Only if his promise was to send out more douchebags with signs than any other candidate.
Ron Paul, gearing up for 2012?
With Sarah Palin as running mate he’d represent a triple-threat to Obama.
Watch out World!!!
The reality is this: You cannot please all of the people all of the time, some problems are not solvable, and most promises are never fulfilled to the satisfaction of those gullible enough to take them at face value.
And the hardest polloi to please are the Pollyannas who put ordinary human beings on a pedestal and are shocked–SHOCKED–when it turns out they are ordinary human beings working to improve a broken world with ordinary messes and predictable but immutable cycles of feast and famine.
If we could get rid of naivety perhaps the lives of the politician would be easier, but the gullibility gene is pretty hard to stamp out, I guess.
The “reality” discourse takes place when you get rid of both the “despair” discourse and the “hope” discourse and just roll up your sleeves to muddle through with the cards you have been dealt.
It was not as if his resume spoke of somebody who actually achieved something. Everybody knew that his resume was thin as tissue paper. Also, a lot of people in the primaries didn’t choose Hillary because supposedly, she will just continue Bush’s policies - so what exactly has Obama done in the past months?
Truth is, people got caught up in the hopey changey environment and decided to drink a lot of Kool Aid at that time because they got chills up their legs thinking that a very cool African American for President is the same thing as electing somebody who is actually effective. Pweh!
In the absence of anyone who was actually effective, people voted for somebody who sounded effective. You can’t blame them for that - and frankly, he’s probably doing a much better job than any of the alternatives would be.
Its not his job to be “effective”. Its our job to ensure that the has sufficient power behind him so that he can be effective, and that has rarely been achieved in one election. After 9/11, the right had that power, but not because of electoral results, but because they could scream “traitor!” and wrap themselves in Old Gory anytime anyone opposed them. There was madness upon the land, and they exploited it for every last drop of power they could squeeze from it. Its going to take a while to pry it from their cold, deadening hands.
This dreck just amazes me.
Do you really think most people were of the opinion that Obama would get in and it’d be peace on earth? That he’d just automagically make Washington politics into a place of Socratic debate? That everyone would have a job and a house and healthcare and a chicken in every pot?
And people like you say we are drinking the kool aid. :rolleyes:
I think it is safe to say, at least among Dopers (most of them) that they are well aware of the realities of politics. That no politician can possibly deliver on all their campaign rhetoric. That no one gets everything they want (because everyone wants something a little different and those things will conflict). That Washington and a democracy is an exercise in compromise.
That said I see nothing wrong with expecting a politician to largely hew to what they said they would do when running for office. The campaign is a job interview. The people assess their options and vote to hire the person they think would do the best job based on that interview.
So, what is puzzling or wrong when that person gets the job and then fails to deliver across the board on their promises that we get upset? Perhaps “deliver” is too strong. We simply want to see them work towards the goals they espoused in the campaign and for which we hired them. They may or may not succeed for a variety of reasons and that is expected. Reality may cause some of it to go in the bin. But to so thoroughly bin the bulk, and frankly foundation, of the campaign promises, to not set a tenor for the administration that was alluded to or promised in the campaign is something to be upset about.
That does not make us Pollyannas by any stretch.
He would campaign in the wrong year.
Try and dial down the sensitivity, would ya? People like me? Really? Most people? Really? Every Obama supporter sees him as the Magic Negro? Really?
For the record, and the many-th time, I like the guy.
I was referring to the OP and referenced the OP in my post to make that clear.
If you insist on taking offense, go right ahead, of course.
I do not think those of us who think Mr Obama is a decent choice and is trying hard to do the right thing are all pollyannas.
Certainly some of his more ardent supporters–including the author of the OP–seem to have gone a little overboard. “My heart is broken” ?! Hello? You don’t see that as a bit on the Drama Queen side? I thought it was so overboard someone would accuse the OP of trolling.
In my mind Obama is one of the most over-hyped creations in human history (really he didn’t do much of anythign prior to becoming POTUS). However, while he hasn’t been particularly effective (coupled with poor political timing) he hasn’t exactly led to the destruction of the US and the Western world as we know it. He’s been in less than a year. He needs to stop blaming Bush and move on with it but really, unless you are a teenager or have the impulse control of a teenager the man needs more time.
Then we can judge him.
Well, you use words such as gullible, Pollyannas and naivety and accuse those folks of putting people (Obama in this case I take it) on a pedestal. Hardly flattering.
Despite the OP’s difficult to parse and emotional post (s)he has not been back. You swing in on page three and I was supposed to intuit, despite all the discussion that has come till this point, that you were really aiming at the OP? That you were really just going off on a fringe, misguided few? That your lesson on how to properly view this stuff was meant also for those very few who (apart from the OP who has not returned) are not likely to ever see your lesson?
Methinks you need to be more clear on who you are directing your words at in the future. Merely quoting the OP does not make that clear in this case. People quote others all the time merely as a jumping point into their post.
Are we talking about the prescription drug benefit? I hated that. Or are we talking about a normal budget that has some tweaks around a very expensive program?
The Republicans have put out a ‘fact sheet’ describing the statutory requirements and limits of reconciliation.
The PDF is here. Does anyone dispute the facts that are in it?
If they are correct, then the following reconciliation rules should be worrying to Democrats:
- Debate is restricted to 20 hours. Does that seem reasonable to you? 20 hours to debate a 1,900 page bill that will restructure 1/6 of the economy?
- If anything passed under reconciliation increases the deficit, it must be retired after five years. This is probably the fig leaf a possible Republican admiistration could use to undo health care reform.
- Anything passed under reconciliation cannot exceed the 2010 budget.
- It cannot have an unfunded government mandate in any of the first five years. That might be another loophole states can use to attack the legislation once it passes.
- It cannot increase the deficit by more than $5 billion in any four consecutive years for 50 years. That seems to be an impossible hurdle, given the aging population.
Then there’s the ‘Byrd Rule’:
Some of those rules seem problematic for this legislation. I wonder if Bush’s 10 year expiry for his tax cuts was mandated by the use of reconciliation?
In any event, this doesn’t appear to be a panacea for Democrats. Legislation passed under reconciliation is not like other legislation. It looks to me like it will be open to continuous challenge, and I’ll bet that if it is passed this way, legal challenges to it will erupt almost immediately. For example, the Byrd Rule says that you can’t use ‘incidental’ budgetary changes as a fig leaf to pass legislation in this manner - yet the Democrat’s plan only changes the budget by something like 2 billion dollars out of a trillion dollars spent. I think a court might have something to say about the legislative tricks that were played to try to keep this within the bounds of reconciliation - such as shifting around costs and taxes for no obvious benefit other than to jigger the numbers to make the package fit.
Looks to me like it’s high risk. Obama ran on transparency, and now will preside over a situation in which possiblly the most sweeping legislative package in history is passed behind closed doors with only 20 hours of debate, using a manoever that shuts out any opposition voices? That’s not going to go over well.
?
Really?
My apologies, then.
I thought the general convention was to quote content to which one’s post is referring and the default assumption would be made that comments underneath a quote refer to that quote.
I do not, as a general rule, engage in debates about political positions and people for the simple reason that it’s just not worth it to me. I made an exception here as a general commentary on human nature–which is an interest of mine–and you have reminded me of my distaste for politics and the cheerleaders of politicians.
Although I think political pollyannas are ubiquitous, I meant to be pointing a specific finger here only at the OP. Any others in that camp can include themselves. If the shoe fits, by all means wear it. But I am not sizing you up.
It does when there are no indication in the work history of Obama that he COULD deliver. Admit it. A lot of Democrats drank the Kool-Aid deeply and are pissed that people are pointing out their demonstrable naivete.
He’s doing a much better job than any of the alternatives? I disagree, of course but I’ll leave you clinging to that belief.
Will you stop dissembling about tweaks, legislative changes etc. Both the 2003 Medicare bill and the current bill are trillion dollar increases in entitlement spending, that’s the bottom line. Stop trying to change the subject.
Now, yesterday you were claiming that Bush’s use of reconciliation to pass legislation was fine. This is what you had to say :
*You better get your facts straight first. Reconciliation is specifically for budget issues. It was originally passed to prevent budgets from being held up in Congress, in the hope that it would help with deficit reduction. The use of it to pass budget-related items is not only permissible, it’s what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used to enact social policy, create new agencies, or to extend the scope and reach of the government.
Bush’s use of reconciliation fits within those parameters, …*
I’m wondering how you can square Bush’s use of reconciliation to push through an unfunded trillion dollar spending increase to an entitlement program (the 2003 Medicare bill) as within the parameters of helping with budget issues, deficit reduction etc. but at the same time you call what Obama is doing ( a partially-funded trillion dollar increase) as some terrifying left-wing subversive nightmare that will be doomed to fail eventually.
And spare us all the crap about how bad you think enacting this legislation will hurt the Democrats. It’s touching to hear how concerned you are about the welfare of the Democratic party but we don’t need to hear it in every post. Just answer the question.
Yes! Yes! I admit it, I confess! Oh, just gaze upon the horror of our ruined country, cast into the shadows of socialism after the bright, clear sunshine of the Bush years! Alas! Woe! Woe is us, we are undone, when America sees what a disaster we are, in comparison to those glory years of the Shining Citadel on the Hill, surely, surely, not another lefty candidate will be elected in our lifetime!
Fools! Fools! Why didn’t we listen to the clear insight and firm grasp of Anduril? How can we be angry with his mocking tone, we deserve it, and more, for our failure to heed his wisdom when offered many times…so very many times…before.
Sackcloth. Ashes. Despair.
You do realize that it has been literally months since America conquered a new country, had a financial meltdown, lost a city to bad weather, or got treated to stories of proud patriots shoving chemlights up the assholes of suspected evildoers, don’t you? America is becoming increasingly impatient with this do nothing democrat.
::taps toes ominously::
Hardly clinging. No skin off my nose if he mucks things up, except in the sense that I live here too. I didn’t vote for him*. That’s not so much a compliment to Obama as it is a slam on the other candidates, anyway.
*though I would have if I could vote.
What are you on about? I’m not trying to change the subject.
First, I don’t find a 2003 medicare bill passed under reconciliation. Do you have the bill number?
The “Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act” was passed in 2003, and this was a Bush tax cut that expires soon. It expires precisely because it was passed under reconciliation and therefore by law has to come up for review in 10 years from passage.
Reconciliation was also used in 2001 for the first round of tax cuts. They also expire after 10 years unless renewed.
The next example I came up with is Bush’s use of reconciliation for the 2006 budget.
If this summary is correct, it sounds like he used it in this case exactly how it was intended to be used:
A) It was a budget measure
B) It had $40 billion in spending cuts, making it fit within the guidelines of the purpose of reconciliation.
Do you have problems with that one? If so, what?
Your larger point appears reasonably valid - I found lots of uses of reconciliation by both parties going back for decades, and including some major changes to health care such as COBRA. But it looks to me like your specific facts about Bush are wrong. Can you provide a cite that Bush used reconciliation to pass a trillion dollar Medicare entitlement? Don’t worry - I’ll be a gentleman and not call you a liar or carp about how often you pollute threads with falsehoods if it turns out you were mistaken. It’s a complex subject and easy to get twisted around.
I will, however, call you a weenie for getting all snippy at me for asking for clarification of your claim that reconciliation was used to pass a trillion dollar medicare bill. It appeared you were talking about the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, but unfortunately for you that bill passed the Senate by a vote of 76-21, and the final bill passed 61-39. Reconciliation was NOT used. But maybe you’re talking about another trillion dollar entitlement I don’t remember?