Obama, intellectual or empty suit?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
And if you’re arguing that I’m repeating right wing talking points, eh….whatever. Politically, i’m somewhere to the south and left of gandhi. But I don’t let other’s ideologies get in the way of facts.[/quote]

SK: The idea that you, of all people, would be repeating right-wing talking points made my weekend. Hopefully, you took the good Mr. Ogre’s “stern” talking-to heart, and you’ll be more careful in the future about not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

I’m sure the rhetoric is going to ratchet up even further as Election Day approaches, with idiots from both sides peddling their version of the truth on this board.

I don’t know if you caught Obama on The Tonight Show, but I thought he comported himself well and is smartly using his bully pulpit to disseminate his message. With the craziness on the GOP side, the Republicans are essentially ceding the election to Obama.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’m sure the rhetoric is going to ratchet up even further as Election Day approaches, with idiots from both sides peddling their version of the truth on this board.

I don’t know if you caught Obama on The Tonight Show, but I thought he comported himself well and is smartly using his bully pulpit to disseminate his message. With the craziness on the GOP side, the Republicans are essentially ceding the election to Obama.[/quote]

The adventures in GOP land have been truly mind boggling. There were two candidates that I thought might be competitive in the general, and it’s now down to one, and Romney may not even get the nomination. And if he does, Obama can thank his opponents for testing every bit of op research.

Had I been both prescient and nice, I would have warned the Republican party elite to be careful of what they wish for. Sadly for them, I am neither. They are likely to end up with a candidate that they don’t much like, or a candidate that nobody outside of their base constituency likes. Either way, not a good sign for down ticket support. A slow and consistent uptick in consumer confidence over the next 9 months (that has apparently already started) could make it a landslide.

And I don’t know if that’s good or bad. (But an Obama administration without Tim Geithner would definitely be an improvement.)

[SD Realtor]

Hey SK I knew I saw you at one of those tea parties…

I agree with Allan SK… You being pegged for spouting right wing party rhetoric was the best post on this site for months.

Pretty good analysis as well… cannot disagree with you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
And I don’t know if that’s good or bad. (But an Obama administration without Tim Geithner would definitely be an improvement.)[/quote]

SK: I think an Obama 2nd term would be the best thing to happen to the GOP and not for the reasons you might imagine. The GOP has been in the wilderness for a while now and there is a war going on for the soul of the party. Obama being re-elected would force the party to confront the elements that have radicalized it and drive them back to the fringe, where they belong.

I think there would be something of a reckoning on the Dem side as well, and largely for the same reasons. We could return to those working coalitions of the past and actually get some friggin’ work done on Capitol Hill.

Definitely gonna be an interesting year, anyway you cut it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: I think an Obama 2nd term would be the best thing to happen to the GOP and not for the reasons you might imagine. The GOP has been in the wilderness for a while now and there is a war going on for the soul of the party. Obama being re-elected would force the party to confront the elements that have radicalized it and drive them back to the fringe, where they belong.

I think there would be something of a reckoning on the Dem side as well, and largely for the same reasons. We could return to those working coalitions of the past and actually get some friggin’ work done on Capitol Hill.

Definitely gonna be an interesting year, anyway you cut it.[/quote]

I’ll be really surprised if an Obama re-election accomplishes what you hope it will. I suspect the GOP will continue to double down, despite what they might learn. Grover Norquist isn’t going anywhere. And I doubt they will eliminate the religous right influence. They will never figure out that eliminating women’s right to privacy does not create jobs. I could be wrong. I hope I am.

I kinda disagree with you on the Dem side. Republican voters elected dozens from the fringe. Dems never did that. There were three in the last congress that I thought were liberal across the board. All three are gone. One lost, one chose not to run in 2010 and the other one flashed his namesake. Bernie Sanders is it, and he’s not even a Democrat. If Bob Filner ever said anything, I might include him. (I may be forgetting someone. But that’s how slim the pickings are.) Will Rogers was right with what he said about the Democrats almost 80 years ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Will Rogers was right with what he said about the Democrats almost 80 years ago.[/quote]

SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. Perhaps “radicalized” is too strong a term. Both the Dems and the GOP have completely misunderstood these voter shifts as a “mandate”, when it’s clearly been more frustration and dissatisfaction with both parties.

While Brian might wish for a massive change that sweeps the Dems into power across the board for the next 40 years, the demographics and re-districting changes suggest more of an ebb-and-flow between the parties, which at some point should lead to more moderacy and working together.

I do believe that the religious right is on the wane (there was an excellent article in The New Republic on this) and as to Grover Norquist: Politicians exist to get re-elected and anything that gets in the way of that… (witness the GOP’ers trying to “un-sign” the Norquist pledge).

“Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. [/quote]

I have no idea what was the least bit radical about Obama in 2008. He ran a pretty centrist democratic campaign, policy wise. No more than slightly left of center. His policies since then have matched his campaign, if anything moved further to the center. The only thing radical about his campaign was his rhetoric about changing the process. He underestimated the opposition party resolve to not allow any successes willingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. [/quote]

I have no idea what was the least bit radical about Obama in 2008. He ran a pretty centrist democratic campaign, policy wise. No more than slightly left of center. His policies since then have matched his campaign, if anything moved further to the center. The only thing radical about his campaign was his rhetoric about changing the process. He underestimated the opposition party resolve to not allow any successes willingly.[/quote]

SK: I wasn’t referring to Obama in the 2008 campaign as being radical (he wasn’t); I was referring to his election as voter repudiation of the GOP (which had become reactionary), which the Dems mistook as more of a sweeping mandate than it actually was. The 2010 mid-terms were also mistakenly interpreted by the GOP as a mandate instead of continuing voter frustration/dissatisfaction with the status quo ante (as it became apparent that “business as usual” was still the norm, two years into a supposedly “transformational” presidency).

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. [/quote]

I have no idea what was the least bit radical about Obama in 2008. He ran a pretty centrist democratic campaign, policy wise. No more than slightly left of center. His policies since then have matched his campaign, if anything moved further to the center. The only thing radical about his campaign was his rhetoric about changing the process. He underestimated the opposition party resolve to not allow any successes willingly.[/quote]

SK: I wasn’t referring to Obama in the 2008 campaign as being radical (he wasn’t); I was referring to his election as voter repudiation of the GOP (which had become reactionary), which the Dems mistook as more of a sweeping mandate than it actually was. The 2010 mid-terms were also mistakenly interpreted by the GOP as a mandate instead of continuing voter frustration/dissatisfaction with the status quo ante (as it became apparent that “business as usual” was still the norm, two years into a supposedly “transformational” presidency).[/quote]

Agreed. The frustration it caused me, was that they (congress and the admninstration) talked about it as a mandate, but then did nothing to exploit that mandate (whether real or imagined). That’s an exaggeration, they’ve actually done quite a bit, particularly at the executive level. But none of what they did was radical. Little steps. Eliminating DADT was a big deal. But it wasn’t radical. The time was right. Repealing DOMA? That would have been bigger, and more of what I was hoping for. But they’re Democrats. They suck at the political process.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: I’ll preface what I’m about to say by admitting I’m not so hot at political prognostications, but I’d be frankly stunned if Obama fails to win re-election. Paradoxically, the GOP noise machine has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a Republican presidency in 2012, but the putative nominees have completely squandered any chance of this happening as they’ve self-immolated on national TV.

So Obama gets another bite at the apple, and I believe we’ll experience more of the same (2nd terms rarely outperform 1st terms, as measured by results), hopefully leading back to a more moderate stance within the GOP. The key word is “hopefully” and I’ll freely admit to being somewhat Pollyanna about this. I’d also like to see someone like Huntsman win election in 2016, but let’s not go crazy, right?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I’ll preface what I’m about to say by admitting I’m not so hot at political prognostications, but I’d be frankly stunned if Obama fails to win re-election. Paradoxically, the GOP noise machine has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a Republican presidency in 2012, but the putative nominees have completely squandered any chance of this happening as they’ve self-immolated on national TV.

So Obama gets another bite at the apple, and I believe we’ll experience more of the same (2nd terms rarely outperform 1st terms, as measured by results), hopefully leading back to a more moderate stance within the GOP. The key word is “hopefully” and I’ll freely admit to being somewhat Pollyanna about this. I’d also like to see someone like Huntsman win election in 2016, but let’s not go crazy, right?[/quote]

Someone like Huntsman? I hope someone like him emerges over the next 4 years. I like the guy. I disagree with him on a whole lot, but I think he’s pragmatic and has his eye on the right target. I never got the sense from him that it was party over policy. He added a bit of campaign rhetoric the last month he was still in it that I’m willing to give him a pass on. (I think he really does believe in science, but the constituency he was going after doesn’t, so he had to adapt.)

The problem he has is lack of spark. I’m not sure that can be learned. So I doubt it will be him. Maybe another governor. Congress tends to warp people that are there too long.

I have a friend who’s a producer for Fox radio in NY. Very conservative guy. Kind of a logical modern conservative. Has no problem with gay marriage. Thinks the republican war on women is stupid. His life is politics. I’ve asked him a few times what an electable republican presidential candidate looks like. He can’t even describe one. He would have loved Huntsman, but freely admits that the current party dynamics make it impossible for someone like Huntsman to ever get any broad support. He thought Romney was electable a month ago, but no longer. And pretty much like me, he has no idea what President Romney would look like, so he wasn’t all that keen on the idea.

So his wishful thinking is pretty much the same as yours, though he hasn’t a clue how his party can get from here to there. Unlike the Dems, the fringe, from the religious right to the tea party, to the Koch brothers/Karl Rove wing, can’t acknowledge real politics and continue to carry too much influence. The dems are too disorganized to get anything done, and the republicans too organized to adapt. No matter what your perception of progress, it may be an impossible goal.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I’ll preface what I’m about to say by admitting I’m not so hot at political prognostications, but I’d be frankly stunned if Obama fails to win re-election. Paradoxically, the GOP noise machine has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a Republican presidency in 2012, but the putative nominees have completely squandered any chance of this happening as they’ve self-immolated on national TV.

So Obama gets another bite at the apple, and I believe we’ll experience more of the same (2nd terms rarely outperform 1st terms, as measured by results), hopefully leading back to a more moderate stance within the GOP. The key word is “hopefully” and I’ll freely admit to being somewhat Pollyanna about this. I’d also like to see someone like Huntsman win election in 2016, but let’s not go crazy, right?[/quote]

Someone like Huntsman? I hope someone like him emerges over the next 4 years. I like the guy. I disagree with him on a whole lot, but I think he’s pragmatic and has his eye on the right target. I never got the sense from him that it was party over policy. He added a bit of campaign rhetoric the last month he was still in it that I’m willing to give him a pass on. (I think he really does believe in science, but the constituency he was going after doesn’t, so he had to adapt.)

The problem he has is lack of spark. I’m not sure that can be learned. So I doubt it will be him. Maybe another governor. Congress tends to warp people that are there too long.

I have a friend who’s a producer for Fox radio in NY. Very conservative guy. Kind of a logical modern conservative. Has no problem with gay marriage. Thinks the republican war on women is stupid. His life is politics. I’ve asked him a few times what an electable republican presidential candidate looks like. He can’t even describe one. He would have loved Huntsman, but freely admits that the current party dynamics make it impossible for someone like Huntsman to ever get any broad support. He thought Romney was electable a month ago, but no longer. And pretty much like me, he has no idea what President Romney would look like, so he wasn’t all that keen on the idea.

So his wishful thinking is pretty much the same as yours, though he hasn’t a clue how his party can get from here to there. Unlike the Dems, the fringe, from the religious right to the tea party, to the Koch brothers/Karl Rove wing, can’t acknowledge real politics and continue to carry too much influence. The dems are too disorganized to get anything done, and the republicans too organized to adapt. No matter what your perception of progress, it may be an impossible goal.[/quote]

I’d like to hear Huntsman’s platform. He never mentioned it anywhere during this election. I’m not sure how you can support a guy who really hasn’t established a platform. Do you like him because he talks smoothly and looks respectable? We’ve been tricked by that many times before!

[briansd1]

As far as mandate is concerned, I beg to differ with you Allan.

Obama had a mandate to achieve more, such as real financial reform and real health care reform. I believe that, had he seized the moment after his election, he could have done a lot more. But he let the opportunity pass and he allowed Republican obstruction to build.

Either way, the Democrats would have lost the House in the midterms anyway, so, IMO, Obama wasted his political capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]

I’d like to hear Huntsman’s platform. He never mentioned it anywhere during this election. I’m not sure how you can support a guy who really hasn’t established a platform. Do you like him because he talks smoothly and looks respectable? We’ve been tricked by that many times before![/quote]

Just because you never made the effort to find it, doesn’t mean he didn’t have one. He did.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]As far as mandate is concerned, I beg to differ with you Allan.

Obama had a mandate to achieve more, such as real financial reform and real health care reform. I believe that, had he seized the moment after his election, he could have done a lot more. But he let the opportunity pass and he allowed Republican obstruction to build.

Either way, the Democrats would have lost the House in the midterms anyway, so, IMO, Obama wasted his political capital.[/quote]

Brian: What you’ve written begs the obvious question: If Obama misread or misunderstood his mandate (and he clearly held the whip hand with majorities in the House and Senate at the outset), how on earth is a 2nd Obama term going to be better?

I’m sure you’ve noticed that “Grand” Obama (i.e. the one who brought forth landmark/legacy legislation) has been gradually replaced by “Small Ball” Obama recently.

I’m asking the question somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I want to see you put it in writing. As my grandma would ask: “Was nun?” (What now?)

[Author]

Posts