OT - Who will run for President on the Republican side?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by briansd1 on April 26, 2011 - 10:11am

List of potential candidates:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2012-repu...

Which one do you like? (some have withdrawn).

Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachmann
Jon Hunstman
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Buddy Roemer
Chris Christie
Rick Perry
Michael Bloomberg

Submitted by briansd1 on August 26, 2011 - 4:00pm.

Back to presidential race.

pri_dk wrote:
And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?

Just like eaves, I do care what Krugman, et al write.

But I look at the big picture. There's more to life than economics. Obama simply won't get any jobs programs passed because of Republican obstruction. I've come to accept that.

Social issues are important also.

For example, I like what Obama has done about gays in the military. His support for the DREAM act is commendable; and his focus on deporting dangerous criminal immigrants is an excellent way of prioritizing resources.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 26, 2011 - 5:05pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

And what is to replace it?

Will that prove beneficial to the average American?

As eaves pointed out before, the period after WWII saw millions of Americans entering the middle-class and acquiring an education for the first time ever. America was a young country with great social mobility (at least for Whites).

Generations later, people are more entrenched in their social classes. Institutions have become old and stagnant and mainly concerned with perpetuating their power.

If the social safety net is dismantled, will we see a return to the social stratification of the 1920s?

Arraya wrote:

After that is done - then the revolution comes:)

And what will the revolution bring us? There are no guarantees that the revolutionaries will be able to lead. In most likelihood, they won't. I personally don't want a bunch of proletarians without education or understanding of economics running the world.

What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Why are you so eager for a collapse of the exiting order when you are unsure of the future?

I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don't end it.

Brian: This is interesting. On the one hand, you accuse conservatives of wanting to "conserve back in time" (meaning a preservation of the way things were and/or the Old Order). On the other hand, you're arguing for exactly the same position, especially when you adopt the Dems stance on Big Labor, meaning a return to the American Golden Age of Manufacturing, when GM, US Steel and other large manufacturers could engage in self-destructive labor practices and union deals that essentially destroyed American competitiveness.

Which is it? A return to the old days, when union workers were compensated far in excess of value, especially with health and pension benefits that, in some cases, ran for longer than their working careers. Or, a more competitive, leaner workforce operating in right-to-work states.

That question is at the heart of the NLRB versus Boeing situation right now, when the government is according itself the power to tell an American company when and where it can operate and under what guidelines.

You act as though, when the revolution eventually comes, you're going to be in a position to say, "Uh, no thank you, I'm quite content with the status quo ante". Not how it works, bub, and the tremors being felt in the Eurozone are the precursor to a societal change of cataclysmic proportions. Similar to the battles being waged over public unions and the unfunded and unaffordable benefits and pensions schemes we're presently confronting.

Both the Dems and the GOP are fighting the last war. The world has irrevocably changed and Big Money (GOP) and Big Labor (Dems) have been caught flat-footed and unprepared and with no viable tools in the box. Why do you think that everything Obama (and Dubya before him) and Bernanke and Congress are throwing at the problem isn't working? Wrong tactics for the wrong war.

Compete or die. Simple as that.

Submitted by Arraya on August 26, 2011 - 6:51pm.

Brian, you are mistaking my analysis of trajectories and global macro forces with desires - though I do admit to wanting it to go a certain way - which would be to a sane, healthy and celebratory society.

Our economic system is a reflection of our collective consciousness. Economics isn't objective, it is simply one subjective method of understanding the meta narrative of human life, thought & culture.

We have deep problems foundational problems that need to get rectified or we will continue destructive, unhealthy behavior.

briansd1 wrote:
What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Yes, we are collapsing into a transition period that is probably going to be generational. Welcome to it. It's happening now you just don't see it because you chose not to look. However, we should see monumental changes in the next decade or two. Though, I do think it will become more apparent to you in the near future. Prepare your scapegoats.

briansd1 wrote:
I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don't end it.

Unfortunately for you and US, global marco forces won't conform to your desires. The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it's not) - that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 26, 2011 - 10:28pm.

Arraya wrote:
The inertia of what is coming is unstoppable, though it is delay-able and easy to ignore(until it's not) - that is just your vanity speaking or OUR vanity.

So why not delay the pain and hope for a miracle?

Don't we try to delay, stop and change everything in life?

Death is coming too, but who do you know who gets sick and doesn't want to delay death? Even those who believe in heaven want to delay death.

I would admit that some don't want to delay death if the therapy is too painful, but humans will always search for a painless way to delay death. Seems futile in the big scheme of the universe.

Submitted by jpinpb on August 26, 2011 - 11:04pm.

wooga wrote:
eavesdropper, I can't believe you think the media treats O'Donnell, Palin, or Bachmann with "kid gloves." They are regularly mocked and ridiculed for saying stupid things. Ask anyone who has only a passing familiarity with politics, and thus is relying solely on political news as spoon fed them by the media, and they will tell you that Palin is stupid.

I did not notice MSM suggest Palin is stupid. SNL through Tina Fey did a great job at it, though. I don't consider SNL as MSM, but comedy, so I expect them to poke fun at all candidates.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on August 27, 2011 - 12:06am.

festering is bad.

Submitted by Arraya on August 27, 2011 - 7:30am.

briansd1 wrote:

So why not delay the pain and hope for a miracle?

That looks to be the current plan. The iron fist of non-change has been ruling for decades and now "change" is going to vomit all over us, in an unpleasant fashion.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 27, 2011 - 8:30am.

Ok, Arraya, you're talking philosophy, sustainability and big-picture stuff. That's very French.

Allan is too French also. He's talking about an impending collapse of the Western social order and our society's inability to cope.

We Americans are wary of big ideas; we want concrete examples.

I'm talking about current economics, politics and the Republican nomination.

One thing at a time here. We has a near economic collapse that was caused by an under- regulated private banking sector. Let's fix that first, then move on.

How does the fixing the mess at the banks and credit markets equate to the wholesale reform the social safety net? Again, let's fix one thing a time so that we are not bogged down by the conflation of a host of social and economic issues.

Obama is trying to fix one thing at a time within the powers of the executive office. Things would go faster if Congress would pass laws to accelerate the process of reform.

So Allan and Arraya, if you guys see the future so well, please predict the next Republican nominee.

Submitted by harvey on August 29, 2011 - 8:56am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

[...]
You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

What I asked to see is where I made the leap from Krugman's argument about the media to your claim that I said "some people should not be allowed to run for office."

Allan, I never said anyone should be banned from running - those were your words that you attributed to me. It's that simple. You can argue all day long, pulling in inferences and irrelevant references, using fancy vocabulary...

But, at the end of the day, I didn't say it.

Yes, I'm a smart-ass. You are letting that part cloud your judgement and interpretation. If you don't like the way I phrase it, then read Eaves' response. She says it better.

It's a shame that you refuse to consider the point that we are making. There's some scary shit that's going on, and it's bad for our country (no matter where your political leanings are.)

More from Krugman, along the same lines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinio...

BTW: Do you know about this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi...

Now read this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...

So why haven't we closed Gitmo?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 10:38am.

pri_dk wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

[...]
You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

What I asked to see is where I made the leap from Krugman's argument about the media to your claim that I said "some people should not be allowed to run for office."

Allan, I never said anyone should be banned from running - those were your words that you attributed to me. It's that simple. You can argue all day long, pulling in inferences and irrelevant references, using fancy vocabulary...

But, at the end of the day, I didn't say it.

Yes, I'm a smart-ass. You are letting that part cloud your judgement and interpretation. If you don't like the way I phrase it, then read Eaves' response. She says it better.

It's a shame that you refuse to consider the point that we are making. There's some scary shit that's going on, and it's bad for our country (no matter where your political leanings are.)

More from Krugman, along the same lines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinio...

BTW: Do you know about this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi...

Now read this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...

So why haven't we closed Gitmo?

Pri: So, I'm prevented from using certain words and facts in rebutting or refuting what you're saying? In spite of the fact that that is EXACTLY what you asked me to do?

Yes, I was aware of the Obama Executive Order and have been for quite a while. Its window dressing, as evidenced by the fact that Obama has made no serious move to enforce it (reminiscent of Bill Clinton and the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Libera...).

Gitmo is both valuable and convenient to the administration and the National Security State apparatus. Renditions continue, as do Patriot I and II. You speak about "scary shit", but are unwilling to discuss the really "scary shit", i.e. how is that a Constitutional Law professor continues the inarguably feckless and dangerous policies of his predecessor and no one says anything about it? We are seeing a constant and unrelenting assault on our civil liberties, and from a Black President no less, and you offer up a throwaway Executive Order and Google article about Congress blocking funding. If Obama were serious, Gitmo would be closed.

If Obama was serious, there'd be an actual jobs bill, instead of the pap he's getting ready to sell post-vacation.

If Obama was serious, there'd be meaningful healthcare reform, including single-payer.

If Obama was serious, he'd LEAD. And not from behind.

Two expressions come to mind, and both from the Army. First, "There is no substitute for decisive leadership" (Patton's corollary: "A good plan, violently executed right now, is infinitely better than the perfect plan, executed next week").

The second is: "No plan survives contact" (George Foreman's corollary: "Everybody has a plan. Then they get hit"). I mention this axiom to head off any potential excuses on behalf of Obama, like, "The Republicans are obstructionist", "There was that tsunami in Japan", "There was the Arab Spring", "There was the Arab Summer", "Hurricane Irene", "The dog ate my homework".

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there is "scary shit" out there and someone needs to LEAD the nation out of it.

Submitted by harvey on August 29, 2011 - 11:10am.

Allan, you win the armchair quarterback award.

Quote:
If Obama was serious, there'd be an actual jobs bill

What should be in the bill, Allan? Let's hear one, concrete idea from you. Can you make one suggestion as to what should be included in this plan you think is so easy to create?

Quote:
If Obama was serious, there'd be meaningful healthcare reform, including single-payer.

That one scores a huge LOL! So now the President has the power to pass federal single-payer healthcare reform at will! No agreement from Congress necessary?

Ok, so Obama can't lead. So who can lead, Allan? Can you give us a name?

So let's see if you can produce a single post that doesn't include the usual Obama-hate. Let's see see if you can make a real-world decision.

If the election were held tomorrow, I would vote for Obama over any of the leading contenders.

Who would you vote for?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 11:39am.

Pri: I do NOT hate Obama. To the contrary, and on a personal level, I think he's a likeable cat. He's just in over his head is all. Same as that frat boy Dubya was in over his.

Pointing out Obama's inadequacies does NOT count as "hate", by the way. It's nothing more than pointing to the obvious.

As to your LOL, let's stick with the facts, pri, and remember that Obama had BOTH houses of Congress and HUGE political capital when he began on healthcare. He squandered this opportunity badly and that is readily admitted to by many on the liberal-left. The fact that he did NOT lead on this issue, instead choosing to delegate this to Congress, backfired badly and resulted in the muddled mess that Obamacare ultimately became. Thse are all FACTS and NOT "hating".

On jobs: The stimulus package was good in theory and absolutely hamstrung in delivery. The "shovel-ready" jobs weren't shovel-ready (and Obama himself made THAT particular quote), the funds that went to city and state government were used to pay down debt and NOT hire new employees (thus not delivering the promised multiplier effect) and the overall effect was muted by the fact that the economy was in far worse straits than the administration realized (and, no, I'm not blaming that on the administration, they WERE working with incomplete data).

An effective jobs bill would be tied to tax reform and meaningful incentives, i.e. those that get businesses, especially small businesses, to re-invest and, more importantly, hire. I like Robert Reich's idea about imposing a "severance tax" on those American businesses that outsource. I've openly advocated for years, on this board, that we need a WPA-type organization and a serious industrial policy (not this green-energy boondoggle bullshit).

I'd go strong on re-building America's nuke program, in that it would create a HUGE multiplier effect, especially among Heavy/Civil Engineering disciplines and high-wage, high-skilled blue collar workers. You put a dozen nuke generating stations on fast track approval, including DOE loan supports, and you'd see a re-emergence of American Heavy Industry.

I'd significantly increase R&D spending, and in conjunction with an American Industrial Policy (similar to what we had in WWII and during the Cold War). Don't let the government pick winners, allow successful R&D to create market drivers and then support those market drivers with incentives to Build American, Stay American and Sell American.

While I'd love to see Huntsman mount a serious challenge, it ain't gonna happen. I'd vote for Perry as the "better than Obama" candidate. Yeah, he is badly flawed, but so was Reagan. However, when you compared him to Carter...

This country needs a dose of someone putting a boot up our ass. You know, like in the Army. Speaking of the Army, what, exactly, did you do in the Army? You seem to get rather upset and play the "hater" card whenever someone raises their voice. Wasn't that an issue when the SFC started yelling at you?

Submitted by harvey on August 29, 2011 - 1:55pm.

Allan, as I've said before, my military career was a joke compared to yours. Feel free to poke fun at this former mediocre, butterbar, five-jump-chump combat engineer as much as you like (but don't you dare knock the sappers - I know you know better than that.)

But that's not the debate here.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I like Robert Reich's idea about imposing a "severance tax" on those American businesses that outsource. I've openly advocated for years, on this board, that we need a WPA-type organization and a serious industrial policy (not this green-energy boondoggle bullshit).

I'd go strong on re-building America's nuke program, in that it would create a HUGE multiplier effect, especially among Heavy/Civil Engineering disciplines and high-wage, high-skilled blue collar workers. You put a dozen nuke generating stations on fast track approval, including DOE loan supports, and you'd see a re-emergence of American Heavy Industry.

I'd significantly increase R&D spending, and in conjunction with an American Industrial Policy (similar to what we had in WWII and during the Cold War). Don't let the government pick winners, allow successful R&D to create market drivers and then support those market drivers with incentives to Build American, Stay American and Sell American.

I appreciate your use of specifics, and your ideas have merit, but you seem to be ignoring the obvious problem here. Let's try out some of your ideas...

BREAKING NEWS:

Obama wants to to raise taxes and increase federal involvement in the marketplace...

"Big Government" President Obama wants to increase the national debt with more R&D spending, and pork-laden, nuclear projects....

Obama wants to build an expensive nuclear plant in your backyard, using your tax dollars...

Why does Obama want to build targets for terrorists?

Severance Tax? That's right folks, Obama wants to create a whole new tax targeting business productivity...

Now the above words would seem ludicrous, except that we've heard all of this and worse for the past two years. The problem isn't that a few extremists make these silly claims - the problem is that the entire Republican machine, from Fox News, Limbaugh, the WSJ, and every office-holder and candidate in the party has fallen lock-step into this narrative.

It's true that there has always been an opposition party. But I'm not aware of any time in history were the opposition party was so entrenched and so childish - so fixated on undermining the President at any cost.

Your military metaphors bring up an interesting point. True, no plan survives contact with the enemy. And the Republicans are behaving as if the President of the United States was THE enemy.

Back to your ideas:

If Perry/Romney is going to pass WPA-type legislation, or create any new programs when he becomes President it will be one helluva surprise for everyone because there is no way he is able to campaign on anything but "zero taxes, smaller government." Any deviation from this dogma will lead them into the "I was against it before I was in favor of it" trap.

Which means the entire Republican 2012 Presidential strategy comes down to a simple choice:

1) Carry on with the doomed-to-fail "cut government and tax the poor to create jobs" platform.

2) Perform the most fantastic 180 in political history.

My bet is that we are going to see #1, along with some even more bizarre arguments and contrived word-smithing in an attempt to do #2 at the same time.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 29, 2011 - 2:02pm.

Thank you, pri_dk. You said it very well here.

At no time in memory has the opposition been so hell bent on undermining the president to the detriment of national interest.

When it comes to foreign policy and national interest, politics need to stop at at the water's edge.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 2:09pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Thank you, pri_dk. You said it very well here.

At no time in memory has the opposition been so hell bent on undermining the president to the detriment of national interest.

When it comes to foreign policy and national interest, politics need to stop at at the water's edge.

Brian: I couldn't agree more. Speaking of foreign policy and national interest, whose ideas are being implemented by Obama?

That was a serious question, BTW, if you'd like to answer it.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 2:24pm.

Pri: I was pulling your chain on your days in the military. I have nothing but respect for anyone who served, regardless of service, and I was a butterbar myself at the beginning (along with being a cherry jumper as well).

For the record, I don't disagree with your take on GOP obstructionism, although it has existed, in varying degrees, since the start of this great republic. I stopped voting GOP in 1996 and have grown increasingly disenchanted with the party in the intervening years, peaking with Dubya's abysmal administration.

That being said, Obama is following Dubya down that same road. Bush's foreign policies remain in place, as do his execrable programs (and Clinton's) of renditions, expanded surveillance and limiting civil liberties.

I would say that Obama, in paying fealty to the unions and Big Labor, has also stifled the growth of business. I can say this confidently because I run a business in California and it has definitely gotten worse under this new administration. More paperwork, more rules and regs, and more of an anti-business attitude prevails. Look no further than the nonsense going on with the NLRB and Boeing to see this writ large. This is one of those WTF? moments. Boeing represents EXACTLY the type of large manufacturer that we need engaged, and the NLRB is doing a hit job on them.

I certainly do not hold the GOP harmless, but you cannot ascribe ALL of Obama's woes to a recalcitrant Republican Party, especially on issues like healthcare reform. In truth, Obama held ALL the cards, as well as significant political capital, and badly bungled it. Also in truth, he should have focused on jobs first, with healthcare to follow, instead of the contrary.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 29, 2011 - 2:26pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Brian: I couldn't agree more. Speaking of foreign policy and national interest, whose ideas are being implemented by Obama?

That was a serious question, BTW, if you'd like to answer it.

Hillary Clinton's? ;)

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 2:54pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Brian: I couldn't agree more. Speaking of foreign policy and national interest, whose ideas are being implemented by Obama?

That was a serious question, BTW, if you'd like to answer it.

Hillary Clinton's? ;)

Touche, sir, well played! No, the correct answer is: Dubya (which is to say, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al).

While I thought Obama did a good job on Libya, the overarching Bush Doctrine remains solidly in place and continues to function. And nobody seems to question anything. Scary and sad, all at the same time.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 29, 2011 - 3:18pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Pri: I certainly do not hold the GOP harmless, but you cannot ascribe ALL of Obama's woes to a recalcitrant Republican Party, especially on issues like healthcare reform. In truth, Obama held ALL the cards, as well as significant political capital, and badly bungled it. Also in truth, he should have focused on jobs first, with healthcare to follow, instead of the contrary.

To focus of Job’s you need to focus on the economy , and to focus on the economy you have to focus on the home owner Debt, And trust me
“NO ONE WANTS TO DO THAT”
But you are right, the biggest mistake Obama made was to focus on health care, but again go back to the sentence above.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 29, 2011 - 4:00pm.

Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Pri: I certainly do not hold the GOP harmless, but you cannot ascribe ALL of Obama's woes to a recalcitrant Republican Party, especially on issues like healthcare reform. In truth, Obama held ALL the cards, as well as significant political capital, and badly bungled it. Also in truth, he should have focused on jobs first, with healthcare to follow, instead of the contrary.

To focus of Job’s you need to focus on the economy , and to focus on the economy you have to focus on the home owner Debt, And trust me
“NO ONE WANTS TO DO THAT”
But you are right, the biggest mistake Obama made was to focus on health care, but again go back to the sentence above.

Nor-LA: You make a good point and one that is often overlooked: There ARE jobs available, but many are constrained from taking them, because they're financially tied to an underwater home loan and thus cannot afford to move. This reverse mobility exerts an undertow that many don't see, because so much of the focus has been on the unemployment numbers, not the jobs that go begging for this reason.

Another major factor in the jobs go begging category is that we've done a shit poor job of preparing our workforce for the challenges of the modern workplace.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 29, 2011 - 4:17pm.

Yes it’s in immobility but it’s much much more than that, it’s also all the people who are not underwater but refuse to take a loss so they cannot/will not upgrade, downgrade relocate or even buy new stuff.
There is a very large sociological factor no one talks about either, you cannot have an economic recovery when 30 % loan owners owe 90K more than current value and probably another 30% paid 90K more, and no short sale is not going to cure that. Also the Cities have based their current revenue expectations on 2005, and they are going to be in constant funds shortage until they address that, AND NOONE DEFINITELY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT !!!.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 30, 2011 - 1:12pm.

Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:
Yes it’s in immobility but it’s much much more than that, it’s also all the people who are not underwater but refuse to take a loss so they cannot/will not upgrade, downgrade relocate or even buy new stuff.
There is a very large sociological factor no one talks about either, you cannot have an economic recovery when 30 % loan owners owe 90K more than current value and probably another 30% paid 90K more, and no short sale is not going to cure that. Also the Cities have based their current revenue expectations on 2005, and they are going to be in constant funds shortage until they address that, AND NOONE DEFINITELY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT !!!.

I agree in many ways.

What would you say the solutions are? Is there a role for government?

Submitted by afx114 on August 30, 2011 - 1:52pm.

Because health care is such a very large part (around 20% -- the above chart only goes to 2007) of our economy, it is impossible to talk about one without the other. How much better would the economy be doing if the average family wasn't spending so much of their paycheck on healthcare? As Allan said, Obama came in with a huge amount of capital, which is why I think he's admirably yet mistakenly focused on larger, generational, long term issues (healthcare, debt, deficit) rather than focusing on the short-term needs (stimulus, jobs, installing Sharia Law).

Do you blame him though? If you came in on such a wave of change, would you really want to focus on fixing potholes and reinforcing bridges? Boooooorrrriiiing.

Submitted by harvey on August 30, 2011 - 2:57pm.

The Republican leadership has stated unambiguously that the primary goal of their party is to make Obama a one-term President - everything else be damned.

Something else that is true, but is rarely heard, is that the primary goal of Obama is to get reelected.

Of course first-term Presidents are always trying to get reelected. But the Republican tactics have created a situation such that it has become THE agenda.

It puts Obama in a reactive position - he probably didn't plan to have to build his policy around public perception. But it's a wise move. The Republican propaganda machine is focused, coordinated, and powerful. It cannot be be taken lightly.

So Obama's plan has to balance between what is the right thing to do as leader, and what will be perceived as the right thing - knowing full well that every possible method will be used to twist perception.

Obama went for a big score with healtchare reform. Results were mixed. The plan is confusing, and many Americans just don't understand it. But Obama came out slightly ahead just because the Republicans burned a lot of capital in the debate.

Budget negotiations had a similar outcome. Both sides lost in the polls, but the Republicans lost more.

It's a war of attrition. 2012 will be a choice between lesser evils. Obama's strategy: Make sure you aren't perceived as the lesser choice, and you win.

Civil liberties for terrorist suspects? No way he's gonna fight that battle in the middle of that minefield. Not now. The masses are mostly ignorant about the significance of civil liberties issues. No one is gonna get re-elected on a record of trying to get "terrorists" out of jail - especially with Fox news dominating the airwaves (OMG! They're building a mosque at Ground Zero! - whatever happened to that "issue" btw?)

Jobs? Not much a President can do when the purse strings have been closed (why, after kicking the can down the road for decades, do we need to balance the budget right now? The answer is: JOBS! - the fewer there are in 2012, the better!)

My prediction: After Obama wins in 2012, we are going to see some very different priorities.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 30, 2011 - 3:09pm.

pri_dk wrote:
The Republican leadership has stated unambiguously that the primary goal of their party is to make Obama a one-term President - everything else be damned.

Something else that is true, but is rarely heard, is that the primary goal of Obama is to get reelected.

Of course first-term Presidents are always trying to get reelected. But the Republican tactics have created a situation such that it has become THE agenda.

It puts Obama in a reactive position - he probably didn't plan to have to build his policy around public perception. But it's a wise move. The Republican propaganda machine is focused, coordinated, and powerful. It cannot be be taken lightly.

So Obama's plan has to balance between what is the right thing to do as leader, and what will be perceived as the right thing - knowing full well that every possible method will be used to twist perception.

Obama went for a big score with healtchare reform. Results were mixed. The plan is confusing, and many Americans just don't understand it. But Obama came out slightly ahead just because the Republicans burned a lot of capital in the debate.

Budget negotiations had a similar outcome. Both sides lost in the polls, but the Republicans lost more.

It's a war of attrition. 2012 will be a choice between lesser evils. Obama's strategy: Make sure you aren't perceived as the lesser choice, and you win.

Civil liberties for terrorist suspects? No way he's gonna fight that battle in the middle of that minefield. Not now. The masses are mostly ignorant about the significance of civil liberties issues. No one is gonna get re-elected on a record of trying to get "terrorists" out of jail - especially with Fox news dominating the airwaves (OMG! They're building a mosque at Ground Zero! - whatever happened to that "issue" btw?)

Jobs? Not much a President can do when the purse strings have been closed (why, after kicking the can down the road for decades, do we need to balance the budget right now? The answer is: JOBS! - the fewer there are in 2012, the better!)

My prediction: After Obama wins in 2012, we are going to see some very different priorities.

I absolutely agree. Obama must balance pragmatism and reelection with ideals. With reelection, he can achieve even more.

You have to "live to fight another day" would be another military quote for Allan. ;)

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 30, 2011 - 5:01pm.

briansd1 wrote:

My prediction: After Obama wins in 2012, we are going to see some very different priorities.

I absolutely agree. Obama must balance pragmatism and reelection with ideals. With reelection, he can achieve even more.

You have to "live to fight another day" would be another military quote for Allan.

Brian: Unfortunately, that axiom begins with "He who runs away, lives to fight another day". Not entirely sure that Obama wants that as his war cry.

A more appropriate military axiom is: "Never reinforce failure".

We can debate the whys and wherefores, but, put simply, this presidency is in trouble and the news on jobs and the economy is only adding to the malaise. Obama needs to focus on JOBS, period. The problem is that he has squandered both opportunities and capital to this point and while pri's comment regarding a war of attrition with the Republicans is correct, it is more correct to say that Obama waged a war of attrition with the Republicans in CONGRESS. He is NOT running against the Republicans in Congress, he is running against Rick Perry (the likely GOP nominee) and Rick Perry is going to point to Texas and say, "See, when you eliminate gubment from the mix, you get JOBS!". And, Brian, it doesn't matter that that isn't a factual statement, it is going to resonate with a frightened, tired, and BROKE electorate.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 30, 2011 - 5:54pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Brian: Unfortunately, that axiom begins with "He who runs away, lives to fight another day". Not entirely sure that Obama wants that as his war cry.

True, Allan. It's about retreating so you can live to fight another day and win.

Unfortunataly, as eveas pointed out, people only see the headlines and are unable to understand the real meaning in the appropriate context.

When Perry claims jobs, jobs, jobs, perhaps the electorate won't see past the campaign slogans.

Are you saying your bet is Rick Perry winning the Republican nomination?

Submitted by harvey on August 30, 2011 - 5:29pm.

The voters will consider both the candidate and the "brand" that the candidate represents . The Republican brand has been defined, rather strongly, by the Republican Congress.

As for the man?

In a hilarious twist of fate, Perry turns out to be a "C" student, son of a rancher, former pilot, outwardly Christian, slightly cocky, gun luvin', cowboy boot wearin' Governor of Texas.

If you look more closely, you see differences. But nothing really substantial, and most voters don't really look that closely anyway.

If Perry were from California or New York I'd be placing my bets on him to win the Presidency. He's got a case with the Texas jobs story - even if the case does have a few glaring holes. But he won't be able to overcome the "he's just another Bush" phenomenon.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 30, 2011 - 6:02pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:
Yes it’s in immobility but it’s much much more than that, it’s also all the people who are not underwater but refuse to take a loss so they cannot/will not upgrade, downgrade relocate or even buy new stuff.
There is a very large sociological factor no one talks about either, you cannot have an economic recovery when 30 % loan owners owe 90K more than current value and probably another 30% paid 90K more, and no short sale is not going to cure that. Also the Cities have based their current revenue expectations on 2005, and they are going to be in constant funds shortage until they address that, AND NOONE DEFINITELY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT !!!.

I agree in many ways.

What would you say the solutions are? Is there a role for government?

Step 1) Admit you have a problem. (That this is the major issue with Job's).

Or at least admit you have no interest in solving it.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 30, 2011 - 6:06pm.

briansd1 wrote:

True, Allan. It's about retreating so you can live to fight another day and win.

Are you saying your bet is Rick Perry winning the Republican nomination?

Brian: The problem about Obama retreating is that he doesn't win. The perception is that he gives ground, even when he shouldn't or needn't, and that he's been a punching bag for the GOP. So, it becomes something of a stretch for you to argue that he's going to keep retreating, fight another day and win. Win what? There is NO plan. That's what everybody is content to ignore. There is NO plan.

I don't disagree with pri's assessment of Perry, BTW, but he's resonating with voters in a way that Obama cannot. This country is hungry for a leader and Obama is looking increasingly lost, all while the bad news just keeps coming.

Yeah, like it or not, I think Perry is selling the right message (that is, the message the voters want to hear) and don't forget that behind Perry is one hell of a savvy campaign operation. Underneath that good ole boy exterior lives a ruthless, calculating SOB and one that has never lost an election.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.