News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[mege]

President Obama made a prime time speech on 7/25/11 regarding the national debt and need to increase the debt ceiling - followed by a response by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After failing to reach a deal with the Speaker in the previous week, I'm not the only one who noticed he didn't threaten to VETO the Bill that comes out of Congress - now that Boehner and Senate leader Harry Reid are negotiating.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusi...er-debt-crisis-obama-stays-mum-043411132.html

"Washington may have become, as President Obama said on Monday, a place where "compromise has become a dirty word," but in the context of the menacing debt-limit crisis there was a far dirtier word he didn't utter.
Veto."

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

"Compromise from thee, but not from me!"

 

[Char. Limit]

President Obama made a prime time speech on 7/25/11 regarding the national debt and need to increase the debt ceiling - followed by a response by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After failing to reach a deal with the Speaker in the previous week, I'm not the only one who noticed he didn't threaten to VETO the Bill that comes out of Congress - now that Boehner and Senate leader Harry Reid are negotiating.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusi...er-debt-crisis-obama-stays-mum-043411132.html

"Washington may have become, as President Obama said on Monday, a place where "compromise has become a dirty word," but in the context of the menacing debt-limit crisis there was a far dirtier word he didn't utter.
Veto."

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

 

[BobG]

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

Or maybe he knows there's almost no chance of a bill being placed on his desk for him to veto. I don't think Boehner's close to a point where he could deliver on a promise to place a bill on the President's desk. Even if he gets a bill House Republicans could support, it will get gutted in the Senate - and then back to the House - and then back to the Senate, etc.

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

 

[WhoWee]

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

Leaders lead - we don't need any more scare tactics or bluffs.

 

[Char. Limit]

Leaders lead - we don't need any more scare tactics or bluffs.

Then you should be glad that Obama isn't threatening to veto - that's both a scare tactic and a bluff.

 

[WhoWee]

Or maybe he knows there's almost no chance of a bill being placed on his desk for him to veto. I don't think Boehner's close to a point where he could deliver on a promise to place a bill on the President's desk. Even if he gets a bill House Republicans could support, it will get gutted in the Senate - and then back to the House - and then back to the Senate, etc.

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

Thus far, the House is the only body that has actually passed anything? As for the Senate - Harry Reid will find a way to work with the Republicans - he doesn't want default laid at his feet. On the other hand, if he blocks all Republican legislation - he could set President Obama up for an end run with the 14th - couldn't he?

IMO - the President knows that might just move the House to start Impeachment proceedings - my money is on Harry Reid finding a way to agree and the President signing (and trying to take credit).

 

[mege]

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

 

[lisab]

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

Except the third party isn't major, and won't compromise. Really, they're just playing the role of spoiler.

 

[Char. Limit]

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

We'd like a major political party that knows the meaning of "you can't always get what you want".

 

[daveb]

We'd like a major political party that knows the meaning of "you can't always get what you want".

Maybe they're thinking that if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need

 

[Char. Limit]

Maybe they're thinking that if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need

You win an internets!

 

[Astronuc]

Step aside!

Make way for EVO!

 

[BobG]

I think this is an interesting time for Obama.

Just looking at recent Presidents, their term usually had some key moment that defined their Presidency.

In Reagan's case, he was a very good President, but had great leadership qualities that gave enough room and flexibility so that his key moments only affected his thinking - it didn't affect how his Presidency was defined.

In Bush 41's case, he was a very good President, with less leadership qualities and his defining moment came at a very bad time - in the middle of his re-election campaign. So he didn't really have a defining moment - just a moment that ended his Presidency. Even good Presidents can be undone if they don't have the whole package.

In Clinton and Bush 43's case, neither were very good Presidents when they took office.

Within a year, Clinton's Presidency was dead in the water. And then he became better. Overall, he wound up probably slightly above average if you just look at his Presidential accomplishments and not at his 'personal' accomplishments.

Bush 43 had a lot of momentum from the post-911 reaction, so he just ignored his key moments. His Presidency just got worse and worse. Eventually, he started to become better, but by that time it was way too late and way too little and we saw the results of that in the 2006 and the 2008 elections.

I think it has to be said that the worries of putting someone with as little experience as Obama were justified. He wasn't a very good President when he came into office. He proves Bush 43 was no fluke.

So far, his reaction to his first key moment (the economic crisis he inherited from Bush) was very similar to Bush's. His attitude is that a great President doesn't let external events derail him from accomplishing the things he set out to do. In Obama's case, that attitude is a little more justified because it's an economic crisis. Presidents just don't make or break an economic recovery, while Bush applied his attitude to issues he really did control. Obama put out an economic stimulus plan that had some things in it to stimulate the economy - but most of it promoted his plans to reform health care. That's a good Presidential move if the economy recovers. It looks like the plan helped the economy, but more importantly, it advanced his goals for his Presidency. But if the economy doesn't improve, then it looks as blindly oblivious and as arrogant as Bush's responses to his key moments were.

We'll see what happens with this key moment - the debt ceiling increase. Obama really hasn't had any adequate response to this and I think it puts him in the same situation Clinton was in his first term. Either Obama turns the corner and gets better very quickly, or he "stays the course" no matter how far down it drags him, or he just wallows the way Jimmy Carter wallowed, with the events of his time just pushing him about.

Or House Republicans bail him out of this crisis by looking even worse than him - but I don't think that's the same as making Obama look good. I think he needs to make some serious adjustments regardless of what Republicans do with this.

 

[WhoWee]

We'll see what happens with this key moment - the debt ceiling increase. Obama really hasn't had any adequate response to this and I think it puts him in the same situation Clinton was in his first term. Either Obama turns the corner and gets better very quickly, or he "stays the course" no matter how far down it drags him, or he just wallows the way Jimmy Carter wallowed, with the events of his time just pushing him about.

Or House Republicans bail him out of this crisis by looking even worse than him - but I don't think that's the same as making Obama look good. I think he needs to make some serious adjustments regardless of what Republicans do with this.

I think the key item is the length of the extension - extending beyond the election is a big win for the President - a six month extension will hurt his re-election efforts.

I watched Laura Ingraham, a Conservative, last evening - guest host on the "Factor". She cited several Conservatives and a few Tea Party Reps that want to take a deal while they are ahead. Her comment (to the Tea Party House members) was to take the win and go back home to explain the results. She specified by electing the small group progress was possible - if voters want bigger change - elect more Conservatives. That approach could help redeem the Republicans - but not necessarily hurt the President.

 

[BobG]

I watched Laura Ingraham, a Conservative, last evening - guest host on the "Factor". She cited several Conservatives and a few Tea Party Reps that want to take a deal while they are ahead. Her comment (to the Tea Party House members) was to take the win and go back home to explain the results. She specified by electing the small group progress was possible - if voters want bigger change - elect more Conservatives. That approach could help redeem the Republicans - but not necessarily hurt the President.

Wow! I haven't actually listened to Laura Ingraham in years, so I don't know what her position has been lately, but if my general impression of her is still correct, wouldn't you think the Tea Party folks would at least have a clue they might be overplaying their hand just a bit?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow! I haven't actually listened to Laura Ingraham in years, so I don't know what her position has been lately, but if my general impression of her is still correct, wouldn't you think the Tea Party folks would at least have a clue they might be overplaying their hand just a bit?

The Republicans have clearly mismanaged their momentum after the 2010 election. Hopefully the freshman House members will step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

[mege]

The Republicans have clearly mismanaged their momentum after the 2010 election. Hopefully the freshman House members will step back and look at the bigger picture.

I agree with this to a certain extent. The perception of mismanagement is being exploited by the Democrats (and the President) whom are putting them in positions specifically to fail politically. While many of the TEA Party members have great ideas and heart, they're bad politicians.

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree with this to a certain extent. The perception of mismanagement is being exploited by the Democrats (and the President) whom are putting them in positions specifically to fail politically. While many of the TEA Party members have great ideas and heart, they're bad politicians.

I think it's better to say that they're NOT politicians, which ironically enough is the exact reason they got elected in the first place.

 

[WhoWee]

I think it's better to say that they're NOT politicians, which ironically enough is the exact reason they got elected in the first place.

I think it's a good thing - to send people who are not career politicians. However, there is a learning curve and voters must also understand gradual change is still change.

 

[BobG]

I think it's a good thing - to send people who are not career politicians. However, there is a learning curve and voters must also understand gradual change is still change.

How is that a good thing? You want amateurs to plan the US government's economy?

Do you go to someone who's not a career stock broker for your investment advice?

Part of the rationale of a representative democracy is that you elect someone with expertise to devote all of their time to running the government instead of something like a direct democracy where you'd have to vote on these individual bills and you'd have to find the time to research all of these issues in your spare time.

Aside from that, how do you know that they're not career politicians. Every Congressman had to start somewhere with no experience. If they were good enough to get re-elected, then they became career politicians. If they weren't, they had to give up politics and go into some other career.

In other words, you don't know whether they're career politicians until they've had a chance to show how competent or incompetent they were. Non-career politician is just one that was really bad at his job.

Being a freshman Congressman is no sin. But, usually, a freshman Congressman tries to learn the ropes before deciding they're qualified to take control of Congress.

 

[WhoWee]

How is that a good thing? You want amateurs to plan the US government's economy?

Do you go to someone who's not a career stock broker for your investment advice?

Part of the rationale of a representative democracy is that you elect someone with expertise to devote all of their time to running the government instead of something like a direct democracy where you'd have to vote on these individual bills and you'd have to find the time to research all of these issues in your spare time.

Aside from that, how do you know that they're not career politicians. Every Congressman had to start somewhere with no experience. If they were good enough to get re-elected, then they became career politicians. If they weren't, they had to give up politics and go into some other career.

In other words, you don't know whether they're career politicians until they've had a chance to show how competent or incompetent they were. Non-career politician is just one that was really bad at his job.

Being a freshman Congressman is no sin. But, usually, a freshman Congressman tries to learn the ropes before deciding they're qualified to take control of Congress.

Are the freshman Congress members planning the US Government's economy - or trying to figure out how to pay the bills left over by the former Congress?

The results of the 2010 election were very clear - they were sent to Washington to cut spending. Now, they need to learn when to take a win and move on to the next battle.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama Strategy for 2012

Offer the tea party $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next ten years, with as much as a 4:1 spending-cuts-to-tax-increase ratio, and wait for them to refuse. Then make it clear to everyone in 2012 that the tea party refused to cut $4 trillion in debt, much more than we will actually get now, because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama Strategy for 2012

Offer the tea party $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next ten years, with as much as a 4:1 spending-cuts-to-tax-increase ratio, and wait for them to refuse. Then make it clear to everyone in 2012 that the tea party refused to cut $4 trillion in debt, much more than we will actually get now, because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

Dare to dream.

 

[Vanadium 50]

because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

And, just FYI, the net worth of the US's ~500 billionaires is $1.2T. The deficit for this year is $1.6T. Even if the government confiscated everything they own - I'm talking wealth, not just income - it wouldn't close the budget gap. This is not a statement about right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative or GOP vs. Democrat. It's just arithmetic.

 

[BobG]

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

Yeah, that was getting to me, too. I think the idea was to increase taxes for people making as little as $250,000 a year. But Ivan's estimate only looks 3.6 times too large if you plot it on a logarithmic scale.

 

[WhoWee]

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

The President pushed all of his programs through when he had a majority. Could it also be argued that now it's time to undo the harm he has done - which keeps the Tea Party relevant?

Actually, I think the President needs an active Tea Party to rally his base.

 

[BobG]

Actually, I think the President needs an active Tea Party to rally his base.

This is a good point. The Tea Party could even rally independents and moderates.

Certainly part of the calculations is the fact that the party of the winning candidate usually does very good. That means if the Tea Party can damage Obama's election hopes, they mitigate any damage they cause to themselves along the way.

I don't think they'll eliminate it completely. In fact, they could wind up suffering more damage from the debt ceiling debate than Obama (especially if the economy recovers and jobless rates fall). Obama leaves this with a perception that he lacks leadership, but that also makes his role in this debacle very forgettable. The Tea Party left a pretty memorable impression.

 

[Char. Limit]

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

Whether there is one or not, I'd be willing to bet that we WILL hear such rhetoric from at least one prominent Democratic candidate. So really, if Ivan is speaking in terms of potential Democratic rhetoric, he's perfectly valid.

 

[russ_watters]

The President pushed all of his programs through when he had a majority.

No, WhoWee, I think what Ivan is trying to say is that a 1st term president, such as Obama, is motivated primarily by trying to get re-elected and therefore saves the important work for the second term. So Obama focused on the unimportant but politically hot tasks of attempting healtchare reform, attempting to fix the economy without bankrupting us, and halfheartedlly starting a new war in the Middle East in his first term. Perhaps in his second term, he'll takle the more important tasks of healthcare reform, fixing the economy without bankrupting us and starting a new war in the Middle East?

Pointed sarcasm aside, if ever a new President had an opportunity to implement his vision of "change", Obama had it. It's gone for good now and if he squandered it then in favor of playing re-election politics as soon as he got into office, as Ivan suggests, then few presidents have ever been more deserving of being voted out than Obama.

Obama has expressed admiration for Reagan. Reagan was a leader in a time that required one and he siezed his mandate for change. Obama came into power at a similar time, under a similar mandate, and by Ivan's tacit acknowledgment, has not done so effectively.

I think as time passes, Obama's strategy options become tougher and tougher to sell and - like the one we saw above - will require selling bigger and bigger lies.

 

[WhoWee]

No, WhoWee, I think what Ivan is trying to say is that a 1st term president, such as Obama, is motivated primarily by trying to get re-elected and therefore saves the important work for the second term. So Obama focused on the unimportant but politically hot tasks of attempting healtchare reform, attempting to fix the economy without bankrupting us, and halfheartedlly starting a new war in the Middle East in his first term. Perhaps in his second term, he'll takle the more important tasks of healthcare reform, fixing the economy without bankrupting us and starting a new war in the Middle East?

Pointed sarcasm aside, if ever a new President had an opportunity to implement his vision of "change", Obama had it. It's gone for good now and if he squandered it then in favor of playing re-election politics as soon as he got into office, as Ivan suggests, then few presidents have ever been more deserving of being voted out than Obama.

Obama has expressed admiration for Reagan. Reagan was a leader in a time that required one and he siezed his mandate for change. Obama came into power at a similar time, under a similar mandate, and by Ivan's tacit acknowledgment, has not done so effectively.

I think as time passes, Obama's strategy options become tougher and tougher to sell and - like the one we saw above - will require selling bigger and bigger lies.

IMO - Harry Reid hand picked then Senator Obama, and worked with the Left to get him elected. Once elected, Harry Reid teamed up with Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders and pushed through as much as they could - their agenda was more important to them than the President's re-election prospects at that time. As the dust continues to settle - Harry Reid's speech on the floor today (before the debt deal vote) tells me his "jobs" initiatives will be designed to carry the President forward and champion Harry's next attempt at stimulus. Again all of this is IMO - to summarize (whether he knew it or not) the President was expendable to the Congressional Democrat leaders at the start of his term.