Obama and LBJ?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

514×657 62.6 KB

“…I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President…”

There is something that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

Is it possible that President Obama looks at the numbers and gauges the mood of the country…and decides not to run in 2012? (ala LBJ).

Obama may not be facing as “fractured” of a party as LBJ…but if the election was today (and that’s a HUGE “if”)…he would lose.

Not likely? (That he won’t run in 2012) Why?

It’s possible. Why?

Let’s discuss

Mufasa

2

LBJ? = Long blow jobs? I don’t get it…

3

???

LBJ= Lyndon Baines Johnson

4

I don’t think there’s any connection at all. LBJ resigned because he knew it was HIS failed policies in Vietnam that had led to, and were continuing to lead to, the deaths of thousands of Americans in an unjust, unnecessary war. Read “In Retrospect” by Robert McNamara and it becomes painfully obvious that the war was a result of a failure to “know your enemy”, to borrow from General Maxwell Taylor. This failure deserved to be placed squarely at the feet of LBJ.

Obama’s policies aren’t going over any better, but there is absolutely NO parallel between a miserably ineffective attempt to right the economy after eight years of backwards fiscal policies and the senseless deaths of more than 55,000 American soldiers who died fighting an enemy who never attacked U.S. soil.

Policies that are worsening an already-broken economy or policies that led to the deaths of 55,000 Americans and ultimately created an entire generation of disillusionment with govt, which we still see the fallout from today? It’s not even close. There’s no comparison between the two, except that they have both failed.

5

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…

Obama’s policies aren’t going over any better, but there is absolutely NO parallel between a miserably ineffective attempt to right the economy after eight years of backwards fiscal policies and the senseless deaths of more than 55,000 American soldiers who died fighting an enemy who never attacked U.S. soil.

…[/quote]

Agreed. Obama is bad but he is not at LBJ level yet. I see Obama running in 2012. He looks like he has already started.

6

Honestly, if I were Obama, I’d strongly consider not running. Here is a man that is very interested in his image and legacy. The longer he stays in office, the more pedestrian he appears. An additional four years against (likely) an opposition-controlled legislature would do nothing for him in the legacy department.

Obama has had a chance to preside over huge health care reform (almost universal health care, but not quite, although I think he and Pelosi think that they have laid the foundation for its inevitability). He gets to take credit for that, which is important to him, even if the public is against it. It’s legacy, and in his circles, it’s a big one.

I say this thinking (I think) from Obama’s perspective. I don’t think there is any single issue larger to him than protecting his legacy and the idealism of Hope and Change, and four more years - with no ability to run the table with a rubber stamp Congress and no ability to persuade the moderate middle to come around to his worldview - would do nothing for him. On his terms, he should not run.

7

Honestly, if I were Obama, I’d strongly consider not running. Here is a man that is very interested in his image and legacy. The longer he stays in office, the more pedestrian he appears. An additional four years against (likely) an opposition-controlled legislature would do nothing for him in the legacy department.

Obama has had a chance to preside over huge health care reform (almost universal health care, but not quite, although I think he and Pelosi think that they have laid the foundation for its inevitability). He gets to take credit for that, which is important to him, even if the public is against it. It’s legacy, and in his circles, it’s a big one.

I say this thinking (I think) from Obama’s perspective. I don’t think there is any single issue larger to him than protecting his legacy and the idealism of Hope and Change, and four more years - with no ability to run the table with a rubber stamp Congress and no ability to persuade the moderate middle to come around to his worldview - would do nothing for him. On his terms, he should not run.

8

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Honestly, if I were Obama, I’d strongly consider not running. Here is a man that is very interested in his image and legacy. The longer he stays in office, the more pedestrian he appears. An additional four years against (likely) an opposition-controlled legislature would do nothing for him in the legacy department.

Obama has had a chance to preside over huge health care reform (almost universal health care, but not quite, although I think he and Pelosi think that they have laid the foundation for its inevitability). He gets to take credit for that, which is important to him, even if the public is against it. It’s legacy, and in his circles, it’s a big one.

I say this thinking (I think) from Obama’s perspective. I don’t think there is any single issue larger to him than protecting his legacy and the idealism of Hope and Change, and four more years - with no ability to run the table with a rubber stamp Congress and no ability to persuade the moderate middle to come around to his worldview - would do nothing for him. On his terms, he should not run.[/quote]

Well, if he does run again, then wouldn’t that invalidate your theory about his legacy?

9

From a one term standpoint for Obama, was reading this morning that he “goes around telling people that he would rather do big stuff and be a one-term president than small stuff and be a second-term.” So my guess is if Congress becomes deadlocked with little more being done on his agenda plate, he probably will not run for a 2nd try for the White House.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554070/201011171912/Elected-Office-Doesnt-Come-With-A-Crown.htm

10

I read yesterday that Soros said that him and his progressive friends should think about finding someone else to back in 2012, so I think ( and hope and pray to God) he is a 1 termer. I just hope the R’s can come up with somebody worth voting for.

11

You remember what they said…that Obama would be the next President assassinated…didn’t happen…LBJ didn’t run again, but Obama will.

12

Obama will run again in 2012 if he’s told to run.

Why do you guys think he plays so much golf, shoots hoop, and pals around with celebrities?
There’s nothing for him to do. He is no more in charge of anything than are any of us. He’s a figurehead puppet.

13

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946

Lincoln failed to win the Vice Presidential nomination in 1856.
Kennedy failed to win the Vice Presidential nomination in 1956.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Lincoln defeated Stephen Douglas who was born in 1813.
Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon who was born in 1913.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost children while in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both Presidents had Vice Presidents named Johnson.

Lincoln’s Vice President was called Andrew Johnson who served in the House of Representatives in 1847.
Kennedy’s Vice President was called Lyndon Johnson who served in the House of Representatives in1947.

Both successors (their Vice Presidents) were named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1838. (not 1839)!
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by the three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Lincoln was shot at the theatre called “Ford.”
Kennedy was shot in a car named “Lincoln”, made by Ford.

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

You are all still unawakened sheep. There is something occult(secret) going on.

If you deny it, its for 1 of 2 reasons:

  1. you benefit from its existence
  2. you are ignorant and have not done the complete and thorough research necessary to know this stuff. The evidence is there. You have to put the concerted effort into researching.

Obama is still alive because he is doing exactly what his handlers (the guys with real power) want him to do. Its nothing but a puppet post. Politics is like watching the WWE.

14

[quote]mmar455 wrote:
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946

Lincoln failed to win the Vice Presidential nomination in 1856.
Kennedy failed to win the Vice Presidential nomination in 1956.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Lincoln defeated Stephen Douglas who was born in 1813.
Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon who was born in 1913.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost children while in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both Presidents had Vice Presidents named Johnson.

Lincoln’s Vice President was called Andrew Johnson who served in the House of Representatives in 1847.
Kennedy’s Vice President was called Lyndon Johnson who served in the House of Representatives in1947.

Both successors (their Vice Presidents) were named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1838. (not 1839)!
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by the three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Lincoln was shot at the theatre called “Ford.”
Kennedy was shot in a car named “Lincoln”, made by Ford.

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

You are all still unawakened sheep. There is something occult(secret) going on.

If you deny it, its for 1 of 2 reasons:

  1. you benefit from its existence
  2. you are ignorant and have not done the complete and thorough research necessary to know this stuff. The evidence is there. You have to put the concerted effort into researching.

Obama is still alive because he is doing exactly what his handlers (the guys with real power) want him to do. Its nothing but a puppet post. Politics is like watching the WWE.[/quote]

LOL!

15

yes
the key is the last coincidence. the one you didn’t listed :

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.

the con-spiracy is now unveiled.

16

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t think there’s any connection at all. LBJ resigned because he knew it was HIS failed policies in Vietnam that had led to, and were continuing to lead to, the deaths of thousands of Americans in an unjust, unnecessary war. Read “In Retrospect” by Robert McNamara and it becomes painfully obvious that the war was a result of a failure to “know your enemy”, to borrow from General Maxwell Taylor. This failure deserved to be placed squarely at the feet of LBJ.

Obama’s policies aren’t going over any better, but there is absolutely NO parallel between a miserably ineffective attempt to right the economy after eight years of backwards fiscal policies and the senseless deaths of more than 55,000 American soldiers who died fighting an enemy who never attacked U.S. soil.

Policies that are worsening an already-broken economy or policies that led to the deaths of 55,000 Americans and ultimately created an entire generation of disillusionment with govt, which we still see the fallout from today? It’s not even close. There’s no comparison between the two, except that they have both failed.[/quote]

His failed policies balanced the budget , he and Clinton , you know those tax and spend Dems.

17

Mufasa,

You are talking about a man who has an enormous ego. I HIGHLY doubt such humility exists in this man. He will again talk about how the American people are scared and confused, and explain that this fear is why people are against him and his agenda.

It will always come down to EVERYONE ELSE being wrong, but never him.

“If you like your doctor and your health plan, the only thing that will change will be that your care will only get better.” Remember that bullshit ? Well guess who’s health plan is getting more expensive… mine. Thank you Obama.

18

Two things, Max:

  1. LBJ was FAR from being a humble man. His ego was as big as they come.

  2. NO ones premiums have ever come down…ever. They may have less-expensive insurance by changing a company and/or plan…but any plan, over time, does not, and has not, seen a decrease in premiums.

Your premiums most likely would have gone up independent of the President.

Mufasa

19

I think true health care reform would have to include socialized medicine . the for profit cpmpanies are going to push health care out of the reach of the average person .

20

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think true health care reform would have to include socialized medicine . the for profit cpmpanies are going to push health care out of the reach of the average person .[/quote]

Really?

Losing your customers must be an awesome way to make money then.