Please Help Us Grow!

[Au Courant]

My view of the USA Presidential elections is coming to be that Democrats are chosen when the country just can't stomach the Republicans anymore. We give them one term (Clinton being the exception - in SO many ways!) and then get back to the flag-wavers.

Gary Wills is bringing some of this attitude into perspective with a great little essay in the most recent issue of New York Review of books.

Here is some of it:

I am told by people I respect that Barack Obama cannot pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan without becoming a one-term president. I think that may be true. The charges from various quarters would be toxic—that he was weak, unpatriotic, sacrificing the sacrifices that have been made, betraying our dead, throwing away all former investments in lives and treasure. All that would indeed be brought against him, and he could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate.

These are the arguments that have kept us in losing efforts before. They are the ones that made presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon pass on to their successors in the presidency the draining and self-lacerating Vietnam War. They are the arguments that made President George W. Bush pass on two wars to his successor.

One of the strongest arguments for continued firing up of these wars is that none of these presidents wanted to serve only one term (even Lyndon Johnson, who chose not to run for a second full term). But what justification is there for buying a second presidential term with the lives of hundreds or thousands of young American men and women in the military?

I have great hopes for the Obama presidency, even in his first term, and especially if he could have two terms to realize the exciting new things he aspires to do in the White House. But I would rather see him a one-term president than have him pass on another unwinnable war to the person who will follow him in office.

I always read Wills because I just plain like his writing. Happen to also like and agree with this essay.

Read the rest of it,

aC

Source: NYRoB - A One-Term President?: The Choice

[Carol from Long ...]

This quote fully defines the crux of the problem

"and he [Obama] could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate."

In the eyes of the rabid right, there is nothing that President Obama can do that they would approve of.

[Joe McQuade]

This quote fully defines the crux of the problem

"and he [Obama] could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate."

In the eyes of the rabid right, there is nothing that President Obama can do that they would approve of.

Worry not. Obama's numbers are still very high at what is surely the bottom of the recession and during a very tough health care fight. These soreheads are loud, but not very numerous. It'll be Obama, Take Two, in an even bigger landslide.

Next target: The 22nd Amendment!

[Carol from Long ...]

Rep. Grayson is right -- if President Obama found a simple cure for cancer, the right would accuse him of putting doctors out of a job. If President Obama managed to accomplish world peace, they would accuse him of putting the Military Industrial Complex out of work.

Currently, they've figured out a way to spin the health care bill no matter the outcome. If it passes, then the Democrats wasted time on health care and not on jobs. If it fails, then the Democrats failed to achieve health care reform while all around them Americans were losing jobs.

I only worry that the right are so relentless in their propaganda, their misdirection, and that they have a solid platform on right wing talk radio, Fox News and Murdoch's print media. Fox New's ratings have been increasing of late.

The only one 'fact checking' the right successfully is Jon Stewart, who has re-sloganed Fox News from "We report, You decide" to "We alter reality to fit your preconceived world view".

The only good news is that since I've lost my job, I'm no longer listening to relentless negativity of Mark Levin on the way home. I'm already home.

just my two cents worth.

[Joe McQuade]

I only worry that the right are so relentless in their propaganda, their misdirection, and that they have a solid platform on right wing talk radio, Fox News and Murdoch's print media. Fox New's ratings have been increasing of late.

Remember that Fox's viewership, even in prime time, is smaller than the circulation of a single major metropolitan newspaper. Rush and the other radio hate jocks spread their venom among the same few million converted soreheads every day. In a country where 130 million vote for president, the right-wing media numbers are very, very small potatoes.

[Frederick Sweene...]

I've said it before, we need to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those that think we should be stomping around the world with our military might, like some blind giant, would never give Obama credit for anything, as is stated above. He will win reelection by putting people back to work, and passing a decent health care bill. The "John Wayne's" of this country ( never served, but talk tough) are firmly entrenched and immovable. When the President gets home, he better start whipping the Dems into line or they will be out in 2010, and he'll follow in 2012.

[CH]

Worry not. Obama's numbers are still very high at what is surely the bottom of the recession and during a very tough health care fight. These soreheads are loud, but not very numerous. It'll be Obama, Take Two, in an even bigger landslide.

Next target: The 22nd Amendment!

I'm puzzled - if Obama will be so successful won't all future democrats emulate him? so why get rid of the 22nd amendment?

I've got another scenario. Suppose a terrorist succeeds in his attack. The democrats lose both houses and and the republicans bring impeachment charges against Obama. It's not that I want any of this to happen. Certainly anything that Obama's attempts to do that benefits the country deserves support but he's blowing his historic opportunity big time.

Yes - he must and most certainly will turn the economy around. The normal business cycle pretty much guarantees that - the only real question usually is how robust, how quickly and eventually how inflationary.

A successful terrorist attack will put the economy into a depression. If Obama brings back the economy and keeps terrorism at bay, then I agree he likely wins big in 2012.

[CH]

Remember that Fox's viewership, even in prime time, is smaller than the circulation of a single major metropolitan newspaper.

Joe - are you referring to the Fox Soccer Channel?

The New York Times — Circulation: 1,000,665 Daily 1,438,585 Sunday
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

The O'Reilly Factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The O'Reilly Factor is the most-watched cable news show in the USA. In 2009, The O'Reilly Factor is averaging about 3.5 million viewers a night. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O'Reilly_Factor

Be worried Carol - very worried.

[tbrmskss]

Joe - are you referring to the Fox Soccer Channel?

The New York Times — Circulation: 1,000,665 Daily 1,438,585 Sunday
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

The O'Reilly Factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The O'Reilly Factor is the most-watched cable news show in the USA. In 2009, The O'Reilly Factor is averaging about 3.5 million viewers a night. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O'Reilly_Factor

Be worried Carol - very worried.

Three million people is one percent of the United States population. The big three broadcast news do 8 or 9 million a night each.

[Richard Fifield]

While I think it is a bit early to "brand" the President as a one-termer, there clearly are storm flags flying as to his Administration.

If he is to be a one-termer, I think it will be less a function of his "losing" the war(s) in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, or even the (so-called) "War on Terror." but rather it will be a function of his losing the wars at home.

At this point, the President comes off as being a very weak leader. He has put forward a very bold agenda (one I disagree with almost totally, but that's neither here nor there), but then has shown no ability to push it, or even to shape it. He has "contracted out" health care "reform" to the most liberal elements of his party, and as a result may not (I hope) get what he says he wants, and the same thing is true with his energy initiatives. About the only thing he succeeded in pushing through was his "stimulusx" bills, and these have been mismanaged badly.

If the President is to succeed, he needs to sell his program a lot better, and he needs to narrow his focus. The more initiatives he opens, the more likely he is to fall on his face (or his butt). Where Presidents Reagan and Bush the Younger were successful was in setting a single priority (cutting taxes), and concentrating on that, not trying to "solve" everything at once (whether they need "solving" or not).

If he can do that, maybe he can right his ship and survive to a second term. In the 20th Century, two-tterm Presidencies were something of the norm. If he cannot resist the tendency to do everything at once, he will in all likelihood follow Presidents Carter and Bush the Elder and become a "one-termer." And I don't think that success in the "wars" will save him.

Or perhaps we are sliding into a period similar to that in which the country found itself during much of the 19th Century--relatively weak one-term presidencies.

I do agree with (I believe it is) CH, who says the American people have the attention span of a gnat, and expect instant gratification. This of course affects how any President's actions are perceived. But when you "lead" by promising instant gratification (or results), and then cannot deliver, you risk being judged by that standard--and run the risk of feeding those who make similar promises (Palin?). The President has done this--with the (so-called) stimulus, by setting (and breaking) artificial deadlines for acting on health care "reform," etc.. He has no one but himself to blame if he falls because of that.

[bendog]

imo, O's problem is more the progressives than the right. 25% of voters will never vote for him. They wouldn't vote for a white, neoliberal, socially moderate southern governor who was a dem. They'd rather vote for defunding medicare and cutting taxes for their employers.

However, the progressives forced him to back a medicare for all single payor fed govt insurance plan that was favored by a similar minority. O pretty clearly said he'd take anything that the party could ever agree on, but he'd prefer a bipartisan approach. Baucus came out with a bill that was sort of German/Swiss lite. And the progressives and the right got vapors. Krugman is now saying, oh its ok that we're just gonna regulate, though that's not what he wrote in consciene of a liberal, and instead of read insurence regulation the dimorats gave us expanded MEDICAID. Brilliant!

O proposes a foreign policy and moral justification of force that is exactly the same as those favored by Dem potuses from FDR to JFK, yet the progressives are calling for Frank Church.

I don't think he's single term, but the dimorats will never fail to squander the opportunity to again seize the majority. The progressives are so out of touch that they blew their ammo on single payor and still haven't regulated banks. hellO? main street is mad as hell at wall st and govt spending, and the crazy dems are pushing both.

PS, O's and the dimmerrats future control of congress hinge on this, imo

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

This post has been edited by bendog: Jan 8 2010, 01:36 PM

[duder]

I think it is

[sharky]

Let's review. Obama has:
- pledged to close Gitmo with no viable alternative plan in place.
- looted the Treasury for a stimulus that has failed miserably except to line the pockets of his political allies and create a slush fund for future Dem campaigns.
- traveled the globe embarrassing his country with endless apologies for supposed transgressions like freeing enslaved masses from mass-murdering tyrants.
- bowed deeply to every two-bit monarch he meets (except Elizabeth II).
- taken over auto manufacturers, dismissed CEOs, swindled senior bondholders and handed over huge portions of the companies to his union pals in clear violation of the law.
- appointed an unimpressive, racist clown to the Supreme Court based solely on her sex and ethnicity.
- blamed the Bush administration for every trouble facing the country despite the fact that Congressional Democrats and former Democratic administrations are at the root of all of the problems.
- promoted a massive energy tax that will cripple an already severely damaged economy, all while preventing any serious efforts to increase domestic energy production in a meaningful way.
- promoted the pathetic 'climate change' industry, aiming to redistribute the country's wealth in the name of 'environmental justice', despite the fact that warm-mongers' 'facts' are being exposed as junk science at a rapid pace.
- granted Constitutional rights to terrorist detainees and ordered that enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields be read Miranda rights.
- set up new Rules of Engagement for battles in the War on Terror, or Overseas Contingency Operations, as the administration prefers, signaling to the enemy that they should always congregate around mosques and civilian populations in order to save their skin.
- appointed dozens of 'czars', undermining the legitimate powers of Congressionally approved Cabinet members and conferring unlimited powers on many far-left radicals with Marxist and/or totalitarian worldviews.
- outsourced health care legislation to Reid and Pelosi, resulting in what may be the single worst, most corrupt and least popular piece of proposed legislation in American history.
- empowered his AG to continue to harrass, persecute and demoralize the CIA for having frightened terrorist detainees after 9/11.
- empowered his AG to transfer terrorist detainees to civilian courts in the US rather than face the military tribunals to which they had already agreed to plead guilty.
- taken five months to decide on troop commitments while troops in the field and their commmanders were calling out for reinforcements.

This list doesn't begin to touch on the Air Force One photo scandal, the White House crashers scandal, date night in NYC, Michelle's massive personal staff, Obama's repeated failures in Copenhagen, the unending naivete in dealing with Iran, the practical abandonment of Israel in favor of the terrorists running Hamas, the Gates affair with the Cambridge police, the feigned ignorance of the ACORN child prostitution scandal, the seeming inability of Obama Cabinet members to stay current on their taxes, the shameless fomentation of class warfare or any others of the dozens of embarrassing moments this man and his administration have forced us to endure.
He is a weak and clearly inexperienced novice who is in over his head. To his credit, he can still exude confidence in front of the cameras when his teleprompters are working but there is nothing there to back it up. When he speaks, he is either pointing out the painfully obvious or he is telling another bald-faced whopper of a lie. With each ensuing day, his support amongs independents dwindles as his ineptitude becomes more pronounced. He is truly an empty suit.
In order to win a second term, Barack Obama will need to accomplish one of the following items on his policy agenda and he'll need to do it soon:
- General amnesty for illegal aliens with instantaneous citizenship and voting rights.
- Forced unionization of most American workers with continued massive subsidies going to the unions.
- Authorization for ACORN to administer elections as well as counting and certifying votes (this may not be a real policy agenda but Lord knows Obama would love to see this happen).

Something tells me there are enough Americans who still love their country and the Constitution to ensure that Obama is sent home in 2013. If there aren't, the republic as we know it will cease to exist.

[tbrmskss]

Oh my goodness.

Thank you so much for your reply, sharky.

Every time I think "Obama sucks," there you are to remind me that we must never put the ignorant in power again.

Off to make some calls for Coakley...

[sharky]

Oh my goodness.

Thank you so much for your reply, sharky.

Every time I think "Obama sucks," there you are to remind me that we must never put the ignorant in power again.

Off to make some calls for Coakley...

How ironic that you can string those last two sentences back-to-back. I also notice that you can offer nothing to refute anything I posted. Just a tidbit of advice; next time you think "Obama sucks", you got it right. Quit there.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. I seldom look at CD nowadays because it is largely frequented by cultish Obamunists who can't recognize failure when it's clubbing them over the head on a daily basis.

[CH]

Off to make some calls for Coakley...

So how did that work out?

This was a good night for those of us who are card carrying members of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Given Election Night 2008, I thought it would be a long time before I felt this good about an election result. And once again, Obama shows up to help a candidate only to see that candidate go down to defeat. Maybe Harry Reid can invite him to Vegas for one of his campaign events.

As for Obama, I think he faces risk if he ignores the trend from recent election results (e.g. VA & NJ) as well as the MA election. Forcing the current proposal through Chicago-style is probably is instinct. I think that if the Democrats advance health care through the reconciliation process, they're done. If they delay seating Brown, they're done.

Health care reform is still possible if they focus on a few concepts that have broad support:

1) Universal Access to Health Care through something akin to the Car Insurance risk pool.
2) Outlaw denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
3) Reasoned tort-reform that provides patients with recourse in cases of true negligence but stops the lottery winner approach promulgated by ambulance chasing attorneys.
4) Competition amongst insurance providers across state lines.
5) As a check against a lack of competition, give states the right to create their own public option to the degree supported by the citizens of that state. No subsidies for such programs from the federal government, i.e. people from other states. If 4) works properly, 5) won't need to be implemented.
6) No subsidized health care for illegal aliens.

Finally, no special deals - keep it simple and fair. No one minds paying taxes when they feel they get a value but resentment is only natural when one perceives others are getting a better deal, e.g. union members, Nebraskans and other Obama supporter special interests.

If Obama admits the current approach is deeply flawed, he can show some leadership and start over with something that people actually want. If Obama does this, he can still deliver on a promise - always important if a president wants a second term. What's a Chicago politician to do?

This post has been edited by CH: Jan 19 2010, 10:16 PM

[Carol from Long ...]

I cannot speak for VA but NJ was all about NJ issues, not national ones.

Christie promised to clean up corruption, which he could have done better by staying where he was. He also promised to cut taxes (I've heard that one before -- I'm tired of buying that bridge). Problem is, there is very little 'fat' left and way too much debt for any sane accountant to recommend cutting income, aka taxes in NJ. There is too much infrastructure to be built and/or repaired and not enough money to do it.

If he (Christie) successfully manages to clean up the cess pool that is Trenton, he'll have my eternal thanks, but usually the cess pool wins every time, no matter who is elected Governor.

I do know that NJ hasn't fiscally recovered from the last ® Governor who cut taxes -- Christy Todd Whitman in the 1990s. Before her tax cuts were implemented, we had a balanced budget, manageable debt and a high credit rating. Since she cut taxes and then increased spending and debt, we haven't been able to fiscally recover and no one has had the balls to put the tax rates back to where they were and we're only talking like 1 or 2%.

Republicans haven't been the party of fiscal responsibility since before Ronald Reagan and I don't know why that's such a well kept secret.

Just my two cents worth.

[Frederick Sweene...]

If Obama keeps being as ineffective as he has been in his first year, he will be a one termer, but refusing to acknowledge that he inhereted a mess from Bush ( as would have McCain) is hubris on a galactic scale.

This post has been edited by Frederick Sweeney Brooklyn: Jan 21 2010, 12:45 PM

[Carol from Long ...]

It seems as if President Obama is finally remembering how he got elected. He's been on a roll lately.

First the State of the Union, then the invite to the Republican House Caucus retreat, various town halls and finally today, the Q&A with the Democratic Senators.

When he took Questions from both the Republicans and the Democrats, he proved, once again, that he was the only adult in the room. It was great to watch.

If he keeps this up, I will be happy. If the policians in both the House and the Senate stop playing "one upmanship" games while "main street" is suffering, I will be even happier.

Just my "I want to go back to work" two cents worth.

[bendog]

ineffective? Another 4 years of Phil Gramm economics and we'd all be out of jobs. lol

Carol is right. The further left/right of both parties want more govt by personal destruction, while a maj in the middle is tired of it. Of course, if unemployment is at 9%, we may see a new potus. But the gop is hemmed in by virtue of reagan and math. We have to raise taxes or cut medicare. It's one or the other, and the gop isn't playing with a straight deck.

As for sharkey, I got as far as 'conferred const protections on terrorists...." and skipped the rest. Bushii TWICE tried military courts and THE ROBERTS COURT TWICE SAID NO. the ROBERTS court. lol

ps:

According to Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, in Washington, the military can’t simply grab suspects inside the U.S. and hold them without charge or a hearing. “It violates the Constitution, which extends to everyone inside the U.S.,” she said. “You can’t be seized without probable cause. You have the right to due process, and to a trial by a jury of your peers—which a military commission is not.” Confusion on this point may derive from the Bush Administration’s controversial handling of two suspected terrorists, José Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Both men were arrested in the U.S. by law-enforcement officials, and indicted on criminal charges. But Bush declared Padilla and Marri to be “enemy combatants,” which, he argued, meant that they could be transferred to military custody, for interrogation and detention without trial. (Neither suspect provided useful intelligence.) The cases provoked legal challenges, and in both instances appeals courts ruled that Bush had overstepped his power. The Administration, not willing to risk a Supreme Court defeat, returned the suspects to the civilian system.

For all the tough rhetoric of the Bush Administration, it prosecuted many more terror suspects as criminals than as enemy combatants. According to statistics compiled by New York University’s Center on Law and Security, since 2001 the criminal courts have convicted some hundred and fifty suspects on terrorism charges. Only three detainees—all of whom were apprehended abroad—were convicted in military commissions at Guantánamo. The makeshift military-commission system set up by Bush to handle terrorism cases has never tried a murder case, let alone one as complex, or notorious, as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will face the death penalty for the murder of nearly three thousand people.

The Bush Administration obtained life sentences in the criminal courts for two terror suspects arrested inside the U.S.: Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was planning a second wave of plane attacks. (Reid was read his Miranda rights four times.) When the Bush Justice Department obtained these convictions, the process was celebrated by some of the same people now criticizing Holder. Giuliani, after the Moussaoui trial, said, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.”



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02...r#ixzz0f9ftVPKL

This post has been edited by bendog: Feb 10 2010, 12:26 PM