It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Dems Jumping Off the Obama Bandwagon

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
This summer I posted a thread about how once-loyal Democrats were openly criticizing Barack Obama with fallout spreading even across the Atlantic and Pacific, where, presumably, people are not as enamored with “The One” as his former faithful.

And the scales fell from their eyes: Recognizing the failure of the "Affirmative Action President"

Of course, the latter observation is even more evident today with Obama’s complete lack of accomplishment at the G20 Summit.
G20 Leaders Fail

Now though, it appears that the president’s failure to lead, deliver or sometimes even decide (See: Keystone XL), together with mounting attacks on his administration for cronyism in the Solyndra and Siga giveaways and the Fast and Furious cover-up, are taking a toll on once die-hard supporters.

Oprah has been reported NOT to publicly endorse Obama to preserve her dwindling ratings and save the OWN Network.
We recently witnessed Chris Matthews, who once “got a chill up [his] leg," admitting to MSNBC colleague Alex Witt that he can’t understand what Obama is trying to accomplish, and that those next 4 years would border on the pointless.


On Sunday night Chris Matthews, another former Obama enthusiast, made headlines when he told Alex Witt on MSNBC that “there’s nothing to root for… What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets?”
Matthews is also upset that Obama is running a "virtual presidency," through endless impersonal emails, rather than building and exploiting the interpersonal relationships that are vital for effective governance. On that score, he laments: "I hear stories (from members of Congress) that you will not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election."

dailycaller.com...

Even Arriana Huffington, one of his greatest admirers and (now, former?) sycophants, has admitted to the New York Magazine that she is disappointed in him and only believes he won because of the internet campaign, rather than any true party loyalty.


Huffington says now that she is disappointed in Obama and could even see herself voting Republican in the next presidential election. “To me,” she says, “the issues are more important than the party.” She pauses. “Trust me, I realize how hard it is to change the system, but Obama has demonstrated only the fierce urgency of sometime later, and at the same time the middle class is under assault”

nymag.com...

All of this seemed to follow a pattern of increased questioning of how deeply the Democrats were locked-in to his re-nomination.

But recent events, or perhaps the cumulative effects of the past three years, have resulted in seeming revolt against his campaign and the consideration of viable (and electable) alternatives.

Two former Clinton pollsters have gone on record as saying Obama should not run; and, more startlingly, that Hillary Clinton should be positioned as a “substitute.”


When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

President Obama can't win by running a constructive campaign, and he won't be able to govern if he does win a second term.

And now, in what could be the slap of the final gauntlet, former Obama ally and supporter Representative Claire McAskill (Dem., MO) has called for a Congressional investigation into Obama’s blatant crony-capitalist give away of a bo-bid sole-source $443,000,000 contract to one of his biggest supporters for a drug that we do not know will work against a disease that hasn’t infected an American since 1949. The contractor has bragged that the contract will eventually pay his company in the billions of dollars against a barely existent threat.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, has asked The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the Obama administration’s award of a $443 million sole-source contract to a company owned by a major Democratic donor.
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that the Obama administration has taken unusual steps to procure an experimental smallpox vaccine from a company owned by a major Democratic donor despite concerns from some experts that such a drug was unnecessary and would not be effective.
Citing “serious questions” about the contract, the Los Angeles Times reported that McCaskill has asked the inspector general of HHS to investigate. McCaskill is the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting and Oversight.

articles.latimes.com...
McCaskill asks for investigation into Obama administration’s sole-source vaccine contract

Will all of these defections finally start taking a larger toll on Obama’s support generally, and extend to even more of his core support? Given their increasing numbers; and, more importantly, the complete lack of voices rising in his defense, it would appear that only a miracle will salvage his nomination, much less his candidacy.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
We're screwed either way.....Obama, Romney, Newt, or Cain?

All 4 will run this country into the ground....



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Hopefully they jump off the Obamation express and onto the Ron Paul express! Last stop, The White House. All aboard!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 
Nice thread!

It seems that the bloom has fallen off Obama's rose.

I also think that this further illustrates the lack of principles and values that politicans have today. That they are so willing to sacrifice one of their own for political expediency.

Caveat; this goes for both sides of the aisle!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I didn't vote in the last election (I know, apathy is lethal in Democracy - oh well), but I had a feeling he was going to be a disappointment in the end. I wanted him to be different and succeed, but what we got (please don't flame me for this
), what we got was 4 more years of George Bush II.

I'd love to see Ron Paul succeed - I think he's the real deal. But without some really amazing early success in the primaries he won't win. In the end I'm standing by the following election campaign slogan:

2012 Presidential Election - whoever wins, we lose!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
 


Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.


Can you list the names of the democrats that weren't on the Obama "bandwagon"?

I'd really like to see that list!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I'm definitely a Democrat who has fallen off the Obama bandwagon, as is my dad. (To be honest, I have fallen off of the political parties bandwagon in general, but a lot because of my disappointment with him!) Go Ron Paul!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
And where are the dems going to go?

Who's bandwagon next?

There are no credible candidates.

Or maybe they want Hillary?

Is there some kind of rule that women in politics have to look absolutely bat crap crazy?

Clinton? Pelosi? Bachmann? Palin? good lord what a crew.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
 


Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.


Can you list the names of the democrats that weren't on the Obama "bandwagon"?

I'd really like to see that list!




Agree.

Kool-aid was being served in BIG cups,2008!


Early reports are indicating that the youngest members of the country's electorate voted Tuesday in higher numbers than in the last presidential election — and they voted more Democratic. Youth turnout appears to be exceeding 2004 levels, which was itself a year with a big surge in voters ages 18 to 29.



What’s more, young voters may prove to have been the key to Barack Obama's victory. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976, according to CIRCLE, a non-partisan organization that promotes research on the political engagement of Americans between ages 15 and 25.


Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin


Thats just the youthful democratic crowd........




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


We've been criticizing him for three years.

He's STILL a better option than anything the other team can field, and so he's still going to win.

But we'd like an actual liberal please, instead of this bathwater-tepid doofus whose singular goal in life seems to be to appease the very people trying to overthrow and destroy the United States government.

Hell, I'd settle for him staying a milquetoast centrist if he would just roundhouse kick Boehner.
edit on 25/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


This doesn't suprise me. I wasn't too into politics during the last election, but I know a good amount of what Obama said during the campaign. He talked about greed on wall street and financial institutions leading to the financial collapse, but when he was elected, he appointed a bunch of bankers to his Administration, and his regulations were complete garbage that haven't really changed anything significant at all. He talked about how getting the troops home would be the first thing he'd do in office, but when he was elected, he continued the wars.

I don't blame people for originally electing him, because he had a message that seemed promising, but in reality it didn't come close to playing out that way. But the second time around, people had better realize that his vote is a wasted vote. He's just another puppet, another pawn being moved on the chessboard by the wealthy elite who are really in charge of this country. But the mainstream media isn't going to tell people that, and unfortunately for the millions whose sole source of information is just that, they aren't going to find it out from Wolf Blitzer or Megyn Kelly.
edit on 25-11-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
yeah. its because all the ignorant children who voted for him in record numbers grew up a little and realized his fantasy was never going to actually happen.


even more people would jump ship, but alot are probably too proud to admit they were wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The system is too big for even Ron Paul to change it without major opposion from the tbp not to say hes not a hope.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Oh please Arianna, stay with the Democrats.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
 


Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.


Can you list the names of the democrats that weren't on the Obama "bandwagon"?

I'd really like to see that list!


Can you be honest or sincere?

Do you honestly expect me to believe that a sane, rational person, with a grasp of reality is under the impression that 100% of all Democrats in office supported Obama?
Why would you think that?
Why would ANYONE think that?
If you want to be honest and have a conversation about reality that would be great. Apparently you just have your opinion and that is all that matters. OK.

I was never under the impression that 100% of Democrats in office supported Obama and have seen nothing to change that. Apparently you have some great information that sharing right now would do a great world of help to shut me up and show me the error of my ways. Where is it?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1


Agree.

Kool-aid was being served in BIG cups,2008!


Early reports are indicating that the youngest members of the country's electorate voted Tuesday in higher numbers than in the last presidential election — and they voted more Democratic. Youth turnout appears to be exceeding 2004 levels, which was itself a year with a big surge in voters ages 18 to 29.



What’s more, young voters may prove to have been the key to Barack Obama's victory. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976, according to CIRCLE, a non-partisan organization that promotes research on the political engagement of Americans between ages 15 and 25.


Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin


Thats just the youthful democratic crowd........





So because lots of young people voted, all Democrats in office supported Obama?
Please explain that logic to me. How do you ascertain anything about who a politician supports by looking at young voter turnout?

Please enlighten me.
edit on 25-11-2011 by KendraSins because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2011 by KendraSins because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by KendraSins
 
You made a claim.

I asked for names.

You reply with rhetoric.

Still waiting on that list of dems that weren't ever with Obama.

*crickets*



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KendraSins
reply to post by jdub297
 


Part of your premise is missing. That would be the part that shows all these people were on the bandwagon to begin with. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not all rally around each other just because of party name. Plenty of Democrats were not on Obama's bandwagon and as interesting as this thread seems, without actually demonstrating any change in these people then this is just twisted propaganda to make it seem support is being lost when that support was likely never there. It is a neat way to paint someone negatively but a dishonest one.


Are you amnesiac? Do I really have to prove that Oprah Winfrey, Arianna Huffington, Chris Matthews and Claire McAskill were supporters?

You have no right to insinuate that I am a liar without first proferring evidence of the fact. Your post is obnoxious and ill-informed.

If you had taken the time to have a grown up read you the the 1st thread and links, you would see that you are completely off-base. Is that you, Barack?

jw
edit on 25-11-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KendraSins
 
You made a claim.


Actually the OP made a claim.


I asked for names.


I asked first.


You reply with rhetoric.


You reply with inane questions that you know are worthless to ask. Are you really asking me to name just one Democrat that did not support Obama before he was elected? Hillary Clinton. Done.



Still waiting on that list of dems that weren't ever with Obama.

*crickets*



Still waiting for any of you to back up the premise of the thread first. That is how claims make. You guys all claim that 100% of all Democrats in office supported Obama. You back up your claim first. See how that works.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join