dollars, saw thousands of our soldiers get killed and wounded, not to mention innocent civilians were killed in the process which resulted in us making countless more enemies as a result. Oh, and Osama bin Laden wasn't killed under Bush's watch. Under President Obama, bin Laden was killed, we've attempted to right Bush's wrong by ending the wars and sending our troops home, and under his watch, we've gone in a more diplomatic direction, standing by the long held belief that war should always be a last resort.
Lastly, it cracks me up when die-hard conservatives like Liz Peek claim that President Obama has done nothing but divide this country during his two terms. Much to liberals' chagrin, what did President Obama try to do from day one in the Oval Office? Work with Republicans. What was the goal of Congressional Republicans since President Obama's inauguration? To make him a one-term president. When that effort failed, what was their goal? To make President Obama a lame-duck president. Their goal has been to make President Obama fail as this nation's leader so they can garner control of the White House again. So who's been the more divisive party during President Obama's tenure? That's what I thought... Anything else you'd like to add?
"People are angry and are willing to champion a bombastic billionaire best known for insulting people as our next president. Trump's 'campaign message' is vitriol unleashed - towards our enemies, undocumented immigrants and anyone else who crosses his path. His supporters see him breaking free of political correctness, or correctness itself for that matter, and they love Trump for voicing their outrage. They view him as the perfect antidote to President Obama."
"People"? "People" sounds like this is a nationwide phenomenon, but honestly, it's just a far right-wing craze. Donald Trump may be the current leader of the Republican pack, but he's despised by a majority of moderates, liberals, Democrats, Independents, and even some fellow Republicans. In a hypothetical match-up with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, Trump fares far worse than the other first-tier Republican candidates, as he'd lose to Clinton by the count of 48% to 36% (it's estimated Clinton would garner over 400 electoral votes). He's also trailing Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Yes, Donald Trump may be loved by the far right-wing, but he's despised by almost everyone else. Anything else?
"Mainstream Americans feel marginalized - pushed to the back of the pack, while the plight of transgenders in the military or imprisoned blacks takes center stage. Worse, they have been lectured and held accountable for the country's problems. Obama has hinted that white Christian Americans are racist -- indifferent to the travails of blacks and Hispanics and unreasonably hostile to Muslims."
Mainstream Americans? So, what, straight, white Christians? Liz Peek really thinks she can speak for all such individuals? How exactly are these "mainstream Americans" being pushed to the back of the pack? Because President Obama has attempted to bring equality to other demographics? When women were granted the right to vote, were men then being pushed to the back of the pack? When slavery was abolished, were whites being pushed to the back of the pack? No. A demographic garnering equal rights as all others is not the same as all others losing rights. Nice try, though... Please continue...
"The president has told them that 'racism is in our DNA' while liberals have claimed 'society itself is to blame' for the schism between blacks and police, as Charles Blow wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. For a country that twice elected a black man to our highest office, that is an affront."
I love this argument. Ever since Barack Obama got elected in 2008, some conservatives have said, "We elected a black president! That means racism is over!" I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Have we made progressions when it comes to racism in this country? Yes. But does that mean racism no longer exists? No, of course not. Before Obama, 42 white presidents were elected to the Oval Office. In other words, of the 43 presidents we've had, 97.7% of them have been white and that number was at 100.0% before 2008. Is this article almost over yet? Please?
"Meanwhile, hardworking middle class families see cities hauling out the welcome mat for people in our country illegally - while their tax dollars provide those immigrants free education and other services. New York City is issuing ID cards that include free membership to 33 cultural institutions and discounts on movie tickets and prescription medicines. For millions of city residents whose wages are stuck and whose rents are soaring, the largesse is is provocative."
Like the subtle bit of racism depicted in the previous two paragraphs? In the first paragraph, Ms. Peek talks about blacks and racism, before ironically segueing to talk about "hardworking middle class families." Also, if Ms. Peek wants to talk about amnesty and wage suppression, I've got one word for her - Reaganomics. What's next?
"Under President Obama, Americans have become more polarized on race relations and immigration, and nearly every other issue as well. This is uncontestable. A poll this past spring showed that 61 percent of Americans think race relations are 'bad,' the highest reading since 1992, while only 34 percent think they are 'good.' In the summer of 2008, before Obama's election, 53 percent of the country considered race relations good and only 37 percent considered them bad. That's quite a turnabout."
That's because President Obama actually has his head in reality and has attempted to spread that rare presence of reality to the American people. Does Ms. Peek seriously want to cast all the blame on President Obama when it comes to Americans' altered perceptions of race relations in this country? It has nothing to do with the 24-hour news media, talk radio and cable news channels in particular? It has nothing to do with seemingly countless headlines revolving around white police officers killing unarmed black men (and women)? The reason why a majority of people believed race relations were good prior to President Obama stepping into office was because the country largely ignored racist occurrences across the nation. With the increasing number of 24-hour media outlets, the expansion of cell phone's capabilities, and an African-American president who actually took these racist acts personally and shared his thoughts and feelings about such matters, it was all but inevitable that the country's overall perception of race relations would worsen. But, sure, it's all Obama's fault... Carry on...
"On immigration, attitudes have hardened in lockstep with Obama's drive to exert his will on an unwilling population. Last fall after he announced his impending executive action granting protection against deportation a CNN/ORC poll showed 43 percent of the country 'angry' or 'displeased' with this proposal, and only 31 percent 'pleased' or 'enthusiastic.' Some 56 percent disagreed with Obama using an executive action to change our immigration policy, while only 41 percent favored that approach. A new Rasmussen poll showed that 61 percent of likely voters think the government should be more aggressive in deporting people in the country illegally - up from 52 percent a year ago."
I see what she did here. Pick a random poll to support her beliefs and attempt to make her point, eh? I can do that too! According to Gallup, 25% currently feel that immigration should be increased (up from 22% a year ago), 33% believe it should be decreased (down 7% from a year ago), and 40% think it should remain at its present level (up 7% from a year ago). In the final Gallup poll on the subject prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, only 16% felt that immigration should be increased (up 9% since then), 45% believed it should be decreased (down 11% since then), and 35% thought it should remain the same (up 5% since then). Not only that, but a Beyond the Beltway Insights Initiative poll found that 69% of voters believed Congress should pass immigration reform and not reverse President Obama's executive action on the matter. Any more cherry-picking of polls, Ms. Peek?
"Nearly two-thirds of the country thinks we are on the wrong track, while only 29 percent think things are going well. Six months into Obama's presidency, those lines nearly touched. The displeasure is not all about immigration; it is also frustration at the sorry plight of our public schools, the deterioration of our infrastructure, the weakening of our military, our bloated and unsustainable entitlement programs, our absurd 76,000-page tax code, stifling regulation, massive cybersecurity breaches and so on. Voters are fed up with our elected leaders, and who can blame them?"
I was merely being sarcastic asking if Ms. Peek had cherry-picked any other poll results. Alas, here she goes again... Guess what, Ms. Peek? For the most part, a majority of this country has felt we've been on the wrong track since 1971 when the poll question was first asked, and 63% responded in the negative. Also, while just 29% of the public currently feels we're on the right track, that number is significantly higher than Congress' approval rating and significantly lower than President Obama's. While President Obama's approval rating is at approximately 45.0% (net -4.6%), Congress' approval rating is at 16.5% (net -57.0%). So what is the public more angry about, President Obama or Congress? Almost 1 in every 2 Americans support the job President Obama is doing. Less than 1 in every 5 Americans support the job Congress is doing. Do the math. Americans are more angry about Congress not doing its job than the president not doing his. Nice list of far right-wing general talking points by the way. Got anything else for me to debunk?
"Republican voters are especially unhappy because in response to Obama's agenda, they rallied to elect a GOP Congress and the policies they abhor to continue. They have raged against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner for not standing up to Obama. But since the GOP does not have a veto-proof majority, and since so many of the president's policies are being implemented via executive action, Congress can only do so much. As a result, they welcome Trump's unorthodox voice and background, even though he has embraced many causes in the past that they oppose (gun control, higher taxes, and single-payer health care)."
Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, so this inevitably prevents them from doing their jobs? Did I get that right? There's no such thing as reaching across the aisle anymore, of compromising, of actually working together to get things done and move this country forward? Ah, that's right, these are the same people who said they wouldn't support any initiative set forth by Obama right when he stepped into office, hoping this would make him a failure of a president in the public's eyes and that he'd be limited to one term as a result. Also, let's look more in-depthly at President Obama's executive orders in comparison to a few other presidents:
Ronald Reagan: 381 executive orders (47.6 per year)
George H.W. Bush: 166 executive orders (41.5 per year)
George W. Bush: 291 executive orders (36.4 per year)
Barack Obama: 213 executive orders (average of 32.8 per year)
Yes, President Obama has averaged fewer executive orders per year than the past three Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan. Moving on...
"Donald Trump has given voice to the rage of the insulted. It doesn't matter that he has no platform, no policies - not even the facts to make a coherent argument."
Yet he currently leads all GOP polls. So, what does that say about your party again, Ms. Peek, and the people whom support him? That's what I thought. Anything else?
"As the campaign season moves forward, The Donald will eventually implode. Is there another Republican who can attract his vocal and impassioned Trumpeteers? Senator Ted Cruz, who also brandishes an anti-establishment pitchfork and is a likely winner should Trump exit, recently upbraided his GOP colleagues for their 'foolish' criticism of Trump. Others, like Senator Marco Rubio, have intelligently hedged their bets by refusing to comment on the billionaire's behavior, saying it detracts from his own message (which it does.)"
Liz Peek is now apparently a psychic. The Donald will implode, eh? Even after his approval numbers amongst Republicans increased following his John McCain and Megyn Kelly comments? He may implode, but considering the fact it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't make any bets on that just yet. Oh, and Ted "Government Shutdown" Cruz? Yeah, he'd make a great president...
Cruz (from his inauguration speech): "As a Texas Senator, I was able to shut down the federal government for a couple weeks. As president, I promise to shut it down for good!"
Fantastic... Are we done yet?
"While some may court Trump's fans, Republican candidates should keep in mind that the electorate generally prefers an upbeat, positive message. That's how Obama was elected, as well as most of his predecessors. Trump himself has latched onto 'Make America Great Again' as his most winning slogan. He seems to have no plan to accomplish that goal, but his confidence is inspiring. Let us hope that Cruz, or Rubio, or another of the GOP gaggle, can fill in the blanks."
That's an inspiring final paragraph if I ever heard one.
"The current leader of the Republican Party in polls doesn't really know what he's doing, doesn't have any ideas, and could perhaps ruin this country if he's elected president, but he's confident, so that's something."
Yeah, that's something alright, just like Liz Peek's entire article, which has to be the most ridiculous article I've read this week. "Obama's Massive Failure Has Delivered Trump's Success"? No, the far-right's paranoia, fear of change and difference, and belief in opinions and conspiracies over facts has delivered Trump's success. Don't believe me? What's Donald Trump asked President Obama about more than anything else, with the loud approval of his supporters? His birth certificate...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-massive-failure-delivered-trump-093000496.html
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/07/quinnipiac-poll-donald-trump-surges-in-gop-but-would-lose-to-democrats.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/227328-poll-majority-want-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/07/we-ve-been-on-the-wrong-track-since-1972.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Ms. Peek starts her article with this:
"No president in our country's history has been more concerned about his legacy than has Barack Obama. How ironic that people might someday best remember our first African-American Commander in Chief for having inspired the candidacy of Donald Trump."
Right, because all preceding presidents didn't care one iota about their legacies.
All presidents before entering the Oval Office: "I want to be the greatest president in this country's history!"
All presidents following their inauguration: "I don't really care much about whether or not I'm seen as the best or worst president in our nation's history."
Riiight... What else do you have for us, Ms. Peek?
"Six years of Obama forcing unpopular policies down Americans' throats; six years of lies and misdeeds by unaccountable bureaucrats; six years of lame growth and resulting wage suppression; six years of appeasing our enemies and facing down our friends; six years of dividing the country - they have all taken their toll."
Care to elaborate, Ms. Peek? No offense, but this sounds like a fortune from an uber-conservative Chinese restaurant: "Unpopular things have been done and said over the past several years. Thanks, Obama."
Also, are you really going to go there with regard to economic growth? President George W. Bush, a Republican, left office handing the worst recession since the Great Depression to President Obama. The current president has helped us stave off another depression and lead us to recovery. So do you really want to go there with your claims of "lame growth" and "wage suppression" under the current president? Even if one wanted to describe the growth under President Obama as "lame," lame growth is a hell of a lot better than what we saw under President Bush.
Then she has the gall to criticize President Obama's decisions on foreign policy? Again, President Bush lied us into two incredibly costly wars, where we wasted trillions of dollars, saw thousands of our soldiers get killed and wounded, not to mention innocent civilians were killed in the process which resulted in us making countless more enemies as a result. Oh, and Osama bin Laden wasn't killed under Bush's watch. Under President Obama, bin Laden was killed, we've attempted to right Bush's wrong by ending the wars and sending our troops home, and under his watch, we've gone in a more diplomatic direction, standing by the long held belief that war should always be a last resort.
Lastly, it cracks me up when die-hard conservatives like Liz Peek claim that President Obama has done nothing but divide this country during his two terms. Much to liberals' chagrin, what did President Obama try to do from day one in the Oval Office? Work with Republicans. What was the goal of Congressional Republicans since President Obama's inauguration? To make him a one-term president. When that effort failed, what was their goal? To make President Obama a lame-duck president. Their goal has been to make President Obama fail as this nation's leader so they can garner control of the White House again. So who's been the more divisive party during President Obama's tenure? That's what I thought... Anything else you'd like to add?
"People are angry and are willing to champion a bombastic billionaire best known for insulting people as our next president. Trump's 'campaign message' is vitriol unleashed - towards our enemies, undocumented immigrants and anyone else who crosses his path. His supporters see him breaking free of political correctness, or correctness itself for that matter, and they love Trump for voicing their outrage. They view him as the perfect antidote to President Obama."
"People"? "People" sounds like this is a nationwide phenomenon, but honestly, it's just a far right-wing craze. Donald Trump may be the current leader of the Republican pack, but he's despised by a majority of moderates, liberals, Democrats, Independents, and even some fellow Republicans. In a hypothetical match-up with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, Trump fares far worse than the other first-tier Republican candidates, as he'd lose to Clinton by the count of 48% to 36% (it's estimated Clinton would garner over 400 electoral votes). He's also trailing Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Yes, Donald Trump may be loved by the far right-wing, but he's despised by almost everyone else. Anything else?
"Mainstream Americans feel marginalized - pushed to the back of the pack, while the plight of transgenders in the military or imprisoned blacks takes center stage. Worse, they have been lectured and held accountable for the country's problems. Obama has hinted that white Christian Americans are racist -- indifferent to the travails of blacks and Hispanics and unreasonably hostile to Muslims."
Mainstream Americans? So, what, straight, white Christians? Liz Peek really thinks she can speak for all such individuals? How exactly are these "mainstream Americans" being pushed to the back of the pack? Because President Obama has attempted to bring equality to other demographics? When women were granted the right to vote, were men then being pushed to the back of the pack? When slavery was abolished, were whites being pushed to the back of the pack? No. A demographic garnering equal rights as all others is not the same as all others losing rights. Nice try, though... Please continue...
"The president has told them that 'racism is in our DNA' while liberals have claimed 'society itself is to blame' for the schism between blacks and police, as Charles Blow wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. For a country that twice elected a black man to our highest office, that is an affront."
I love this argument. Ever since Barack Obama got elected in 2008, some conservatives have said, "We elected a black president! That means racism is over!" I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Have we made progressions when it comes to racism in this country? Yes. But does that mean racism no longer exists? No, of course not. Before Obama, 42 white presidents were elected to the Oval Office. In other words, of the 43 presidents we've had, 97.7% of them have been white and that number was at 100.0% before 2008. Is this article almost over yet? Please?
"Meanwhile, hardworking middle class families see cities hauling out the welcome mat for people in our country illegally - while their tax dollars provide those immigrants free education and other services. New York City is issuing ID cards that include free membership to 33 cultural institutions and discounts on movie tickets and prescription medicines. For millions of city residents whose wages are stuck and whose rents are soaring, the largesse is is provocative."
Like the subtle bit of racism depicted in the previous two paragraphs? In the first paragraph, Ms. Peek talks about blacks and racism, before ironically segueing to talk about "hardworking middle class families." Also, if Ms. Peek wants to talk about amnesty and wage suppression, I've got one word for her - Reaganomics. What's next?
"Under President Obama, Americans have become more polarized on race relations and immigration, and nearly every other issue as well. This is uncontestable. A poll this past spring showed that 61 percent of Americans think race relations are 'bad,' the highest reading since 1992, while only 34 percent think they are 'good.' In the summer of 2008, before Obama's election, 53 percent of the country considered race relations good and only 37 percent considered them bad. That's quite a turnabout."
That's because President Obama actually has his head in reality and has attempted to spread that rare presence of reality to the American people. Does Ms. Peek seriously want to cast all the blame on President Obama when it comes to Americans' altered perceptions of race relations in this country? It has nothing to do with the 24-hour news media, talk radio and cable news channels in particular? It has nothing to do with seemingly countless headlines revolving around white police officers killing unarmed black men (and women)? The reason why a majority of people believed race relations were good prior to President Obama stepping into office was because the country largely ignored racist occurrences across the nation. With the increasing number of 24-hour media outlets, the expansion of cell phone's capabilities, and an African-American president who actually took these racist acts personally and shared his thoughts and feelings about such matters, it was all but inevitable that the country's overall perception of race relations would worsen. But, sure, it's all Obama's fault... Carry on...
"On immigration, attitudes have hardened in lockstep with Obama's drive to exert his will on an unwilling population. Last fall after he announced his impending executive action granting protection against deportation a CNN/ORC poll showed 43 percent of the country 'angry' or 'displeased' with this proposal, and only 31 percent 'pleased' or 'enthusiastic.' Some 56 percent disagreed with Obama using an executive action to change our immigration policy, while only 41 percent favored that approach. A new Rasmussen poll showed that 61 percent of likely voters think the government should be more aggressive in deporting people in the country illegally - up from 52 percent a year ago."
I see what she did here. Pick a random poll to support her beliefs and attempt to make her point, eh? I can do that too! According to Gallup, 25% currently feel that immigration should be increased (up from 22% a year ago), 33% believe it should be decreased (down 7% from a year ago), and 40% think it should remain at its present level (up 7% from a year ago). In the final Gallup poll on the subject prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, only 16% felt that immigration should be increased (up 9% since then), 45% believed it should be decreased (down 11% since then), and 35% thought it should remain the same (up 5% since then). Not only that, but a Beyond the Beltway Insights Initiative poll found that 69% of voters believed Congress should pass immigration reform and not reverse President Obama's executive action on the matter. Any more cherry-picking of polls, Ms. Peek?
"Nearly two-thirds of the country thinks we are on the wrong track, while only 29 percent think things are going well. Six months into Obama's presidency, those lines nearly touched. The displeasure is not all about immigration; it is also frustration at the sorry plight of our public schools, the deterioration of our infrastructure, the weakening of our military, our bloated and unsustainable entitlement programs, our absurd 76,000-page tax code, stifling regulation, massive cybersecurity breaches and so on. Voters are fed up with our elected leaders, and who can blame them?"
I was merely being sarcastic asking if Ms. Peek had cherry-picked any other poll results. Alas, here she goes again... Guess what, Ms. Peek? For the most part, a majority of this country has felt we've been on the wrong track since 1971 when the poll question was first asked, and 63% responded in the negative. Also, while just 29% of the public currently feels we're on the right track, that number is significantly higher than Congress' approval rating and significantly lower than President Obama's. While President Obama's approval rating is at approximately 45.0% (net -4.6%), Congress' approval rating is at 16.5% (net -57.0%). So what is the public more angry about, President Obama or Congress? Almost 1 in every 2 Americans support the job President Obama is doing. Less than 1 in every 5 Americans support the job Congress is doing. Do the math. Americans are more angry about Congress not doing its job than the president not doing his. Nice list of far right-wing general talking points by the way. Got anything else for me to debunk?
"Republican voters are especially unhappy because in response to Obama's agenda, they rallied to elect a GOP Congress and the policies they abhor to continue. They have raged against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner for not standing up to Obama. But since the GOP does not have a veto-proof majority, and since so many of the president's policies are being implemented via executive action, Congress can only do so much. As a result, they welcome Trump's unorthodox voice and background, even though he has embraced many causes in the past that they oppose (gun control, higher taxes, and single-payer health care)."
Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, so this inevitably prevents them from doing their jobs? Did I get that right? There's no such thing as reaching across the aisle anymore, of compromising, of actually working together to get things done and move this country forward? Ah, that's right, these are the same people who said they wouldn't support any initiative set forth by Obama right when he stepped into office, hoping this would make him a failure of a president in the public's eyes and that he'd be limited to one term as a result. Also, let's look more in-depthly at President Obama's executive orders in comparison to a few other presidents:
Ronald Reagan: 381 executive orders (47.6 per year)
George H.W. Bush: 166 executive orders (41.5 per year)
George W. Bush: 291 executive orders (36.4 per year)
Barack Obama: 213 executive orders (average of 32.8 per year)
Yes, President Obama has averaged fewer executive orders per year than the past three Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan. Moving on...
"Donald Trump has given voice to the rage of the insulted. It doesn't matter that he has no platform, no policies - not even the facts to make a coherent argument."
Yet he currently leads all GOP polls. So, what does that say about your party again, Ms. Peek, and the people whom support him? That's what I thought. Anything else?
"As the campaign season moves forward, The Donald will eventually implode. Is there another Republican who can attract his vocal and impassioned Trumpeteers? Senator Ted Cruz, who also brandishes an anti-establishment pitchfork and is a likely winner should Trump exit, recently upbraided his GOP colleagues for their 'foolish' criticism of Trump. Others, like Senator Marco Rubio, have intelligently hedged their bets by refusing to comment on the billionaire's behavior, saying it detracts from his own message (which it does.)"
Liz Peek is now apparently a psychic. The Donald will implode, eh? Even after his approval numbers amongst Republicans increased following his John McCain and Megyn Kelly comments? He may implode, but considering the fact it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't make any bets on that just yet. Oh, and Ted "Government Shutdown" Cruz? Yeah, he'd make a great president...
Cruz (from his inauguration speech): "As a Texas Senator, I was able to shut down the federal government for a couple weeks. As president, I promise to shut it down for good!"
Fantastic... Are we done yet?
"While some may court Trump's fans, Republican candidates should keep in mind that the electorate generally prefers an upbeat, positive message. That's how Obama was elected, as well as most of his predecessors. Trump himself has latched onto 'Make America Great Again' as his most winning slogan. He seems to have no plan to accomplish that goal, but his confidence is inspiring. Let us hope that Cruz, or Rubio, or another of the GOP gaggle, can fill in the blanks."
That's an inspiring final paragraph if I ever heard one.
"The current leader of the Republican Party in polls doesn't really know what he's doing, doesn't have any ideas, and could perhaps ruin this country if he's elected president, but he's confident, so that's something."
Yeah, that's something alright, just like Liz Peek's entire article, which has to be the most ridiculous article I've read this week. "Obama's Massive Failure Has Delivered Trump's Success"? No, the far-right's paranoia, fear of change and difference, and belief in opinions and conspiracies over facts has delivered Trump's success. Don't believe me? What's Donald Trump asked President Obama about more than anything else, with the loud approval of his supporters? His birth certificate...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-massive-failure-delivered-trump-093000496.html
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/07/quinnipiac-poll-donald-trump-surges-in-gop-but-would-lose-to-democrats.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/227328-poll-majority-want-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/07/we-ve-been-on-the-wrong-track-since-1972.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Comments
Post a Comment