On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, it's Barack Obama vs. Gordon Gekko. Which would you prefer to see > as president? Perhaps the country is waking up to that. > > *-- Russ Abbott* > Like many of us, I wanted Obama to be the president "for the rest of us". But he's seemed weak in many aspects of his presidency. I realize that many presidential historians believe "exogenous" events form a president, not their platform or promises. Much of the downturn was inherited. But as bad as the hand he was dealt was, he could at least articulate the positive things he has done. Obama has had several successes, quite important ones. But he never explains them to the electorate. Instead he gets mauled by the opposition. Why is he so poor at explaining his successes? A trivial example is the health care bill. Yes it is a "tax", but overall it will vastly reduce taxes due to the relief it brings caused by "freeloaders" who use the most expensive health care possible: the emergency room! Several pundits have claimed as much as a 10 to one reduction in public costs which will be reflected in lower taxes. But Obama remains mum. I don't get it. It could simply be the media, which loves a good fight. They fan the flames and nurture fear. But it does seem to me that a large amount of the (idiotic) electorate buys the anti-obama rhetoric. I (think) Obama would be the best outcome, at least he's got experience at it and could be better in a second term. And Romney does seem a bit of an ass. I am, however, surprised at the difference between the graph and the punditry. -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
