By on February 28, 2012
YouTube Preview Image

You heard it yourself. When Obama is out of office, he’ll buy a Chevrolet Volt and drive it himself. The Secret Service, which famously wouldn’t let Obama drive the Volt down the Hamtramck assembly line, generally protects the President for up to 10 years after they leave office – we’d assume that the “no driving” clause applies here. So Obama’s Volt may sit for a long time – hopefully it won’t brick.

Meanwhile, the DoE’s projection of 120,000 Volts produced in 2012 (let alone sold to consumers) still looks a little optimistic. GM just restarted production of the car a few days ago. Their sales target of 45,000 in 2012 has been abandoned after coming 2,300 units short of their 10,000 unit goal in 2011. GM now says that they will adjust “supply to meet demand”.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

82 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: “Five Years From Now, When I’m Not President, I’ll Buy One Myself” – Obama On The Chevrolet Volt...”


  • avatar
    GS650G

    So he’ll be taking delivery in Feb 2013? Great!.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Beat me to it!

      (and I highly doubt the Volt would brick any worse than a typical car, though he may have to replace the 12V battery..)

    • 0 avatar
      replica

      Doubtful, but I’d be thrilled.

      • 0 avatar
        alf42

        Doubtful, why? Don’t buy what the media is selling. We still have a horrible economy and housing market, not to mention the exploding debt, with no plan to fix it in sight. Obama is LANDSLIDE beatable.

      • 0 avatar
        OhioPilot09

        Landslide? By who? Rick “the bible tells me what to do” Santorum? Newt “Preaching one thing, doing another” Gringrich? Mitt “I only say things to make a point, not becasue they are true” Romney? Come one guys, get real. You are correct “Don’t buy what the media is selling”…things are MUCH better than the doomsday salesmen are telling you, this is not the great depression and our world is not falling apart…

        Either way, back to the point, I think the Volt is the right idea but the execution and marketing just aren’t there…in 10 years we will be buying those kind of cars left and right…well maybe not the right ;)

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @replica:

        Because Santorum is un-electable in a general election.

        Have you ever Googled for “santorum”? Dan Savage has a more effective web presence than Sanrorum does for the term “sanrorum”. And, once you get past the ick-factor on the front page of spreadingsantorum.com, you see a lot of legitimate criticism of Santorum’s position from someone that Santorum would just as soon pretend doesn’t exist.

        My best guess is that the Santorum campaign and most Santorum voters don’t use the Internet. But you can’t run against The Internet in the general election.

        In other words, Santorum is unelectable.

        A “moderate” flip flopped from New England like Romney would have a much better chance – about the same chance as Romney’s twin John Kerry had in 2004.

        In the interest of getting past the crippling polorization of the last 12 years, I will wish the Republicans good luck in their campaign. They’ll need it.

      • 0 avatar
        replica

        I’m not a Santorum fan. He and I disagree on a lot of personal choice issues. So much, that I don’t care to look much further.

        I’m still writing in Ron Paul.

      • 0 avatar
        toxicroach

        Alf, you’re really right. He SHOULD be landslide beatable.

        And yet he’s not.

        I think the Republicans are so convinced they could nominate anyone and beat him that they have really shot themselves in the foot by making themselves look stupid, bouncing from unelectable candidate to unelectable candidate.

        Santorum will make it a culture war. They will lose. Gingrich is Gingrich. Romney makes Kerry look authentic.

        The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot because they think they’ve got it in the bag.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      “Five years from now” will be Feb 2017, not Feb 2013.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey! Stay on topic here!

      I don’t think O is going to be buying a Volt when he gets out of office, not if he’s true to himself. His old car, before the election, was a Chrysler 300C. During the election, he was rather embarrassingly outed for that car:

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-candidates-choice/

  • avatar
    Russycle

    “Their sales target of 45,000 in 2012 has been abandoned after coming 2,300 units short of their 10,000 unit goal”

    WTF does that mean? Their target was 45,000 but their goal was 10,000? I think 10,000 refers to their 2011 goal, but dammit Kreindler, don’t make me think!

    • 0 avatar
      GS650G

      The GSA is cutting way back on Volt purchases, GE is trying to fill the void. Look for mandates to local, state and federal agencies to buy these things or else lose some government money. They’ve done it before.

    • 0 avatar
      L'avventura

      I think he means they originally projected to sell 10,000 Volts in 2011 but came in 2,300 shy of that, hence their 45,000 goal for 2012 has been abandoned as well.

      The DOE EV goal was for 120,000 Volts to be made in 2012 (BTW the goal in 2011 was 15,000). While perhaps poorly worded, Kreindler is pointing out that its unrealistic.

      Personally, what I always found interesting is that Obama’s EV goal for the Nissan Leaf was 25,000 cars in 2012 compared to the Volt’s 120,000. 700,000 of the entire 1.2 million EVs that Obama wants by 2015 comes from two models; the Chevy Volt and Fisker Nina PHEV.

      Its completely bonkers.

  • avatar
    wsn

    – GM now says that they will adjust “supply to meet demand”.

    Unlikely, since that would require laying off some UAW members. More realistically, Obama will adjust bailout to meet demands by the UAW.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    They’re all kind of a sales flop.

    Nissan hit a 50% reduced target in 2011, slashing their 20,000 unit sales goal to 10,000 in June of 2011. GM held their guns on the 2011 target (for what ever that is worth) and missed, and will assuredly miss the 45K target for 2012. Admittedly $5 a gallon gasoline will be a tipping point for the plug-in Prius, the Volt, and the Leaf and should help increase interest and sales.

    I doubt the plug-in Prius will sell, when buying the “loaded” version which is closer to equipment level than the Volt (it exceeds with some options not on the Volt) you’re close to $40K, without the $7.5K ‘guberment handout. Plus you have the V and C to contend with.

    Seems the technology is still lagging, and the battery technology is the holy grail.

    We’re not there yet.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Speaking of quotes, here’s some advice from Rick Santorum to Tony Raines, driver of the Santorum-liveried #26 Fusion in the Daytona 500:

    “Hang back, let the other cars in front get in wrecks … or drop out of the race, and then move up at the end.”

    Hey, it seems to be working for Rick!

    Raines ran as high as third and finished a still-respectable 19th.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Putting aside questions about when Obama will leave office, will the Volt, as currently designed, still be available five years from now? An IC powered car would be long in the tooth by then. It would make more sense if GM modified a midsize platform to accommodate a drivetrain with a bigger electric motor, and sold it as a Cadillac.

    That’s what the first Volt should have been anyway, following industry practice of introducing new technology in expensive top-of-the-line models, and letting the tech trickle down to the lower priced models later. Obama’s demand for a mass-produced “extended” electric was a screw up GM should have resisted.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Obama’s demand for a mass-produced “extended” electric was a screw up GM should have resisted.”

      GM was developing the Volt before the 2008 election. The concept was debuted at the 2007 Detroit auto show. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/gm_introduces_e.html?cid=27360790

    • 0 avatar
      Feds

      So your contention is that your president went back in time to ~2004, convinced Rick Wagoner that he was the POTUS from the future, had The Rick order the Volt prototype be designed and built in time for the 2007 NAIAS, only to return to the present in time to fire Mr. Wagoner after he lead GM to bankrupcy? (A bankrupcy that Obama would have known about when he travelled back in time).

      That IS a dick move. On par with not using his time travel powers to stop 9/11, or to warn Florida voters to make sure their Chads didn’t hang, or to kill infant Hitler. Truly Obama’s time-travel related decision making proves that he hates America.

      Or are you saying that Illinois State Senator Obama ordered Rick Wagoner to make the Volt then run the company into the ground. In that case, Rick got what he deserved.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I’ve been following the Volt for a long time.

      I don’t expect the Volt to be around in its current form in 5 years any more than I expect the Cruze to be sold in its current form in 5 years. The Volt is on its second year of sales, and the design cycle is 3-5 years. I expect the Volt 2.0 should be out in 5 years, which GM claims to be working on in less public program. The priority for the Volt 2.0 was supposed to be cost reductions and improvements to the technology.

      Regardless of what happens to the Volt, I *do* expect the plugin hybrid concept to be available — in niches at first (such as the rich green geek niche that the Volt currently caters to), and then to have a broader appeal. If the Volt isn’t available, then the Ford C-Max Energi will be available. And the Plugin Prius. And that Volvo wagon that we won’t get. And some offerings from Volkswagen Mitsubishi, and Nissan.

      One of the exciting things about the advance of green car technologies and rising gas prices is that the internal combustion engine is no longer a 5-sizes-fits-all technology. What that means is that there’s a lot more cool stuff to learn about, and you have a lot more choices available for each person who is curious what kind of car they should buy. Instead of “asking do you want a small car, or a big car?”, you get to do a whole requirements-analysis and figure out which tool from a half a dozen is best. I know some people dislike change, but it makes cars a *LOT* more interesting to me!

      (Before green cars, I’d gone pretty far down the “transportation appliance” rabbit hole. Cars were all the same damn thing, which is boring — and you could buy as much power as you could pay for. I still respect a good transportation appliance like my Prius. But, now, with EVs, hybrids, biodiesel, and conventional choices, there’s all kinds of cool stuff to talk about! Also, you can just buy power — but you have to be clever to get efficiency.)

      • 0 avatar
        toxicroach

        I hope GM doesn’t poop its pants and dump the Volt.

        Is it impractical and expensive? Yes. Does it make much sense at this point? Hell no.

        So was the Prius when it first came out. Using the Volt to develop the tech is main thing, big sales is secondary.

        If they’d stuck with the EV-1, I get they would be the leader in this field, not playing catch up to Toyota.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      Actually if you would deal with fact and avoid propoganda you would learn that the volt development was required by the Bush administration as part of the loans and that Obama wanted them to cancel it (as a production car), becuase it would not be financially viable and move to the Toyota/ford hybrid system, the decision to go forward was entirely a GM decision (not invented here), but why would that get in the way of the right.

      P.S. I’m apolitical which means I have a tendency to look at reality and to the right I’m a leftest and to the left I’m a rightest.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    It will be interesting to see the next generation Volt. I think it will look and perform a lot like the 2013 Ford Fusion Plug-in. Wait a minute . . .

  • avatar
    acarr260

    I believe that the Secret Service provides a remedial driving program to a president as they leave office (because they haven’t been able to drive in 4-8 years).

  • avatar
    stryker1

    “Five years from now…”
    I see what you did there.

  • avatar
    Contrarian

    Whatever he’ll be driving, it will be on the taxpayer dime, like everything else has been in his life.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    Five years from now, GM won’t be making these; next January sounds like a much better, more appropriate time for the Prez to buy.

  • avatar
    missinginvlissingen

    The Volt would look funny parked next to Biden’s car in the White House driveway.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-dri,2718/

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Well, obviously. You can’t get kickass T-Tops on a Volt.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “For the remainder of the day, Biden occupied himself with hosing off his car, giving the side doors an extra coat of wax, and throwing out a variety of items from beneath its front seats, including crumpled-up fast food wrappers, a number of soft packs of Doral kings, an issue of Cheri magazine from 1991, and Senate bill S. 486.”

      LOVE the Onion. And the photos in the article are priceless.

      Thanks for the link!

  • avatar
    carguy

    Political passions are definitely running high and they are a great way to increase readership of any article. Particularly if you’re Politico or CNN. Not so much if you’re an automotive web site – then it just looks like a slow news day.

  • avatar
    Rob Finfrock

    Seems to me that Barry-O is being overly optimistic on at least three points here.

    1) That he’ll get another term;

    2) That the Volt will still be available for sale after he’s out, regardless of whether that’s five years from now, or less than one; and

    3) That GM will still be fouling our roadways in five years, period.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      The problems with the republicans and what they’ve become, since Bush I (who I voted for) and the center majority of republicans and democrates that began undoing the damage of Reagon, continuing through clinton, i.e balanced budget (which did start with Bush I and in reality Bush I and Clintons’ policies where almost identical), is that it would rather destroy the country to maintain power and chase whatever fring might follow, this works well in house elections, where as the nazies learned, if you can get 10% to scream louder than the other 90% you win, when it comes to senatorial and presidencial elections the 90% stop being silent. Until the republican party can find another Bush I and a centrist policy that’s for whats best for the country (instead of power despite the consequences) they are heading to history just as the federalist party did once long ago). Given his competition, Obama will win in an almost a 88′ reagon fashion, less the fring states and texas.

  • avatar
    jsal56

    I hope Obama wins a second third and fourth term, than we can get on with the military coup to restore order and break this country up in to four pieces like the former USSR.

    Then liberals can live in the blue zone, cons in the red zone and those that do not care can live in the green and grey zones.

    But liberals would be miserable all alone in the blue zone, (because liberlism is not about anything other than power-see Obamacare) and would attack the red zone.

    Now for me the fun would really start, I would love a NYC liberal to come after me in a rage.

    • 0 avatar
      replica

      Liberals taking too much? I believe this happened before. It was called the Civil War.

    • 0 avatar
      sfdennis1

      If Liberalism is all about “power”, then your particular brand of conservatism must be all about idiocy…While it doesn’t suprise me that you’re not familiar with the basics of Presidential term limits, you can rest easy knowing there AREADY IS a “Red Zone”…it’s called the Bible Belt, and Rural Plain States…

      And in the Red Zone, they generally take more money OUT OF the federal government than they put in (um, freeloaders?), and rank towards the bottom of national charts in educational levels, per capita income, accessability of quality healthcare…while being at the high end of divorce rates, teenage birth rates, etc etc etc.

      The truth IS, and pretty much always has been, that the Blue States subsidize the underperformimg and financially-draining Reds…but y’all sure make up for what you lack in substance and real contribution with misinformed swagger and arrogance…yup, you’ve got that in abundance.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        The red states have a higher divorce rate because they have a higher MARRIAGE rate. You can’t get divorced if you’ve never been married in the first place. If we look at all RELATIONSHIPS, we find that people in blue states are more likely to end theirs. I remember reading that atheists were less likely to get married, but if we look at all of their relationships (i.e., living together without being married), they are six times more likely to break up than the general population.

        The statistics on who receives what are skewed by the fact that blue states generally have large metropolitan areas with a concentrated number of high earners, which tend to be absent in red states. Pennsylvania, for example, has Philadelphia, which has a fair number of high earners. The city also has 40 percent of the population with an income below the federal poverty guidelines. You can’t tell me that those people aren’t relying heavily on government programs. Same with similar populations in Los Angeles and New York City. Also note that red states receive more agriculture aid (championed by liberals, so they can’t complain) and are more likely to attract retirees (who collect Social Security).

    • 0 avatar
      ringomon

      I have a feeling there’s going to be some severe tin-foil shortages in the “Red-Zone”

      (Sorry couldn’t resist)

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      I used to work with a couple people who talked like that. It was an uncomfortable 5 years. Anyone who is deep down hoping for a chance to legally shoot and kill someone, is a scary person to be around.

      Maybe you’re just joking… but I can’t even be sure anymore.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    This statement should herald the Volt Death Watch: They will adjust “supply to meet demand.”

    And then hopefully, the critics will forget about the lofty goals set earlier, and heap praise upon GM for not overbuilding. Meanwhile the UAW will be looking for blood when the production line slows to a crawl/stop.

    If the Obama Administration gets its way, the $10k incentive won’t help; increasing the incentive is actually a sign of desperation.

  • avatar
    kid cassady

    This latest run of political articles has really been a godsend for TTAC. Having dozens of comments from old codgers who think they know every facet of fiscal policy is definitely an asset to a site that is purportedly about automobiles.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Apparently, you can attract more flies with crap (articles) than honey. I’ve seen more articles here with “Obama” in the title than at huffpost.

      But, here I am :-(

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    People are begging for the Volt in Canada and the Ampera in Europe. I suspect that the majority of the Volts/Ampera’s built in Michigan during the next few years will be shipped outside of the US. Forget the “Deathwatch”, isn’t gonna happen anytime soon. Even if he serves another term they’ll still be around for him to buy. People are leasing these things for as little as $320 a month. Figuring in how cheap they are to run, hardly a rich mans green toy.

  • avatar
    TomHend

    First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.

    First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

    First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States .

    First President to violate the War Powers Act.

    First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

    First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

    First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.

    First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.

    First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.

    First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

    First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

    First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.

    First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)

    First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

    First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

    First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.

    First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.

    First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

    First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.

    First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.

    First President to go on multiple global apology tours.

    First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.

    First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.

    First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.

    First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an tells us, and openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      Why I, and most others, can’t take Republicans seriously…read above for the answer.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I’m not sure whether that list was supposed to be some sort of manifesto or a cry for help.

      • 0 avatar
        ExPatBrit

        TTAC should instigate a “two line per post” cut and paste limit.

        There are plenty of decent Republicans on this site who would no doubt be embarrassed by what TomHend just posted.

      • 0 avatar
        FromaBuick6

        @ ExPatBrit: Count me as one of them. There’s plenty of reasons to dislike the president, but it’s near impossible for reasoned criticisms to be taken seriously in politically mixed company when the far right Fox News/talk radio crowd insists on attacking him for anything and everything under the sun. All the conspiracy theory stuff is irrelevant. What is relevant is nominating somebody that non-wingnuts might actually vote for, not Santorum or Gingrich.

        I imagine that moderate Democrats were in the same uncomfortable position eight years ago. At least their eventual nominee was actually electable…

      • 0 avatar
        alf42

        And yet you can’t dispute any of his claims as being untrue.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “And yet you can’t dispute any of his claims as being untrue.”

        Er, a wingnut who can’t figure out that a “certificate of live birth” is the same thing as a “birth certificate” is only worthy of ridicule and mockery. To deserve a rebuttal, you’ll have to earn it.

    • 0 avatar
      Ar-Pharazon

      Is this a quiz? I *love* the ‘Jeopardy’ format!

      OK, I’ll take a shot . . .

      Who was Howard Taft?

    • 0 avatar
      sfdennis1

      TomHend, please get some help immediately. Or at least resume taking your anti-psychosis drugs, because you’re going off the rails here…like Orly Taitz wearing a foot-thick tinfoil hat listening to Rush Limbaugh 24/7 while having passages of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged tattood on your A8Scheeks “off the rails”….

      On second thought, skip your meds and declare your candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. You’re in good company and stand an excellent chance of winning! Congrats!

      • 0 avatar
        FromaBuick6

        Aren’t you the same guy who went off the deep end when Baruth used “f*ggot” in the third person in one of his stories?

        Demanding absolute respect for one’s lifestyle choices while displaying crass, hateful intolerance of different viewpoints is not a desirable personality trait. Homosexuality and liberalism don’t bother me in the least. I find shameless hypocrisy pretty friggin’ appalling.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Could someone please create ttac.ca, ttac.com.au or ttac.co.uk — the same content, but with a US politics filter applied?

      • 0 avatar
        sfdennis1

        @ FromaBuick

        I’m not “demanding” adherance to anything on the site, I just call out anti-gay bigotry/or slurs on the site when or if I see them…if I choose to bother/waste my time.

        If you honestly consider TomHend’s epic, off the rails rant as a legitimate, respect-worthy post…and it’s my smart-A8s response thats the ‘real’ problem, a “shameless hypocrisy” that I don’t support and honor his off-topic rantings…well, that’s kinda insane to me, but whatever. You, as well, are entitled to your opinion.

        In short, deal with what you dish out. TomHend ORIGINATED and put out a rambling delusional missive (my opinion).

        If ya can’t stand the heat your originated posts generate, save those thoughts to share at your next political rally, not TTAC.

  • avatar
    don1967

    Five years should be enough to work out the first-year bugs.

  • avatar
    PaulVincent

    News for you, Barack, you’ll be able to buy one January 21, 2013.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    He’s a career liar, all politicians are.

    Do you really think that someone who travels the world in his personal jet and lives in the lap of luxury at the taxpayers’ expense will actually demean himself to do something as lowly as… drive his own car? That’s for the common folk, not the Sun King.

    He’s going to travel around in some up-armored GMT SUV with an armed escort chase car. The extra armor plating and 6.2 pushrod V8 drives the mpg down on those tanks to about 7-8.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      Since it is apparently worth repeating incredibly obvious facts: all presidents fly on Air Force One and are driven, per Secret Service orders. Did you whine about this when Reagan, The Bushes, and Nixon were in office?

  • avatar
    acuraandy

    If I have my way, he’ll drive a Volt sooner than that…

  • avatar
    PlentyofCars

    I’d bet he won’t buy a Volt. Come on…. Tomorrow he will be at the Ford factory saying he’ll buy a Fusion hybrid; and next week he will be buying another Chrysler 300 like he use to own.

    Sorry to tell you, but we did not avert a second great depression. They just kicked it down the road a couple years.

    Look up the depression within the depression in 1937-38 caused by similar government action in the early part of the 1930′s.

    It was called the “great” depression because of how long it lasted. We are just getting started. If the prior similar government action in the early part of the 1930′s had worked, it would have just been another recession.

    Amazing how they are doing about the same things as before, (just in a different order), and they are expecting different results.

    We will see if this one ends as before (World War 3).

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      I always laugh when people accuse President Hoover of doing “nothing” in the wake of the 1929 crash, and that this caused the Great Depression. In reality, he took several steps to prop up the economy, most of which prolonged what should have been a short and sharp recession that was needed to correct the excesses of 1927-29. President Hoover propped up failing companies, pushed through the biggest federal income tax hike in history up to that point, and jawboned companies to keep wages high. He signed into law the Hawley Smoot Tariff to “protect” American industry in 1930. He ordered the Federal Reserve to throttle the money supply out of fears of inflation (when the real problem was DEflation).

      The result was 25 percent unemployment by 1933.

      It’s painfully apparent now that the country would have been better off if President Hoover HAD done nothing.

      But then, many of these people were, in 2008, squawking about how President Obama would repudiate every awful action taken by that dunce Bush – ranging from foreign policy to fiscal decisions – and that this would usher in a new era of hope and change. What I’ve seen is more of the same – we’ve basically had the third term of the Bush presidency, with some very amusing hypocrisy early in his term (several nominees forgetting to pay their taxes, for example).

      In some cases, President Obama has gone ever farther – authorizing the U.S. government to commit assassinations overseas, for example, or using U.S. forces in Libya. Haven’t heard much of a peep from the usual suspects about those two actions.

      • 0 avatar
        Ubermensch

        No kidding. How far off the deep end has the right gone when a President who is politically to the right of Nixon is labeled a socialist? Nixon might be considered too liberal for the Democrats these days.

  • avatar
    TomHend

    March 1, 2012.

    Everybody got bent with me, but just for the record.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/sheriff-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-forgery/

    Maybe Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

    Just saying.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      A right wing sheriff in another state may believe that a birth certificate is false and he is an authority how? This of course is reported in one of the most right wing papers in the country owned by a religious nut job. Sounds legit. Maybe you should find another forum to post this drivel. Just saying.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India