Obama says 'midcourse corrections' to come at home

Source: AP

NEW DELHI – Followed by the politics of home, President Barack Obama on Sunday acknowledged that he must make some "midcourse corrections" if he is to win over a frustrated electorate and work with resurgent Republicans.

On the second of the three days he is spending in India, Obama arrived in New Delhi on Sunday afternoon in the company of his wife, Michelle. Among his airport greeters were Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who apparently broke the normally rigid rules of protocol by making the trip to personally welcome Obama to the Indian capital.

Earlier in the day while in Mumbai, Obama appeared before college students eager to question him. He told one that the midterm elections back home reflected the "right, obligation and duty" of the voters to express their unhappiness with the state of U.S. affairs by voting out many incumbents, the majority of whom are Democrats like Obama.

The president himself wasn't on the ballot last week, but his party took a beating. Republicans won control of the House, eroded the Democratic majority in the Senate, made huge gains at the state level and broadly changed the political landscape as Obama begins looking ahead to his own re-election campaign in 2012.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101107/ap_on_re_us/obama_asia

---

Correction?

:think:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you are doing it on purpose. Stop, it's dorky.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, that and "all ahead full". Must be from all those times in the Navy we had to navigate some channel or other.

Actually, the other lesson one can take from ship navigation is "Rules of the Road" Number Eight:

"Changes in course and speed shall be large enough so as to be readily apparent to the other vessel."

Is for President Obama to end the war in Afghanistan and cut the enormous military budget. I thought that Obama's decision to ramp up the war in Afghanistan was one of his biggest mistakes so far.

was sitting on trillions of dollars with of resources needed for the ecomomy.......

... with a severely reduced defense budget.

Then we tax every person with assets of 100 million or more
20%, and suddenly we can pay for everything: the healthcare of
every person; the college education of every child; housing for
every man, woman, and child; the infrastructure and public
education system of every locality; and so on.

Imagine.

own country? That goes for Japan too? We have maybe four large bases in Germany? What for? I repeat again what Chalmers Johnson wrote in his book Dismantling the Empire. There are around 192 countries in the United Nations. Somehow we manage to have over 740 military bases overseas. That is more than 3, in fact very close to 4, per country. How crazy is that?

Too late. Sigh.

He's probably lost many, if not most, of the independents who voted for him in 2008 and against him last week.

you are presenting mere speculation as fact. If you havent noticed, that is exactly what republicans and fox news do.

he's lost the independents? really? They voted for him in 2008, but because he wasnt right wing enough, they voted for republicans last week? how does that even make sense.

This was a record turnout election. Republicans didnt win because "independents" stayed home. He lost because every batshit right wing moron and their enormous welfare families went out and voted. Mesa County, CO had a 76% turnout.

is what I meant. The man has no convictions and people know it.

A lot of liberal Democrats will not support him if he moves to the right. He is already as far to the right as we are ready to go -- even too far. Clinton had the illusion of prosperity to cover up his rightward move. That is why Clinton got by with it.

Do you think a single union-supporting public school teacher will bother to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 if he moves further to the right?

Do you think that any of the millions who have lost their businesses or their mortgages as the U.S. government bailed out banks but not people will support Barack Obama in 2012?

Do you think anyone who is on Social Security will back Obama once they realize that he does not have their back with regard to Social Security?

Obama will rue the day he cooperates with the Republicans. Because it will definitely mean that his candidacy will be challenged in 2012 and some third party candidate will win the election.

Life-long Democrats like me have been pushed as far to the right as we will go. I would rather stay home than vote for someone who acquiesces to cuts in Social Security and signs a bill continuing the Bush tax cuts for the rich and does not end the job bleed to Asia and South America.

will be more of the same; sending more public money to the Banksters and speculators on Wall St.

Silly me, and I thought Obama had gone as far right as he could possibly go and still call himself a Democrat.

im confused

This mid-course correction could just as easily be something that turns out to be not in our best interest.

I know he is trying but.......

You have great faith.

I will give Obama tons of credit and do not wish him to fail. I am concerned for him and appreciate he has a huge job ahead.

In my opinion, having faith in him has nothing to do with the huge tasks he faces.

That's what Dems always do when they lose an election. Oddly, when the Republicans lose an election, they always conclude that they weren't right wing enough. Exception: Goldwater in '64.

for obama or we risk losing it all in 2012. The O man is one of "them". Dean/Kucinich may be our only salvation at this late stage of our quickly disappearing democracy.

midcourse corrections from.

Claiming the G20 meeting and a new free trade deal with SOuth Korea (NAFTA) is an America jobs creation trip is exactly why voters don't trust his administration. Well, along with his appointment of Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke.

The elder Bush's one term, a result of not living up to campaign promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes" is a lesson GW learned and Obama hasn't. Voters can be forgiving about honest mistakes, misjudgments. They are not forgiving about being fooled, hoodwinked, bamboozled, repeatedly.

Just wait. He is on the side of the bankers, and that is what this has been about all along.

The banks have stolen the homes, the savings, the pensions (although many baby boomers don't realize that yet) and the jobs of the baby boomers and now they are after the Social Security trust fund. I predict that the banks will steal that next.

And what do you want to bet that much of the investment in the banks is from the oil industry aka the fat cats in the Middle East. They have been eyeing our wealth since the early 1970s and now they are grabbing it. An oversimplification? Perhaps. But do you know who really owns are banks? If Middle Eastern interests do not own a big share of them -- laundered through certain American individuals who are fronts and certain British and other European intermediaries -- then pray tell who does?

Who owns the stocks and bonds in our banks? Names, please and then check to see who is behind them.

What do we old timers live on? What of the trillions of dollars we have all collectively paid into S.S.

If I had an option, I'd take a check for my 'paid in' and run like heck. Cash it and hide it somewhere. It is not worth putting money into the bank at less than 1% interest. Many millions of old timers like me do not know a stock from a Studebaker. Ruin us for the sake of the illegal wars and for big business.

I bet if you added all the dollars recipients spend, you'd see a pretty hefty sum. No SS? No money spent. Zillions more houses on the market, growth in Welfare, increase in free medical care for no income people. The list goes on and on.

To those too young be receiving SS, your still paid for it as you worked. How will you feel?

From any angle, dropping Social Security is a disaster.

I can't imagine anything worse.

Not even against Palin. I hope he understands this. Such a move would be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2009
My Crystal Ball and The Eloquent One-Trick-Pony
If you are anything like me (and I’ll assume you are since you’re reading this…) then you probably think that Obama’s Administration is going to be a combination of Carter’s Incompetence and Clinton’s Moral Bankruptcy.

Operating on that assumption, I’m going to make a prediction:

Within 4 years, Obama and his ilk are going to be painted as Right Wing Stooges and the patsies for a massive GOP plot to undermine the Left.

There, I said it. Read it again and let it sink in if you must, then continue.

Due to his inability to “change” the economy, war(s), etc, or bring “hope” to the unwashed masses combined with his torrid affairs with various political personages of dubious quality (past, present, and future), he will eventually fall dramatically in the popularity ratings.

The MSM will begin to distance themselves from him sensing that he has the potential to be a very heavy millstone indeed. This distancing process will be a subtle exercise in spin and damage control.

On the one hand, if they simply come out and say, “Well, we called that One wrong! Ha Ha!” their credibility (such as it is) will be damaged severely.

On the other hand, if they simply “back their horse” all the way into the ground, well, the outcome is basically identical.

So, what’s an editor-in-chief to do?

Turn the One into the Bad Guy! Make him a DINO, a sell-out, a turn-coat, a Corporate Shill! Say we (the GOP) did it! Offer up the "Messiah" to the Liberal Gods (irony in full presence) as a ritual sacrifice. Claim credit for what they can and cut their losses.

Then he’ll get to see very closely what the underside of the bus looks like.

Fortunately, I’m guessing that only a majority of the Left will buy the scam. The ones that don’t will be more likely to swing a vote for a Republican of real substance (I have my favorite, but that’s a different subject…).

Obama’s rhetoric will finally sound as stale to their ears as it does to us already, and then The Eloquent One-Trick-Pony will be done for.

It’s already beginning to occur with:

1. His Inauguration decision to not have a God-knows-what-passes-for-a-religion-in-the-Left style of ceremony.

2. His choice to keep a Bush appointed Defense Department complete with a Right-placating “keep doing what you’re doing” approach to the War or Terror.

3. His silence concerning Israel’s “evil atrocities and war-crimes”.

In conclusion, I would like to take this time to point out the poetic justice of him being vilified by the same people that lauded him as “The One”.
Posted byEvil Monk at1:51 AM

Am I good or what?

I didn't realize that. Before they lose all credibility, they'd have to have some first and by and large, they do not.

It will prove that one of two things are true:

1. He really is the back pocket of big money

or

2. He doesn't have a fucking clue

It's a crying shame that Obama has not listened effectively too well to those who voted and supported him in 2008.

Obama should not be allowed to cave in to the GOP because "they won" the midterms this year.

How about the wins by the Democratic Party in the last two elections in 2006 and 2008? To this day, there has been no real delivery to many of the liberal constituencies and this needs to be addressed now as well.

Caving to the GOP is not what the "electorate" wants either. Obama did not do enough from a weak stimulus to continuing Bush's wars and expanding the military budget. Obama also let John Yoo and Jay Bybee skate from the law as well.

Obama who should bring Bush up on war crimes for admitting he allowed and authorized torture, will not do so, either.

Obama is a weak leader folks and the sooner you all realize he is a Pentagon-Wall Street president, the better off you will be and so the illusion of Obama as a real "Democrat" or "liberal" will be wiped out of your mind.

If this was the 1950's version of the GOP, Obama would be a Republican and not a "Democrat."

The second clause contradicts the first. It sounds like Blair's kind of weird double-speak. "We really have to help these single mothers, so we're going to cut their benefits! (not verbatim)

Resurgent or not, the Republicans must still - or must, rather, begin to - work with him. As Churchill said of the far right, they are either at your feet or at your throat. When the Democrats were more than modestly resurgent, Obama should have been at their throat; instead he was at their feet, and they were at HIS throat.

Now the Republicans are resurgent, he has another game plan: to please the Republicans AND his followers? If that's so eminently practicable now, why wasn't it practicable when he had the House as well? But he didn't want a long spoon to sup with them. He wanted to cosy up to them, even when it meant constantly turning the other cheek at their vindictive obstructionism and generally insulting demeanour. Not a good idea in government.