As this article argues...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/osama_bin_laden_0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl//bl/whatthismeansfor2012
Osama Bin Laden's death pretty much ends any chance any of the Tea Party candidates have of beating Obama. Even though any serious analysis would conclude that Obama's death is better for image than substance in any war on terror one of the main thrusts all of the arch conservatives could have thrown at Obama and had it stick was his ineffectual prosecution of the war on terror.
In less than a week he's ended speculation on his place of birth (never should have been an issue but it was) and secured his place as the President who brought down Obama, and more than likely he'll be successful in portraying himself as the President who won in Iraq as well.
That just leaves one issue people can really attack him on, the economy. Here there is very good ground for attacking him the problem is the Bachman's, Gingrich's, and Palin's of the world have never been able to successfully make those attacks because it is clear that fiscal issues are not their prime concern.
I won't say that this guarantees a second Obama term, there is plenty of time left between now and the election for pretty much anything to happen, however this should be the final nail in the coffin of the arch conservative Republicrat Presidential Candidates.
Funny thing is this still leaves the Republicrat's with their best chances at beating Obama with the 3 declared candidates who have the least chance of winning the nomination (Paul, Johnson, or Cain)
In the long run though this may be the single best thing to come out of Osama's death, killing off the candidacy of the most conservative members of the Republicrat party and leaving some smidgen of a chance that a fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal candidate winning the nomination.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/osama_bin_laden_0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl//bl/whatthismeansfor2012
Osama Bin Laden's death pretty much ends any chance any of the Tea Party candidates have of beating Obama. Even though any serious analysis would conclude that Obama's death is better for image than substance in any war on terror one of the main thrusts all of the arch conservatives could have thrown at Obama and had it stick was his ineffectual prosecution of the war on terror.
In less than a week he's ended speculation on his place of birth (never should have been an issue but it was) and secured his place as the President who brought down Obama, and more than likely he'll be successful in portraying himself as the President who won in Iraq as well.
That just leaves one issue people can really attack him on, the economy. Here there is very good ground for attacking him the problem is the Bachman's, Gingrich's, and Palin's of the world have never been able to successfully make those attacks because it is clear that fiscal issues are not their prime concern.
I won't say that this guarantees a second Obama term, there is plenty of time left between now and the election for pretty much anything to happen, however this should be the final nail in the coffin of the arch conservative Republicrat Presidential Candidates.
Funny thing is this still leaves the Republicrat's with their best chances at beating Obama with the 3 declared candidates who have the least chance of winning the nomination (Paul, Johnson, or Cain)
In the long run though this may be the single best thing to come out of Osama's death, killing off the candidacy of the most conservative members of the Republicrat party and leaving some smidgen of a chance that a fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal candidate winning the nomination.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:23 (UTC)Sure the fringe outsider candidates (Paul, Johnson, and Cain) might have ground to stand on with civil liberties, but anyone strongly associated with the core Republicrat party would have to tread just as lightly as Obama on Civil Liberties if for no other reason than their stance on drug crimes.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 23:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:06 (UTC)secured his place as the President who brought down Obama...
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:09 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:12 (UTC)Better correct that, unless you want an FBI visit.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:17 (UTC)c'mon, I expect these kinds of lax editorial standards on Fox News but not on Livejournal
"it's the economy, stupid"
Date: 2/5/11 19:21 (UTC)Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
Date: 2/5/11 19:29 (UTC)You can't take tax cuts off the board, You have to actually cut military spending, you can't even mention ridiculous crap like NPR or Planned parenthood funding and you have to be willing to tell your followers that you're gonna touch their medicare.
The Bachman's Gingrich'es and Palins of the world have never been able to do that.
Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:(no subject)
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:The collective you, obviously.
From:Re: The collective you, obviously.
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: The same economy you market fundamentalists broke?
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:Re: "it's the economy, stupid"
From:(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:24 (UTC)I can't wait for THAT President! :)
(And I'm talking in political terms, not in terms of mortality, children)
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:31 (UTC)Odds that he wins a second term are very strong.
Neglect of the Left or the Right...it isn't cut and dried yet.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 19:40 (UTC)I just... don't see it. Yes, Obama gave the order to have bin Laden taken out. Whatever. He's gone. I don't think I've ever really been afraid that OBL was still out there in years. It's a good thing that it happened, but the idea that it's an auto-win for Obama in 2012. The split between Dems and Repubs over the past term hasn't been about national security anyway - Obama's been pretty hawkish all told, and continued the Bush terror policies largely unchanged. 2012 will be a campaign of spreadsheets and social issues, and bin Laden's death changes none of that.
I still think people will vote based on the economy, because they almost always do. It's the nature of the thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 20:34 (UTC)"Obama's death is better for image than.. "?
Date: 2/5/11 19:46 (UTC)You missed one.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 20:39 (UTC)While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
Date: 2/5/11 20:38 (UTC)Re: While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
Date: 2/5/11 21:47 (UTC)Re: While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
From:Re: While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
From:Re: While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
From:Re: While I recognize the contradiction in engaging above...
From:(no subject)
Date: 2/5/11 22:02 (UTC)wut?
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 01:06 (UTC)Why any fool can see that I want the president dead, don't you see all the venom and malice directed towards him in my post. I mean sane individuals read my post and wonder if I would not have preferred that it was Obama and not Osama killed last night.
Either that or you know, it's a typo that has been extensively discussed in the comments and I see no need whatsoever to take 5 minutes of my time edit something that is a simple and obvious mistake.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 03:41 (UTC)TYPO in your OP
Date: 3/5/11 06:25 (UTC)You might want to change that...
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 09:03 (UTC)Obama's death is better for image than substance in any war on terror
Freudian slip? :P
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 14:16 (UTC)The "Tea Party Candidates", that is the prospective Republican Presidential Candidates most closely associated with the Tea Parties, are another matter entirely.
True if the Tea Parties were being honest they'd be throwing all of their support behind Daniels, Paul, Johnson, or maybe Cain but at the moment they seem to prefer Gingrich, Bachman, and to a lesser extent Trump (I also don't think he'll actually declare himself a candidate) none of whom is going to be able to have as much credibility as a fiscal hawk as the earlier group.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 14:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/11 14:22 (UTC)Relative outsiders like Paul, Johnson, Cain, and I presume Huntsman (assuming he runs and with the caveat that I don't know anything about him save some very knowledgeable people seem to think he'd be the best possible Republican candidate) would still be very difficult for him to campaign against as would someone who was pure fiscal policy with a record of success in that area like Daniels and to a somewhat lesser extent Pawlenty.
But IMO this should be the last nail in the coffin's for the candidacies of Bachman, Gingrich, et all.