tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post7957989008346127882..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Liberal Reagan -- notAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-5812393805136009462010-11-08T14:10:03.449-05:002010-11-08T14:10:03.449-05:00"I suppose being on the receiving end of the ..."I suppose being on the receiving end of the most devastating midterm loss (in the House, at least) since WW2 was all part of the plan."<br /><br />Not part of the plan, but unavoidable with the economy the way it is. Unless you're one of the few geniuses who think that 300 billion more in stimulus would have by now turned around a 14.3 TRILLION dollar economy. <br /><br />Obama's quick career rise and 2008 tell us that your comment "He has no idea what he is doing" is not based in reality. Good politics doesn't mean winning all the time. It means doing the best you can with the circumstances that you have. <br /><br />If the economy is going to sink the congressional gains you made anyway, what good is throwing away your strength just so that liberals will feel better about themselves? That sounds distinctly like the neocon arguments of why we should be in Iraq forever. To show how tough we are. Yeah, that's productive. <br /><br />To the other "anon," Obama didn't fight for heath care? The passage of that bill benefited him, but no one else? On what planet? Just because some of you liberals live in Candyland where the President need only use the bully pulpit and the votes for a public option will magically appear doesn't make it so. <br /><br />What I wrote was merely the idea that what Mr. Sprung is arguing for is not a politically sound strategy. Nothing more.Ted Vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-60050600448529086512010-11-08T14:07:16.764-05:002010-11-08T14:07:16.764-05:00Check this out-
http://whatinthefuckhasobamadones...Check this out-<br /><br />http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756406849586235665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-52819957549311983442010-11-08T13:25:32.915-05:002010-11-08T13:25:32.915-05:00I don't see why you see fit to compare Reagan ...I don't see why you see fit to compare Reagan in January of 83 with Obama in November of 10. Its apples and oranges. What was Reagan saying in November of 82?Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238370347118385470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-72598501617156763392010-11-08T13:15:38.859-05:002010-11-08T13:15:38.859-05:00"Again, patience. The fight will come. This i..."Again, patience. The fight will come. This is the set up for the counter punch." -Ted V<br /><br />Oh god not this again. We've been told for two years now that Chessmaster Obama was setting up his opponents for the moment he would turn and fight them.<br /><br />I suppose being on the receiving end of the most devastating midterm loss (in the House, at least) since WW2 was all part of the plan.<br /><br />Obama is not playing Nth dimensional chess. He is not a canny strategerizer. He has no idea what he's doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-69734844488126771622010-11-08T13:08:59.569-05:002010-11-08T13:08:59.569-05:00All the examples of Obama "fighting" tha...All the examples of Obama "fighting" that Ted V gave are for things that only directly benefitted Obama personally.<br /><br />There are no examples given where Obama is fighting for something other than himself. Like on behalf of the voters or electorate or liberals.<br /><br />Just saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-11205460078540190952010-11-08T12:38:58.804-05:002010-11-08T12:38:58.804-05:00Excuse me Anon this is bullshit. Obama wants to wi...Excuse me Anon this is bullshit. Obama wants to win, vigorously if possible. However, he is constrained (as all are) by the enormous money sloshing about Washington. He is as beholden to the power centers in this country as everyone else in DC is. However, the notion that if he just does this or that, and a huge liberal wave will carry him through is not realistic. I think 2008 was as large a Democratic wave as we'll ever see and the midterms show that the coalition that won him the WH broke apart immediately in electoral terms.Carlosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-57050655982602090742010-11-08T12:00:31.776-05:002010-11-08T12:00:31.776-05:00I can not imagine why any of this still surprises ...I can not imagine why any of this still surprises anyone.<br /><br />The REAL power behind both parties is the same corrupt group of internationalist wealth determined to destroy America (they already have).<br /><br />Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, Obama - all work for the same people.<br /><br />Obama does not vigorously defend as he does not want to vigorously win.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-88372487595782815602010-11-08T11:25:44.677-05:002010-11-08T11:25:44.677-05:00One of the great mysteries of the present politica...One of the great mysteries of the present political era, for me, has been Democrats' unwillingness to defend, even their most successful programs and decisions. Obama is hardly alone in this, though during the 2008 elections I did allow myself to believe that he might prove to be an antidote to it.Patriot's Quillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00188140772869253532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-74002074040971608992010-11-08T11:25:21.435-05:002010-11-08T11:25:21.435-05:00Let's keep in mind here that the "endless...Let's keep in mind here that the "endless placation" theory is bull $hit. Both you and I have read enough about Obama to know it's false. Does an "endless placater" challenge signatures that would have got an opponent in his own party on the ballot? Would an "endless placater" have called the Republicans "enemies" before the election? Would an "endless placater" have run the Medicare ads that he did against John McCain, or attacked Hillary for the individual mandate that he later passed? Would an "endless placater" have needled Bill Clinton, a beloved member of his party, in the primary the way that Obama did? If we know anything about Obama, it's that he can be a ruthless politician. Occam's Razor would imply that he did not forget how to be one now.<br /><br />Keep in mind two things. First, in all of the interviews, Obama never comes out and says that the electorate rejected his policies. He said that when the economy is bad people get "frustrated," and it made it easy to brand him as a tax and spend liberal, which he believes (and so do I) that he is not.<br /><br />Second, look at the exit polls of who the electorate is compared to 2008. Much older, much whiter. Young people and minorities stayed home. Toomey barely eked out a win in PA. Does anyone in their right mind think PA will have 9% black turnout in 2012 with Obama on the ballot? Not a frigging chance, and since the GOP underwhelmed out west do the Latino vote, which is growing, there is Obama's firewall: traditional liberal states on the coasts and the upper midwest+Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico+Pennsylvania.<br /><br />I don't have as much confidence in the electorate as you do. My rules on the electorate are simple.<br /><br />1. When times are bad, they punish the party in office, whether it is their fault or not.<br /><br />2. When times are good, they almost always reward the President's party, whether it is responsible for the good times or not. <br /><br />The good times will return in the next two years, and Obama will reap the benefits.Ted Vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-35084850728448929222010-11-08T11:24:55.096-05:002010-11-08T11:24:55.096-05:00Again, patience. The fight will come. This is the ...Again, patience. The fight will come. This is the set up for the counter punch. The (partial) electorate has handed you a brow beating. People elected you because you were reasonable. After taking an a$$ kicking, rattling the sabre at the other side, especially after slipping before the election and calling them "enemies," is not going to look reasonable. So you mouth platitiudes about working with the other side, knowing that they won't do it. Before, the other side could argue that you had majorities in both houses, and so they could not stop you from doing what you wanted to do. Now, they cannot.<br /><br />The economy is showing signs of turning. Last week's jobs report was extremely positive. There are still naysayers out there, but if we know anything about economists, it's that they are very bad at predicting what will happen. They are only good at telling you why things happened in the past. And you and I both know who will get credit for the turn around. The same office that got the credit over two and a half decades ago when Congress had basically the exact same make-up: a 4-6 seat majority in the Senate for the President's party, and a decided majority for the opposition in the House. <br /><br />The GOP is going to overplay their hand. They are forced to because they have to pander to the far right in their party. When the other side has all the power, that pandering is easy. When you have some, you will be asked to deliver, and then you have to make a choice: continue to pander and turn off the center, or sell out the center and demoralize the whack jobs who elected you.<br /><br />Let's be honest. No amount of communication was going to stop what happened last Tuesday. No amount of fighting was going to change the equation. All that would have accomplished is throwing away the strength that got you elected: looking like the only adult in the room. The economy sucks, and there's nothing that can be done about it. If health care wouldn't have been tried, the economy would still suck. If more stimulus would have been tried, the other side would have spun it as more useless spending that doesn't work, and despite the White House's all out blitz to show that the stimulus did work, people would not believe it because the numbers are still bad. And the GOP would make the argument that adding more to the deficit means tax cuts in the future, which causes uncertainty. More stimulus was not politically possible. (more)Ted Vnoreply@blogger.com