Obama 7 - now what?

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I don't think even Red Cloud or Patman actually believe the death panels schtick. That'd be like me complaining that I couldn't have a decent discussion, what with all the Ward Churchill disciples like Rover on here.

Patman gets a bad rap, IMHO. He's like... well... you -- crazy partisan, but not doctrinaire and not given to throwing personal insults. There are 3 or 4 guys who always wind up back on Ignore, no matter how many chances they get, because they can't resist the stupid, personal dig. I've never known Patman, geezer, you etc to do that, no matter how heated and ideological the slapfight gets.

There should be a conversion table mapping wingnut to moonbat posters in the newbie FAQ.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Don't get me wrong.....needling certain people out here must be done, lest they take themselves too seriously.

You just explained 51% of all political posts, by both sides.

I'd have more faith in the Obama Administration if they actually did something to follow up on their cost-saving campaign promises, but everything they've done to this point has included spending more taxpayer money. So I'm a more than a little concerned when they start in on creating new government programs.

Also true for the many of we who on the whole welcome our new Islamist Overlord. Administrations (with one or two exceptions) are not stupid, and they know that even when they have no intention of dealing with a policy's worse effects they can still cover their flank with empty rhetoric. You can usually tell what the main thrust of a policy is, and what is "well, we'll hope for the best but look like we're doing our due diligence" language. In HCR, coverage is the former and cost control the latter, and you don't have to be a conservative to be concerned.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

To make me happy, he'd just have to take the unheard-of step of remembering his campaign promises; most importantly, "I'll go through the federal budget line-by-line, eliminating programs we don't need and making sure the ones we do need work better and cost less", rather than doing the exact opposite (he's adding more programs we don't need, and making sure the ones we have cost more). #2 on that list would be, I don't have an exact quote, his idea of changing the tone in Washington and stopping the squabbling. All we hear from him now about conservatism is cheap name-calling you might expect from a fifth grader. #3 might be his pledge to finish the job in Afghanistan, but I understand the need for more time there.

#1, agree completely.

#3, getting there I hope -- simultaneously he's also wrapping up Iraq and tightrope walking with Pakistan and dealing with Iranian gamesmanship and Russian regional preening. If he can make significant progress in 4 years, or even 8, that will be near miraculous.

#2, the easy answer is "he didn't start the fire," but I'll agree if your point is that business as usual is not enough, and the President should be above the day-to-day inanity of the 24 hour news networks. His reaction to the Echo Chamber struck me as naive, as if he was actually surprised and hurt that they were going to keep to their shtick. That's too lucrative a rice bowl for them to give up for something as abstract as "the good of the country."

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

What's the job in Afghanistan, and when will we know when it's finished?

Not meant to be snarky. It's a real question, and I think that President Obama is finding it tougher to answer than Candidate Obama did.

As for changing the tone in Washington, that was never anything more than a (rather thinly) veiled dig against Clinton. Shame on us if we took it literally.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Very interesting article about GOP candidate in NY congressional race...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/09/AR2009110903690.html?wprss=rss_politics

What I find the most interesting if this account is true is the bitterness and rudeness out of the Hoffman crowd and his supporters. Politics 101 is when somebody drops out of the race, you're on the phone first to thank them for the race they ran and trolling for an endorsement. This my way or the highway approach cost them a Congressional seat.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

As for changing the tone in Washington, that was never anything more than a (rather thinly) veiled dig against Clinton. Shame on us if we took it literally.

Disagree about pinning this on Obama. Most of the rhetoric has come from the right. Now if you want to say its just a reversal of the rhetoric on the left from the Bush years, sure, but I don't blame the Prez. Bipartisanship is a two way street, and if the other side has no interest in reciprocating, then there's no point in delaying your agenda to keep trying to reach out to them. A big problem which I think a lot of right leaning posters might even agree with is that there's few moderates left in the GOP, so all you're dealing with is absolutists in the minority leadership who have no inclination to compromise. Guys like Bob Dole or Warren Rudman or John Warner might be more inclined to strike deals as that was their nature to do so and they were in a leadership position. Inhofe, DeMint, Vitter, etc - I just don't see it. The one guy who could, McCain, has adopted a really low profile which is disappointing as he alone has the credibility to reach across the aisle.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

What's the job in Afghanistan, and when will we know when it's finished?

Not meant to be snarky. It's a real question, and I think that President Obama is finding it tougher to answer than Candidate Obama did.

Campaigns always state problems in black-white dichotomies that are simplistic and can't be governed to, so that's not something that began with Obama.

The job in Afghanistan is to neutralize it as a staging ground for AQ. The army has done a great job (no attacks on US soil since 9/11). The ongoing problems are: (1) the Pakistanis have, at least up until lately, been unable or unwilling to eliminate AQ from their territory, (2) much of Afghanistan is still under threat / control of the Taliban, (3) the status quo can't be maintained forever, which means some sort of "nation-building" in a country where the only stability has been the balance of terror between war lords, (4) the narrative where fundamentalist Islam always wears a black hat that plays well in Peoria is useless in that region, where it isn't bad fundies vs good moderates but bad fundies vs potentially not quite so bad but still pretty freaky and what's with the burka? fundies.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Scozzafava, who was stripped of her Republican leadership position in the New York State Assembly on Monday,

I said it earlier in this thread, when people were saying all the Repubs need to do to come back was to elect more moderate candidates. Ain't gonna happen since those types are going to get primaried by the wingnuts, just like Scozzafava did. Charlie Crist and Carly Fiorina are next on the list.

Kepler, the Taliban being in charge in Afghanistan isn't our problem. We inititally went in after them because it wasn't the Taliban government being pals with Al Qaeda, it was Al Qaeda had basically taken over the Taliban government.

As you said, our military has done a good job of eliminating Al Qaeda's presence from the state. Mission accomplished. And after years of protecting Al Qaeda in their wild regions, it seems as if Pakistan has finally gotten serious about eliminating them. Funny how it took Obama's election to get them moving in that area, whereas Bush cut a deal with their government to basically "don't ask, don't tell" about Al Qaeda seking refuge in those regions.

So, job in Afghanistan done, let's get out.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I said it earlier in this thread, when people were saying all the Repubs need to do to come back was to elect more moderate candidates. Ain't gonna happen since those types are going to get primaried by the wingnuts, just like Scozzafava did. Charlie Crist and Carly Fiorina are next on the list.

Kepler, the Taliban being in charge in Afghanistan isn't our problem. We inititally went in after them because it wasn't the Taliban government being pals with Al Qaeda, it was Al Qaeda had basically taken over the Taliban government.

As you said, our military has done a good job of eliminating Al Qaeda's presence from the state. Mission accomplished. And after years of protecting Al Qaeda in their wild regions, it seems as if Pakistan has finally gotten serious about eliminating them. Funny how it took Obama's election to get them moving in that area, whereas Bush cut a deal with their government to basically "don't ask, don't tell" about Al Qaeda seking refuge in those regions.

So, job in Afghanistan done, let's get out.

I'm not sure how Scozzafava got in to the Republican Party to begin with: she's pro-gay marriage, pro-choice and also for higher taxes. Which pretty much goes against 95% of the Republican platform.

I don't believe that Republicans need to put forth more moderate candidates; nor do I believe that they should be putting right-wing nutjobs on the ballot. They need to start nominating solid, conservative candidates that have the backbone to stand up to the birthers, death panelers, etc. Those aren't issues that the Republican Party needs to take up a torch for.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I don't believe that Republicans need to put forth more moderate candidates; nor do I believe that they should be putting right-wing nutjobs on the ballot. They need to start nominating solid, conservative candidates that have the backbone to stand up to the birthers, death panelers, etc. Those aren't issues that the Republican Party needs to take up a torch for.

That would be great, but William F. Buckley conservatives are scarcer than hen's teeth and are not likely to survive a nomination battle against a "Populist" right winger. When a party purges non-purist members it also purges non-purist voters, who become independents and no longer participate in the party nomination process. Radicalization of the party rump naturally follows.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

That would be great, but William F. Buckley conservatives are scarcer than hen's teeth and are not likely to survive a nomination battle against a "Populist" right winger. When a party purges non-purist members it also purges non-purist voters, who become independents and no longer participate in the party nomination process. Radicalization of the party rump naturally follows.

See, I don't believe that the birthers and death panelers are the core of the the Republican Party....yet. Which is why I'm hoping that the party will start nominating solid conservatives with enough backbone to stop the hysteria of the birthers and death panelers. However, the Tea Partiers seem to have enveloped a very broad range of constituents.....even some local Dems up here have come out against the spending of the Obama Admin. Now again, there are some fringe characters that make the entire "movement" (for lack of a better word) look like lunatics. We've already conceded that both sides have their fringe elements, and that cannot be controlled. I'm very much for the central message of the tea partiers: Stopping the continued frivolous spending. I only wish that these groups could have voiced their opposition during the Bush Administration--which would have given much more credibility to their message.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Disagree about pinning this on Obama. Most of the rhetoric has come from the right. Now if you want to say its just a reversal of the rhetoric on the left from the Bush years, sure, but I don't blame the Prez. Bipartisanship is a two way street, and if the other side has no interest in reciprocating, then there's no point in delaying your agenda to keep trying to reach out to them. A big problem which I think a lot of right leaning posters might even agree with is that there's few moderates left in the GOP, so all you're dealing with is absolutists in the minority leadership who have no inclination to compromise. Guys like Bob Dole or Warren Rudman or John Warner might be more inclined to strike deals as that was their nature to do so and they were in a leadership position. Inhofe, DeMint, Vitter, etc - I just don't see it. The one guy who could, McCain, has adopted a really low profile which is disappointing as he alone has the credibility to reach across the aisle.

I don't disagree. I'm not pinning the "Washington culture" on Obama.

My point is that the campaign promise to change that culture was always disingenuous. It was a weapon that team Obama could use to club Clinton. It played up how divisive she was/is. It's also a fantastic strategy for any frontrunner. If you had a Super Tuesday like Obama's in 2008, you'd be decrying negative campaigning too! It kills 2 birds with one stone. It prevents negative campaigning from tarnishing you or from depressing turnout (something that was key to Obama's wins in the primary and general elections).

All of that is top-notch strategery. It had a purpose, and that purpose wasn't to change Washington. It was to win. And it did.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

amherst,

My take is that he thought he could change the culture of Washington and in some ways blamed the Clintons for the atmosphere of the 90's. I agree that he's realizing that's not the case now that he's actually in office, but like a lot of Presidents he probably thought he could have some effect on that.

Plante,

The problem with the GOP far right, which is different than the Dem far left, is that the right has money to wage campaigns both in the primaries and as independents. The Club for Growth seems to have the ability to pick and chose 10 races a year to make a big impact in. Little Ralphie Nader has trouble getting his candidate for dog catcher in his CT hometown across the finish line due to lack of funds, especially after the 2000 elections.

Both parties have narrow minded individuals residing in them. It seems though that only one has to deal a funding aparatus on par with the national party in some cases (meaning, there's a limit to how much money the RCCC will throw into an individual race with 200 to focus on, while one group focusing on a dozen can outspend then in some individual races). Combine a candidate who plays to the issues that drive out the hard core base (no abortion in any case, banning homosexuality, zero taxes, etc) with solid funding and I'd expect too far right candidates to be a problem in the near term. Also a very good point on the credibility issue regarding deficits. I can see any Dem candidate asking the question "will you support Cong. Boehner for Speaker, a guy who suppored (I believe) the unfunded perscription drug benefit".

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm very much for the central message of the tea partiers: Stopping the continued frivolous spending. I only wish that these groups could have voiced their opposition during the Bush Administration--which would have given much more credibility to their message.

The tea parties have several core messages:

+ I don't trust the government (now that it's the Democrats)
+ Don't touch my guns
+ Abortion is murder
+ Copyright (c) 2009 News Corp.
+ I hate Barack Obama personally

There are a lot of strange fellows in that bed. You can't skim off the reasonable cream and call it the whole bottle. To mix a really awkward metaphor.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm very much for the central message of the tea partiers: Stopping the continued frivolous spending. I only wish that these groups could have voiced their opposition during the Bush Administration--which would have given much more credibility to their message.

That isn't the core message. That's the sheep's clothing around the real messages.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

More government lying to make things sound better than they are:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

More government lying to make things sound better than they are:

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.
"If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

That's a good one.

Still, something about it seems right. Bush lied to make things sound worse than they were. I guess we've got both bases covered now.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

That's a good one.

Still, something about it seems right. Bush lied to make things sound worse than they were. I guess we've got both bases covered now.

All politicians are liars, it's just a matter of whose perspective you like more. Whether it's doom and gloom or rainbows and unicorns, it's all a bunch of bs

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

More government lying to make things sound better than they are:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300

I like this one:

At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.

Um, genius - if your staff's pay went up by 1.84%, then that should be .0184 x 508 = 9.35 jobs, not 935...

4th grade math FTW!

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I like this one:


Um, genius - if your staff's pay went up by 1.84%, then that should be .0184 x 508 = 9.35 jobs, not 935...

4th grade math FTW!

Either that or they got one HECK of a pay raise!