- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 4, 2011 at 10:25 AM #728339September 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM #728349
UCGal
ParticipantAllan, even Markos Moulitsas (sp?) the founder of dailykos, recently published a diary that questioned what the heck Obama was doing.
September 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM #728350SK in CV
Participant[quote=UCGal]Allan, even Markos Moulitsas (sp?) the founder of dailykos, recently published a diary that questioned what the heck Obama was doing.
That particular column was referring to politics, not policies. But he (Obama) gets plenty of criticism for policy too at that site. Markos even mentions the call to primary him. Fact is, republicans are much better at politics, democrats are a miserable failure at messaging. Particularly Obama. But despite that failure, the electorate still dislikes democrats a bit less than they dislike republicans. Funny that.
September 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM #728352Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=UCGal]Allan, even Markos Moulitsas (sp?) the founder of dailykos, recently published a diary that questioned what the heck Obama was doing.
That particular column was referring to politics, not policies. But he (Obama) gets plenty of criticism for policy too at that site. Markos even mentions the call to primary him. Fact is, republicans are much better at politics, democrats are a miserable failure at messaging. Particularly Obama. But despite that failure, the electorate still dislikes democrats a bit less than they dislike republicans. Funny that.[/quote]
SK: Two things sort of spring to mind, reading your response. First, Obama is one of the best orators to occupy the White House in quite some time, so doesn’t the “bad messaging” narrative strike you as somewhat ironic?
Second, given that the GOP is largely lunatic at this point, and in the thrall of the more reactionary elements of the party, doesn’t saying that the electorate “dislikes democrats a bit less” sort of sound like saying “the electorate dislikes Stalin a bit less than Hitler”? I’m obviously being a little glib here, but you hopefully take my point.
The people casting barbs at Obama right now are not doing so from Commentary or the Weekly Standard or National Review. They are from traditional Liberal and Center-Left (or strongly Left) publications like The Nation and the NYT and, as UCGal pointed out, DailyKos. When the DailyKos starts talking about a 2012 Dem primary challenge, you know you’re in trouble.
Riffing a little on the debate you and EconProf have going on another thread: This is a crisis of leadership and confidence. In line with FDR’s speech about fear (“the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself”), this country is desperate for decisive leadership right now. As Tomasky opines in his piece, Obama appears adrift and the victim of circumstances. A bad position to be in, and one cured with a vigorous application of boldness. Akin to John Belushi’s rousing speech towards the end of “Animal House” (“was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!”), Obama needs to come up with something quick, or we’ll wind up electing another wild-eyed Texan…
September 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM #728353ParticipantAllan, in order:
Agree. He’s a phenomenal campaigner. I can only think of a couple times I’ve seen that guy since the election.
Agree. It’s like choosing between Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Charlie: Idiot savant or just idiot. Emilio: who?
Agree. Though in fairness, it isn’t the front pagers at Dkos, they’re all about electing Democrats. But they allow anyone to post about almost anything. And some of them, as a Fox News guy once described a dear friend whose since been banned there, live out where the buses don’t run. (Funny aside here, I just googled that phrase, and it’s attributed to a Miami Vice episode and more recently, a 2009 statement by Brit Hume about someone. But John Gibson, at least 2 years earlier, used it to describe my blogger buddy.)
Agreed. I see it more as a failure in leadership style than a failure in leadership. His style might have worked in a different time. Not now. He’s more concerned with making deals than with policy goals. But whether by ignorance or malevolence, it doesn’t matter. He’s failed.
September 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM #728356Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Agreed. I see it more as a failure in leadership style than a failure in leadership. His style might have worked in a different time. Not now. He’s more concerned with making deals than with policy goals. But whether by ignorance or malevolence, it doesn’t matter. He’s failed.[/quote]SK: From one old soldier to another, leadership matters and, in some instances, its the only thing between complete success and catastrophic failure (as we used to say in Rangers, “sometimes you gotta fake it till you make it” and its corollary: “Leadership is the ability to hide your panic from others”).
This is where someone like Hillary Clinton might’ve been a better choice, especially when facing an intractable and intransigent group like the GOP in Congress. Its also where her remark about that “3:00 am phone call” might have been eerily prescient. I don’t like the Clintons or their politics, but I respect Hillary’s ruthlessness and feel she would’ve probably made short work of a tired old party hack like Boehner.
The GOP smells blood in the water and, unless Obama decides to take the fight to them, he’s toast. What’s often omitted in political biographies about FDR and LBJ is that they were tough sons-a-bitches. Whether its FDR “welcoming their rage” or LBJ twisting arms and thumping heads to get legislation passed, they knew both the game and the stakes. Oppositional politics and dirty tricks are nothing new, and for Obama to cry foul exposes him as a naif in the company of wolves.
P.S. Congrats on your daughter and med school. That’s good stuff. And, self-deprecation aside, you do get credit for that. Kids don’t just fall out of bed and raise themselves.
September 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM #728368briansd1
GuestAllan, do you want Obama or a wild-eyed Texan? Honestly, which one is better for the country?
As Paul Gigot said, does Obama want an election issue, or does he want to get something done with Congress?
I have a feeling that whatever Obama does, he’ll lose/lose in your eyes.
Interesting dicussion on Meet The Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/44391320#44391623I think that Tom Friedman has is right on the economy.
September 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM #728369Participant[quote=briansd1]Allan, do you want Obama or a wild-eyed Texan? Honestly, which one is better for the country?
As Paul Gigot said, does Obama want an election issue, or does he want to get something done with Congress?
I have a feeling that whatever Obama does, he’ll lose/lose in your eyes.
Interesting dicussion on Meet The Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/44391320#44391623I think that Tom Friedman has is right on the economy.[/quote]
Brian: Just to be clear from the jump, Tom Friedman is an idiot. How this guy has kept his job is a constant source of amazement to me.
As to the Obama lose/lose proposition: Not at all. I’ve gotten the same pushback from pri on this (phrased as my “hating” on Obama) and nothing is further from the truth. I find the guy personally likeable, just in WAY over his head, the way Dubya was (and we all saw how THAT worked out).
I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, Obama has lost the handle. When a leader loses confidence to this degree, its generally irreversible. I don’t see how a second Obama term will make anything better, either. As I said in an earlier post, Carter had begun to figure things out at the end of his first term, but faced the same terminal decline in terms of voter confidence and thus the Reagan victory. You might hate Perry, but he’s exuding confidence and vigor and the electorate is looking for alternative (just the way they were in 2008, when the country was tired of Dubya and dispirited after two terms).
Unless and until Obama decides to go all “Street Fighting Man” on the GOP, his future doesn’t look all too bright.
September 4, 2011 at 11:37 PM #728372Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Brian: Just to be clear from the jump, Tom Friedman is an idiot. How this guy has kept his job is a constant source of amazement to me.
[/quote]His connections and his very wealthy wife?
BTW, I’m with walter. If I had kids, I’d want to teach them to marry real wealth also.
September 23, 2011 at 12:05 PM #729707Zeitgeist
ParticipantThis includes part of Bush’s presidency which is no great surprise. This is more of Washington incompetence: “WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government has doled out more than $600 million in benefit payments to dead people over the past five years, a watchdog report says. Such payments are meant for retired or disabled federal workers, but sometimes the checks keep going out even after the former employees pass away and the deaths are not reported, according to the report this week from the Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general, Patrick McFarland.”
October 21, 2011 at 4:44 PM #731126GuestInteresting opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times:
On the foreign-policy front, the administration has had a string of successes: Osama bin Laden killed; major Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen killed; and this week, of course, Moammar Kadafi killed.
And on Friday, the president announced that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year’s end.
An unpopular war will be officially over for us soon. Terrorists and terrorist groups that threaten us are dead or on the run. Libya’s longtime strongman has been overthrown, thanks in part to Obama’s policy that had the U.S. and NATO working together.
October 21, 2011 at 5:19 PM #731129all
ParticipantIt’s kind of sad that success of foreign policy is measured by number of people killed, while China is buying goodwill and building and funding schools in Africa.
October 22, 2011 at 8:08 AM #731148DomoArigato
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] You might hate Perry, but he’s exuding confidence and vigor
[/quote]LMFAO! This has got to be one of the most retarded posts ever on this board. Rick Perry has been exuding idiocy and ineptitude in every debate he’s been in. Mitt Romney (Obamacare architect) has taken Perry to the woodshed in every debate.
If you really believe that the country is going to vote for another idiot from Texas you should load up on Perry at Intrade.com. They’re only giving him a 14% chance.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
October 23, 2011 at 6:03 PM #731204Anonymous
Guest[quote=DomoArigato][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] You might hate Perry, but he’s exuding confidence and vigor
[/quote]LMFAO! This has got to be one of the most retarded posts ever on this board. Rick Perry has been exuding idiocy and ineptitude in every debate he’s been in. Mitt Romney (Obamacare architect) has taken Perry to the woodshed in every debate.
[…][/quote]
To be fair to Allan, that quote was from an old post.
But it’s true that Perry fizzled quickly. It is clear now, especially in hindsight, the “confidence and vigor” that Perry had was never really there in the first place. He was built up by the media to create interest and to make the race appear more interesting. They did the same with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and attempted it with Christie. Problem is, they’re quickly running out of candidates with a “story.”
The theme for this election’s Republican race is irony. Romney is the only one that has the credentials to win the center in the general election, but the Republican base won’t and can’t get behind him because of Romneycare and because of his religion (which is Christian, but not according to the fundamentalists!)
It’s looking like Romney will get the nomination. It’s now down to him and Cain, and even “tax-the-poor” Republicans know that “999” and Cain’s other gimmicks would be a complete fiasco.
If Romney is the nominee, we will see unprecedented levels of bizarre verbal gymnastics as Fox, Limbaugh, and company attempt to rationalize their support for a global-warming acknowledging Harvard lawyer who implemented a popular government healthcare system but now wants to completely dismantle a similar system because it benefits the entire nation.
They’re gonna have to rewrite history quick. Good thing they have plenty of practice!
Oceania is at war with Eurasia; Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
October 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM #731694Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Obama is the kiss of death to business: “A California solar panel manufacturer which President Obama had made the poster child of his effort to expand the green economy and grow jobs has filed for bankruptcy, the company announced today.”
Another company that to bring broadband to rural areas just folded.
Broadband company’s demise puts taxpayers on hook for $74 million loan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/broadband-companys-demise-puts-taxpayers-on-hook-for-74-million-loan/2011/10/20/gIQAN85FKM_story.html?tid=wp_ipadI really wish the government would get out of telling business where to operate.
If business can’t make decent profit in less populated area, then they people simply need do without. Dial-up worked fine for years. Rural folks just need to be content with that.
No cell phone service? They can always send a bird messenger. Aren’t there plenty of birds in the countryside?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.