Yea, the whole point of the GOP strategy was to try and have gridlock, so Obama a) couldn’t pass any of his legislation despite his party being in the majority and b) to make Obama look ineffectual while the economy went to crap.
foolsguinea’s strategy would’ve just given the GOP what they wanted, with the added bonus is that now the gridlock would be inarguably Obama’s fault.
Tax rates have come down but the tax base was also broadened especially in 1986. Overall the tax/gdp ratio in say 2007 was around the same as in 1980. And of course conservative ideologues care about restraining government spending. They fought Medicare tooth and nail when it was first proposed. It’s not that conservatives don’t care about spending, it’s that they have completely failed to reduce it significantly in the 30-year period when they were supposedly running roughshod over hapless liberals.
Right! Which is why Obama has to avoid confirming that rhetoric to the relatively sane “middle” that doesn’t see a match between the rhetoric and the POTUS’ positions. It’s a lot harder to convince Joe Schlub the chief executive is a commie bastard when he’s taking positions Joe thinks are reasonable. But if Joe thinks single payer is socialist, and nationalizing banks is socialist, and high taxes lead to socialism, etc. then maybe he gives more credence to Obama-as-Che-Guevara when Obama comes out in favor of those things.
This is based on sober assessment of which actual policies Obama has supported or enacted?
The first Bush tax cut; the second Bush tax cut and the third Bush tax cut. Its really the only thing his base cares about.
I guess the neocons wanted Iraq…
The Democrats were unanimous on the stimulus:
“On February 10, the Senate voted 61-37 (with one not voting)[18] All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter), with Specter later switching to the Democratic party.[19] At one point, the Senate bill stood at $838 billion.[20]”
Who cares what the right wing media mouthpieces say? The only people that buy into their blather is the Pubbie base, and the Dems are not gonna get them anyway! Obama was not born in America! Obama is a secret Muslim! Obama this, Obama that … it does not matter what Obama says or does, they will demonize him to the Pubbie base, but no one else believes their inane rants, so they are essentially harmless. So McGargle does NOT show any understanding at all. Fancy that!
Well sure. The Democrats have been unanimous on everything that has passed; that’s the only way they’ve been able to get enough votes. That’s not evidence that Nelson would’ve voted for a more progressive bill.
Well, that’s not her argument, it’s one of mine. McMegan just pointed out that starting real negotiations from an extreme position (defined by its distance from the set of possible agreement points) is not likely to move an eventual agreement in your desired direction and in fact is more likely to weaken your position or shut down negotiations. (Anyone who’s ever done extensive negotiations in business should recognize the truth of that.)
Back to my point, though, and try and follow along: Obama has a politically critical need to retain the confidence of a good portion of this country who are mistrustful of social policy that they deem radically left of center. This includes many of the very policies you and I and many of our fellow travelling commies would prefer. If POTUS follows your system and begins each negotiation by pushing hard left, that blather from the right cannot help but gain traction among that vast middle that put him -and a Democratic surge- in office in 2008.
I believe the unrecovered economy adequately explains the Republican insurgence in 2010, but I also believe it would’ve been overwhelming had Obama followed your tack. He would’ve placed himself and the Democratic Party too far from the perceived mainstream for the comfort of too many “independents” and “moderates.”
And there’s another point that I haven’t made but that Obama has, many times. He aint president of his “base” alone; he’s POTUS, and that includes that vast middle as well as the Fox rightards, registered Republicans, Chamber of Commerce members and Michelle Bachmann voters. That may not mean anything to you, but apparently Barry takes it seriously.
To expand on that.
What I mean by the last paragraph is that whatever leftward policy change the president wants , he also wants the concerns of his constituents to be addressed by that change, and he wants his constituents to see their concerns being addressed. Perception is reality until reality drops on your head and kills you.
Obama’s dilemma is that he’s got to take action against real issues so that they don’t drop on Americans’ heads, but he’s got to have public backing to stay effective at that. So, like other good leaders in that situation, Barry has to make it seem to the great unwashed like he’s coming to them , or otherwise they’ll feel like they’re being dragged by the heels. And that just gives cover to his opponents and broadens their base.
THIS!!! Democrats think that they are dealing with people whoa re negotiating in good faith. I do a lot of negotiating and when someone takes the sort of positional negoating approach that Republicans have taken, you either take an equally unreasonable negotiating starting point or you take your ball and go home otherwise you will be splitting the difference between a reasonable position and an unreasonable position, a losing strategy every day of the week.
He should have started with a national health service (where government really is controlling the health care system) and let the Republicans back him into a single payer system.
Well, John Boehner said as much before he had retracted his statement. It was common sense to him as it is to many Republicans but they know that as long as they go all in (bluff or not), Obama will fold.
Well, we still have welfare and food stamps, it may hurt the pride but frankly, if youa re ta 99 weeks of unemployment, you aren’t collecting unemeployment anymore, you are collecting welfare.
They should have put up the $250K bill up for a vote every day from now until the new year. Make it really clear what the Republicans were doing.
We’ll never know until we try and we haven’t been trying.
I’m sorry, Damuri, I have deleted three responses already, due to an inability to keep my temper in check. Someone else will have to field this one.
Wha’s’a matter, luce, choking a little on all that cake?
In other industrial countries, unemployment does not sunset. In America we like to punish those who are hurting. We like to pretend it is their fault they are unemployed. We like to think they are lesser people who are trying to take advantage of those who have money.
I wonder if welfare is more expensive than unemployment. The Republican lite president, Clinton already shredded welfare when he was in office.
That’s simply ahistorical. Or do you not remember Harry Reid adding a public option to the health care bill, only to remove it when Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman objected. And then adding Medicare for 55+ to the bill, only to remove it when Joe Lieberman inserted the knife?
Maybe she was right as far as which strategy would have worked in this particular case. (Though I agree with Atrios that the way to sell single-payer was to avoid that term entirely in favor of a simple three-word phrase: “Medicare for all.” That would have put the wingnuts in the position of attacking Medicare, rather than improbably getting away with posturing as its defenders.) But my point is that her argument doesn’t support her conclusion.
If you mean her healthcare example (“What would’ve happened if the Republicans [had taken an extreme position]?”) I agree it’s stupid, but her general point is valid.
You’ll have to instruct me on your capital gains example, because frankly I don’t remember the GOP being in a weak negotiating position at any point in 2003 so I’m not sure how it applies.
But in the case of healthcare, the GOP stayed at the bargaining table with nonextreme demands (crappy ones, true, but not bizarre) and got enough concessions that when it looked like a bipartisan bill could be passed they then went to the extreme “Hell No” party line and got shut out of the rest of it. The act we ended up with was a compromise between Blue Dog Democrats, ConservaDems and the rest of the Democratic Party, based on the weakened template the Republicans left at the table by initially playing reasonable.
Had the Obama administration played the extreme end of the field with proposals they could never get past their own conservative members, the GOP could’ve stayed right at the table sputtering with outrage and stalled the whole thing.
Its hard to bluff when playing Republican poker. All your cards are face up, you get five, they get seven, and they get to draw twice.