|
|
On September 03 2012 15:24 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 13:57 Savio wrote:On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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.
Source 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.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html
Except that we have to play the game of "will he / wont he" every year to make his base happy, while at the same time admitting to the fact that cutting them isn't the right thing to do.
Yeah, it technically is "siding with the GOP" but it's a very weak example, imo.
|
I don't think I know what is required for some to meet the definition of "siding with the GOP against his own party."
This is such an impossible standard you are setting, I don't even...
|
The Washington Post article certainly shows what lengths Obama is willing to go to to keep to his 2008 pledge,
“I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,”
Then-candidate Obama, 2008
He's the same politician Clinton was. His agenda items, or maybe the factions of the party he wishes to please, are to the left of Clinton (agree with those said before me). Clinton was the better politician, Obama the better ideologue (and, indeed, a far-left ideologue had he run in climate of Clinton's 90s. I don't know how apt the term "far-left" would apply today).
Clinton did know how nice it would be to claim credit for all benefits welfare reform would give later. I don't really see any Obama signature on a Republican bill for centrist compromise (of course, a very rare out that would make it to his desk given the Congressional makeup). Voting on extending a popular (amongst those it helped, e.g. those paying taxes) tax cut that's been around for a while ... that I saw Obama do with faint surprise.
|
On September 03 2012 15:29 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 15:24 Doublemint wrote:On September 03 2012 13:57 Savio wrote:On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
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.
Source 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.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html Except that we have to play the game of "will he / wont he" every year to make his base happy, while at the same time admitting to the fact that cutting them isn't the right thing to do. Yeah, it technically is "siding with the GOP" but it's a very weak example, imo.
When one sides goal is to deny you any victory its kind of hard to work with them when they dont want anything thru. A great example of this was that debt commission Congress proposed doing back in 2010 but when Obama got behind it all of a sudden 6 cosponsored republican senators voted no. They were proposing it but the moment they realised the president wanted it they said no.
Its impossible to form a consensus with people who whenever you agree with them they move the bar more to create a divide.
|
On September 03 2012 17:40 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 15:29 Mysticesper wrote:On September 03 2012 15:24 Doublemint wrote:On September 03 2012 13:57 Savio wrote:On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote:[quote] It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history. [quote] Source 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.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html Except that we have to play the game of "will he / wont he" every year to make his base happy, while at the same time admitting to the fact that cutting them isn't the right thing to do. Yeah, it technically is "siding with the GOP" but it's a very weak example, imo. When one sides goal is to deny you any victory its kind of hard to work with them when they dont want anything thru. A great example of this was that debt commission Congress proposed doing back in 2010 but when Obama got behind it all of a sudden 6 cosponsored republican senators voted no. They were proposing it but the moment they realised the president wanted it they said no. Its impossible to form a consensus with people who whenever you agree with them they move the bar more to create a divide.
What debt commission are you talking about?
Edit: Actually, I see what you were saying about Simpson-Bowles, but that initial vote to vote on the recommendations of the proposed commission without amendment is not the end of the story. The President (rightly in my mind) still formed the commission through executive order and when the proposal was voted on within the commission seven members voted against is (4 Democrats and 3 Republicans). There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides as to what could have been with Simpson-Bowles.
|
I will vote, and I tell you this now... I dont really want to vote Obama back in office, but NO way I will be voting for a republican... That you can put your money on.
|
What is all this crap about Obama being more centrist than Clinton? Clinton passed welfare reform and did a whole bunch of other things that a republican congress wanted. Obama never managed to do anything with any republicans, regardless of whether they were a minority or a majority party in congress. Despite all these deranged arguments to the contrary, there is nothing centrist about Obamacare.
|
On September 03 2012 15:24 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 13:57 Savio wrote:On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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.
Source 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.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
|
Looks like Romney is getting set to pass Obama in the RCP polling average:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KLtXj.jpg)
Things are likely to be exciting from here on out with Convention bounces and debates historically affecting polling numbers in significant ways.
EDIT: It is now a tie as of 9/3/12 in the Afternoon
|
I daresay one of least telling weeks of polling happens to be in between the Republican and Democratic conventions, the first to go almost always has a substantial bump in the immediate. In a week or two is when I believe polls really become worthwhile.
|
On September 04 2012 00:21 xDaunt wrote:
What is all this crap about Obama being more centrist than Clinton? Clinton passed welfare reform and did a whole bunch of other things that a republican congress wanted. Obama never managed to do anything with any republicans, regardless of whether they were a minority or a majority party in congress. Despite all these deranged arguments to the contrary, there is nothing centrist about Obamacare.
I'm not interested in debating who was/is more centrist between Clinton and Obama, but the point is that they both are, judging by the policies they've passed and pushed for. "Joining the republicans" is completely invalid as a metric to judge whether a politician is a centrist, based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party. What you should look at is his policies and whether they qualify as centrist policies. Obamacare, for example, is a very clear example of this - the individual mandate is a policy idea that was pushed by the right in the 1990s and that was implemented at the state level by a Republican governor (now active in the weathercocking business) in the 2000s. The left's idea was the public option. The evidence is there - Obama has sincerely promoted bipartisanship throughout his presidency and has clearly not been the far-left politician the right paints him as.
|
On September 04 2012 02:50 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 15:24 Doublemint wrote:On September 03 2012 13:57 Savio wrote:On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2012 08:31 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
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.
Source 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.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue. If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
|
Being "centrist" doesn't make a politician better any more than being right or left.
Bush was a centrist too - doesn't mean he was great 
|
Canada11264 Posts
On September 04 2012 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Being "centrist" doesn't make a politician better any more than being right or left. Bush was a centrist too - doesn't mean he was great
Maybe, but it does counter the very specific critique that Obama is somehow this extremist. Or that he's the stonewall uncompromising guy.
|
On September 04 2012 03:44 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Being "centrist" doesn't make a politician better any more than being right or left. Bush was a centrist too - doesn't mean he was great Maybe, but it does counter the very specific critique that Obama is somehow this extremist. Or that he's the stonewall uncompromising guy.
I think it's pretty hard for any President to be an extremist. Obama had a very liberal voting record in the Senate but he's been way more moderate than that as President. I think that the reality is that as President you can't pass laws yourself - you need Congress for that - and so you need to compromise more and be more moderate to get the votes. Otherwise you end up as a President that doesn't get anything done, which is unacceptable in American politics.
|
On September 04 2012 00:21 xDaunt wrote:
What is all this crap about Obama being more centrist than Clinton? Clinton passed welfare reform and did a whole bunch of other things that a republican congress wanted. Obama never managed to do anything with any republicans, regardless of whether they were a minority or a majority party in congress. Despite all these deranged arguments to the contrary, there is nothing centrist about Obamacare.
The individual mandate that was first proposed by republicans in the early 90's? But of course as soon as it has anything to do with Obama, it's the spawn of Satan
|
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote:
... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
|
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote:
... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ... This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
|
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote:
... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ... This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
|
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote:On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote:
... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ... This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades. There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays. Its a joke -_- Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
Umm, of course it would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
