:smack:
adaher, you do come up with reasonable analyses sometimes, and this is one of them.
Where we differ: IMHO “plague on both your houses” isn’t the only possible response, because one party has shown complete disinterest in governing. But the electorate doesn’t see it that way.
They don’t see it that way because it’s not really true. It is true that under Bush, the Republicans simply didn’t have any interest in governing. Congress became more corrupt than usual, and the Bush administration managed the government about as incompetently as possible, mainly because they were just uninterested. As liberals liked to say, “Conservatives say government doesn’t work, then they get elected and prove it.”
But although you might not notice it, government competence is something that conservatives are starting to get interested in again due to the lack thereof, or for the sake of argument, the perception of the lack thereof, of the Obama administration. These things may be fun for us to use as political cudgels, but they actually sincerely piss us off. That’s one reason we’re so focused on governors even though some of our more well known candidates are Senators. We want someone who has proven they can govern well. I think voters pick up on subtle things like that even if they can’t express it. So now we get a chance. We control a whole buttload of state governments now, plus the House and the Senate. If we do well, we’ll get that last prize, the White House. If we do poorly, voters will switch to Democrats in most of the places where they elected Republicans, other than the deepest red states.
An important lesson regarding Obama is that charisma does not equate to being able to work with people. Obama can make a really good speach, but evidence suggests that his ability to actually deal with people and find solutions is pretty bad. Like adaher said, Joe Biden, for all the teasing he gets for his verbal gaffs, can work with people to get things done. Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan isn’t particularly charismatic, but he got the job done (namely restoring fiscal sanity to the state and helping guide Detroit through bankruptcy restructuring). And consequently he got reelected, even tho his fiscal reforms involved a tax on pensions that was unpopular with the elderly. (It also helped that he was able to portray his opponent as a symbol of the “bad old days” when Michigan was circling the drain, and instead of trying to refute this, his opponent stuck to the tired old Democratic class-warfare tactics.)
As if the pubs don’t attack Obama twenty-four hours a day. And you’re wrong. Obama, particularly on immigration, was very patient with the house pubs after the senate passed their immig reform bill. When Boehner said he wanted to do it piece-meal instead of wholesale Obama agreed. It was only when it became clear they had no interest in moving on it at all, did he start attacking them.
You have a cite for this? And if you’re gonna say after the shutdown, remember that was republican folly in the first place so ANYONE would’ve criticized them afterwards. They had it coming.
You might have a little point here except with both the stimulus and the healthcare law, there were republican provisions in BOTH of those bills that he took directly from republicans. They voted against them purely for partisan gain.
The republican strategy ever since Obama was elected has pretty much been to refuse to work with him on anything and then blame HIM for it.
I’ll grant that on immigration he broke from form. But even there he immediately got my hackles up by calling the Senate bill “not everything we wanted”, which makes zero sense unless you assume that he didn’t want improved enforcement. He got amnesty, a path to citizenship, increased immigration, what the heck was he not getting? He continually acts as if he’s compromising when he’s actually getting everything.
The way Obama handled the second shutdown threat was the right way to go about it. He refused to make a deal and the Republicans blinked. But the first time, Obama did agree to talk, and once you do that, and once you make a deal, you laud the deal, you don’t attack it. If he didn’t want to make the deal, he simply should have stood firm like he did the second time. When you make a deal, you shake hands and smile for the cameras and say what a wonderful bipartisan deal it is indeed.
That’s my point, HE took them from Republicans. They didn’t put it in there themselves. They didn’t get the chance to say, “Okay, we like this, can we also add this and what do you want in exchange?” In Democrats’ defense, I think it had less to do with an unwillingness to negotiate and more to do with them wanting to move with speed. Once you start negotiating, things can bog down in a hurry even if both sides are working in good faith. They wanted a stimulus bill and a health care bill quickly, so they simply inserted things they thought Republicans would like and got to the votes as quickly as they could. But it’s also understandable why Republicans wouldn’t be happy about that.
That’s not really true. They have been more obstructionist than in the past, but that has as much to do with Harry Reid’s Senate tactics and Obama’s inability to form any kind of decent relationship with Senators of either party as it does their opposition to him. And where they have simply opposed him, it’s been for no other reason than that the public does too. Why should Republicans go along with the President on bills that don’t have majority support among voters? If the voters are opposed, it’s perfectly reasonable for the opposition party to take an obstinate stance. And as you can see, it’s worked out for them pretty well. It did not work out so well against Clinton, because Clinton was better at gauging the public and communicating with the public. Obama just sounds angry all the time.
Remind me again what Mitch McConnell announced as his top priority early in 2008? I’ll be glad to remind YOU if you don’t remember it.
That’s rhetoric. It doesn’t prove nearly as much as Democrats would like to think it does. The proof is in what they’ve actually gotten done. Our legislative machine may be relatively unproductive compared to normal periods, but things have gotten done with the two sides can agree.
Besides, turning Obama into a one term President can’t be done simply by obstructing him, unless we assume he’s so incompetent that he can’t do his job without Congress helping him. Fortunately, Congress from 1787-2008 passed a rather large amount of laws giving the executive plenty to do. Even if Congress didn’t pass a single new law during his Presidency it would not make him a failure. He still has control over foreign policy, enforcement of the law, and a great deal of power over federal policy. No President can be made to fail by Congress.
I will grant that Obama was a skilled candidate, and I share his vision on the country’s priorities. But he’s not good at communicating, nor at political wrangling.
If Clinton (with his political skill, minus his personal problems) had Obama’s 6 year accomplishments to crow about despite an obstructionist congress, these mid-terms would have been a Democratic landslide.
You know, I actually really agree with this.
I don’t think Obama is a failure, and I strongly believe that history will look back on him kindly.
The biggest mistake the Democrats made in my opinion is turning their backs on him.
Maybe. But I think Clinton sensed when he had a winning hand and when he didn’t. Obama just doesn’t ever seem to change his approach. Maybe he finally will. I was pretty enthusiastic about him up until 2007. He’s got the talent and intelligence to change. Maybe what prominent Democrats are saying is right, maybe he just needs new people around him who will tell him when he’s wrong.
I’ll share this just to give context to how badly this President and his lack of leadership has hurt his party.
Mark Pryor had one of the Senate’s most secure seats. His father was an extremely popular Governor and 3 term Senator. A heart condition ended David’s career. David could have easily won a 4th term. He had ran unopposed in 1990. Mark was a two term Senator and like his Dad ran unopposed in 2008. That’s how well respected and popular this family is in Arkansas. I’ve always voted for both Pryors my enure adult life.
What took Pryor down was a clip of Obama congratulating him for being the deciding vote on Obamacare. The attack ads started in the Summer of 2013. They ran non stop until the election. I even saw them constantly on youtube. The Republicans must have spent 20 million or more for this one seat. Even worse, they took down one of the few moderates that often reached across the aisle. He actually supported a few of the Republican bills.
Cotton is very much Tea Party. He’s way out there. He voted against even the most basic legislation like the farm bill. He’s going to be a real hindrance to any bipartisan legislation.
Spineless cowards. Like Bill Maher said, “Obama gave us health insurance, not herpes.”
Don’t be so sure. I agree with everything you said, but Cotton’s not quite what you think. For every Ted Cruz hardliner in the Tea Party, there are some thoughtful guys who actually do want to find some areas of common agreements. I could be wrong, but I think Cotton is more Marco Rubio than Ted Cruz.
What I’m interested in knowing, but which will probably never be known for sure, is if Obama contradicted their campaign pitches out of spite. If he’d just said it once maybe it was a gaffe, but he did it twice.
They did it to themselves.
Then he should have voted against it in the first place, or done better job defending his vote. Obamacare has been a great thing for millions and millions of people. It didn’t have to hurt him. It hurt him because he spinelessly put his energy into hiding from his vote, instead of working effectively to show his potential voters how his record (and Obama’s) has actually benefited them.
Obama didn’t break form. I can’t think of any time Obama criticized republicans before sitting down with them. And saying “we didn’t get everything we want” is not the same as attacking your negotiating partners. Obama’s biggest problem seems to be conservative, irrational, mythology of him, than actually him.
He learned from his mistake after the first time.
So you’re saying asking them what they want and then putting it in is not the same as them putting it in themselves? Do you not see how incredibly IRRATIONAL that is?
That’s just wrong. In the healthcare bill, there were amendments Chuck Grassly put in HIMSELF directly from committee. This is more of a case of conservatives not liking Obama, for whatever emotionally irrational reason they have, and then manufacturing rational appearing reasons to justify it.
Dude, the majority of Americans SUPPORT a minimum wage increase. The majority of America SUPPORT equal pay for equal work. Etc. etc.
It’s like I said conservatives START with hating Obama, and THEN look for rational reasons to justify it. Even if they don’t exist.
And it’s been a crappy thing for millions and millions of other people, people who actually pay for their care and wanted to keep their plans. Many of those people believed Obama’s promises, and then were upset to discover that their plan wasn’t good enough to keep – according to the ACA.
Ultimately, the ACA was about telling people that can, and have been, paying for their care that they also owed it to the country to pay for a couple of extra people as well.
Shockingly, some people didn’t like that, especially when they realized they’d been deceived into it.
Can you cite that millions and millions have worse health insurance than before due to the ACA?
How many?
Piffle. Many of those who had subpar plans are getting better coverage for less money. Many are getting refunds from companies who aren’t spending the required percentage of their premiums on health care. For every person hurt by the ACA, there are probably 20 who have benefitted.