As a political strategy, he has been the best at it...alienate everyone equally! :)

Alfie, Is the mop and bucket going to be the next "anyone but Romney" candidate? It would probably do better against Obama than any of your current candidates. Talk about cleaning up!

Alfie, the economy is showing signs of recovery. Barack Obama inherited a massive deficit and an economy in freefall. I don't quite understand all the complaints about the Affordable Care Act as portions of it don't even go into effect until 2014, and frankly, if you have a pre-existing condition or a son/daughter who recently graduated from college and needs health insurance, this is an excellent solution.

Given the volatility of the Arab spring and evolving situation with Iran, plus the impact of the global recession, I believe Pres. Obama has led our country with strength and dignity. Not to mention the removal of the threat of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists on world peace, although much more work needs to be done. He has also been working to draw down the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with St. Swithin--if the economy continues to gain, I believe people will give Obama his second term.

Obamacare, and quite a few of his other policies are formerly cornerstones of Republican presidencies and administrations. Even his economic policies, are right leaning. The first stimulus included a tax cut, and he extended the Bush tax cuts. If he took control of the prices of things, he would be labeled as a Socialist...but wait...

Santorum can't run as an outsider (which independents like), and neither can Gingrich. The general election is where President Obama's money will win the day. Aside from Romney, none of the current candidates could raise enough money to make it close. President Obama will continue to make politically centrist moves through November, which will appeal to independent voters.

"President Obama will continue to make politically centrist moves through November, which will appeal to independent voters."

I'm not so sure about this. Lately, he's been taking some pretty hard left position in an attempt to motivate his base, such as the recent attacks against the Catholic Church, that have many constitutional / small government independents thinking twice about him. And the GOP will use these moves in claiming that if Obama does get another 4 years that we can count on even more hard left positions coming from him in the future. It's a speculation game on both sides, but the GOP still has the advantage of having concrete ideas and plans on paper, while Obama really doesn't. And as we all agree - hope and change isn't going to be enough this time around, regardless of how much money he has in the bank.

And if the economy does get better before the general, then the primary focus will most certainly turn to the budget deficit and debts, of which the GOP has a clear advantage over Obama.

As to Santorum - he has charm and likability. And, as he loves to tout, he has some policy positions regarding industrial manufacturing that really do appeal to many of the so-called 'Reagan Democrats.' Although Paul is my first choice, I don't believe he has enough support to carry the nomination, but could possibly upset with a strong second place showing.

Personally, I'm really liking Santorum and would back him in winning both the nomination and the general at this stage, even if he is an 'insider.'

I wish that Gingrich would get out of the race, as all he can really accomplish at this point is act as a spoiler favoring Romney and against Santorum, as most polls clearly suggest.

Rick Santorum has ideological views that might not sell well in a general election. He lost his last election by double digits. If he were not running against a Mormon (a belief system which many other religious groups do not recognize) and Newt Gingrich, he might not be doing so well in the primaries. He also has a billionaire backer who is getting him a lot of airtime.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP ends up with a brokered convention and if so, who would emerge. I know some recognition/approval polls were forwarding Jeb Bush. Chris Christie of NJ is also of interest.

Barack Obama did not "attack" the Catholic Church, as has been discussed here in depth, the entire insurance coverage for contraception "controversy" was trumped up as similar laws are already in place in a number of states, and with GOP backing.

@Bren -

What ideological views would those be exactly?

As Santorum stated at the last debate, just because he talks about some social issues doesn't mean that he wants a federal law governing them.

Jeb Bush would be terrible in my honest opinion, as I don't see him escaping the shadow of his brother's legacy enough to win the general, not that I'm saying that W was all bad, as he was certainly better than his father!

I'd love to see Christie run with the nomination, even though he's a moderate, as I see him as having the energy and moxy to beat Obama.

As most on the right say, I have to agree - any of the remaining viable candidates at this point would be better than Obama. It's just that most of us don't want merely 'better' - we want excellence!

Rick Santorum is a huge fan of Leviticus. That's why he's anti-gay, he doesn't eat shellfish, and he makes the women in his family sleep in the garage every 28 days.

Mr. Hoffa, with apologies, Rick Santorum is the candidate you will have to research for yourself. I agree with you about Jeb Bush, not for the same reasons. I do not support the concept of American presidential dynasties, two from the same clan is enough in my opinion.

I do think that what the Republicans have on "paper" will help steer the general public toward Obama. Likewise, Rick Santorum's ideological views will raise some eyebrows. Chris Christie would be an embarrassment to the WH in my opinion. I have watched video of phone-in town hall meetings and the way he speaks to some of his constituents is a disgrace. I do believe that Newt Gingrich is still in the race to ward off the Romney nomination, and also because the campaign gives his books and self-promotion empire several more years of adrenaline.

I've got to take a second, here, to hassle the Hoff.

"...not that I'm saying that W was all bad, as he was certainly better than his father!"

What?!? Get out, don't even pretend you voted for Nader with a statement like that. If I made a list of twelve thousand ways that George W was worse than his father, "unsolicited neck rubs for other world leaders" would be in the top fifteen. And I know what you're going to say, so let me stop you right there - at least when George Herbie projectile vomited on other world leaders, he could plausibly claim that it was involuntary.

Frothy, I work in academia, and I am the devil! :)

Careful DJ, you're going to get that admission thrown back at you some day... not only are you claiming to be the devil, but you're also saying forbidden and blasphemous true things like "quite a few of his other policies are formerly cornerstones of Republican presidencies and administrations."

Get behind me Satan!

The economy is psychology than reality. Obama's economic numbers are coming very close to what Reagan had in 1984, and it was morning in America.

Fortunately for Obama, this collection of GOP candidates is deeply flawed, reflecting that the rabid right is getting what it wants out of the party and the hubris that originates from being lulled into security by all the money the 1% will pour into this election.

J.B., I think the family planning coverage is a good idea--cheaper for families than having children before they are ready, perhaps, and there are also health issues treated by the same hormonal birth control. We know that food stamps are at an all time high because of the recession, which was not created by the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act is an excellent advancement in our woeful healthcare system--no more turndowns for coverage because of pre-existing conditions and continuing parental healthcare for recent college grads who can't find a job in this economy.

I wasn't aware that Pres. Obama "bought" GM, if he did, it's turning out to be a good investment--it is estimated that the loans saved about 1,000,000 direct and indirect industry jobs.

The proposed tax rate is a compromise between the GOP is asking for and the Clinton administration. I struggle to understand why you defend big corporations that aren't hiring or are outsourcing jobs, instead of making them pay something toward the taxpayer-funded services they use in this country such as roads, airports, trains, etc.

I wonder if you are having a "hard time finding the 'right' in Obama's policy" because you're not viewing his administration with an open mind.

JB - I'm going to sink to your level for a second.

Uh huh, so what would your ideal President have done? Let GM, and all of its suppliers, go bankrupt? Obviously you are unemployed, because you don't grasp what the impact of that decision would be. Specifically, a lot of small manufacturers, all over the Midwest, closing their doors. Mandating contraceptives? Step into the 21st century. People get busy these days. Food stamps at an all time high? You can thank Dubya for cratering the economy; Obamenon the Phenomenon has done what that simpering chump couldn't manage, and has turned the economy around. Lowering the Corporate tax rate? And your problem with that is...? Obamacare? Only an idiot would try to defend the status quo ante Obama. Our health care system sucked at being a health care system, and now it's better.

Face it, you are just a hater, plain and simple. You'd criticize anything the President did, just to swig that sweet, sweet hate. You've need to stop drinking the Haterade.

I suppose you'd rather see Santorum in office, a guy who's so out of touch he makes you look like Ray Kurzweil? Go off alone to reconsider your life choices, and leave politics to those of us who can think clearly.

Bailing out GM was one thing. But taking over the company and giving it to the union is another. Pretty much how socialism works.

Ford couldn't be in a better situation for not taking the bait and being controlled and ripped apart by the government.

JB, he has largely continued Bush's fiscal and domestic policy. Bush put in a costly Medicare drug plan, Obama has health care. Bush laid out tax cuts, Obama's first bailout included a tax cut. Food stamps would be at an all time high under any president given the economic conditions. President Reagan increased taxes on corporations via loophole closures, but no one seems to remember that.

As for Santorum, he said he did not "want to make Black people's lives better with someone else's money". Sorry, I'm Black and I work harder than Santorum does for my money. Trust me though, there are African Americans that are voting for Romney; heck, Herman Cain endorsed Gingrich.

The increasing tax on the wealthy is the same policy Reagan advocated. Who's more right leaning than Reagan? As far as what he can run on, all economists of every party says the economy would be worse without the bailouts. He has added jobs, he has NOT raised taxes, oh and there's that Bin Laden thing. He has enough to run on, coupled with a ton of money.

@J.B. Schmidt -- "Mandating contraceptives be given free via insurance policies."

Actually, the mandate said that all preventive services would come with no deductible or co-pay. It's a sensible 'stitch in time saves nine' policy. And then it was decided that contraceptive fell under the definition of 'preventive' which they are. They prevent a more expensive outcome -- obstetrical care and a whole new person on the policy who needs those vaccines and well-baby checks -- and increase the health of women and the children the give birth to by limiting and spacing pregnancies.

@DJ
I have little love for Bush regarding fiscal policy. If you wish to win me over by saying that it is ok because a republican did it also, seems a little childish. The medical drug plan was dumb and Obamacare will cripple our economy. If Obamacare is such a god-send, please explain to me why premiums keep increasing after I was told they would would not by the President. As for taxes, a deduction here or there and the stopping of the payroll tax, do not true tax cuts make. They are temporary and business has not responded, because his intentions are to reverse the Bush tax cut and the payroll tax cut. Both of which mean an increased cost to business. Make them permanent and we can talk.

Reagan cut the top marginal rate some 30 percentage points and you want to compare that to Obama. Ha! I wish.

As for GM, we spent enough to give each employ $250K. We will never see the return on the tens of billions we invested. Had we not, GM would not have burned to the ground as liberal would have us believe. It would not have even closed its doors. It had value, value being sucked out by the leeches in the unions. An investment capital company would have come it, purchased it, restructured and made it profitable. Instead, we took billions out of the pocket of the successful to funnel into GM. What did that cost us, since real unemployment is still well over 10%, it has cost us a lot? Please show me 'all' the economists talking up the economy.

JB, step away from your blind union hatred for a second.

" An investment capital company would have come it, purchased it, restructured and made it profitable. "

Except, there was no capital to be had. In fact Rawmoney's company bain Capital passed on doing any thing.

But putting up the mid-west economy in flames is worth it if it means getting at the unions.

@Keith
My hatred for unions is not blind. I see everything they have done to destroy the private industry and attack the tax payer. They served the employees 100 years ago and got the country through some dark times of worker safety and poor treatment; however, after about 1950 they became self serving businesses and an arm of the Democratic Party. Imagine a republican president taking over a company and then giving an amount of its control to a top campaign contributor.

Everyone is concerned with the workers for GM. Where is the money coming from we are throwing at these companies? Do you liberals have a money tree some where the I am not aware of? OH!, that is right, the rich. They have endless amounts of money. Maybe Buffett will Bailout the US. Nope, he can't even give more then his secretary.

We are building Volts at the expense of the country as a whole, thanks Obama.

JB, the taxpayers subsidize companies of all shapes and sizes. We give private corporations billions of dollars each year.

So I take it you don't agree with the main idea here that President Obama has been largely centrist president? Is he as left-leaning as you thought he would be? I lean pretty far left, and he's nowhere near my ballpark.

@DJ
Businesses don't need nor should be given taxpayer money. Lower the tax rate and eliminate loopholes. Companies fail daily, most business start ups don't make the 5 year mark. Should prop them up as well?

Left or right is matter of perspective. Just because he is not as left as you, does not make him centrist. The same could go for my perspective, but I doubt it, I am usually not wrong. :)

We let the small businesses fail...some we learned were too big to fail, and apparently they have been for years. I agree that we shouldn't be chunking money away to the corporations but we do, and have been long before President Obama.

Well if I am right, which I always am, you have to be less right (or wrong). :) I do agree that left/right is a matter of perspective, but I still offer that President Obama took a combo of right turns, including co-opting traditionally Republican policy; and left turns along the way that will help him come November.

I can even point out where I think President Obama failed miserably: the NDAA and the Afghanistan strategy. I don't think the general public knows enough about either to hold it against him.

Who said they would fail? Ford didn't

And if you bail them out only a socialist would throw out the owners, managers and give control of a company to it self then on to it's labor union.

Ford didn't because the same suppliers they use didn't fail because GM and Chrysler didn't declare bankruptcy. If we listened to Mitt Rawmoney and let the car companies fail, the whole mid-West would have been sucked down with them. Johnson Controls, BTW, would have taken a major hit.

But hey, when you have a foaming at the mouth hatred of unions why let a few pesky facts get in the way.

Ford has a huge corner of the small car market in Europe and Asia. The last car I rented overseas was a Ford Focus (2009).

@DJ.... Yes, Bush started the auto-bailout, but, Obama significantly reconstructed it prior to its implementation. One of the most significant changes was the awarding of an equity stake to the union, at the expense and against the will of of the bond holders. In bankruptcy law the bond holders are the highest priority secured creditors, after both withholding taxes and payroll due are paid out. I don't recall that the union had any legal financial interest in the assets.

You're ignoring the fact that Obama paid the unions back by giving them a corporation, bailed out by the tax payers. I highly doubt Bush would have even had a dream about doing this.

Obama can also own up to this and the lack of any bit of restraint to his spending.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Steve accusing others of ignoring the facts. Heh. Looking at the GM org chart, I don't see union members in any of the top positions, so I am not sure what Steve is talking about. Looking for details on the bailout I did find this
"In virtually every respect, the concessions that the UAW agreed to are more aggressive than what the Bush Administration originally demanded"
http://tiny.cc/8rwzn

You don't know how GM and Chrysler were restructured (aka bailedout) to give the UAW shares to fund it's bankrupt pensions and benefits?

What the hell is with this irrational hatred of unions?

In Germany, corporate boards have union representation. They also have a middle class, something that is shrinking in this country.

The unions BTW took a haircut on this deal.

@Keith
By haircut, you mean gained controlling shares of GM and Chrysler.

@J.W., The UAW got 17.5% of GM stock to put into a trust fund. Perhaps you have a different definition of "controlling" than I do. In return, GM got to stop paying pensions. All you are doing is going further into the weeds here. The bottom line is that the auto bailout is not an issue that will cost Obama votes and will probably win Michigan for him. Republican second-guessing of the way he handled it is just sour grapes.

Oops. I meant @J.B.

New workers are going to hired on at $14 an hour.

@St. Swithin
I have been called worse.

The UAW owns 17.5% of GM, correct and 65% Chrysler. While it is less of an impact on GM, when one entity holds those kind of shares it is be controlling.

In bankruptcy, the union would not receive any monies, equity or otherwise, until the highest priority creditors(bond holders) were paid-in-full. If the pension fund was insolvent it would be administered by the PBGC.

further more...
You Democrat gun owners who are riding on the coat tails of the Republicans passage of the CCW permits in Wisconsin think that your CCW permit guarantee's that you will forever be able to own your guns then your dreaming. Your party and Hillary and the U.N. are hell bent on confiscating them via the SMALL ARMS TREATY they're orchastrating internationally with no regard to the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately there are also a hand full Republicans left in Washington who also are dumb about the 2nd Amendment but they will be tossed out this November.

Obama might have a billion to spend this year but he and his staff and the Democrat party have crossed too many lines so don't count your chickens before they hatch. Obama is only one piece of the puzzel that has to go therefore the race card that the Dems and the lame stream media will play will be totally useless this time around.

His latest burn against the church has pretty much cooked his goose once and for all. No one will be able to forget the ACORN corruption and his connections to it, the first torpedo that hit him and the Dems broadside. The Democrat party is bleeding to death and to watch it operate with the union thugs in Madison last spring is more then enough to say the party is doomed.

@Born Free...Your ramblings are not connected with reality. Do you proof your own comments? You are making assorted claims without the necessary logic to make any kind of reasonable connection.