On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not
Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote: I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
On September 03 2012 08:54 aksfjh wrote: While I will concede that some of the radicals that vote Republican are racist in some way (the more "crazy" Tea Party members),
I consider myself a part of the Tea Party and am insulted that you would attack anyone I am associated with like that. And don't bother trying to further the slander by linking the LaRouche nuts with the Tea Party. Just because they couldn't be barred from a public rally doesn't they belong.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote: I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
cuz 'Murikkka sure is racist!
Uh, America (as it is spelled properly, named after Amerigo Vespucci) is fundamentally a very racist country, yes, and it is an ingrained part of politics.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not
Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
There was an enormous popular demand for healthcare reform. Frankly, had McCain won, he probably would have passed much the same legislation (only with Republican approval of course). Actually arguing strongly for single-payer or at least a public option would have been a risk, and it was a risk Obama chose not to take.
On September 03 2012 09:04 kwizach wrote: Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
Also, Eurasia has totally always been at war with us. Seriously.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
Suicidal is the better adjective.
Not really, no.
He's got a point. Sure they may get voted out of office but their bad laws and taxes live on and on and on.
On September 03 2012 09:04 kwizach wrote: Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
Also, Eurasia has totally always been at war with us. Seriously.
I think the only real bipartisanship in this thread has been pointing out that it's you who has a tenuous grasp on reality...
On September 03 2012 09:04 kwizach wrote: Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
Also, Eurasia has totally always been at war with us. Seriously.
I think the only real bipartisanship in this thread has been pointing out that it's you who has a tenuous grasp on reality...
Zinger, if you truly believe Obama is not centrist, then i don't know what to say.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
While I will concede that some of the radicals that vote Republican are racist in some way (the more "crazy" Tea Party members), I don't think race plays any part in this Congress. They're just so convinced that their policies, and only the PURE following of them, are so right that they're willing to pursue a scorched earth tactic to enact them.
I'd say the indirect role that racism plays is the way in which it legitimises extremism. Even though the racists are only one subgroup of organisations like the Tea Party, their extreme hatred for Obama encourages others to demonise him and adopt a more a reactionary stance, regardless of whether they have any rational motivation for it.
On September 03 2012 09:44 HunterX11 wrote: I think the only real bipartisanship in this thread has been pointing out that it's you who has a tenuous grasp on reality...
Hey now, you're going to make the BallinWitStalin of Sept 03 2012 06:41 server time upset. He doesn't like insults!
(The BallinWitStalin of September 03 2012 07:27 server time however likely approves and supports you.)
On September 03 2012 10:14 Jumbled wrote: I'd say the indirect role that racism plays is the way in which it legitimises extremism. Even though the racists are only one subgroup of organisations like the Tea Party, their extreme hatred for Obama encourages others to demonise him and adopt a more a reactionary stance, regardless of whether they have any rational motivation for it.
See how easy it is to dismiss people who disagree with you as racists, idiots, people unable to think clearly.
Instead of reacting to Obamacare and trillion dollar deficits, I suppose they should have laid back and enjoyed it while thinking of England's NHS.
On September 03 2012 08:54 aksfjh wrote: While I will concede that some of the radicals that vote Republican are racist in some way (the more "crazy" Tea Party members),
I consider myself a part of the Tea Party
Speaking of, I found this in IRC recently.
Sorry if it's been linked before, just thought it was fairly interesting. Well...interesting to me that it was "interesting" to other people. It's not very interesting when it's just pointing out people in your neighborhood.
On September 02 2012 21:19 comet1 wrote: If we can't get are debt spending and welfare programs under control we will end up like Greece. Romney actually offers a plan, obomas plan is to do the same things that got us in this mess in he first place. America needs a leader with self control not another, warmongering, statist. (Bush Oboma, Reagan) spending is the problem not the solution.
As we have seen in every nation to this date. Capitalist (not krony capitalist) economies grow fast while socialist and communist goverments fail. Just look at Estonia vs Greece one has complety modernized itself in 20 years and the other is a anarchic nightmare. What oboma is trying to do has never worked ever PERIOD.
I'm not saying I like Mitt Romney he is just the lesser of 2 evils. Hell if it was up to me Ron Paul would be on the podium of the RNC giving his speech
Your post has no basis in reality. Romney's the same but worse, and that you believe otherwise is just due to the republican smoke screen. In fact, Romney's "plan" is not concrete nor realistic. That said, I think the major problem is that the US (both politicians and citizens) apparently think they can get away with not paying (raising taxes and slicing benefits for a few years).
Real communist countries fail, countries which combine capitalism and socialism, for example my own, do better than more pure capitalist (and two-party) countries in my own opinion though. Greece failed for other reasons than "socialism", and Estonia is still a shitty country.
Republican smokescreen I lol'd it has been known for along time that all major new stations lean liberal (except fox) don't know where you have been since 2009 republicans have been all about lowering benefits. Also name one country that has applied socialist principles and succeeded.
And do some research before you say Estonia is a shitty country. They literally don't have enough workers to fill there Job openings. Estonia has turned itself from a poor farming satellite state of the soviet union to a Industratial powerhouse. If that isn't. a succes story I don't know what is
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
Are you really going to play that card?
But seriously, democrats should be furious with Obama and the other party leaders. Within a period of two years, they managed to revive a horribly brand-damaged republican party that should have taken far longer to recover from the fallout of the Bush years. After four years, they are now at a point where they are in danger of being brand-damaged in a similar way. Oh, and let's not forget that if republicans win the presidency and a majority in the senate, they'll eliminate Obamacare thereby erasing basically all of the progressive legislative policies that Obama and the democrats were able to accomplish. The democrats have so badly managed their position that it is almost sad.
That's usually what you get when you try to do what's best for the American people rather than simply play it safe politically.
The thing is, the Democrats HAVE played it safe politically instead of trying to do what's best. Sure, they've pissed off a lot of supporters, but Democratic supporters are much more reliable voters when it comes to the polls than Republican supporters, and in the meantime the actual backbone of the party, the funders, have been appeased.
Passing the healthcare reform was hardly playing it safe politically.
Actually he was more of a follower in this. It really should be called Pelosi-care. He showed weak leadership during the whole deal just asking congress to do somethign and he would sign it.
I think Obama's weakest aspect is his ability to lead. He campaigns fine, but he doesn't lead.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
Obama embraced bipartisanship to an extreme degree throughout his presidency, and his policies have quite clearly been very centrist.
On September 03 2012 07:51 Savio wrote: There are now more Republicans than Democrats in this country (see article for number of Democrats):
"After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August. During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends." Source
That was very surprising to me. There have always been more self called conservatives than liberals in the US, but in the past there was almost always more Democrats than Republicans. Now it appears that the number of Republicans have passed Democrats and number of Republicans is at all time high. Seems to be a bad omen for Obama in 2012.
I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
On September 03 2012 08:04 aksfjh wrote: [quote] I think it has to do with a unified, clear party, as well as the state of the economy. My only problem in all of this is that much of the Republican gains have been on the backs of outright lies. The party outright stated that their #1 goal was to make Obama a 1 term President. Not to create jobs, not to control the deficit, not bring Americans to "prosperity," but to win the political game.
It frustrates me that people can be so misdirected by the smoke and mirrors of political nuance and a concentrated party effort. I've heard plenty of anecdotes about people changing parties because "Obama's economic policies" haven't been working, when, in reality, there are NO economic polices even being executed right now. We've been on cruise control since 2010 because a better economy means a Republican loss in 2012.
Why are democrats and liberals so deluded about the quality of Obama's presidency? He just isn't good.
I agree he has been quite poor and hasn't shown very good leadership even given the obstacles he has faced. Still, as a black president, he really is quite constrained in what he can hope to accomplish.
It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
EPT
