Thursday, September 02, 2010
Political Mayhem Thursday with IPLawGuy: Is Barack Obama becoming George H.W. Bush?
This week's message comes from IPLawGuy (shown here making an important call from Waco's Health Camp), who has been my friend for 29 years. He currently is a partner in a DC law firm so powerful and secretive that the entrance to its offices are marked only by the presence of a single Imperial Storm Trooper.
Historians, journalists, political junkies and casual observers often attempt to draw parallels and comparisons between historical figures and modern day political players. For instance, commentators noted that Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt shared many traits, including the ability to communicate and connect with voters; not necessarily with a strong commitment to facts. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' quip about FDR ("Second class intellect, but first class temperament.") could be equally be applied to Reagan.
Bill Clinton was probably the most savvy political animal and strategist to inhabit the White House since Richard Nixon; both accomplished much as President, but neither one could manage to stay out of trouble. Significant portions of the American public distrusted each of them and held a visceral hatred for Nixon and for Clinton for reasons that were often more related to style rather than substance.
Seems to me that Barack Obama has become the spiritual heir of George Herbert Walker Bush.
The first President Bush now receives relatively favorable marks from historians. His 1991 budget deal, while destroying his credibility on his promise of "No New Taxes" was sensible and set the stage for the economic boom of the 1990's. He successfully managed a generally non-violent end to the Cold War and liberated Kuwait without getting the U.S. bogged down in a protracted struggle in Iraq . He also pushed for and signed the Americans with Disability Act, among other things.
But George Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992. He was seen as out of touch, lacking in vision and generally rudderless. "The Right" never believed he was really a "conservative" due to his background and statements made in the past and his agreement to raise taxes to fix the budget killed the relationship. The press labeled Bush as a "wimp," and no matter what he did, that image stuck.
In present time, Barack Obama has racked up a pretty impressive list of accomplishments. He's ended our combat mission in Iraq on schedule, he got a healthcare bill passed and a major stimulus package along with his financial reform bill through. He's revamped the Department of Education and many other departments. Yet his own base seems disappointed in his performance and his political enemies are charged up and ready to deliver a massive blow to the Democratic Party in November .
Obama appears to have lost the ability to inspire that made him such a great candidate in 2008. Reagan had that ability, as did FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and many other successful politicians. Once LBJ lost the ability to inspire due to domestic unrest and the Vietnam War he was done.
George H.W. Bush never really had the ability to inspire, but he ran as the heir of Reagan in 1988 against an even less inspiring opponent, Michael Dukakis. Once elected, however, this inability to get a majority of Americans to believe in the man or his message sealed his fate.
Whether Barack Obama will suffer the same fate as George Bush the elder in two years remains to be seen, but it doesn't take much effort to find stories like Fred Kaplan's from the September 1, 2010 edition of Slate entitled "Lost in a Muddle" featuring quotes like this:
President Barack Obama's speech from the Oval Office Tuesday night was a strange muddle—a televised prime-time address that lacked a bottom line, a consistent theme, a clear road to the future. He announced the end of combat operations in Iraq , right on schedule. But he equivocated on what comes next in that much-improved but still war-torn land
The article goes on to give examples of several "on the one hand, on the other hand" moments from the speech. Kaplan wraps up the examples by saying:
None of this is wrong. All the pieces of what he said are worth saying. But what was he saying overall? Which pieces did he mean to emphasize most? What made the message worth the high profile of a prime-time address to the nation?
Seems to me that Obama spends too much time reasoning out ideas and trying to be thorough. Like Kaplan says, it’s a muddle. He's being a Law Professor instead of being a litigator. The better approach may be more like that of Reagan or FDR. Figure out the one line take-away (The only thing to fear is fear itself ….America's Back) and strip away the excess.
Obama should hope for a historical comparison to Reagan or Clinton during their first two years in office. Both faced major challenges and were hearing predictions that they would not be re-elected either.
Or is there another comparison we should make? Bush 41 may be a dangerous comparison, but once Obama starts getting compared to Jimmy Carter, he may really be in trouble!
Comments:
<< Home
I think Obama is more like Reagan than anyone. Good speaker, maybe not the best detail guy.
# posted by 
: 12:52 AM
: 12:52 AM
I typed out a really long post and then the computer gods ate it, and I don't feel like retyping it. I'll summarize in bullet points:
* New media and the expansion of the Internet have allowed people to create a hyperreal negative that President Obama and his actions have little influence on.
* Demagoguery by the right has spread enough misinformation that people are probably honestly confused as to the actual facts.
* Idiots on leftist blogs (Kos, HuffPo, FDL) buy into these myths, like a likely Republican takeover of Congress, because it generates viewer interest and outrage.
* The actual facts of Obama's legislative history and the likely outcome of the next election, as balanced against actual statistical analysis, tells a very different story.
* The right is still forcing out a bunch of established candidates and replacing them with the hard right, which will alienate moderates as much as the "hard left" image of President Obama portrayed by right-wing media does.
* Leftist criticism of the President based on "he didn't pay enough attention to the one issue I'm passionate about!" has turned from constructive to petulant, and the right wing has capitalized on this.
* At this point, the facts and historical record matter very little, and comparisons to past presidents are unfair, because in the age of Facebook and Twitter, the narrative can become irredeemably complex far too fast.
* New media and the expansion of the Internet have allowed people to create a hyperreal negative that President Obama and his actions have little influence on.
* Demagoguery by the right has spread enough misinformation that people are probably honestly confused as to the actual facts.
* Idiots on leftist blogs (Kos, HuffPo, FDL) buy into these myths, like a likely Republican takeover of Congress, because it generates viewer interest and outrage.
* The actual facts of Obama's legislative history and the likely outcome of the next election, as balanced against actual statistical analysis, tells a very different story.
* The right is still forcing out a bunch of established candidates and replacing them with the hard right, which will alienate moderates as much as the "hard left" image of President Obama portrayed by right-wing media does.
* Leftist criticism of the President based on "he didn't pay enough attention to the one issue I'm passionate about!" has turned from constructive to petulant, and the right wing has capitalized on this.
* At this point, the facts and historical record matter very little, and comparisons to past presidents are unfair, because in the age of Facebook and Twitter, the narrative can become irredeemably complex far too fast.
Insightful and provoking message. It gets under the (liberal at least) skin to read the comparison, but it got me to thinking about the amazing lack of party support that GWB faced, once elected, and the surprise of conservatives when GHWB lost his second bid. Our President faces a tough presidency, war (but not a Great War), economic raggedyness (but no Great Depression), similar to GHWB. Difficult to know how to advise him, but perhaps some slick marketing would be the key. And a whip for the Dems and a chair for the rest?
(I also agree about Clinton and Nixon. Great presidents in very similar ways, bad presidents in very similar ways. A book is in order on this subject! Hint hint...)
(I also agree about Clinton and Nixon. Great presidents in very similar ways, bad presidents in very similar ways. A book is in order on this subject! Hint hint...)
Charts? Graphs? RRL is the Ross Perot of 2010! Plus, he's from Texas/Arkansas, too!
# posted by : 11:36 AM
: 11:36 AM
RRL, I do contest the possibility that a large amount of the population finds Obama's policies unpopular. Remember, two years ago the guy ran a campaign that resulted in a near-landslide election on these very policies. While I do agree that there is a significant amount of discontent on the left with Obama, I think that there is more flash than substance among that discontent, because the left has had eight years of being professional malcontents and haven't figured out how to switch gears yet.
The stimulus has been largely unpopular in polling... until people are informed about the facts, when all of a sudden, support increases. The same for health care reform. A certain contingent of swing voters will always be swayed by misinformation and demagoguery (whomever is doing it), and the emergence of the hard right as a very noisy political faction skews the polling done. "Letting the Bush tax cuts expire" is also fraught with misinformation, since most people don't realize that they never got much of a tax cut in the first place, and that the only people facing significant increases are "not them." I'd like to see an opinion poll done on Boehner and Ryan's new supply side gospel plans. If people don't like deficits, maybe extending tax cuts that increase deficits will not poll well.
And I certainly don't think the new media has done much convincing of anyone; rather, the "story" or "narrative" that is being passed along (how the traditional media comments on it, how people speak, etc.) is all dominated by themes that have little bearing with facts. This isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. I used to laugh at people on the left who, for the past eight years, couldn't decide whether Bush II was an evil mastermind or a bumbling fool. They would accuse him of the both in the same breath.
That's roughly analogous to the view of Obama as hard-left, Muslim-Marxist-cryptofascist and ineffective do-nothing that goes on right now.
Economic problems will always be held against the party "in power," thought I think if there is any lesson to take away from 2009-2010, it is that the party "in power" does not always have sufficient power to do anything. I remain unconvinced of a major shift right (though there will be a rightward shift) in Congress in November, partly because the right continues to split itself between establishment and hard right candidates that are as unpopular as the hard-left conceptions of certain Democrats are (seriously, Pelosi a hard-leftist?). Republicans fare better on generic ballots than specific ones, but try telling anyone at RCP or Kos that. I'll call, barring a major shift, 6 Senate seats to Republicans, and around 20 House seats.
The stimulus has been largely unpopular in polling... until people are informed about the facts, when all of a sudden, support increases. The same for health care reform. A certain contingent of swing voters will always be swayed by misinformation and demagoguery (whomever is doing it), and the emergence of the hard right as a very noisy political faction skews the polling done. "Letting the Bush tax cuts expire" is also fraught with misinformation, since most people don't realize that they never got much of a tax cut in the first place, and that the only people facing significant increases are "not them." I'd like to see an opinion poll done on Boehner and Ryan's new supply side gospel plans. If people don't like deficits, maybe extending tax cuts that increase deficits will not poll well.
And I certainly don't think the new media has done much convincing of anyone; rather, the "story" or "narrative" that is being passed along (how the traditional media comments on it, how people speak, etc.) is all dominated by themes that have little bearing with facts. This isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. I used to laugh at people on the left who, for the past eight years, couldn't decide whether Bush II was an evil mastermind or a bumbling fool. They would accuse him of the both in the same breath.
That's roughly analogous to the view of Obama as hard-left, Muslim-Marxist-cryptofascist and ineffective do-nothing that goes on right now.
Economic problems will always be held against the party "in power," thought I think if there is any lesson to take away from 2009-2010, it is that the party "in power" does not always have sufficient power to do anything. I remain unconvinced of a major shift right (though there will be a rightward shift) in Congress in November, partly because the right continues to split itself between establishment and hard right candidates that are as unpopular as the hard-left conceptions of certain Democrats are (seriously, Pelosi a hard-leftist?). Republicans fare better on generic ballots than specific ones, but try telling anyone at RCP or Kos that. I'll call, barring a major shift, 6 Senate seats to Republicans, and around 20 House seats.
President Obama faces a challenge that other recent presidents have not had to face: an opposition party that REFUSES to work with him.
Look, the left absolutely despised George W. Bush. But Ted Kennedy cooperated with the Bush administration to pass No Child Left Behind.
The right absolutely despised Bill Clinton, but then-Senate majority leader Trent Lott worked with the Clinton administration on welfare reform and many other initiatives.
As IPLawGuy notes, the Democratic congress and President H.W. Bush worked together on the ADA and on fiscal responsibility.
President Obama faces an opposition party that calculated from Day 1 that it would not cooperate with him on anything.
Look, the left absolutely despised George W. Bush. But Ted Kennedy cooperated with the Bush administration to pass No Child Left Behind.
The right absolutely despised Bill Clinton, but then-Senate majority leader Trent Lott worked with the Clinton administration on welfare reform and many other initiatives.
As IPLawGuy notes, the Democratic congress and President H.W. Bush worked together on the ADA and on fiscal responsibility.
President Obama faces an opposition party that calculated from Day 1 that it would not cooperate with him on anything.
"Remember, two years ago the guy ran a campaign that resulted in a near-landslide election on these very policies."
Lane, the vast independent and even Republican support for Obama was not based on some deep desire for the stimulus or an increased government role in healthcare. It was based on a desire to get away from all things George W. Bush. Obama ran against Bush. He continues to do so today. He won the election in a because he found himself facing a country that wanted anything besides what they had the previous 8 years.
_B_
Ted Kennedy supported No Child Left Behind. Trent Lott supported welfare reform. A democratic congress under Bush I supported increased taxes and the ADA. See a trend here? The congress doesn't cede to the will of the president. These are all examples of the president supporting policies that the party in control of congress already supported.
Obama has increased government spending and sought broad government intrusions into our healthcare system. Asking conservatives to support him isn't seeking bipartisanship, it is askign conservatives to give up what they believe in.
And, the concept that Obama is the first president to face a hostile congress is hilarious. If only for the fact that his party had vast majorities in both houses of congress for the last two years, so it isn't like Republicans could actually stop Democrats from doing anything they wanted.
Lane, the vast independent and even Republican support for Obama was not based on some deep desire for the stimulus or an increased government role in healthcare. It was based on a desire to get away from all things George W. Bush. Obama ran against Bush. He continues to do so today. He won the election in a because he found himself facing a country that wanted anything besides what they had the previous 8 years.
_B_
Ted Kennedy supported No Child Left Behind. Trent Lott supported welfare reform. A democratic congress under Bush I supported increased taxes and the ADA. See a trend here? The congress doesn't cede to the will of the president. These are all examples of the president supporting policies that the party in control of congress already supported.
Obama has increased government spending and sought broad government intrusions into our healthcare system. Asking conservatives to support him isn't seeking bipartisanship, it is askign conservatives to give up what they believe in.
And, the concept that Obama is the first president to face a hostile congress is hilarious. If only for the fact that his party had vast majorities in both houses of congress for the last two years, so it isn't like Republicans could actually stop Democrats from doing anything they wanted.
# posted by : 3:25 PM
: 3:25 PM
If the feeling in 2008 was "we're tired of Bush-era policymaking," then why be discontent with what has been a gradual shift away from that? It's not like universal healthcare or government spending were absolute non-issues before this (Clinton dealt with both during his presidency).
Where Obama has goofed is in being too nice and too cerebral about politics. He assumed, perhaps following the acrimony of the Bush years, that Americans were ready to heal and patch things up.
I'll admit, I felt that way for a long time too. But at this point, I'm ready for the gloves to come off and someone (besides comedians and media watchdog groups) to start taking the right to task. That's where Obama could be stronger (Clinton was never shy about calling out Republicans on obstructionism and demagoguery), and he's finally showing signs of life.
If Obama had been more demagogic himself on health care, we wouldn't have this problem with people not being in favor of it. Instead, he let malarky about "death panels" and "rationing" and senior citizens saying "get the gubmint out of my Medicare!" to carry the day.
Where Obama has goofed is in being too nice and too cerebral about politics. He assumed, perhaps following the acrimony of the Bush years, that Americans were ready to heal and patch things up.
I'll admit, I felt that way for a long time too. But at this point, I'm ready for the gloves to come off and someone (besides comedians and media watchdog groups) to start taking the right to task. That's where Obama could be stronger (Clinton was never shy about calling out Republicans on obstructionism and demagoguery), and he's finally showing signs of life.
If Obama had been more demagogic himself on health care, we wouldn't have this problem with people not being in favor of it. Instead, he let malarky about "death panels" and "rationing" and senior citizens saying "get the gubmint out of my Medicare!" to carry the day.
RRL,
When you say that Congress doesn't cede to the will of the President, I assume that you are ignoring the 6 years during which the Congress did whatever President Bush wanted.
As for the fiscal responsibility point, Republican incumbents (and the folks who voted for them consistently) have little credibility in light of the fact that they funded two wars off the books on continuing resolutions. Apparently, if you're simply killing people and taking casualties in a foreign land, deficits in treasure are acceptable. If you're spending money in an effort to avert a depression and to control long-term health care costs relative to GDP, it is unconscionable.
I never suggested that President Obama is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Your characterization of my position as such and then describing it as "hilarious" is an unfortunate (albeit typical) tactic of the right these days. Maybe that's why we (supporters of President Obama) have failed at the message war---we're unwilling to resort to hyperbole.
Perhaps what I meant I could have written better by saying that this is the first president in an awfully long time to face a Congressional minority dedicated en masse to not forging compromise. Does anyone seriously question whether the President would have given on certain provisions of health care reform, if he could have garnered a larger portion (including Republicans) of Congress? If you seriously question that, you should revisit the concessions to Senator Leiberman and the fact that there was no serious attempt to push single-payer through.
Regardless, your point about Democratic control of Congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency would be well-taken, but for the outlandish and unprecedented use of anonymous holds by Senate Republicans and the dedication by the Senate Republican leadership to require cloture votes on every piece of Democratic legislation.
I did not support George W. Bush's policies because I thought they would be harmful to the country, but I never wished and prayed that they would fail. That has been the dedication of the vast majority of the Republican party since the inception of the Obama presidency.
When you say that Congress doesn't cede to the will of the President, I assume that you are ignoring the 6 years during which the Congress did whatever President Bush wanted.
As for the fiscal responsibility point, Republican incumbents (and the folks who voted for them consistently) have little credibility in light of the fact that they funded two wars off the books on continuing resolutions. Apparently, if you're simply killing people and taking casualties in a foreign land, deficits in treasure are acceptable. If you're spending money in an effort to avert a depression and to control long-term health care costs relative to GDP, it is unconscionable.
I never suggested that President Obama is the first president to face a hostile Congress. Your characterization of my position as such and then describing it as "hilarious" is an unfortunate (albeit typical) tactic of the right these days. Maybe that's why we (supporters of President Obama) have failed at the message war---we're unwilling to resort to hyperbole.
Perhaps what I meant I could have written better by saying that this is the first president in an awfully long time to face a Congressional minority dedicated en masse to not forging compromise. Does anyone seriously question whether the President would have given on certain provisions of health care reform, if he could have garnered a larger portion (including Republicans) of Congress? If you seriously question that, you should revisit the concessions to Senator Leiberman and the fact that there was no serious attempt to push single-payer through.
Regardless, your point about Democratic control of Congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency would be well-taken, but for the outlandish and unprecedented use of anonymous holds by Senate Republicans and the dedication by the Senate Republican leadership to require cloture votes on every piece of Democratic legislation.
I did not support George W. Bush's policies because I thought they would be harmful to the country, but I never wished and prayed that they would fail. That has been the dedication of the vast majority of the Republican party since the inception of the Obama presidency.
_B_
I'm laughing pretty hard right now, good stuff.
"When you say that Congress doesn't cede to the will of the President, I assume that you are ignoring the 6 years during which the Congress did whatever President Bush wanted."
You do realize that during those 6 years it was a Republican controlled Congress, right? I mean, yes, I am ignoring the time periods where the same party is in control of both the presidency and Congress, and therefore bipartisanship is unnecessary.
_B_, I am so sorry I hurt your feelings by misquoting you. What you said was, "President Obama faces a challenge that other recent presidents have not had to face." You're right, you didn't say he was the only one, just the only one in the last twenty or thirty years. Of course, that is also an equally laughable hypothesis, and one that doesn't hold up under even the slightest examination.
You are right about one thing, I can't respond to you without using a mocking tone. It would be impossible because of the voice in my head when I read what you write, because I keep inserting, "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa" in between every sentence.
Your guy had a 75 seat advantage in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and an approval rating in the 70s when he got into office, and yet you want me to feel sorry for him because the big bad Republicans didn't play nice?
That is good stuff right there...
I'm laughing pretty hard right now, good stuff.
"When you say that Congress doesn't cede to the will of the President, I assume that you are ignoring the 6 years during which the Congress did whatever President Bush wanted."
You do realize that during those 6 years it was a Republican controlled Congress, right? I mean, yes, I am ignoring the time periods where the same party is in control of both the presidency and Congress, and therefore bipartisanship is unnecessary.
_B_, I am so sorry I hurt your feelings by misquoting you. What you said was, "President Obama faces a challenge that other recent presidents have not had to face." You're right, you didn't say he was the only one, just the only one in the last twenty or thirty years. Of course, that is also an equally laughable hypothesis, and one that doesn't hold up under even the slightest examination.
You are right about one thing, I can't respond to you without using a mocking tone. It would be impossible because of the voice in my head when I read what you write, because I keep inserting, "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa" in between every sentence.
Your guy had a 75 seat advantage in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and an approval rating in the 70s when he got into office, and yet you want me to feel sorry for him because the big bad Republicans didn't play nice?
That is good stuff right there...
# posted by : 6:56 PM
: 6:56 PM
The economy is so incredibly bad, it really is a depression in most places not a recession, that it has placed a perpetual black cloud above everyone or so it seems.
The President just needs to hammer home his center-Left message.
The President just needs to hammer home his center-Left message.
# posted by : 8:23 PM
: 8:23 PM
To be fair to _B_, a "filibuster-proof majority" is only true if we assume all Democrats tend to vote center-left, which they do not (Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, Joe Lieberman, etc.).
That said, it's just not the case that Obama hasn't been able to "do anything." He's had a very ambitious last two years; there have been a lot of setbacks, but a lot of stuff got done too (financial reform, stimuli, health care reform, the gradual repeal of DADT, undoing some Bush era policies, scaling way back on Iraq, etc.).
The problem isn't in the historical record of the legislation. The problem is that the public discourse has become unmoored from the facts. It literally doesn't matter if people go around saying things like, "Hey, he passed a bunch of legislation, some of it controversial, but nothing too radical."
To the people at Glenn Beck's rally, Obama is an evil, socialist, Marxist, secret Muslim out to dismantle America, raise taxes, institute government takeovers and put people into FEMA camps. To some on the left (FDLers) he's a bunch of empty promises that isn't the liberal George W. Bush they wanted. To others, like _B_, he's had to deal with unprecedented attacks and difficulty like no other president.
None of these things are really related to the facts, but that's what people believe. That's the story they tell each other on blogs and comments sections and TV shows and radio programs. Their "real world" is indistinguishable from that fiction. Right now, the stories are that "Democrats want to raise your taxes and tell you how to live your lives, and Republicans want to aid the people by letting them keep what they've earned" and "Republicans are hypocrites that preach populism but favor the rich and Democrats are selfless servants working for the people." Neither one is true, but a general feel of the pulse of both sides reveals that most people buy into them.
You end up with two equally clueless sides in a debate trying to see who can outscream whom.
That said, it's just not the case that Obama hasn't been able to "do anything." He's had a very ambitious last two years; there have been a lot of setbacks, but a lot of stuff got done too (financial reform, stimuli, health care reform, the gradual repeal of DADT, undoing some Bush era policies, scaling way back on Iraq, etc.).
The problem isn't in the historical record of the legislation. The problem is that the public discourse has become unmoored from the facts. It literally doesn't matter if people go around saying things like, "Hey, he passed a bunch of legislation, some of it controversial, but nothing too radical."
To the people at Glenn Beck's rally, Obama is an evil, socialist, Marxist, secret Muslim out to dismantle America, raise taxes, institute government takeovers and put people into FEMA camps. To some on the left (FDLers) he's a bunch of empty promises that isn't the liberal George W. Bush they wanted. To others, like _B_, he's had to deal with unprecedented attacks and difficulty like no other president.
None of these things are really related to the facts, but that's what people believe. That's the story they tell each other on blogs and comments sections and TV shows and radio programs. Their "real world" is indistinguishable from that fiction. Right now, the stories are that "Democrats want to raise your taxes and tell you how to live your lives, and Republicans want to aid the people by letting them keep what they've earned" and "Republicans are hypocrites that preach populism but favor the rich and Democrats are selfless servants working for the people." Neither one is true, but a general feel of the pulse of both sides reveals that most people buy into them.
You end up with two equally clueless sides in a debate trying to see who can outscream whom.
For the record, Stupak is in the House and couldn't filibuster even if he wanted to.
# posted by : 9:38 PM
: 9:38 PM
Personally, I think Obama has accomplished quite a bit. I might not like some of it, but he's got a record of accomplishment.
But he doesn't act like he's gotten what he wanted and the theme that's been developed is not one of success.
Reagan asked for and wanted a lot more than what he wanted. But he declared victory anyway. Same with FDR after the first 6 mos. in office or so. The key is to make people believe you're winning. Obama is not doing that.
But he doesn't act like he's gotten what he wanted and the theme that's been developed is not one of success.
Reagan asked for and wanted a lot more than what he wanted. But he declared victory anyway. Same with FDR after the first 6 mos. in office or so. The key is to make people believe you're winning. Obama is not doing that.
Alright I'll bite:
"he's had to deal with unprecedented attacks and difficulty like no other president."
If there are people that actually believe this, they should read a bit more history, starting with the presidency of John Adams. Those guys had more stuff thrown their way than any "modern" president. To think that some president just got it worse than others before his term is even half-way done, is truly laughable.
I've said it before, but I believe this country works best when one party controls congress and the other party controls the presidency. Stuff "seems" to get done, as noted in Osler's post. Hence, I'm looking forward to the next 2 years.
Look for at least 40 seats in the house and 8-9 in the senate to be gained by the GOP.
"he's had to deal with unprecedented attacks and difficulty like no other president."
If there are people that actually believe this, they should read a bit more history, starting with the presidency of John Adams. Those guys had more stuff thrown their way than any "modern" president. To think that some president just got it worse than others before his term is even half-way done, is truly laughable.
I've said it before, but I believe this country works best when one party controls congress and the other party controls the presidency. Stuff "seems" to get done, as noted in Osler's post. Hence, I'm looking forward to the next 2 years.
Look for at least 40 seats in the house and 8-9 in the senate to be gained by the GOP.
# posted by : 8:54 AM
: 8:54 AM
Dallas ADA--
I do prefer a divided government. However, I don't see that much change in Congress in the mid-term elections. I think the Republicans are running too far right of the electorate in many of these races.
I do prefer a divided government. However, I don't see that much change in Congress in the mid-term elections. I think the Republicans are running too far right of the electorate in many of these races.
Prof. Osler,
I would tend to agree except that I've seen first hand how discontent with the government at any given time can cause a monumental shift in elections. My own boss was elected with less votes than he lost with in the prior election. No one will deny Dallas County went to blue because republicans stayed home and independents voted Democrat as a way to show they weren't happy with Bush.
I suspect the same thing can and will happen nationally, as it usually does in midterms. While I agree many of the republicans are running far right, many democrats will stay home, and independents will vote Rep just to show they don't like the Pres. since most voters don't know squat about anyone actually on the ballot. As many generic ballot polls show, republicans lead in most of the contested districts. I think my prediction isn't really that far off though if the unemployment numbers keep going up, it will be considered a conservative estimate by November.
Besides what do you know Osler?! You MOVED to a state that elected Al Franken! So you are probably skewed on what is "too far right" given your new surroundings.
I would tend to agree except that I've seen first hand how discontent with the government at any given time can cause a monumental shift in elections. My own boss was elected with less votes than he lost with in the prior election. No one will deny Dallas County went to blue because republicans stayed home and independents voted Democrat as a way to show they weren't happy with Bush.
I suspect the same thing can and will happen nationally, as it usually does in midterms. While I agree many of the republicans are running far right, many democrats will stay home, and independents will vote Rep just to show they don't like the Pres. since most voters don't know squat about anyone actually on the ballot. As many generic ballot polls show, republicans lead in most of the contested districts. I think my prediction isn't really that far off though if the unemployment numbers keep going up, it will be considered a conservative estimate by November.
Besides what do you know Osler?! You MOVED to a state that elected Al Franken! So you are probably skewed on what is "too far right" given your new surroundings.
# posted by : 4:26 PM
: 4:26 PM
My predictions: Tea Party-inspired candidates will win out in strongly red states, whereas purple/blue states will stay/shift to Democratic hands, barring something like an unpopular Democratic candidate or some other unforeseen circumstance (e.g., Nevada is a more likely pickup based on Reid than, say, Colorado, and solid-reds like Utah and Alaska will probably stay with Tea Partier candidates). Florida is anyone's game.
But my esteemed northern colleague is right; the Dems had better do a massive "get out the vote" push going, and to that, I'd add that President Obama needs to lead off with very strong attacks against the lack of a concrete Republican platform other than "taxes bad, spending bad, mosques bad."
But my esteemed northern colleague is right; the Dems had better do a massive "get out the vote" push going, and to that, I'd add that President Obama needs to lead off with very strong attacks against the lack of a concrete Republican platform other than "taxes bad, spending bad, mosques bad."
"lack of a concrete Republican platform other than "taxes bad, spending bad, mosques bad.""
I think Lane just proved Osler's point about the one liners. Seems like the Republicans have something many average citizens will rally around. I'm also betting the Dems can't get out the vote again. There isn't any reason to suspect the same numbers of young voters or minorities will be interested in voting in a non-presidential election.
Also, what makes you think the Purple/blue states will stay/shift democratic when in many, such as Penn, Indiana, Illnois, Deleware, Wisconsin and even California etc. the republicans are expected to pick up seats based on generic party-line balloting?
I'd also like to point out that since the Rep are currently expected to take over 6 or so governorships plus 8 or so state legislatures, redistricting will hurt the dems for the next decade.
Post a Comment
I think Lane just proved Osler's point about the one liners. Seems like the Republicans have something many average citizens will rally around. I'm also betting the Dems can't get out the vote again. There isn't any reason to suspect the same numbers of young voters or minorities will be interested in voting in a non-presidential election.
Also, what makes you think the Purple/blue states will stay/shift democratic when in many, such as Penn, Indiana, Illnois, Deleware, Wisconsin and even California etc. the republicans are expected to pick up seats based on generic party-line balloting?
I'd also like to point out that since the Rep are currently expected to take over 6 or so governorships plus 8 or so state legislatures, redistricting will hurt the dems for the next decade.
# posted by : 7:07 PM
: 7:07 PM << Home
