New Yorker Imagines An Obama 2nd Term

Would you be shocked that it mostly ignores anything remotely resembling a healed economy and policies that lead to one? The vast majority of the story is based on things that have happened to other presidents during their second terms, as well as casting blame on those big ole Republicans who have blocked Obama’s far left, big spending, and mostly unpopular agenda. But, we do get a little tiny snippet of what he might try to do, according to the New Yorker. They have to imagine it because Team Obama refuses to put forth anything resembling an agenda

(New Yorker) Many White House officials were reluctant to discuss a second term; they are focussed more on the campaign than on what comes after. But the ostensible purpose of a political campaign is to articulate for the public what a candidate will do if he prevails. “It’s a tension,” David Axelrod, Obama’s longtime political adviser, said. “On the one hand, you don’t want to be presumptuous in assuming a second term. But campaigns are about the future, and there is an imperative to spell out where we’re going.”

An imperative, but they still won’t do it. Which is good for Team Romney, who can define the danger of an Obama 2nd term.

Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change, one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. He also is concerned with containing nuclear proliferation……

The first is an issue that is dying a slow death around the world in the 1st world nations. In the third world shit holes developing nations, it is popular, because they want some of that sweet free money that can be used for things like new airports.

Obama’s advisers say it is more likely that the President would champion an issue with greater bipartisan support, such as immigration reform. Obama has also said that he hopes to have the time and the attention to address a more robust aid agenda for developing countries than he was able to muster in his first term.

Shamnesty failed when Bush and Republicans pushed it during much better economic times, and the country is in no mood to provide “comprehensive immigration reform” while the economy is tanked. You do have to love that Obama would want more aid to those developing countries with money we don’t have while America’s economy still stagnates.

Notwithstanding Boehner’s antics, there is a possibility that a second Obama term could begin with major deficit reduction and serious reform of taxes and entitlements.

Yeah, it could when the the GOP retains the House and wins the Senate, and Obama would be dragged kicking and screaming into the debate.

If President Obama can indeed guide the parties toward an agreement that puts the federal government on a sustainable fiscal path, it would be a substantial achievement and would vindicate his early promise as a bipartisan leader.

Hilarious. He had full control of Congress during his first two years, and spent them pissing away money borrowed from China, creating massive deficits and historic debt before shifting to pushing the unpopular Obamacare.

Several White House officials said that the issue that Obama seems most passionate about is infrastructure. (One insider Democrat joked that Obama’s passion for infrastructure is matched only by that of the Vice-President, who loves trains.) Obama wants to spend an extra hundred and fifty billion dollars on infrastructure during the next six years and reform the process by which projects are awarded,….

So, more paving potholes and painting bridges and creating temporary brainless jobs. He apparently thinks Americans are only good for tedious blue collar jobs.

That’s pretty much it. Nothing on the US economy. None of these bulletin points would be in any way popular or get people to the voting booth. And most are all simply things that Government does. What would an Obama 2nd term look like? Depends on who controls Congress. For Obama’s part, though, his agenda will be a stuttering clusterfark of a miserable failure.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “New Yorker Imagines An Obama 2nd Term”

  1. Lightwave says:

    $150 billion on infrastructure.

    95% will be wasted, just like the stimulus was. We spent $700 billion in 2009 and 2010. How many highways and bridges got fixed then? None where I live. Time to hand over the interstates to the states, let them charge tolls at the state borders. The states that can afford to keep their roads good will attract businesses. The states that can’t? Better look into alternate routes, I guess. Sick of paying for roads I will never drive on in my lifetime to benefit businesses I will never frequent in states I’ll never choose to visit by car.

    In fact, the only thing on that list I could remotely support is preventing nuclear proliferation, except the only country we need to be actively worrying about is Iran, and Obamee doesn’t have a problem with them getting the bomb or using one on Israel.

  2. Tuesday morning links…

    The Second-Rate City?  Chicago’s swift, surprising decline presents formidable challenges for new mayor Rahm Emanuel. The origins of homosexuality explained Media Myth Debunked: Class Sizes Have Dropped 40 Percent Since 1960 EPA power grab to r…

  3. RonF says:

    “So, more paving potholes and painting bridges and creating temporary brainless jobs. He apparently thinks Americans are only good for tedious blue collar jobs.”

    I agree with most of what you’re written but not this. America’s infrastructure is falling apart. There’s a lot of repaving and painting things that would keep bridges from falling into rivers, keep people’s cars from being beaten to death and that would provide a lot of unskilled jobs. They wouldn’t be temporary. I don’t know where you live but think about your daily commute. Open your eyes and take note of the bridges and roads and other such things. You’ll see a lot of rust and cracks and bumps and such.

    There are some problems with this. The unions will want their slice, the race pimps will horn in and the women’s groups (this happened the last time) will complain because these jobs tend to be mostly male. But if we started pumping $$ into infrastructure (like water supplies, sewers, secondary roads, etc.) some areas would become a lot more livable or commercially usable.

  4. RonF says:

    Lightwave, you may never visit those states by car but think about the route that the goods you consume travel to get to you.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    There are some problems with this.

    Sorry, but this is the problem. In WWII, the US increased infrastructure, increased employment and increased output of both military and civilian goods to to the point where the US was producing more than the other countries in the conflict combined.

    The way this was accomplished was not having the government administer contracts in order to increase jobs or production. The way this was accomplished was by running the procurement office as a business. Companies bid on jobs which kept costs down. Regulations on the awarding of contracts were initially a part of the industrial build up but the system became so bogged down and inefficient it was impossible to get good produced.

    It was only when the government acted like a business that things turned around.

    The government is not a force for “social engineering.” Much of the infrastructure would be fixed by now if government at all levels got out of the way.

  6. Gumball_Brains says:

    Teach, you made me spew several times alone in this one post.


Pirate's Cove