posted April 27, 2012 03:25 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 27, 2012 03:32 PM            

he is a leo ox. perhaps his gemini moon lends him more charm, but this is a sign combination that not only is BORN TO RULE, but tends to be anything BUT charming. like obama, they are likely to ignore rather than rebuff criticism and continue doing what they think is best.

i have hoped from the first days of his presidency that he does not feel pushed into a complete corner, nor get his way completely. a leo ox who gets carried away with either frustration or victory can be a very scary beast indeed. consider that napoleon bonaparte was born under these stars. like obama, he was super smart, super determined, and came from next to nothing (being from corsica put him outside the social ladder altogether)...an upstart outsider who became the hero of his land; even when defeated and exiled he did not give up. he also got carried away with his power after awhile and became worse than those he had formerly deposed.

posted April 27, 2012 03:37 PM            

And pull you into his seas...

I can`t say I think he is charming but he seems to be a good sort of human being.

He leaves a lot to be desired as a Pres.

His win was indeed from white college kids and I would add women in general. Oh, and of course the typical Hollywood crew.

Most of his then supporters are waffling now and I don`t expect them to think he is quite so charming this time around ey.

Perhaps they mistook "charming" as genuine charisma . Including mistaking hope and change to mean we all hope to have a little change left in our pockets after he is done robbing your children/Grandchildren of a financially solid future or freedom from Big Brother owning the leash we are being tied to.

And just curious, , what are "his seas" ?

posted April 27, 2012 03:48 PM            

You don't really see what's going on under the surface of him. During the original democratic primaries in 2008, he never wavered. He always remained cool and it was clear to see he was putting the most effort he could into be "normal". He wouldn't overtly state his positions in such a way that you could see how he truly felt about it. It's that disconnect between the mind and feeling that leads to distrust. It seems like he's only trying to put on a good show, even if there aren't ulterior motives.

The same (more or less) goes for mitt romney, who is using very similar presentation tactics. Although he is a bit more sloppy with it.

In politians, you really don't often see the "real" person, because that divides people. Ultimately one group will agree, and the other will disgaree. It's the even handedness that unites people. That in itself will isolate out a small group in the end. Additionally, being more "real" often opens the door to more mistakes, which in the political world are more of a problem.

posted April 27, 2012 03:54 PM            

But I somewhat resent the term "white college kids." What exactly does that mean. I was finishing college in 2008. All my friends including myself are college educated in our mid to late twenties and a mix of many races and ethnicity's and many of us voted for Obama.

posted April 27, 2012 03:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
And just curious, , what are "his seas" ?

---

posted April 27, 2012 03:59 PM            

The survey is in GU somewhere and if I can find the article, I will post it.

posted April 27, 2012 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tautomer4314:
I've thought about it some, and I think a major reason why I had a bad reaction to obama in the beginning, is that he is in a way, too charming and even-keeled.

---

posted April 27, 2012 04:30 PM            

i also fail to see any resemblance between obama and romney, who identifies with NOTHING more than 5 minutes, the template for chameleons everywhere.

nor do i see any fault in someone being in control of their emotions when in the position obama is in. in fact i consider it one of the necessary qualifications for a GOOD executive in any capacity.

posted April 28, 2012 02:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
Well I guess that's the difference Randall. We clearly perceive things very differently and have contrasting values. Where you see relevancy, I do not. Race is of no importance to me in any context especially not in the case of elections. But we're all different.

---

I sort of agree with you. Race to me is inconsequential and I don't care about it either way in the end. Further, I don't think one can call one particular voting block the reason someone got elected. Did college age students play a roll in getting obama elected? Satistics say that it helped. Was it the main soul reason? Absolutely not. The reason he won is because he got the popular vote, and it was not one group that made it possible. It was collective. Just like every election in the past. It was a collective effort.

That being said, there are trends that appear within voting groups. Why else do political experts talk about them? Simply saying white voters though is sort of pointless though because it's such a large voting block compared to others that it doesn't say much. There's too many conflicting groups that are more significant within it to have any sort of value as data. When you start breaking it down into age groups, income brackets, geographic location, religions, etc. definite trends emerge. A politician would be foolish to ignore those groups and not make a point to address the concerns of them. Assuming they would consider them for a vote in the first place.

To me, I think race is one of the least useful demographics. It doesn't often say much. What seems much more useful is poll data based off background groups. Such as evangelicals, low-income, high-income, and moderates. The latter can speak quite a lot.

posted April 28, 2012 08:56 AM            

O'Bomber has absolutely no respect for the rule of law..the very rule of law he swore an oath to uphold...including the US Constitution.

He is the most lawless president ever. Richard Nixon was an amateur compared to O'Bomber.

Yet, the O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers continue to sing his praises. One must conclude these are individuals who want something from government...other than "good government", lawful government, Constitutional government. They are closely related to mushrooms and enjoy being kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of horseshiiit.

O'Bomber has forfeited any possible right to reelection. He has already earned impeachment and removal from the office he's infesting.

To suggest O'Bomber is charming is beyond absurd.

April 26, 2012, 7:50 p.m.
Strassel: The President Has a List.
Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.