« | »

Reuters: Obama Must Push Agenda Harder

Some deep analysis from a deeply concerned Reuters:

Obama backers show signs of disappointment

Ed Stoddard and Peter Henderson – Analysis
Wed Apr 21, 2010

DALLAS/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Gay rights activists heckled President Barack Obama this week at a Democratic event that exposed signs of disenchantment threatening the party in November’s congressional elections.

Five million first-time voters turned out in 2008, many drawn by Obama’s promise of hope and overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Now disappointed, or at least apathetic, they may not go to the polls this year.

Obama’s support has dropped below 50 percent from nearly 70 percent after 15 months in office, Gallup opinion polls show.

Gay rights supporters, anti-abortion activists, environmentalists and backers of immigration reform all have seen their agendas stalled, with watered-down healthcare the main accomplishment of Obama’s once-ambitious agenda

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan insisted that opinion polls showed more than 80 percent of liberals approved of Obama. By comparison, Republicans right and center are locked in a "bloody civil war," he said.

Obama himself acknowledged during the day that "some folks are impatient and some folks just didn’t realize how long this was going to take, how hard each battle was going to be. And so people get kind of worn down."

Many on the left who want more are fighting the president and one another. Others are abandoning politics. Both trends bode poorly for Democrats, who have controlled both houses of Congress in addition to the White House since January 2009

Many gay activists would not show up to heckle Obama. They have stopped paying attention altogether.

"Obama was a vessel that everybody poured their hopes into. The gay community was no different," said John Henning, director of the Los Angeles-based grass-roots group Love Honor Cherish, before the president’s California visit.

"What is really happening in the gay community is we are going into a hibernation phase," Henning added.

The sentiment is widespread…

Blacks, Latinos and young people made up the bulk of the new voters who secured comfortable congressional majorities for the Democrats in 2008. Each could be a problem this year…

Keeping Latinos happy should be a no-brainer for the Democrats, the party of choice for the fastest growing minority largely because of a pro-immigrant stance that contrasts with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of many Republicans.

Obama campaigned on making immigration reform a priority, but the way forward for illegal immigrants and the employers who say they need them is no more clear than it was before Obama took office…

Other issues are causing rifts in the ranks — among them climate change legislation, now stuck in Congress.

Former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group is trying to push aside rival left-wing groups vying to be the next issue in line for congressional attention. "Tell our Senators: We got next!" Gore’s Repower America, urged on March 26…

The voters could affect the outcome of the majority of 23 highly contested House of Representatives races. Democrats’ key to winning is not persuading moderates but mobilizing the newer voters, Schaller said.

The purpose of this article is two-fold.

To push Mr. Obama to be more ambitious, to ram through amnesty and cap and trade and the rest of his ultra left agenda.

And to explain, in advance, that the losses the Democrats will surely suffer in November are all due to not doing enough quick enough.

In short, this is propaganda thinly disguised as analysis.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, April 21st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Reuters: Obama Must Push Agenda Harder”

  1. NoNeoCommies says:

    The problem with keeping Latinos happy is that a fair number of them want newcomers to follow the rules and not get in free after being here illegally and not paying their full share for the benefits they receive from our government, economy, and culture.

  2. bill says:

    It never occurs to rooters he is pushing as hard as he can and is seeing resistant from the people who did not sign on to his socialist crap?

    The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority, and prevent overreach by the federal government.

  3. proreason says:

    “they may not go to the polls this year”

    Yep. And why is that?

    They wanted checks in the mail…..not health premiums to pay.

    They wanted their student loans absolved….not taken over by the government that will put them in jail if they don’t pay.

    They wanted free cars…..not job guarantees for union thugs.

    They wanted free houses…..not gauranteed profits for Obamy’s handlers.

  4. Gil says:

    If you were a 60s radical wanting to totally destroy the USA and fantasizing about making it to the highest spot in the land as President.. would you care if you got elected a second time? Or would you think that if you ever could get there, you would do all you could no matter what to push the “revolution” and get the USA so it could never go back to the way it was – which as a 60s radical, you hated, right? I mean, it makes sense.. and this is just the same dope-smoking hippies who he hung around with who now own the MSM, egging on their old college buddy. Obamy never has cared what the people think about him and he made his agenda clear by his associations and his actions. The agenda is the same for him and those egging him on, just HOW to get there is the only thing the MSM and Obama are in a friendly disagreement on now, not the radicalism or the endgame. Those looking for him to alter course because it is unpopular are not playing the same game as these 60s radicals.. they got the spot they plotted for, now they will use it to the fullest extent to “transform” America with their brand of “change.” What part of that scenerio makes no sense in light of all we now know about both players – Obama and his radical leftwing hippies in the media?

    • proreason says:

      Gil, you are exactly correct.

      If there was any doubt, that doubt was erased when they didn’t alter the Health Scare cram-down an iota when 60%+ of the country rose up against them.

      It’s no different than asking if Lenin or Stalin cared when the plebes turned against them. Of course they didn’t care. It was never about following the will of the people….that’s for the idiots.

      The only difference between these creatures and Stalin is a matter of degree.

      – when statists are willing to overrule the people on one thing, they will overrule them on anything
      – when statists are willing to ignore the law on one thing, they will ignore the law on anything
      – when statists are willing to rule by decree on one thing, they will rule by decree on everything

      The only thing I remain in doubt about is how much violence they are willing to use. And to help reason that through, it’s useful to consider:

      – Obamy’s relationship with his relatives. Was it close, loving? Does he talk about them? Does he show appreciation?
      – Obamy’s reverance for the law. Was he a troubled youth? Did he abuse alchohol or drugs? what about now? Has he ever broken the law? what about financial transactions? How has he advised people he has worked with in the past? Does he have any friends that were violent or recommended violence or law-breaking. What about now?
      – Since we don’t know whether he has every physically abused anybody, how has he treated people in other respects? Is he loyal to his friends? Does he defend them when it’s difficult?
      – What about how he verbalizes things when people disagree with him? Is he kind to his opponents? Generous to other points of view? Considerate of people who aren’t his supporters?
      – What about his specific military actions when he has the power? Has he shown restraint in Afghanistan, for example?
      – What about his self-doubts? Would he struggle internally to use violence because he is introspecive, or doubts himself?

      When I look at those things, and when I consider that he rose to power in the most peaceful country that ever existed, and one perfectly designed to lift a con man like himself up…….my conclusion is that he wouldn’t be the least bit reluctant about using any amount of violence he feels like. He wouldn’t feel restrained by anything.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      “….my conclusion is that he wouldn’t be the least bit reluctant about using any amount of violence he feels like.”

      I quite agree. My fear…marshal law is not a question of if, but when. However, I also believe patriots would be quick to organize and fight the good fight.

    • proreason says:

      Actually jimbo, I’ve never touched another person in anger, fired a gun or used a weapon in anger or even spanked a child. Never been arrested. Never hurt another person or an animal under any circumstances. Never poked my finger in anyone’s face. Never shouted in public that I can remember, other than sports events or in praise of somebody.

      I was in 3 kindasorta fights when I was a young man when people attacked me and I defended myself.

      How about you?

    • JohnMG says:

      unclejimbo…..”this has no reflection on the target of your crazed speculation, President Obama….”

      This is the kind of post one would expect from a person who breathes that rarified air only available from having one’s head permanently up one’s ass.

  5. swee says:

    The photo with the story shows Obama with a “halo” behind his head again!!! When will this stop? He’s not a saint but any stretch of the imagination…..

« Front Page | To Top
« | »